Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:37, 3 August 2014

Sexology and sexuality C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Note that there was no need to make a formal request—just list at uncontroversial requests.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dudeinhammock/Sex at Dawn → Sex at Dawn — I've written a brief description of the book but am not an autoconfirmed user and cannot move it to the live area myself. Dudeinhammock (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism?

Can we add more about the criticism this book has received (for example, from evolutionary psychologists)? The fact that this article only shows praise makes me wonder if it should be tagged for NPOV. While I'm reading this currently and I love it, and I'm inclined to agree with its fans, it's definitely not true that this has only received positive reception. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are the citations, 1 & 2, for negative/academic reviews both primary source? Surely this is not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.74.42 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think book reviews are considered primary sources in this context. They are secondary sources, dicussing and making analysis of the primary source, Sex at Dawn. See :WP:PRIMARY.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The introduction claims that Sex at Dawn has been 'panned by the academic community'. In support of this allegation one paper and a counter-book are cited. This is obviously insufficient to represent the entire 'academic community'. Franz de Waal (leading primatologist) has spoken extremely highly of the book (while not agreeing with all its conclusions). The claim in the introduction is biased and false, it should be changed, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.185.129 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of doing so. I am unsure how to reference, here are some of De Waal's comments http://sexatdawn.com/page3/page29/page29.html

Well, we can work on the wording if you want, but the fact remains that the only published commentary that I can find in academic publications, or from qualified academics is negative. Frans de Waal is obviously a leading authority on this matter, but I cannot find the source of his positive comments. I'd be glad to include them if you can point them out, but so far I can't find anything other than in publicity materials for S@D. That raises red flags for me, since authors will often say nice things about other books to help out their publishers. It isn't nothing, but to me a throw away comment from de Waal doesn't hold all that much weight. Even the Shackleford quote doesn't really get into depth about the argument of the book. I'll look into this in more depth when I get a moment, but I would say that academic commentary, such as there is, is currently mostly negative, and it isn't biased to say so. I'm very open if you have some sources, but I don't think that[REDACTED] guidelines allow self-promotional material to be used as a source, except in certain limited circumstances. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, after reviewing the quotes on their website, I think the only people they have quoted their who are truly qualified to give an assessment of the book are Shackleford and de Waal. Most of the rest are fin academics I'm sure, but are mostly psychologists, or sex therapists with no apparent background in anthropology or evolutionary psychology. So, I'll grant that Shackleford appears enthusiastic. But you'll note that all he says is that it is good "the best non-technical summary I have read of the relevant issues" which doesn't really get into the actual argument that they are making. de Waal also says that it is "an exciting book" and that it raises important issues. Neither of them really takes a firm stand with regard to the arguments of the book. So, I think that more context is needed before saying that academic reaction is truly "mixed". Peregrine981 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After consulting at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Promotional quotes for Books, I have confirmed that we should not be using context-less quotes being used to promote the book for sale. If the quotes can be found in another reliable source, of course we can use them, but I have not found the relevant quotes that have been used here anywhere but in promotional materials. As a result, we cannot use the de Waal or Shackleford quotes until another source is found. As it stands, all academic commentary is (although admitedly only 2 sources) highly negative. Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that academic opinions are "mixed" as things stand. As ever, I remain open to changes based on reliable sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Ellsworth's "Sex at Dusk" review

I have removed the lengthy quotation and discussion of Ryan Ellsworth's review of Sex at Dusk. For one, a lengthy review of a rebuttal is not a "Response" to Sex at Dawn. It would be appropriate to quote and discuss Sex at Dusk, but not through a secondary review.

Furthermore, to include lengthy discussions of two separate pieces by Ellsworth that attack the book — his review of Sex at Dawn and his review of Sex at Dusk — represents undue weight given to Ellsworth's opinion of the book. There is no particular reason why Ellsworth's views should be privileged with two entire paragraphs in this article, while many other reviews were accorded just one or two sentences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have additionally changed the review count - there are only two academic negative reviews of the book cited here. Again, an approving review of a rebuttal is not a negative review of the book, and individually counting Ellsworth's two separate pieces makes it appear as if there are more than two cited academic writers writing negative reviews. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Sex at Dusk is a self-published book, and therefore not really reliable by[REDACTED] standards. However, Evolutionary Psychology is. So, in fact, by[REDACTED] standards, the contrary is true. A scholar in the field, reviewing the book is considered a reliable source, but the book itself is not (See WP:SECONDARY). Since the book is itself a direct response to S@D, it is relevant to include it here. I don't think it is giving undue weight to discuss Ellsworth's two reviews, especially since one is essentially a report on what Lynn Saxon says, not him. The fact is that Ellsworth is the only trained expert in the field who has given the book a serious academic treatment in a reliable source. We shouldn't be doing some sort of false equivalence here. If more experts had bothered to review the book, then you might be right. As it stands, Ellsworth (and kind of Barash) are the only real game in town, as far as academic review is concerned. You added a quote from a blogger who himself says "Unfortunately, since I’m not trained as an anthropologist, I can’t be certain that the authors aren’t cherry-picking examples that support their conclusions." Now why should we be using a blogger who admits he doesn't have enough background in the subject to properly evaluate the book's claims attention on this page? Peregrine981 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't claim that it's an academic review and it is located in the proper section of the article - the section for popular reviews, not the section for peer-reviewed journal articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be true that Ellsworth is the only trained expert, etc., as you claim. But that is a fact not in evidence. In fact, there isn't even any evidence presented that he is a significant expert in the field. (Being a graduate student does not make one an expert. And I gladly say that as a graduate student who completed an MS with research thesis that is pending peer review for publication.) It is still true that his is only one opinion. That his opinion has been published in a peer-reviewed journal is interesting, but hardly constitutes a final and conclusive statement as to the book's arguments. There does not appear (based on the available three articles by two writers, one who was only a graduate student at the time of writing) to be anything resembling a broad academic consensus. We should not give his opinion undue weight — we already thoroughly present Ellsworth's arguments above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't a broad academic consensus. But, such academic consensus as there is, is basically against the book. Ellsworth, is clearly trained in the subject matter of the book. If you look up the articles credited to him, and he is a graduate student at a respected university. That's nothing to sneeze at. Barash is one of the leading voices in the field. And Sex at Dusk, while not a reliable source as far as WP is concerned, clearly meets their academic approval. Other leading experts (Stephen Pinker) for example, are also on the record as saying the book is "pseudo-science" (though not in a reliable form for WP). So, I don't think it is unfair to say that the academic consensus is pretty much against the book. Now, maybe they all have personal reasons or biases to write negative things about S@D, as Ryan suggests. However, he doesn't really present any concrete evidence of that. At any rate, Ellsworth is indeed only one voice, but he is also the only writer to make a detailed, rigorous analysis in a reliable source. I think that it should be weighted above random science bloggers and other non-expert reviewers. Not to say we should ignore them, but it is ok to give Ellsworth more prominence. I'm unconvinced that simply being a Harvard based science blogger makes your opinion relevant to the article. What is the editorial oversight policy of scienceblogs.com? Peregrine981 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So we should rely on a secondhand recounting of a self-published book critical of Sex at Dawn, reviewed by someone who has already established himself as harshly critical of Sex at Dawn? That doesn't strike me as the most reliable or neutral of review sources. Can you not see the obvious conflict of interest there? Is there no one else who has reviewed Sex at Dusk? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And oddly enough, yes, someone else did review Sex at Dusk — David Barash, whose approving review we already cite. That ought to be enough discussion of Sex at Dusk in a Misplaced Pages article that isn't about Sex at Dusk. Further discussion of Sex at Dusk should go in a stand-alone article about Sex at Dusk. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He did it in a respected journal. Obviously it would be better if more people had reviewed both dawn and dusk, but they haven't. Just because Ellsworth had already written a negative review of dawn, doesn't mean that his review of dusk isn't valid for our purposes if it expands our understanding of Sex at Dawn. He goes into rather more detail than Barash. I don't think there is a "conflict of interest" in reviewing a book that has a similarly negative view of the subject that you do. Obviously his pre-declared dislike is something that should be taken into account by outside observers in evaluating the validity of the argument, but he isn't hiding the factual basis of his disagreement with Ryan, or attacking him unfairly. If Ryan wanted to he could rebut Sex at Dusk, and we could include that here. However, if you listen to his podcast you will see that he basically isn't interested in actually arguing for his ideas because he doesn't have the time. (seriously. If you haven't listened to the episode where he responds to his critics, you should. I find it quite revealing about Ryan's academic integrity) Peregrine981 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I like the changes you have made to the article. You may be right that there was too much Ellsworth. However, I think there was some useful information in the paragraph that has been cut. It was rather more specific about what exactly the problems were with the argument, rather than just saying that their evidence was lacking, etc... It mentioned specific issues that could be interesting to a reader. Do you have any opinion on that? Is there a way we could re-integrate that kind of info without giving undue attention to Ellsworth? I'm still not convinced that we couldn't put a couple more sentences in, since he has paid by far the most attention to the book/its arguments. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone noticed the link to Ellsworth's own page? Doesn't it seem likly that Ellsworth himself has been editing this to puff his own career? --CRATYLUS22

Changes to lead by Overagainst

Peregrine981and I both seem to agree that the lead is not to POV and I am not seeing why Overagainstthinks it is. I am reverting this back--but do hope we can continue the discussion here. I note that some discussion has already taken place between Overagainstand Peregrine981 on Peregrine981's talk page.Pengortm (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What the lede says about criticism must be based on the following in the main body of the article "In an approving Chronicle of Higher Education review of Sex at Dusk — a rebuttal to Sex at Dawn written and self-published by Lynn Saxon — David Barash, author of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People wrote that Ryan and Jethá "ignore and/or misrepresent reams of anthropology and biology in their eagerness to make a brief for some sort of Rousseau-ian sexual idyll that exists—and/or existed—only in their overheated libidinous imaginations."[1"

The lede says "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative" it's misleading to say "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative" without specifying what that amounts to, as there have not been a substantial number of what could be called academics who reviewed the book. (I see two named: Ryan M. Ellsworth and David Barash). There are academic reviews of the apparently self published 'Sex at Dusk' by Lynne Saxon. The article should name the academic critics and make it clear who is not an academic or scientist. Readers can't make out exactly who Saxon is. She is described as an independent scholar. Even if an academic critic has indulged in speculating about authors' motives, that still falls under the NPOV ruberic. That is why the following has to go: "and the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda." Overagainst (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with specifying the academics in question. Saxon herself cannot be considered a reliable source by wikipedia. I really don't see why speculation about motives/methods are off limits. How does it go against NPOV? If we neutrally present the assertion, which has been made in an academic journal, I don't see the problem. I'm not against re-wording, but I think it is a salient point, as it is prominent in at least 2 of the 3 reliable pieces by academics. Would it be better if we added that Ryan clearly denies the charge? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Having the lede end: "However, all scientific commentaries on the book have been negative and argue that humans have a history that involves more monogamy than Sex at Dawn acknowledges, that the book misrepresents the current state of research to the general public, and does so deliberately in aid of an "ideological" agenda." as it current does is excessive weight. But it seems you two don't think so. The article would do better to be about the book not charges against the authors, however you word them they are still accusations of being deliberately misleading. And far from having charges and denials and back and forth added, the whole article needs to be pared down, a lot.Overagainst (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is excessive weight shouldn't we focus on adding other information or rounding out the lede/article rather than removing information? There are two articles that explicitly question the validity/honesty of the book itself written by academic experts in the field. Should we ignore that information? Considering that there are only 3 actual academic discussions of the book, that is quite a high percentage of the information available, so to say it is undue weight strikes me as odd. If you want to also include the popular reviews, which have been far more positive, that is fine, but surely the academic articles written by people who actually know the background of the academic literature should carry slightly more weight and be mentioned at least in the lede. These are charges leveled at the book, not just the author. The claim is that the book itself, not just the authors "has been caught with its ideological pants down." This is an integral part of the discussion in the secondary literature, about the book which is EXACTLY what[REDACTED] should cover. I quote from, WP:ARTICLE " The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say." I know that if I go to an article about a book I would want it to discuss the major strains of criticism of the book, not simply an "in universe" discussion about the book itself on terms that the author would find acceptable. That is precisely what is invaluable about wikipedia, it is a place where you can find a summary of reliable, honest discussion of the subject. If you think that the tone is overly hostile, fine we can work on that, but removing the "charges and denials back and forth", presuming they are given due weight, would impoverish the article IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made my edits and you rejected them, I modified them and they got reverted again. I stand by what I said and I'll leave you to it.Overagainst (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I would hope to incorporate your concerns into the article. I will try to amend the lead to try to make it more balanced without removing the relevant information, as discussed above. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with here. But I think it is a good idea to adjust the wording to include that all scientific commentaries are represented by "(only three so far)". I think given that this is just the lead summary, we don't have to name them yet since they are cited and readers can go down to the section in the article on it to read more. Note that Saxon is not cited as one of the three in the lead. Like Peregrine981, I remain open to changes, but think the current version is better than the previously suggested changes by Overagainst Pengortm (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejection by Oxford U press in lead

Peregrine981 I agree that whether a publisher is interested in a book is too detailed. However, the reason I thought that was appropriate for the lead is that Oxford wanted to publish it, but then sent it to academic peer reviewers who thought the book was junk (according to Ryan). Since we are trying to state the scholarly reception of the book, this speaks to that issue directly. I am pretty sure the popular, non-academic press Harper does not send their books out for peer review and Ryan made it seem like they didn't. Perhaps I'll figure out a way to condense this and roll it into the last section of the lead. Pengortm (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is entirely appropriate to include as a general point, just maybe not in the lead. I would note though, that at least one (if memory serves) of the reviewers thought the book was great. Also, this is entirely self reported by Ryan, which is semi-dubious by wiki standards. The fact that he says they were critical lends some credibility, but this should probably not be a central part of the article, and we should identify Ryan as the source. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-Bias and Social Responsibility

It's great to see how Wiki standards are so well respected by the editors, and the discussion here between Peregrine981 and Pengortm is a perfect example of striking the right balance. I don't disagree with any of the points they've made. Still, while the integrity of NPOV is and should be the lodestar of any article, it's also important to keep in mind that some people have so much faith in the science of this book that they are re-defining their relationships, or at least their attitudes toward relationships. There are literally thousands of comments on forums,comment boards and the author's Facebook page testifying to this fact. While it's always possible that bad science can lead to viable results, many people rely only on Misplaced Pages to assess the reliability of books like this. It would be a disservice to them if there were any ambiguity about the purportedly specious science behind it. Gadly Circus (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that this article does a good job of presenting the criticism. But the fact is that there are some respected sources that do appreciate the book, including some "scientific" sources, although they do not seem to explain their support, unlike the detractors. This is why, IMO the criticism should be more clearly explained, as I think it is. As Ryan (who's user account is Dudeinhammock) says, there are many clinical and more applied therapists who do support the book. The fact that they don't necessarily have much expertise in evolutionary psychology/physiology should be noted. Anyway, if you have any specific problems with the current wording, please feel free to suggest changes. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording is okay as it is, though I must admit I would lean more towards stressing the dubious side of Ryan's academic integrity, as you yourself mentioned earlier, Peregrine. But my feeling has everything to do with personal taste and less to do with Wiki standards. About the respected sources: If the book presented itself based on Ryan's experiences in clinical and therapeutic practice, the opinions of clinical and applied therapists would hold more weight, IMO. However, it presents itself as an academic work, with hundreds of (evidently misused) references, and was soundly rejected by the only academics who took the time to pay attention to it. It's not unfeasible that some clinicians and therapists, Dan Savage and Peter Sagal are more inclined to support the conclusions rather than the methodology, whereas the academics are all about how the sausage is made. For those reasons, I would prefer to see the most weight given to the academic reaction. Gadly Circus (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed--especially since Ryan is not making a clinical case, but a case about human evolution. Also, I don't see how this could qualify for[REDACTED] citing--since it is more my own 'original research'--but Dan Savage used to regularly plug and praise the book, but after me and others emailed Savage to let him know about the first critique and soon after the first critique came out, Savage stopped promoting the book and has barely mentioned it on his podcast.Pengortm (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems we're all on the same page then. Can't really disagree with what either of you have said. Peregrine981 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). How does Sex at Dawn rate an article? I don't see it as having attracted sufficient attention for an article at all. I think the article should be deleted.Overagainst (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC) WP:NACADEMICS, I would also like to know how Christopher Ryan (author) rates an article as the author of a single fringe theory and not well known book.Overagainst (talk)

Thanks for raising this issue which I had not really considered for this article until now. I suggest we save the discussion of the Christopher Ryan (author) page for that talk page--although perhaps there is a good argument to merge the two? My impression is that this qualifies under Misplaced Pages:Notability (books), mainly because it is a pretty well known, influential and award winning book. Following the "in a nutshell" on Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) Sex at Dawn seems to qualifies mainly because "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I also note that the book rates quite highly on Amazon:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,543 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

1. 2 in Books > Medical Books > Psychology > Sexuality
2. 2 in Books > Health, Fitness & Dieting > Psychology & Counseling > Sexuality
3. 6 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Anthropology > General--Pengortm (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There are 5 in a nutshell criteria of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). You quote from the first one only, but seem to think SaD " pretty well known, influential and award winning book". 'Influential' would suggest there are secondary sources where academics endorse or take up the book's arguments, could you provide links to such instances of published secondary sources citing the book. If you think Sex at Dawn meets other criteria apart from the first then please specify which ones. Overagainst (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There are 5 in a nutshell criteria of Misplaced Pages:Notability (books)--BUT we only need to meet at least one of the criteria to be notable. We might bring in the other criteria later on, but I think it passes on criteria 1 pretty easily. If you look at the sources in the article you will see that there are multiple academics taking up the arguments (mostly to critique them). I also note that to be notable the secondary sources need not be from academics--and as I recall there are these type of sources as well. Also see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sex+at+dawn&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48--Pengortm (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The book clearly meets criteria 1, and that is all it has to do for inclusion. Whether or not people agree with the book is not the issue. A book can be notable for being widely criticized. More generally, there are many, many secondary sources discussing this subject, as a subject in itself, clearly meeting the general[REDACTED] inclusion guidelines. IMO this is exactly the kind of topic[REDACTED] is best at covering. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a scientific book so it being taught for the relevant disciplines of anthropology or evolutionary psychology in a university course would be the evidence that it is 'clearly' important enough for an article. I will tell you frankly that the author not rating a page of his own (as was immediately conceded) makes me think that his book's impact in the field will have to be considerable.Overagainst (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It's popular science, and it has been reviewed at least a half dozen to dozen times in major publications. The criteria for inclusion do not include being used in a university course, so not really sure the relevance of that. Neither does the author's notability, except in the case that the author is so notable that even a non-notable book becomes notable. The main point here is that the book has generated considerable interest from reliable, third party sources, which is the basis of verifiability and notability. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(It has been conceded that Ryan does not rate his own article so the following point is moot, but I disagree an author alone can make a book become notable enough for its own article.) If SaD was taught or required reading on an anthropology or psychology course then its notability would be beyond question. It isn't. Overagainst (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be too much of a bureaucrat here, but please refer to the general book notability guidelines and you will see, criteria 5, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Anyway, as we've said above, a book merely needs to meet any one of the general criteria, not multiple criteria, so it really isn't necessary that it be taught in university. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS. Not sure where it has been conceded that the author doesn't merit an article? As far as I can see there has been no discussion has taken place on the the Christopher Ryan talk page.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia

"Sex at Dawn author Ryan bills himself as a "shame exorcist" on his personal website, where he recommends Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us by Jesse Bering. A third of Bering's book is devoted to a sympathetic account of pedophilia as something that people are naturally born with in the same way as they are homosexual, and further suggests possession of child pornography should not be illegal. It seems to me that Ryan's views on pedophillia are quite similar to DeWaal's. For De Waal sex between adult males and and children is not abuse if it is tender and pleasurable for both. He specifically points to Bonobos as an example of this non abusive sex between adult males and children.(de Waal, F. B. M. (1990). Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among bonobos. In: Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, J. R. Feierman (ed.). Springer, New York, pp. 378-393) He also said the following in 1992 "'Ancestral humans behaved like this," proposes Frans de Waal, an ethologist at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University. "Later, when we developed the family system, the use of sex for this sort of purpose became more limited, mainly occurring within families. A lot of the things we see, like pedophilia and homosexuality, may be leftovers that some now consider unacceptable in our particular society.'". In Sex at Dawn is there anywhere that the authors disagree with DeWaal's views on pedophilia?Overagainst (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) By my way of thinking Ryan seems to be arguing very much along the same lines as deWaal here.Overagainst (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? Maybe you should try to read the book instead of getting second hand accounts. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the article Ryan says natural human sexuality is like that of Bonobos. It is well known that adult male Bonobos have sex with infant Bonobos. My point is that we should make it clear whether Ryan specifically excludes pedophilia from his thesis or not. If he doesn't then that ought to be made clear in the article.Overagainst (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a stretch to me and kind of like original research that is not allowed on wikipedia--and also sensitive enough about a living person that we need to be particularly careful. I think we need to have more direct information from a reliable source before integrating this into either this page or Ryan's page.--Pengortm (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Here Ryan says "I've got some ideas of topics I'd like to tackle head-on. Here are a few, to give you an idea: What does it really mean to be "gay?" Are two men who have sex while in prison a gay couple, even if they don't consider themselves to be? What if same-sex behavior is considered a standard part of life, as in some tribes in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere? Is sex with animals always wrong? If so, why? Can they give consent, just by continuing the interaction? How can it be legal to kill them, skin them, and eat them, but not to fuck them? Are teenaged boys who have sex with adult women victims of sexual abuse? What if they don't think so? What if, in fact, they're clamoring for the opportunity to be "abused" in this way? Are all adult/adolescent sexual encounters inescapably exploitative?" Also Here Ryan says "...assumptions that all minors are traumatized by any sexual contact with someone over the age of consent are not scientifically supported. Perhaps more importantly, by sending the message that such experiences are by definition traumatic, we may sometimes be causing suffering even as we try to stop it." He could be quoted on that.Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a topic for the author's page, not here. If you can find secondary sources discussing the treatment of pedophilia in S@D you can include it here, but I see, and know of none. I have read the book and don't remember it being discussed. At any rate, pedophilia is a very controversial topic, so requires extraordinary care in its treatment on a bio of a living person. It seems to me very hard to draw a firm conclusion of what Ryan believes, except that he believes it needs more study, and people should not be so quick to judgement about it. Context would need to be established, and mediated through reliable secondary sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryan does not have sufficient notability for his own eponymous article. He is the author of SaD and it contains his hypothesis about human sexuality being similar to Bonobos. He doesn't mention Bonobo paedophilia in the book, and we can note that. As he is the author of SaD his later writings on paedophilia can be quoted from his own blog posts for clarification of what his ideas are relation to human padophillia. Here is another quote:"How can it be perfectly legal and respectable to make movies in which kids are dismembered with a chain saw but it's illegal to write a book about having sex with them? Am I missing something or is this a wide-open window into the soul of an utterly irrational society?" Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine981 here. This is not the place for this discussion. Bring these to the Ryan page and we can discuss there (although I also agree with Peregrine981's skeptisism and frankly don't see the makings of a viable contribution here).--Pengortm (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Ryan page might be deleted before the discussion gets very far, he doesn't rate a page in my opinion judging by the deletions of article people with far more notability that him, and I when i said so above I got the impression you were amenable to merging the pages. Anyway, I think the material belongs on this page which is where Ryan's hypothesis about human sexuality being like that of Bonobos is given. If Ryan is on record with later criticism of our culture's attitude to certain aspects of human sexualty we can quote him here I think. It is already being done in the article where it says "The authors do not take an explicit position in the book regarding the morality or desirability of monogamy or alternative sexual behavior in modern society, but argue that people should be made aware of our behavioral history so that they can make more informed choices." Ref six is a 2013 blog post.Overagainst (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the probability of the Ryan page being deleted: you may be right that it doesn't meet notability criteria, but as of now it has existed for some time, and there is no on-going deletion discussion, so not sure why you think it is in such imminent danger of being deleted. Anyway, the topic of this page is the book Sex at Dawn and it should not stray too far into other discussions of the author's various other opinions unless directly relevant to the book itself. As I said, I would not be opposed to a discussion of pedophelia, if you can find a source discussing the topic specifically in relation to the book. But we would most certainly be veering into original research if we were to say, "Ryan discusses Bonobo sexuality in S@D; in this other unrelated blog post he discusses bonobo sexuality in relation to pedophelia. Ryan's opinion on pedophilia is XYZ." The blog quote you mention above is directly related to S@D, so I don't think that it is a comparable situation. If you're so certain that Ryan doesn't deserve a[REDACTED] entry, I'm not sure why you're so interested in including his opinions on pedophilia. If you want to take this discussion further it should either be moved to the Chris Ryan page, or you're going to have to show how it is directly related to this book with a concrete source. (Throwing in his opinion on pedophilia without a solid basis would certainly seem to be a textbook case of biasing the article against the author, unless you also include discussion on a multitude of other topics which would overload the article). Peregrine981 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The article already quotes Ryan on things he said in his blog posts but not in the book as mentioned above about reference 6. Ryan said in a blog post that "Shortly after Sex at Dawn came out, I started receiving emails from a guy who wanted to enlist my support in his campaign to change the laws prohibiting sexual relations between adults and children.". If Ryan says something noteable about pedphilia in relation to the theory of human sexuality he presented in Sex at Dawn and we quote that without misrepresenting what he said, there would be no problem that I can see.Overagainst (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How is it encyclopedic that someone emailed Ryan after he published the book? I'm sure lots of people have emailed him about all kinds of topics. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"The authors do not take an explicit position in the book regarding the morality or desirability of monogamy or alternative sexual behavior in modern society, but argue that people should be made aware of our behavioral history so that they can make better informed choices.". What he wrote in a blog by way of clarification about his attitude to pedophilia and in the context of the reaction to his book is as encyclopedic as the bolded stement which wrote in his blog about his nonjudgemental attitude to alternative sexual behavior in general, and which is already quoted in the article.-Overagainst (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is too tangential. He says, right after your quotation, : " I guess he figured that since Cacilda and I had questioned the notion that monogamy came naturally to our species, we'd question just about anything. He was wrong about that. You won't find my signature on any petitions to make pedophilia legal. To the contrary, I'd like to see the current pope and many of his bishops in prison for having covered up and enabled the systematic child abuse by Catholic clergy." To sum that up, pretty much he takes no position on pedophilia in his argument, ie, Sex at Dawn. He elaborates that he has a fairly "traditional" view of pedophilia, except to point out that verbal discussions of the subject should not be treated the same as pictures, and pointing out that there is quite a double standard regarding toleration of violence vs. pedophilia. This has nothing to do with his argument in Sex at Dawn IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, equating pedophilia (a mental matter) that is independent of child sexual abuse with non-human animal sexual behavior and evolution is WP:Fringe. See, for example, this discussion: Talk:Pedophilia/Archive 17#Inclusion RFC. Overagainst's arguments sound similar to another editor's arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles