Amazon Book Review of Sex at Dawn by L. Saxon (http://www.amazon.com/review/R18Q194BCH4T4N/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg7?

ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx 3EV06RIGF705W&cdPage=7&asin=0061707805&store=books&cdThread=Tx3GXIZY82Y552J#wasT hisHelpful): 93 of 117 people found the following review helpful: Riddled with errors and omissions, October 4, 2010 By L. SAXON This review is from: Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality (H ardcover) Ryan wants readers to think that he is challenging culturally imposed ideas of ' natural' monogamy in humans and revealing our supposed natural promiscuity. But then he attacks evolutionary psychology that also points out that humans are not naturally monogamous because, he says, they paint this promiscuity as a battle of the sexes when, he says, there is no natural battle between the sexes. There are so many errors in this book it is difficult to know where to start. Ry an does not understand sexual selection and the significance of differential rep roductive success or its reality. There are vast amounts of robust evidence supp orting sexual selection but the author does not appear to have understood it. An d increasing evidence for sexual conflict over mating. See eg:Sexual Conflict: ( Monographs in Behavior and Ecology) When the author gets to apes he then gets more things wrong. For example, he has mis-read and mis-represents relations between communities of chimpanzees. He co nfuses the fact that female chimpanzees (like bonobos) leave their natal group t o breed in a different group with non-violent relations between the communities. All group-living animals have one or both sexes transferring elsewhere to breed . He twists this to make the totally erroneous point that relations between comm unities of chimpanzees are therefore not violent/antagonistic. If he had read th e literature he would have realized that males stay in their natal group and the re are never friendly interactions between males from different communities. Not even in bonobos. That bonobo females may socialize across communities when they meet is because they likely will have been born or spent some time in these oth er groups or will in the future. The males have not. Also, the Tai study which showed females mating outside their breeding community has since been put down to error in DNA testing (Vigilant, Hofreiter, Seidel an d Boesch, 2001, "Paternity and relatedness in wild chimpanzee communities") The wider issue of the misrepresentation of bonobo sexual behavior also really n eeds to be addressed. Chimpanzee and bonobo females have been shown to copulate about the same number of times over time but for chimpanzees it is concentrated in narrower windows while for bonobo it is spread out especailly in the long int erbirth interval between fertile periods. And bonobo sexuality per se has been v astly exaggerated - most of it is nothing more than a very brief touching of gen itals - we, like chimpanzees, hug rather than stroke the genitals. There is no evidence to support a bonobo-type sexual bonding in females in human prehistory, weak male bonding, sexual interaction with infants, and the motherson the strongest bond. For balance see these Yale lectures on the "Evolution of Sex and Reproductive St rategies" at [...] # Evolution of Sex and Reproductive Strategies # Sex and Violence Among the Apes # From Ape to Human As for partible paternity, in the Ache, for example, early death of men is commo n and a child whose father dies is often killed so having more than one father i s a practical matter that means there is a provider for a child. More than two d

ifferent potential fathers is very bad for women and their children and the sex with more than the husband is normally kept very discreet and not openly tolerat ed. Hardly a system preferable to our own. The misrepresentation of Mosuo culture is a disgrace. See the [...] "myths and misperceptions": "To set the record straight; while promiscuity is certainly not frowned on like it is in most other cultures, most Mosuo women tend to form more long-term pairi ngs, and not change partners frequently. It might be better described as a syste m of "serial monogamy", wherein women can change partners, but tend to do so rel atively rarely; and while with one partner, will rarely invite another. I've per sonally met many Mosuo who have had a "walking marriage" relationship with the s ame man for twenty or more years." Also this from[...] "Description of the Mosuo Minority": "It has been theorized that the "matriarchal" system of the lower classes may ha ve been enforced (or at least encouraged) by the higher classes as a way of prev enting threats to their own power. Since leadership was hereditary, and determin ed through the male family line, it virtually eliminated potential threats to le adership by having the peasant class trace their lineage through the female line . Therefore, attempts to depict the Mosuo culture as some sort of idealized "mat riarchal" culture in which women have all the rights, and where everyone has muc h more freedom, are often based on lack of knowledge of this history; the truth is that for much of their history, the Mosuo "peasant" class were subjugated and sometimes treated as little better than slaves." As for copulation calls, I suggest people read the literature for themselves. Ch impanzees are quite complex and signalling to females (avoiding the wrath of fem ales) is important. Bonobos don't really have them. Monogamous species don't nee d them because they do not live in social groups which means that while there is no need to signal to other males there is also no need to signal to the mate th at she prefers him or needs mate-guarding as their isolation makes that obvious. It is quite probable that should a species live in multi-male/multi-female group s, form pair-bonds and have 'fathers' and mate-guarding that a female will use a copulation call to signal to her mate that he satisfies her, she does not want another, he's the best etc etc. Sperm competition exists when females cannot cho ose pre-copulation (there's a lot of sexual coercion in primates see eg Sexual C oercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression A gainst Females) ie are not able to reject males. The best form of sperm competit ion for males is to keep that of other males out of the female in the first plac e. The best form form females is to only mate with desired male(s) and not have to mate with all-comers. If a species evolves pair-bonding within a multi-male/multi-female setting there is no reason to presume that a copulation call cannot be used to reassure the m ate and to be used to inform others that it is a satisfactory and established pa ir-bond. I suspect that pair-bonded birds in colonies make their mating obvious to others with calls etc and are not inviting others. Females, if they have the opportunity, do not simply submit to being mated by all and sundry. It just happ ens that they often have not had the choice. There are just too many things in this book where the author is either simply bl inded by his wishful thinking or has an agenda and is deliberately being economi cal with the truth. Ryan says he does not know what should be done with the information he presents.

I have one suggestion LOL. No, we are not monogamous. Neither are we naturally that fond of healthy eating, or restraint in consumerism or the selfish exploitation of our planet. Simply i ndulging our natural drives is hardly something to be proposed without serious u nderstanding of factors which Ryan has failed to properly understand or present. The book is so unbalanced it is in danger of toppling out of the reader's hands . What is true about any species is that's its future is its offspring. This book has a hell of a lot to say about the sexual gorging of adults and next to nothin g to say about children. Interestingly, evolutionary biology describes the male (usually) as putting his efforts into mating and the female (usually) into paren ting. Ryan is clearly far more a predictable male serving the demands of selfish genes that are fighting for a future via sperm (rather than via eggs) than he could e ver consciously realize or, no doubt, accept. But selfish genes are pretty good at fooling the body - and mind - of their temporary home. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 5:00:38 AM PST Christopher Ryan says: It's very gratifying to stumble upon such an extended discussion prompted by our book. Almost a seminar situation, though if I were running this seminar, we'd h ave heard a bit less from L. Saxon and a bit more from the rest of you-as well a s those who chose not to participate because of the somewhat hostile tone. Far's I can tell Saxon's major gripes are that we (despite her insistence on tal king only about me, the book does have two authors) get bonobo/chimp sexuality w rong and that we're wrong about the Mosuo as well. In evidence of the first poin t, she refers to her own Amazon review of, I think, a book by Frans de Waal. Now, if FdW told me we'd misunderstood the nature of chimp/bonobo mating behavio r, I'd be concerned. But he hasn't (we had lunch a few weeks ago). Nor has Vanes sa Woods or Eric Michael Johnson or Sarah Hrdy, all of whom have been in touch. Saxon is simply misinformed and seems to like it that way. As for the Mosuo, our source material was a Ph.D. dissertation written by a Han Chinese man who learned the Mosuo language and lived among them for years. His d issertation was translated and published as a book. We also relied upon a memoir written by a Mosuo woman who grew up near Lugu Lake, only leaving to go to coll ege. We also looked at documentary films (we contacted the makers of the Frontli ne World piece we discuss in the book) and travelers' accounts. To substantiate her dismissal of our multi-sourced discussion, L. Saxon refers to one paper whic h purports to debunk the view of the Mosuo as depicted in our book and just abou t everywhere else. Yeah, ok. So, maybe our book is "riddled with errors," but Saxon certainly hasn' t made the case here. My gratitude goes out to those of you who engaged her with patience and gentleness I can only aspire to. CPR ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 7:52:15 AM PST L. SAXON says: From 'Bonobo' Frans de Waal: p85 "We have also seen indications from the field that females are serious rival s when it comes to their sons' dominance ranks, and that their fights can be vic ious. In other words, bonobo society is not all rosy." p112 Description of feeding at Wamba where young females exchange brief sexual e ncounters for food:"in most cases the encounters are rather brief and do not see

m to end in ejaculation. Nevertheless, it is certain that females 'know' that se x produces enough tolerance in males to allow the females to remove food from th eir hands. They seem to seek sex for this purpose." p117;" "There is a sharp decline in sexual involvement during a male's adolescen ce due to the tendency of dominant males to occupy the core of traveling parties where the females are. Only when they enter adulthood and rise in rank do males regain access to receptive females. Not that male bonobos are egalitarian with regards to sexual privileges. In contrast to its peaceable image, the species co nforms to the general pattern in the animal kingdom of male competition for fema les [...] Since the two top-ranking males in any traveling party generally do mo st of the mating, it is assumed that they suppress the sexual activity of other males." From "The Brutal Ape vs the Sexy Ape" Craig Stanford: The field data show that in two important respects, female bonobos are not more sexual than their chimpanzee counterparts [...] if we consider wild bonobos [... females] are swollen for only 13 days of their 33 day cycle, numbers which are m uch closer to those of wild chimpanzees. The supposed release from estrus that i s said to characterize bonobos has been overstated because the data are based on captive animals." I have already referenced "Mothers matter! Maternal support, dominance status an d mating success in male bonobos (pan paniscus)" about the "steep, linear male d ominance hierarchy" and the influence of mothers on male access to females for s ex. Also see: "The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos Empirical Evidence and Shifting Assumptions" by Craig Stanford for an excellent discussion by a number of authors. This book:Behavioural Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos And Eric Michael Johnson has told you about your misunderstanding of chimpanzee and bonobo mating and that it is never a free-for all, egalitarian activity. And I'm sure those other authors would have happily explained to you that males of both species are philopatric and male-male relations between communities are always antagonistic. The books and papers are there for all to see. I never ask anyone to take my wor d for anything. I just happen to read a lot. :) ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 8:06:15 AM PST L. SAXON says: TC says: "This being stated, it would be interesting to know whether Ryan's view on the banobos sex life is scientifically accurate or is Saxon correct when she suggests that these monkeys are not huge lovers spending hours of their day mak ing out but in fact only make some very quick sex actions during the day. " Frans de Waal in 'Bonobo', p105: [The bonobo's] sexiness should not be exaggerated. Bonobos do not, in fact, enga ge in sex all the timeAt the zoo, the average bonobo initiates sex once every on e and a half hours, whereas the average chimpanzee does so once every seven hour s.In the wild the frequencies are no doubt lower. Many of the contacts, particul arly those with the very young, are not carried through to the point of sexual c limax. The partners merely pet and fondle each other. Even the average copulatio n between adults is quick by human standards: 13 seconds at the San Diego zoo, a nd 15 seconds at Wamba. Instead of an endless orgy, we see a social life peppere d by brief momoents of sexual activity"

And also note that the data coming in from field studies of course show differen t behavior from that in the zoo - observers of bonobos in the wild find it very boring most of the time. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 8:08:17 AM PST L. SAXON says: By the way, bonobos are apes, not monkeys :) ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 8:10:25 AM PST Christopher Ryan says: - Where did we say that chimps and bonobos aren't male philopatric? - What point(s) are your quotations supporting? - We don't claim that mating among chimps, bonobos, or humans was ever a "free-f or-all, egalitarian activity." In fact, on page 45, we write: "He (Dixson) write s, 'Mating is rarely indiscriminate in multimale-multifemale primate groups. A v ariety of factors, including kinship ties, social rank, sexual attractiveness an d individual sexual preferences might influence mate choice in both sexes. It is , therefore, incorrect to label such mating systems as promiscuous.'28 "So, if promiscuity suggests a number of ongoing, nonexclusive sexual relationsh ips, then yes, our ancestors were far more promiscuous than all but the randiest among us. On the other hand, if we understand promiscuity to refer to a lack of discrimination in choosing partners or having sex with random strangers, then o ur ancestors were likely far less promiscuous than many modern humans. For this book, promiscuity refers only to having a number of ongoing sexual relationships at the same time. Given the contours of prehistoric life in small bands, it's u nlikely that many of these partners would have been strangers." I'll let you and anyone else here continue the discussion with no more interject ion from me, but thus far, I don't see that you've actually produced any of the errors and omissions you claim our book is riddled with. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 10:35:16 AM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2010 10:43:59 AM PST L. SAXON says: p69 "Anne Pusey wrote about female chimpanzees she was watching that: 'Each, after m ating within her natal community, visited the other community while sexually act ive.... They eagerly approached and mated with males from the new community' This extra-group sexual behavior is common among chimpanzees, suggesting that in tergroup relations are not as violent as some claim" Sounds like this is the normal behavior of female chimpanzees, doesn't it? Pusey is actually talking about two females and what happened when they reached sexual maturity. After 'sexually active' she says "While both were fearful of an d reluctant to mate with some of the males of their own community [she is talkin g about how incest is avoided ie female dispersal] 'they eagerly approached...[a s above]" And to continue, one female eventually joined the other community of new males, one returned pregnant after six months. "Since then, almost all females have mad e similar visits to other communities during adolescence, and over half of them have left their home community permanently. Over the same period many new female s have joined the community and settled there at adolescence; others have visite d for various periods, often in the face of considerable aggression from residen

t females. At Mahale, Tai, and Kibale an even higher proportion of females (abou t 90% or more) have emigrated permanently during adolescence." The whole paragraph therefore gives the full story. Females disperse at adolesce nce. This is because males are philopatric. It has nothing to do with what is cl aimed about the violence between communities. That is male-male violence and vio lence against females when they do not have their sexual swellings which they mu st have when they transfer so the males mate them rather than attack them, as Ja ne Goodall made clear when she talked of the sexual swellings being the pubescen t female's passport to her new, breeding group. Of course the 'extra-group sexual behavior' behavior is common - it's the way vi rtually all social animals have one or both sexes dispering to avoid inbreeding. It has nothing to do with inter-group relations beyond that. And following re. Tai where 50% of young are stated to have been fathered by out side males. This figure is now believed to be incorrect due to faulty DNA testin g, See: "Paternity and relatedness in wild chimpanzee communities"Vigilant et al 2001: From the abstract: "......suggesting an incidence of EGP of 7%. This more extensive analysis contra dicts a previous genetic study of the Ta chimpanzees that inferred 50% extra-group fathers. We suggest, based on direct comparison of results for 33 individuals a t 1 microsatellite locus and direct comparison of paternity assignments for 11 o ffspring, that the error rate in the previous study was too high to produce accu rate genotypes and assignments of paternity and hence caused the false inference of a high rate of EGP. Thus, the community is the primary but not exclusive uni t for reproduction in wild chimpanzees, and females do not typically reproduce w ith outside males. " Even if females did travel to mate outside their adult residence group, this wou ld not alter the fact that inter-group relations between male chimpanzees are hi ghly aggressive. And there are numerous observations from other communities wher e even an immigrant female will have her first offspring killed by resident male s as an outside father is suspected. Or females who live on the periphery of a c ommunity will have offspring killed as the offspring are suspected as fathered f rom the outside. In bonobos something like 50% of group meetings are openly male-male aggressive and males from the two communities do not get together in any group meetings but display at each other. The point is that if you understand that these species are male philopatric then the fact that females move between goups should be EXPECTED because it has to h appen when there is male philopatry. That's what male philopatry is. The males o f the different groups remain enemies. And back on page 69 you say: Among chimpanzees, ovulating female mate on average six to eight times per day, they are often eager to respond to the mating invit ations of any and all males in the group." No, when ovulating only the top male or two normally gets to mate with the femal e. And I've seen females running screaming from males they do not want to mate with . We also have evidence of how males, as they grow, beat the females one by one as the male rises in rank over them. This violence against females, which Jane Goo dall also wrote about, is now believed to be how males make sure that females do n't refuse them sexually. Not in all communities maybe, but in some. In others, such as Tai, females are able to group together more and parties are more mixed

and females do not seem to be so easily isolated and cowed by the males. There are plenty of papers on chimpanzees.See eg: "Infanticide in chimpanzees: Review of cases and a new within-group observation from the Kanyawara study group in Kibale National Park " "Intergroup conflicts among chimpanzees in Ta National Park: lethal violence and t he female perspective." "Male competition and paternity in wild chimpanzees of the Ta forest" "Does promiscuous mating preclude female choice? Female sexual strategies in chi mpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) of the Tai National Park, Cote d'Ivoire" And female chimpanzees do better in Tai than eastern ones re. male aggression ag ainst them from what I've read, because they can travel with groups including ot her females rather than having to live mostly alone as eastern chimpanzee female s do. So, if you did understand that chimpanzees and bonobos are male philopatric fema le dispersal would not have been an issue re, inter-group relations either re. s ex or re. violence. The cutting of the Pusey paragraph changed the whole story, didn't it? And in early humans it is likely that male philopatry would have been the case u ntil some way of getting round male-male aggression was achieved. Females, if th ey were anything like female chimpanzees and bonobos, would be moving at puberty to a group of strangers for breeding. So yes, they would have been having sex w ith strangers initially - groups of philopatric males with females as immigrants and emigrants at puberty. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 12:03:43 PM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2010 12:17:16 PM PST Christopher Ryan says: Thank you for the information on Vigilant, et al. I'll check that out. As to the rest of it, I try to avoid time-consuming discussions with people with dismissi ve, aggressive tone, as it rarely results in anything constructive and far too e asily leads to needless stress. For example: "The point is that if you understand that these species are male philopatric the n the fact that females move between goups should be EXPECTED because it has to happen when there is male philopatry. That's what male philopatry is." No, I believe that male philopatry refers to species in which females join non-n atal groups when they approach or achieve sexual maturity. They then typically s tay with this group for life. What we refer to in the section you cite is adult females who leave their group temporarily for brief mating encounters only. This is not about male philopatry; it's about extra-group paternity. I should have t hought that was clear in the text, but if not, I apologize. In any case, thank y ou for the reference. I'll take a look at that paper, and if warranted, make a n ote for the paperback. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2010 1:14:56 PM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 15, 2010 1:15:49 PM PST L. SAXON says: The Pusey quote you start with is about adolescent females in the process of mov ing to a breeding group which you change to make it sound like chimpanzee female s are mating across groups generally. That could be taken as deliberately alteri ng the truth of that reference. What is clear from research is that extra-group paternity is uncommon. I have a refererence for paternity in bonobos here too wh

ich shows that paternity is within the group, even though we know that bonobo fe males do interact sexually with males from other communities when they come acro ss each other. Perhaps you will make clear what the Pusey quote is refering to in the next edit ion and the vast majority, (all in at least some communities), of within-group p aternity. As for my tone, you are reading the fact that I'm disagreeing with you as an agg ressive tone. I'm sure everyone can see that I have not been aggressive in my di scussions with others here, even when having insults thrown at me and attempts t o elicit emotional responses from me. TC has even commented on how well-mannered the discussion has been. The only aggression has arrived with your own comments . I understand that you are defending your book and of course it is precious to you etc but don't put your anger onto me. For those of us who do science evidence is all important. We tend to avoid emoti onal attachment to particular views as much as we can and always look to the evi dence. That's all. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2010 7:38:06 AM PST Christopher Ryan says: Hi. I've had a chance to review the original paper by Pusey and you are correct that the way we frame the quotation is misleading. I will indeed correct this fo r the paperback-and credit you with bringing it to my attention, if you provide your name (directly to me at cpr@sexatdawn.com, if you prefer not to use it here ). I was unaware that the out-of-group paternity numbers at Tai are in dispute a nd will look at the paper you cite on that. Still, our overall points in this material were that females of both chimps and bonobos mate promiscuously (MM/MF) and that when groups of bonobos meet in the w ild, they do not attack each other typically, but are more likely to have sex. A s for the rest of it, I don't really see much substance to your complaints. We w rote that "females (chimps) are often eager to respond to the mating invitations of any and all males in the group." This is true. You say you've seen females f leeing from males they didn't want to mate with. I'm sure this is true as well, but hardly disproves our statement or its underlying point, which is that female chimps mate promiscuously. Yes, there is some so-called consortship in chimps w hich restrains mating opportunities for females but it's far from universal. Anyway, thanks for your careful read and comments. If you'd like to be credited personally, send me your name. CPR ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2010 9:06:03 AM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2010 9:13:37 AM PST L. SAXON says: Very well Christopher. I think it is time to draw a line under this discussion re. your book. There is plenty more I could argue about but there is no way we will ever agree. My persp ective is one of evolutionary biology with a particular interest in the evolutio n of sex and especially sexual selection and sexual conflict. I started off with primatology and Sarah Hrdy was a great influence on me - TWTNE is a brilliant b ook. She, as you know,is particularly concerned with allomothering and females r ather than fathers being the only reliable parents and alloparents, hence matril ocal living etc. That's the way in which her work supports you but there is also the large part of her work which is about sexual selection/conflict and the rea sons females mate outside of fertile periods etc ie for the survival of offsprin

g against infanticide by males. (And how fragile the achievements of human females are because the battle of the sexes can easily go back to male control.) I think it is the lack of balance in your book that bothers me so much. Though, of course, misrepresenting my favorite primates is the worst. Anyway, if I ever get my own book finished it will be very much about the seriou sness of sex - the opposite of your perspective - as that's what the evidence re . the evolution of sex supports. Being very thorough about evidence and understa nding evolution/sex/sexual selection/sexual conflict means my own progress is on the slow side. And spending time in places like this does not help, as enjoyabl e as it can be. ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2010 7:14:42 PM PST Christopher Ryan says: Hi T.C. Maybe the only thing Ms. Saxon and I would agree about is that it's not a "false endeavor" to make a scientific argument (vision supported by facts). I responded to this thread-against my better judgment-only because you and other s had kept it running for so long I felt some responsibility to chime in. As it turns out, I learned something important (if minor) about how the framing of one quotation creates the wrong impression, if not the wrong conclusion, for the re ader. So that's something. I'm not convinced our book is "riddled with errors," our depiction of the Mosuo "a disgrace," or that I don't understand Sexual Selec tion (among other charges). If Ms. Saxon ever publishes her book, perhaps she'll find herself facing similar hyperbole. I, for one, certainly hope so! I suspect the reason most authors don't engage here or elsewhere on the web is t hat there's so much apparently unconscious hostility unleashed that it's rarely worth the emotional toil. It's like walking into a bar you already know is full of big, angry drunks who hate people like you. Why bother? As for animals, the world is full of animals with every kind of quirky behavior one can turn to support one's argument. That's why we stick mostly to chimps and bonobos in the book. Being by far the most closely related to us makes them the most relevant, in terms of what their anatomy may tell us about our ancestors. When people start relying exclusively on voles and penguins to make these argume nts, they lose me. Speaking of losing me, like you and Ms. Saxon, I'm officially declaring this my parting shot. Many thanks to you and anyone else reading this for spending a por tion of your precious life thinking about our book. Cacilda and I both appreciat e it very much. CPR ________________________________________ In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2010 12:06:00 AM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2010 12:37:50 AM PST L. SAXON says: I guess I haven't pulled, then, Christopher! LOL As a final word myself I will add that this book has made me realize that people prefer 'stories' to the real hard slog of dealing with facts and a scientific a pproach to get at the truths about life ie dealing with all the evidence rather than picking out the bits that fit with what has already been desired to be 'tru e' in the first place. And against my better nature, getting my own fascination with the evolution of s ex/sexual selection/sexual conflict across to others will require it to be dress

ed in a fashion that is far less scientific than my approach so far. LIke much e lse in the modern world - fast food, fast sex, fast reading.......And I honestly already know all the 'anti' reactions to my arguments. :) People are not very scientific or keen on the truth - the struggle against relig ious storytelling is clear evidence of that. Unfortunately, while a number of pe ople have given up traditional religious storytelling they have replaced it only with other stories about humans that depend on faith (or perhaps selfish, selfinterest?) rather than reality. And just in case anyone is interested, or Gabriel is still around, I'm as passio nate about sex as I am about science. But the facts are the facts all the same. :)