I was reluctant to read Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn, the book purposing to debunk Sex at Dawn. I thought it would be a biased, traditionalist dismissal of the original, full of "happily ever after" love rhetoric, and idealization of marriage. I was pleasantly surprised to find out this was not the case.

Sex at Dawn posits that sex was a common in prehistoric human societies, and this was greatly due to the "voracious" female sex drive. It is an important book for popularizing the notion that sex was, more or less, free during the evolutionary period of humanity. Its theory, though, is based on the erroneous hypothesis of a great female sex drive, which is a proposition that cannot stand scientific scrutiny.

Lynn Saxxon, in Sex at Dusk, is all too happy to mercilessly attack the idea that women would give away sex for free - or cheap, for that matter - and she backs up her attack with a laborious research and solid scientific evidence. While Ryan and Jetha proudly assert that women are "sluts", i.e. happy to engage in sex just for the pleasure of it, Saxxon takes up the cudgels for women, to unashamedly contend that "Our female ancestors have not been sluts but they have been whores", i.e. they exchanged sex for resources.

The main point of contention between the two books is marriage and the pair bond. Although Saxxon, as is the standard case in mainstream evolutionary psychology, does not make a good job distinguishing between the two, she highlights their ubiquity in human societies, and focuses on the psychological adaptations to accommodate the pair bond in humans - particularly in women. On the other hand, Ryan and Jetha insist on the psychological adaptations for sexual variety - which are also ubiquitous.

So was it marriage, "mild polygyny", plus sexual infidelity, the human model, or was it "free for all" sex?

In a sense, Saxxon's, and generally the conservative evolutionary psychologists' task is more difficult: while Ryan and Jetha only need to prove that a "free sex" society is a possibility, the standard narrative needs to prove that it is impossible. The latter does have evidence from societies in the last 10000 years in its arsenal, however it is still technically not sound to extrapolate to pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, and conclude that the case about marriage had been then as it was to be later.

Saxxon, although adamant that women exchange sex for resources, seems to have a very difficult time grasping the notion that this exchange can take a collective form, which is what Ryan and Jetha support. Her difficulty is not personal. It is a crucial element, very revealing in our attempt to sort things out. It is a loud echo of the female sexual strategy. If examined separately from the male, the maximization of the female reproductive strategy is indeed what Saxxon identifies: polygyny. Why would they mate with an "inferior" man, if they could share a genetically and socially superior one? The problem is that this arrangement, polygyny, is a disaster for men: most are left without a sexual outlet. The ideal system for them would be free sex, without even the obligation to provide.

So, if we are to suppose a state of relative balance between the sexes, which would have come about if the external conditions were stable for a long period in prehistory, it is highly unlikely that it would be only in favor of the one sex. A collective management of resources, both material and sex, turns out to be the most efficient for the circumstances prehistoric hunter-gatherers found themselves in.

If the collective management of the (female) sexual resource was indeed the case, as Sex at Dawn supports, and this was done despite the female sexual preference for only the top males, it must have been accomplished against the liking of females. Therefore, instead of an nonexistent "voracious" female sex drive being the reason for such a system, the catalyst towards it, as is unwittingly identified in Sex at Dusk, would be compulsion. Males would have had to exercise the advantages nature bestowed on them, both intellectual and physical, in order to have females comply to what was ultimately to the species benefit, the aforementioned collective management of sex.

Evolutionary psychology is still a highly controversial field. There is still much speculation, and since its subject is so complicated, arguments can be found for either side. Ryan and Jetha, reluctant to acknowledge women's dark side, summoned a politically correct but scientifically wrong female sexuality to their aid. It is not by chance that Sex at Dawn is currently the #1 book in Popular Psychology of Sexuality. Ironically, it is the dominant narrative, that it purposes to oppose, if in politics and not in evolutionary psychology. It sells the mainstream political idea "give more power to women, and sex will flow down to men". There are scores of women that are enjoying a privileged life selling a variation of that lie in their personal life. It is therefore revitalizing to see a book like Sex at Dusk, which makes it clear that the War of the Sexes is unpacifiable. It trashes the argument that women can be counted on to help solve the male sexual problem. In her last chapter, Saxxon fully unleashes her (and generally, the female's) enmity against men's sexual strategy. It is made quite clear that misandry is the standard female disposition against the average male, in stark contrast with men's general deference to women.

An example of Saxxon's disposition against male sexuality is revealing. One can imagine her, her gray hair bound in a tight bun, and her heavy, dark dress meticulously ironed, explaining to a sexless, enraged, sexually frustrated 17 year old boy, that "A sexless period for adolescent and young adult males is far from unnatural and is also found in other species, including chimpanzees and bonobos." Isn't that a relief? That's what science is about, finding solutions to human problems. Also, does her welcoming of a "sexless period" for young men on the grounds of its naturalness mean that she also welcomes hitting of females by males? It is a very natural way to respond to sexual frustration, in fact it is the second biggest predictor of aggression in nature.

The problem about misandry is not that it creates bad feelings. It is a problem of scientific validity. Considering males to be naturally inferior to females raises the issue "why not all be female"? If there was a better way to be, evolution would have made us all be that. During the evolutionary era, there was equality between men and women, though its dimensions are in truth vastly different from the current politically correct feminist perception of it, as "interchangeability". Considering the female sex to be the absolute arbitrator of sexual matters, of the most crucial biological resource, doesn't add up to a plausible natural equilibrium for our species.

Saxxon is sincere in that, if ever a free sex society was, or is to be, this would be a result of men asserting their own sexual strategy, over that of women. "Free sex?", say women. "Only over our bodies." Literally. Her book is useful, not as an objective account of human sexuality, but as a subjective one, from the point of view of women - and of the conservative manifestation of the system. It does refute quite some inaccuracies and overstated propositions in Sex at Dawn, but in its relentless hate against masculinity, ultimately makes one re-appreciate Sex at Dawn's unrealistic but good-willed attempt at a conciliation, its "giving men a break".

For completeness, also check out my review of Sex at Dawn, Slaying the Vampire but getting bit.

-Adam