This was such a fascinating book, for it being non-fiction i finished it surprisingly quick and I recommend everyone should read this book. Its not dry or boring, I promise!

Complementary read to The Selfish Gene, or any other evolutionary psychology books that are based primarily on Darwinian theories of evolution (mixed strategies of mating), which are distorted by our recent post-agricultural revolution capitalistic climate, and its flinstonizations (rewriting of history to fit our current narrative to determine what's "natural"). Ryan considers the possibility that perhaps the natural state of humans is polygamy in hunter-gatherer societies, drawing from evidence in human autonomy in relation to our closest primates, citing errors in WIERD studies of human sexuality, and incorporating studies in anthropology and psychology. He suggests rather than outrightly and blindly rejecting polygamy, there should be space for a frank conversation between long-term couples on the highly malleable definition of fidelity.

2.5 stars. It took CHAPTERS for this ish to go anywhere (an overblown intro of "here's what we're not going to posit"). The authors tried too hard to be funny and entertaining—just give me the science! For this reason the chapter on male genitalia was excruciating and practically unbearable...HOWEVER. The last few chapters were actually pretty interesting. I learned things I'd never heard before about female anatomy. And the rumination on "what is fidelity?" and alternative approaches to longterm relationships is actually pretty inspiring and something I'll take to heart. So I guess...maybe read this? Just skim over the chapters that are boring or annoying and skip to the ones which interest you.

An interesting take on the history of monogamy in humans, our ancestors and our relatives. The important thing to put aside when reading this one is any preconception of ethics or morality. This is a scientific and historical study of how societies have structured societies in different cultures.

I’m not usually one to leave a bad review but this book deserves it. I had to triple check when it was written, because it reads like it was published in 1910, not 2010. The author, who clearly hasn't bothered to talk to any actual women, argues that “women are not particularly sexual beings” based on the following evidence: “An attractive undergraduate student volunteer walked up to an unsuspecting student of the opposite sex (who was alone) on the campus of Florida State University and said, “Hi, I’ve been noticing you around town lately and I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?” About 75 percent of the young men said yes. Many of those who didn’t asked for a “rain check.” But not one of the women approached by these attractive strangers accepted the offer. Case closed.” Right. So that evidence has nothing to do with how society has conditioned women over the past few centuries, or how biologically men are stronger and statistically, women are in more physical danger of men when engaging in a one night stand, and therefore might want to get to know a guy before they leap into bed with him, no matter how good looking he is? Might it also have something to do with the fact that, for so long, the public depiction of sex has been entirely about the man's pleasure, not the woman's, and maybe if men would bother to learn a bit about women's sexuality, women might be more eager to hop into bed with them? Whatever the reason, the anecdote above is hardly the strongest argument for lack of sexuality. But Ryan is trying to prove his own, warped point of view, so ignores these potential contributing factors entirely. Another argument he puts forward to explain women's lack of sexuality is when he compares genitalia. I quote: "Unlike her closest primate cousins, the standard human female doesn't come equipped with private parts that swell up to double their normal size..." In actual fact, clitorises swell by 50 to 300% when engorged when aroused. 300%! By Ryan's logic, that would make women far more sexual than men. Perhaps he should consider doing some basic research and rewriting this book. But in all seriousness, I cannot fathom how this book got past publishers, editors and proof-readers, and made it into public consumption. The amount of five star reviews here saddens me, because it's indicative that we still have such a long long way to go in terms of understanding sexuality, if such blatant inaccuracy can go unnoticed by so many.