Verified by 
In celebration of the publication of Sex at Dawn this week, I'm running a series of FAQ that often come up when we're talking about the book, whether at cocktail parties or conferences. You can see the whole list at our website here. Also at our site, you'll see a form for contacting us. If you're interested in the issues we cover in the book, and have a nagging question you'd like to see us take a shot at answering, let us know. We'll be choosing the five most interesting questions to answer in future blog posts here. If we choose your question, we'll send you a free copy of Sex at Dawn. Looking forward to your questions and comments.
1. Maybe monogamy isn't natural for humans, but what about love?
The capacity for love may be the most "human" thing about us. In fact, anthropologists commonly report long term, stable partnerships between men and women, even in many of the most sexually promiscuous societies we discuss in Sex at Dawn. But our book is about the evolution of human sexuality, not our emotional development. The tendency to confuse love with sex (and vice-versa) leads to immense suffering.
2. So you're recommending the everyone should have an open marriage or not get married at all?
Definitely not. We're not recommending anything other than knowledge, introspection, and honesty. In fact, as we say in the book, we're not really sure what to do with this information ourselves. We hope Sex at Dawn advances the conversation about human sexuality so people can focus more on the realities of what human beings are and a bit less on the religious and cultural mythologies concerning what we should be and should feel. What individuals or couples do with this information (if anything) is up to them.
3. You guys are married, right? How do you handle this issue?
That's definitely a fair question, but one we've decided not to answer. Certainly, our relationship is informed by our research, but the details of our own sex life are nobody's business but ours.
4. What about the neurochemistry of love? Doesn't research showing increased levels of neurotransmitters (particularly dopamine) and brain activity in certain regions when people look at photos of someone they love demonstrate that pair bonding is natural for our species?
Possibly, but not likely. These effects are seen when people look at their children, close friends, and siblings as well as their husband/wife, so it's not clear how this research demonstrates much about one kind of love versus another. Perhaps more important, as we demonstrate in Sex at Dawn, it's a mistake to assume that sexual exclusivity is a standard part of all pair bonds. In many societies that can legitimately be said to practice marriage, neither male nor female fidelity is expected as part of the deal. The notion that the exchange of female fidelity for male provisioning extends to our origins as a species appears to be little more than a projection of contemporary morality into the distant past-what we call Flintstonization.
5. The second chapter of your book is called "What Darwin Didn't Know About Sex." Are you arguing against Darwinian evolution?
No, we are not Darwin bashers, by any means. Darwin passionately believed that good theory comes from good data, which is why he spent most of his life collecting and organizing specimens, observations, and precise measurements. Obviously, contemporary theorists have much more data to work with than what was available a hundred and fifty years ago, so it's no critique of Darwin's brilliance to question a few of his assumptions in light of all this new information. He's demand nothing less.
For more information, visit sexatdawn.com.
Click here for a recent review of the book, or here for an interview at Salon.com.
