What do you think?
Rate this book
Sperm Wars: The Science Of Sex
In a radical new interpretation of human sexuality, the coauthor of Human Sperm Competition offers a provocative theory that much of our sexual behavior is preprogrammed into us by the evolutionary pressures of the sperm war. 50,000 first printing. $50,000 ad/promo.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1996
280 people are currently reading
4852 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 212 reviews
January 27, 2011
Well this book was always going to split the field, what with it's open, frank and polemical discussions of rape and prostitution. This is a fascinating text that is well worth reading with an OPEN MIND.
There are conjectures made that seem to disgust some reviewers on this website. What they seem to consistently miss, however, is that our views on social conduct and our sense of right from wrong is a remarkably recent cognitive development when viewed on an evolutionary timescale. So these conjectures seem wildly savage and archaic, but that is rather the point. we are animals, the same as every other species, what separates us is our ability to appreciate that fact and process complex cerebral sequences. We are, however, still very much governed by really quite simple biological drivers.
We all have the desire to eat, sleep and reproduce stronger than any other desire for culture, material possessions etc. The desire for what makes us human has developed over several millennia, whereas biological urges have controlled us for millions of years. That we can read this book and disagree with the points raised is something we have only been capable of for a few hundred years. People who believe we are somehow above the urges explored in this book are really quite blinkered. Of course we are not. We just like to think we are, because we are civilized. If that were true, then people in society wouldn't commit the heinous crimes that they do, and atrocities such as rape and murder would be cast to the past with the savages.
We are, however, still animal and our desires are governed as such.
Regarding the comments about this being 'psuedo-science', it is clear that people are furnishing their protestations with such a defaming concept to give their opinions credence. There are no references to the primary sources of information because of the audience and purpose this book is written for; it is popular science, aimed at the layman, to be able to dip in and out of without needing an expert background. If you doubt the authenticity of the text, then check out the myriad of Robin Baker's publications in peer-reviewed journals that back up his claims.
I realise that many people will only read the first and last paragraph of a review, so- read this for yourself and make your own mind up. What you might find is, if you are willing to accept it, that you may start noticing some of the practices unfold in your own sex life, or even reflect on similarities of some of the stories with your own experiences.
There are conjectures made that seem to disgust some reviewers on this website. What they seem to consistently miss, however, is that our views on social conduct and our sense of right from wrong is a remarkably recent cognitive development when viewed on an evolutionary timescale. So these conjectures seem wildly savage and archaic, but that is rather the point. we are animals, the same as every other species, what separates us is our ability to appreciate that fact and process complex cerebral sequences. We are, however, still very much governed by really quite simple biological drivers.
We all have the desire to eat, sleep and reproduce stronger than any other desire for culture, material possessions etc. The desire for what makes us human has developed over several millennia, whereas biological urges have controlled us for millions of years. That we can read this book and disagree with the points raised is something we have only been capable of for a few hundred years. People who believe we are somehow above the urges explored in this book are really quite blinkered. Of course we are not. We just like to think we are, because we are civilized. If that were true, then people in society wouldn't commit the heinous crimes that they do, and atrocities such as rape and murder would be cast to the past with the savages.
We are, however, still animal and our desires are governed as such.
Regarding the comments about this being 'psuedo-science', it is clear that people are furnishing their protestations with such a defaming concept to give their opinions credence. There are no references to the primary sources of information because of the audience and purpose this book is written for; it is popular science, aimed at the layman, to be able to dip in and out of without needing an expert background. If you doubt the authenticity of the text, then check out the myriad of Robin Baker's publications in peer-reviewed journals that back up his claims.
I realise that many people will only read the first and last paragraph of a review, so- read this for yourself and make your own mind up. What you might find is, if you are willing to accept it, that you may start noticing some of the practices unfold in your own sex life, or even reflect on similarities of some of the stories with your own experiences.
March 25, 2016
I had been asking sex questions on a human evolution group, and was told more than once to read Sperm Wars. "It explains everything." The book focuses heavily on infidelity and explains the biological basis of sexual behavior. I was a little worried about "knowing too much"; that this knowledge would depress me and ruin my sex life. I bought a copy and lost it before reading it.
Recently, it came up in conversation again, and, feeling more along the lines of "not knowing enough" about the biology of sex this time, I bought another copy and pushed myself to read it.
After reading it? The biology is interesting, and some of the descriptions of subsequent human behavior are enlightening and make perfect sense to me, but some of the other conclusions are less than convincing. (And some have been disproven. See the comments on this review.) It wasn't exactly life-changing, and certainly hasn't hurt any aspect of my sex life.
Although his research found that only 4 percent of conceptions take place as a result of sperm wars, and 9 out of 10 children are born from routine monogamous intercourse, the premise of the book is that this is the "major force in the shaping of human sexuality", and all of our sexual behaviors are explained in relation to it. "Well, people that study sperm competition are a fairly conceited lot actually. They think it explains everything to do with sexual behaviour."
He says to read through his scholarly papers if you doubt his conclusions. Instead of just saying "trust me", I'd feel a lot better if he included a brief summary of the supporting data nearby.
Most importantly, many of the connections he makes between evolutionary biology and conscious behavior seem a bit too speculative, based on a narrow-minded interpretation of human ethology.
The most obvious example to me is the section where he states that men are averse to using condoms, and then goes about explaining why. For instance, men try to have sex without condoms because they "spoil the man's subconscious rationale for having routine sex". A man would only have sex with a condom so that he can trick the woman into having sex without one later. "Subconsciously, his body realizes the futility of casual sex with no chance of conception."
Of course, this is silly. Men don't like sex with condoms because it doesn't feel as good. Simple as that. Why doesn't it feel as good? Well, that's where biology comes in. But it's pretty simple: Evolution made men adept at determining whether they are in a real vagina or not, and varies the amount of pleasure they will feel accordingly. Their conscious decision of whether to use one or not is made partially on the basis of the amount of pleasure they will feel. That's it. It has nothing to do with a "subconscious" urge to impregnate women or anything.
I didn't understand why the book was so "controversial" until the last third, where he basically says that women's bodies secretly want to be raped, homosexuals are just "practicing" for heterosexuality, and women pursue prostitution as a reproductive strategy.
It's easy to use a simple model of individual natural selection to explain a desire to have sex with multiple partners, but how do you explain the fact that I and many of my friends don't want to procreate at all? The fact that some priests/monks have trouble living completely celibate lives is explained quite easily by such a model, but the fact that these men would pursue such a life in the first place, and in the majority of cases succeed, is not. Organisms certainly evolve on this level, but also on many others. He doesn't take into account the possibility of evolved behaviors that are altruistic rather than selfish, and completely ignores the cultural evolution/memetic side of things.
Describing human biology is straightforward; it either does things or it doesn't. Connecting this low-level functionality to high-level behavior is not so simple.
Recently, it came up in conversation again, and, feeling more along the lines of "not knowing enough" about the biology of sex this time, I bought another copy and pushed myself to read it.
After reading it? The biology is interesting, and some of the descriptions of subsequent human behavior are enlightening and make perfect sense to me, but some of the other conclusions are less than convincing. (And some have been disproven. See the comments on this review.) It wasn't exactly life-changing, and certainly hasn't hurt any aspect of my sex life.
Although his research found that only 4 percent of conceptions take place as a result of sperm wars, and 9 out of 10 children are born from routine monogamous intercourse, the premise of the book is that this is the "major force in the shaping of human sexuality", and all of our sexual behaviors are explained in relation to it. "Well, people that study sperm competition are a fairly conceited lot actually. They think it explains everything to do with sexual behaviour."
He says to read through his scholarly papers if you doubt his conclusions. Instead of just saying "trust me", I'd feel a lot better if he included a brief summary of the supporting data nearby.
Most importantly, many of the connections he makes between evolutionary biology and conscious behavior seem a bit too speculative, based on a narrow-minded interpretation of human ethology.
The most obvious example to me is the section where he states that men are averse to using condoms, and then goes about explaining why. For instance, men try to have sex without condoms because they "spoil the man's subconscious rationale for having routine sex". A man would only have sex with a condom so that he can trick the woman into having sex without one later. "Subconsciously, his body realizes the futility of casual sex with no chance of conception."
Of course, this is silly. Men don't like sex with condoms because it doesn't feel as good. Simple as that. Why doesn't it feel as good? Well, that's where biology comes in. But it's pretty simple: Evolution made men adept at determining whether they are in a real vagina or not, and varies the amount of pleasure they will feel accordingly. Their conscious decision of whether to use one or not is made partially on the basis of the amount of pleasure they will feel. That's it. It has nothing to do with a "subconscious" urge to impregnate women or anything.
I didn't understand why the book was so "controversial" until the last third, where he basically says that women's bodies secretly want to be raped, homosexuals are just "practicing" for heterosexuality, and women pursue prostitution as a reproductive strategy.
It's easy to use a simple model of individual natural selection to explain a desire to have sex with multiple partners, but how do you explain the fact that I and many of my friends don't want to procreate at all? The fact that some priests/monks have trouble living completely celibate lives is explained quite easily by such a model, but the fact that these men would pursue such a life in the first place, and in the majority of cases succeed, is not. Organisms certainly evolve on this level, but also on many others. He doesn't take into account the possibility of evolved behaviors that are altruistic rather than selfish, and completely ignores the cultural evolution/memetic side of things.
Describing human biology is straightforward; it either does things or it doesn't. Connecting this low-level functionality to high-level behavior is not so simple.
April 12, 2012
Oh my gosh this is cuckold porn disguised as a biologists view of the social realities of reproduction.
Even in his preface he admits there are many biologists who will view this book as a complete work of fiction, but the first time I read that did not have the same impact it had as when I was done.
The entire book is comprised of "examples" he gives about sexuality, and he then explains his point of view on what "transpired" in his imagination, he explains they are not "real" situations, but are there for him to explain his point of view on the subject.
After reading it and reflecting... yeah it's just a cuckold porn story book. There is no science, no figures, no statistical references, just a few stories, very lengthy and droning stories, about how he thinks life is exciting if you let your spouse "cheat" on you, that this is how life is, and it's so awesome. It's one big cuckold fetish book. I can't keep myself from smiling and shaking my head about what a waste of time this book was.
I've NEVER read a non-fiction book that has so much porn in it. I mean, I like porn, but this is just ridiculous; you think he is going to describe his reason for saying something, but he goes on and on, talking about how fingers go into holes and on and on, and rarely actually gets to his point, and NEVER actually produces any real data, it's all just his opinion, again and again.
Also, I have since learned he is the only "scientist" that promotes the idea of "killer sperm", and other biologists find many of his ideas comical.
This is a big issue for me; Sperm either kills other sperm, or it doesn't. Baker says MOST sperm kills other sperm (he claims 9 out of 10 sperm go and kill other "non self" sperm), I myself did an experiment in biology class, and ZERO sperm killed other sperm, in fact, nobody in my class witnessed any sperm killing other sperm, and we tried pig, bird and cow; nothing, not one single attack among 22 tests.
Our biology teacher proceeded to describe half a dozen studies, all of which debunk nearly all of Robin Baker and his ideas, then he told me he has done this experiment in his class for nearly a decade, and nobody has EVER witnessed a single sperm attack another sperm. Too bad I took this class *after* reading this awful book.
This guy is a nut job. It is clear in his preface that he intends to sway public opinion into believing that women should be allowed to cheat, because hey "it's natural". What a dork. He wrote a fiction book along the same lines that I zipped through, everyone gets stranded on an island and guess what? the girls all do it with tons of guys and the guys like it, meanwhile, his "non-fiction" book reads almost exactly the same!
This book gives you a dirty "What the heck did I just read" feeling when you are done, and throughout reading it. The only redeeming thing I can say about this book is that I feel amazed and dumbfounded he is an actual biologist, and that he is so much into his fetish that he writes books about it, claiming it is real science, and outright lies in the process. Total pervert with a very, very weird agenda.
Even in his preface he admits there are many biologists who will view this book as a complete work of fiction, but the first time I read that did not have the same impact it had as when I was done.
The entire book is comprised of "examples" he gives about sexuality, and he then explains his point of view on what "transpired" in his imagination, he explains they are not "real" situations, but are there for him to explain his point of view on the subject.
After reading it and reflecting... yeah it's just a cuckold porn story book. There is no science, no figures, no statistical references, just a few stories, very lengthy and droning stories, about how he thinks life is exciting if you let your spouse "cheat" on you, that this is how life is, and it's so awesome. It's one big cuckold fetish book. I can't keep myself from smiling and shaking my head about what a waste of time this book was.
I've NEVER read a non-fiction book that has so much porn in it. I mean, I like porn, but this is just ridiculous; you think he is going to describe his reason for saying something, but he goes on and on, talking about how fingers go into holes and on and on, and rarely actually gets to his point, and NEVER actually produces any real data, it's all just his opinion, again and again.
Also, I have since learned he is the only "scientist" that promotes the idea of "killer sperm", and other biologists find many of his ideas comical.
This is a big issue for me; Sperm either kills other sperm, or it doesn't. Baker says MOST sperm kills other sperm (he claims 9 out of 10 sperm go and kill other "non self" sperm), I myself did an experiment in biology class, and ZERO sperm killed other sperm, in fact, nobody in my class witnessed any sperm killing other sperm, and we tried pig, bird and cow; nothing, not one single attack among 22 tests.
Our biology teacher proceeded to describe half a dozen studies, all of which debunk nearly all of Robin Baker and his ideas, then he told me he has done this experiment in his class for nearly a decade, and nobody has EVER witnessed a single sperm attack another sperm. Too bad I took this class *after* reading this awful book.
This guy is a nut job. It is clear in his preface that he intends to sway public opinion into believing that women should be allowed to cheat, because hey "it's natural". What a dork. He wrote a fiction book along the same lines that I zipped through, everyone gets stranded on an island and guess what? the girls all do it with tons of guys and the guys like it, meanwhile, his "non-fiction" book reads almost exactly the same!
This book gives you a dirty "What the heck did I just read" feeling when you are done, and throughout reading it. The only redeeming thing I can say about this book is that I feel amazed and dumbfounded he is an actual biologist, and that he is so much into his fetish that he writes books about it, claiming it is real science, and outright lies in the process. Total pervert with a very, very weird agenda.
October 16, 2019
First things first, I read this book with my girlfriend as a joke, after we saw that it was mentioned on the blog
We Hunted the Mammoth
. Apparently, Sperm Wars is a sort of "Bible" for people in the so called "manosphere", and since we're having a lot of fun reading what these people write in their blogs and websites, we decided to read this book together and see what all the fuss is about.
To put it simply, this book is bad. It's bad "erotica" mixed with a lot of pseudoscience and wild speculation. Sperm Wars consists in a series of fictional scenes (although based on real life experiences and events, according to Baker) involving sexual encounters, mostly focusing on infidelity and promiscuity. Each scene is followed by an alleged "scientific explanation" of the behaviour and/or physiological responses of the characters and their bodies, in which Baker tries to make us believe that most if not all aspects of human sexuality are determined by our bodies' unconscious pursuit of reproductive success. That human sexual behaviour has been shaped by evolution to give us more chances of reproduction is probably true to some extent, but the deterministic approach used by Baker is very problematic, for at least two reasons. First, we have a conscious mind that plays a very important role in our decisions and behaviour; second, sexuality in particular is considerably influenced by culture.
This is not, however, the main scientific problem with this book. The major issue is that the fundamental assumption on which it is based is not supported by solid science. Virtually all of its claims are based, directly or indirectly, on the existence of "killer sperm" and sperm competition. According to this hypothesis, only a minority of sperm are there to fertilize an egg (egg-getters), the others' goal is to block and/or kill other males' sperm. Every time a woman's body contains sperm coming from more than one male, a sperm war is going to take place. Alas, this hypothesis might have been interesting, but it's actually false, or at least unsubstantiated. A 1999 study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B found no evidence of killer sperm or other mechanisms of sperm competition in humans. Without that assumption, we are left with a series of sex scenes, most of them plainly boring and some rather ludicrous, and a bunch of pseudoscientific explanations.
But not only the main hypothesis on which Sperm Wars is based is false, throughout the book there are quite a few other claims not supported by solid science. One example is the idea that 10% of children are not actually sired by the man who thinks is their father. The problem is that it's almost impossible to have an unbiased sample and there are no randomized studies to support this claim. A more plausible estimate is about 1 to 3 per cent or even less. Another example is Gordon Gallup's "sperm displacement theory", that states that the shape of the human penis has evolved in order to remove the sperm of other men from a woman's vagina during intercourse. This might even be true to some extent, but it's just a hypothesis based on no real evidence (Gallup's study was conducted using fake penises, fake vaginas and fake sperm). Yet another example is the claim that the female orgasm is engineered by the woman's body in order to suit her reproductive strategy: if her body "thinks" it's better not to cum, there's nothing a man can do. Incidentally, this gives a nice excuse to those men who can't make their partner orgasm: it's not your fault, guys, it's her body's choice, there's nothing you can do. This is probably one of the reasons why the book is so popular in the manosphere. Needless to say, there's absolutely no evidence supporting Baker's claim. In fact, trying to find information on Google about this theory, the only source is Baker himself. In reality, scientists don't know why female orgasm evolved. It might or it might not be related to fertility. Be that as it may, I found this study in which no correlation between female orgasm and fertility was discovered. Obviously a single study never proves anything, but it's interesting to see how easy it is to find evidence contradicting Baker's claims.
So, the science behind this book is not very sound at best, but this is not the only issue. If the science is bad, the way Baker talks about rape is worse. He doesn't seem to understand what rape is. For example, one of the scenes describes a man having sex with a drunk woman, and later the same man trying to begin sexual intercourse with her while she's asleep. The word "rape" is never used, even if that's exactly what that is, since a drunk or sleeping woman cannot give consent. Instead, Baker informs us about the man's reproductive success derived from his "strategy". The woman gets pregnant and he passes his genes to his offspring. But it gets worse. In another scene, involving four teenagers, two boys and two girls, we have two instances of "date rape". Except that, according to Baker, it's not so easy to understand what rape is, even if in the scene it is definitely rape. Not according to Baker, though. In fact, he claims that when a woman says "no", she doesn't always mean "no". Sometimes it's just a test, that the man has to pass by showing his superior strength and sexual prowess. In the next scene, he talks about how men can use condoms to enhance their reproductive success, by pretending to put the condom on while actually not doing it properly. That's also a form of rape, but Baker doesn't seem to think so. The way he describes it, he seems to think it's a clever strategy. Finally, he talks about what he considers proper rape, when a stranger (or strangers) forces a woman to have sex, ignoring the fact that the majority of rapists know their victim, since they're usually the partner or a family member. Baker talks about rape simply as a different strategy used by some males as a mean to reproductive success, a strategy with its own advantages and disadvantages, but not different from any other. The way Sperm Wars talks about rape is a perfect example of rape culture.
I can't end this review without mentioning the way he talks about the queer community. According to Baker, bisexuality is just another reproductive strategy, based on gaining sexual experience with both men and women, a lot of them. His "theory", and I'm using the term loosely, is based on the stereotypical view of bisexual people as promiscuous. What about exclusively homosexual people? Why, they obviously are just a byproduct of the "bisexuality genes"!
In conclusion, this book is mainly pseudoscientific nonsense, mixed with ludicrous sex scenes, rape apologia and homophobia. I do not recommend it.
To put it simply, this book is bad. It's bad "erotica" mixed with a lot of pseudoscience and wild speculation. Sperm Wars consists in a series of fictional scenes (although based on real life experiences and events, according to Baker) involving sexual encounters, mostly focusing on infidelity and promiscuity. Each scene is followed by an alleged "scientific explanation" of the behaviour and/or physiological responses of the characters and their bodies, in which Baker tries to make us believe that most if not all aspects of human sexuality are determined by our bodies' unconscious pursuit of reproductive success. That human sexual behaviour has been shaped by evolution to give us more chances of reproduction is probably true to some extent, but the deterministic approach used by Baker is very problematic, for at least two reasons. First, we have a conscious mind that plays a very important role in our decisions and behaviour; second, sexuality in particular is considerably influenced by culture.
This is not, however, the main scientific problem with this book. The major issue is that the fundamental assumption on which it is based is not supported by solid science. Virtually all of its claims are based, directly or indirectly, on the existence of "killer sperm" and sperm competition. According to this hypothesis, only a minority of sperm are there to fertilize an egg (egg-getters), the others' goal is to block and/or kill other males' sperm. Every time a woman's body contains sperm coming from more than one male, a sperm war is going to take place. Alas, this hypothesis might have been interesting, but it's actually false, or at least unsubstantiated. A 1999 study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B found no evidence of killer sperm or other mechanisms of sperm competition in humans. Without that assumption, we are left with a series of sex scenes, most of them plainly boring and some rather ludicrous, and a bunch of pseudoscientific explanations.
But not only the main hypothesis on which Sperm Wars is based is false, throughout the book there are quite a few other claims not supported by solid science. One example is the idea that 10% of children are not actually sired by the man who thinks is their father. The problem is that it's almost impossible to have an unbiased sample and there are no randomized studies to support this claim. A more plausible estimate is about 1 to 3 per cent or even less. Another example is Gordon Gallup's "sperm displacement theory", that states that the shape of the human penis has evolved in order to remove the sperm of other men from a woman's vagina during intercourse. This might even be true to some extent, but it's just a hypothesis based on no real evidence (Gallup's study was conducted using fake penises, fake vaginas and fake sperm). Yet another example is the claim that the female orgasm is engineered by the woman's body in order to suit her reproductive strategy: if her body "thinks" it's better not to cum, there's nothing a man can do. Incidentally, this gives a nice excuse to those men who can't make their partner orgasm: it's not your fault, guys, it's her body's choice, there's nothing you can do. This is probably one of the reasons why the book is so popular in the manosphere. Needless to say, there's absolutely no evidence supporting Baker's claim. In fact, trying to find information on Google about this theory, the only source is Baker himself. In reality, scientists don't know why female orgasm evolved. It might or it might not be related to fertility. Be that as it may, I found this study in which no correlation between female orgasm and fertility was discovered. Obviously a single study never proves anything, but it's interesting to see how easy it is to find evidence contradicting Baker's claims.
So, the science behind this book is not very sound at best, but this is not the only issue. If the science is bad, the way Baker talks about rape is worse. He doesn't seem to understand what rape is. For example, one of the scenes describes a man having sex with a drunk woman, and later the same man trying to begin sexual intercourse with her while she's asleep. The word "rape" is never used, even if that's exactly what that is, since a drunk or sleeping woman cannot give consent. Instead, Baker informs us about the man's reproductive success derived from his "strategy". The woman gets pregnant and he passes his genes to his offspring. But it gets worse. In another scene, involving four teenagers, two boys and two girls, we have two instances of "date rape". Except that, according to Baker, it's not so easy to understand what rape is, even if in the scene it is definitely rape. Not according to Baker, though. In fact, he claims that when a woman says "no", she doesn't always mean "no". Sometimes it's just a test, that the man has to pass by showing his superior strength and sexual prowess. In the next scene, he talks about how men can use condoms to enhance their reproductive success, by pretending to put the condom on while actually not doing it properly. That's also a form of rape, but Baker doesn't seem to think so. The way he describes it, he seems to think it's a clever strategy. Finally, he talks about what he considers proper rape, when a stranger (or strangers) forces a woman to have sex, ignoring the fact that the majority of rapists know their victim, since they're usually the partner or a family member. Baker talks about rape simply as a different strategy used by some males as a mean to reproductive success, a strategy with its own advantages and disadvantages, but not different from any other. The way Sperm Wars talks about rape is a perfect example of rape culture.
I can't end this review without mentioning the way he talks about the queer community. According to Baker, bisexuality is just another reproductive strategy, based on gaining sexual experience with both men and women, a lot of them. His "theory", and I'm using the term loosely, is based on the stereotypical view of bisexual people as promiscuous. What about exclusively homosexual people? Why, they obviously are just a byproduct of the "bisexuality genes"!
In conclusion, this book is mainly pseudoscientific nonsense, mixed with ludicrous sex scenes, rape apologia and homophobia. I do not recommend it.
March 10, 2008
This is the worst pseudo-scientific book I have read since The Naked Ape. It's hard to believe it can be called non-fiction. The copy I was given seems to be a vanity publication. The research seems opinion based and is not scientifically documented at all in the book. There are no references or citations and the fictionalized case studies are nothing more than soft porn. I wasn't surprised to find out that Dr. Baker has been completely discredited by his colleagues in evolutionary biology. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the basis for some of his theories are scientifically founded, but the presentation is ridiculous.
November 4, 2007
It would have been interesting except some basic research indicates that most of the premises upon which this book was written are total crap. Very much of the 'women are evil cows after our vital essence' ideology with some penis envy overtones presented as scientific fact. Totally ridiculous book to have been written in this century.
April 18, 2018
Before I get started: Reading this makes me understand the Red Pillers (and so many MRAs) so much more, which is both good and bad. Good because I can finally see where so much of their utter horse shit actually comes from; bad because I could've been reading something else since I know how absolutely rubbish the people who will take this book as fact are (though, it's been an awesome experience of inside jokes and making fun of garbage science while fact-checking so much only to find out that the entirety of the academic papers for Human Sperm Competition and Sperm Displacement Theory are academic wankathons between Baker, Bellis, Gallup, Goetz, and Shackleford).
The book opens with Baker explaining that he's an expert but that he's also not going to provide the science he clearly did because you can read it somewhere else (like the book of papers he wrote with Bellis! Just kidding, since he also says it costs hundreds of dollars), despite the fact it would be fairly easy for him to include an appendix with notes that highlight which papers he's referencing. He repeats this a dozen times while also throwing in some brilliant, uh, questions that I'm sure every human has definitely considered at least once like:
- How many times did our parents orgasm around the time of our own conceptions?
- Did either of our parents masturbate in the time before insemination or conception?
- Did our mothers orgasm before, at the same time, or after our fathers? Did our mothers even orgasm at all?
- What if they were bisexual OR unfaithful?
So it's nice to see that he helped (and continues to help, since MRAs and their ilk read this 'book' as if it's one of their cult's holy books) push the narrative that bisexuals are inherently promiscuous. (Note: We're actually not any more promiscuous than anyone else, but thanks for playing.)
First things first: This entire book is based on the premise that Killer Sperm are a thing human men produce, except a study in 1999 came out stating that there was no evidence for such a thing in humans. The aforementioned academic wankathon should, honestly, indicate a problem considering the level of rigour in their collective 'scientific methods' (and continual and incredibly frequent references to each other despite the absolute lack of genuine research or evidence, while half-heartedly using other sources occasionally - by the way, one of the 'papers' that Gallup wrote for Sperm Displacement included him and his friends playing with sex toys and cooking jizz).
PS: A ridiculous number of 'scientists' keep claiming that killer sperm is definitely a thing, despite there being no evidence that killer sperm even exists in humans and very little evidence for a lot of non-human animals. Even though this is clearly known, some clinical sexologists keep regurgitating the fact that "40% of male sperm is kamikaze sperm" and that it is made "if the man suspects cheating."
Which... doesn't logically make sense because your brain has to first think 'my partner has cheated on me' and then your body has to alter itself according to your thoughts? And they keep describing it as if it is an event that the body knows subconsciously without the brain's direct input? And that the conscious brain has nothing to do with anything? Something about this reminds me of a very discredited Freud.
It moves on to then explain that 10-15% of children are, you know, actually not their father's biological children. Interestingly, he uses a statistic that supposedly comes from people seeking paternity tests for paternity suits. Obviously, as anyone is aware, this is an entirely random sample and is easily applicable to the general population. Oh wait, it isn't. Why? Because these people are often trying to get out of paying child support or are already involved in a case where they have probable cause to believe the child isn't their own (and hey, even that stat's easy to prove wrong).
One of the funniest things that is repeatedly brought up is this theory that men's sperm adjusts to the women they're sleeping with? As if (straight/cis) men's bodies are so good at doing a ridiculous amount of complex maths and can honestly tell the immediate difference between the vaginas their penises are going into? "Oh, I slept with this vagina last night, I need to top it up with less sperm!" "Oh, I haven't seen this vagina in a week! It has had many chances to have a penis other than me, and thus some other man's sperm, inside of it!" "This isn't my normal vagina! This is a new vagina, and I haven't inseminated it before! Hurry, swap the blockers with the killers and egg-getters!"
A few points of interest that I can't even write a full-paragraph about because Baker's such a moron:
- Claims that the 'scenes' are science-based and based on reality, despite the fact that the only thing they're remotely similar to is a daytime soap opera (Days of Our Lives, As the World Turns, etc) or telenovela.
- Conflation of infidelity with leaving an abusive relationship.
- Assumption that, as soon as a woman leaves an abusive relationship, she moves in with the first bloke that'll 'take her' and 'deal with' her child(ren) until they finally have their own kids (which leads to the next point...)
- Implication that all step-parents (particularly step-fathers) will harm their partner's children from previous relationships.
- Lack of a nuanced conversation of abuse (but an insistence that it's normal because chimpanzees do it, as if we don't have thousands of years of human culture that we've been working through).
- Transphobia (also a rape dream with a trans person that he refers to as a 'tranny', which is a double-problem because he's also implying all women get turned on by rape).
- Constant biphobia and conflation of being bisexual with being promiscuous or a prostitute or both. Seriously.
- A lot of weird references to sex workers.
- Refusal to call rape 'rape'. This also includes calling it a 'reproductive strategy', as if we're the same as birds or other non-human animals (who most certainly and entirely have socialisation, culture, etc). If you remember that asshat US congressman, Todd Akin, it sounds exactly like his position on "legitimate rape."
- Pushed the rape is only by strangers nonsense a lot, despite the fact that rape statistics show it's more often someone the victim knows.
- Loves throwing in 'unnamed studies'. Sometimes he'll give years or other context hints which allow you to find them (after a lot of unnecessary digging because he could have made an appendix).
- Doesn't call a cis man taking off a condom mid-sex (or improperly wearing with intent to deceive) 'rape'. It is. Any person who does this has changed the context and needs to acquire renewed consent.
- He thinks prostitution and potential to rape are genetic. I swear.
- He makes an attempt to discuss China's One Child Policy without actually understanding anything about it (cultural nuance, historical background, impact on society, etc).
- This is probably the most minor nitpick of the entire thing, but he keeps saying "millions of years of human history." Sorry, modern humans do not have millions of years of history. Since he continually just says 'human history', he's making it sound as if we're older than we really are. If he, as an apparent evolutionary biologist, wants to discuss the 'millions of years of history', he honestly needs to explain whether he means everything in the cladogram for Hominini or Homo sapiens/Homo sapiens sapiens.
A list of direct quotes:
- "There is no intrinsic reason why licking a woman's genitals should stimulate her sexually any more than stamping on her foot."
- "In particular, he should avoid placing his penis in his partner's mouth or displaying his ejaculate too soon after being unfaithful."
- "But this could only happen if a woman had two men's penises in her vagina at the same time and both ejaculated simultaneously."
- "In the second round, they benefited most by allowing the men to play musical chairs with their vaginas."
- "Variability is one of the major problems in discussing the female orgasm. Every orgasm is a bit like every other orgasm, a bit like most other orgasms, and a bit like no other orgasm." (I'm pretty sure he just wanted to say 'orgasm' a lot.)
- "Women have even been known to recruit a cat or dog to lick their genitals during masturbation. Even more rarely, a woman may allow a dog or some other animal to have intercourse, again as a form of masturbation." (Btw, for some reason, men are not mentioned as engaging in bestiality despite the fact that at least one study has uncovered that 2.4% of males do so. Compare this to the 0.6% of females who do. And just for the record, this has been known since Alfred Kinsey did studies -- and as later studies were conducted -- into human sexuality, so Baker can kindly fuck off with this nonsense because it wasn't even true when he published.)
- "The woman in Scene 18 got it exactly right when she produced a daughter from her 'accident' while she was still at school, and two sons when she was paired to a wealthy man of high status. Just how she will have achieved this bias is not known." (Because it's not a bias that any human has, if left without options like contraception.)
- "By not having an orgasm during intercourse, therefore, a woman's body is in effect saying: 'Don't change a thing. The situation in your cervix is as good as it can be. Just let him inseminate you and your cervical filter will do the rest.'"
- "As we have noted, helping a woman to climax during foreplay is, on the whole, disadvantageous to the man."
- "While educating him, she was also testing his ability to learn sexual techniques. He was becoming 'quite good', suggesting that any sons and grandsons he might give her would also be at least 'quite good'." (Last I checked, sexual prowess -- being good at having sex -- was not something that could be passed through DNA. PS: If you're having sex with someone and are thinking about how good at sex your children will be, please don't sire any.)
- "She was in pain, both mentally and physically, and at a complete loss as to what to do. Three thoughts kept going through her head: she had been raped; she was no longer a virgin; and her vagina could take a penis after all, even if it hurt." (Excuse me, no. The overwhelming majority of women are not going to be thinking this last thing after getting raped.)
- "The complicating factor is that male persistence in the face of female resistance can be a normal, mutually acceptable facet of courtship and foreplay. So, too, can aggression and a level of physical trauma. We are back to the way that women set men tests as an aid to mate selection — which brings us to the function of rough-and-tumble sex play." (Basically, he's saying that 'no means yes'. Since he's a Red Pill Bible, I'm holding him responsible for the perpetuation of the 'if you persist enough, she'll give in' coercive sex bullshit.)
- "If they dare to suggest that female behaviour may sometimes invite rape, they are accused of violating womankind just as surely as if they had committed the act themselves." (Because suggesting that the victims of rape are responsible for being raped is incredibly shitty, and you are a horrible excuse for a human being if you do this.)
- "We have also discussed why women should do everything possible to avoid being raped. Having been raped, however, a woman may gain, reproductively, by then conceiving." (Because, you know, that baby takes away all the trauma that you've suffered.)
- "Those men in Scene 34 who decided not to rape the young girl did not live to produce more children who would inherit their compassion, whereas one of the men who raped her did produce a child to inherit his lack of compassion." (The men who decided not to rape the young girl did, in fact, rape the mother in the narrative. They are not compassionate; they are still scumbags.)
- "It is by this process of weeding [out] genes that do not enhance reproductive success that evolution has saddled the majority of men with the propensity to behave as rapists in the appropriate situation." (Men are rapists, apparently, because their genes are inferior. What an ass.)
- "As far as rape is concerned, young girls and older women are in a sense victims of their gender's success at unconsciously confusing and deceiving men. Unable to decipher female fertility, the male body has responded evolutionarily by a blanket approach — inseminating whoever and whenever it can." (This is literally not the point of rape, and we already knew this in 1996. Baker is a rape apologist, regardless of how much he claims otherwise.)
- "In Scene 34 the odds will have favoured the soldier in command because he was the first to inseminate both females, but any one of the doomed men could have left a descendant to perpetuate his rapist genes." ('Doomed' because the men in the fictional-but-based-on-history scene are all killed after they rape a woman and her young daughter. The adjectives he uses for rapists he writes express precisely how he views the men who engage in rape: he's actually pretty okay with it.)
- "In effect, as long as a man pursues a reproductive strategy appropriate to the size of his testes and his rate of sperm production, he should on average do just as well as other men with different-sized testes."
- "She had succumbed to the sexually transmitted disease which had become the scourge of their community and which she had probably been harboring on the night she offered herself." ('Their' community sounds like a nice way at hinting that this fictional woman died of AIDS and was queer-coded.)
The book opens with Baker explaining that he's an expert but that he's also not going to provide the science he clearly did because you can read it somewhere else (like the book of papers he wrote with Bellis! Just kidding, since he also says it costs hundreds of dollars), despite the fact it would be fairly easy for him to include an appendix with notes that highlight which papers he's referencing. He repeats this a dozen times while also throwing in some brilliant, uh, questions that I'm sure every human has definitely considered at least once like:
- How many times did our parents orgasm around the time of our own conceptions?
- Did either of our parents masturbate in the time before insemination or conception?
- Did our mothers orgasm before, at the same time, or after our fathers? Did our mothers even orgasm at all?
- What if they were bisexual OR unfaithful?
So it's nice to see that he helped (and continues to help, since MRAs and their ilk read this 'book' as if it's one of their cult's holy books) push the narrative that bisexuals are inherently promiscuous. (Note: We're actually not any more promiscuous than anyone else, but thanks for playing.)
First things first: This entire book is based on the premise that Killer Sperm are a thing human men produce, except a study in 1999 came out stating that there was no evidence for such a thing in humans. The aforementioned academic wankathon should, honestly, indicate a problem considering the level of rigour in their collective 'scientific methods' (and continual and incredibly frequent references to each other despite the absolute lack of genuine research or evidence, while half-heartedly using other sources occasionally - by the way, one of the 'papers' that Gallup wrote for Sperm Displacement included him and his friends playing with sex toys and cooking jizz).
PS: A ridiculous number of 'scientists' keep claiming that killer sperm is definitely a thing, despite there being no evidence that killer sperm even exists in humans and very little evidence for a lot of non-human animals. Even though this is clearly known, some clinical sexologists keep regurgitating the fact that "40% of male sperm is kamikaze sperm" and that it is made "if the man suspects cheating."
Which... doesn't logically make sense because your brain has to first think 'my partner has cheated on me' and then your body has to alter itself according to your thoughts? And they keep describing it as if it is an event that the body knows subconsciously without the brain's direct input? And that the conscious brain has nothing to do with anything? Something about this reminds me of a very discredited Freud.
It moves on to then explain that 10-15% of children are, you know, actually not their father's biological children. Interestingly, he uses a statistic that supposedly comes from people seeking paternity tests for paternity suits. Obviously, as anyone is aware, this is an entirely random sample and is easily applicable to the general population. Oh wait, it isn't. Why? Because these people are often trying to get out of paying child support or are already involved in a case where they have probable cause to believe the child isn't their own (and hey, even that stat's easy to prove wrong).
One of the funniest things that is repeatedly brought up is this theory that men's sperm adjusts to the women they're sleeping with? As if (straight/cis) men's bodies are so good at doing a ridiculous amount of complex maths and can honestly tell the immediate difference between the vaginas their penises are going into? "Oh, I slept with this vagina last night, I need to top it up with less sperm!" "Oh, I haven't seen this vagina in a week! It has had many chances to have a penis other than me, and thus some other man's sperm, inside of it!" "This isn't my normal vagina! This is a new vagina, and I haven't inseminated it before! Hurry, swap the blockers with the killers and egg-getters!"
A few points of interest that I can't even write a full-paragraph about because Baker's such a moron:
- Claims that the 'scenes' are science-based and based on reality, despite the fact that the only thing they're remotely similar to is a daytime soap opera (Days of Our Lives, As the World Turns, etc) or telenovela.
- Conflation of infidelity with leaving an abusive relationship.
- Assumption that, as soon as a woman leaves an abusive relationship, she moves in with the first bloke that'll 'take her' and 'deal with' her child(ren) until they finally have their own kids (which leads to the next point...)
- Implication that all step-parents (particularly step-fathers) will harm their partner's children from previous relationships.
- Lack of a nuanced conversation of abuse (but an insistence that it's normal because chimpanzees do it, as if we don't have thousands of years of human culture that we've been working through).
- Transphobia (also a rape dream with a trans person that he refers to as a 'tranny', which is a double-problem because he's also implying all women get turned on by rape).
- Constant biphobia and conflation of being bisexual with being promiscuous or a prostitute or both. Seriously.
- A lot of weird references to sex workers.
- Refusal to call rape 'rape'. This also includes calling it a 'reproductive strategy', as if we're the same as birds or other non-human animals (who most certainly and entirely have socialisation, culture, etc). If you remember that asshat US congressman, Todd Akin, it sounds exactly like his position on "legitimate rape."
- Pushed the rape is only by strangers nonsense a lot, despite the fact that rape statistics show it's more often someone the victim knows.
- Loves throwing in 'unnamed studies'. Sometimes he'll give years or other context hints which allow you to find them (after a lot of unnecessary digging because he could have made an appendix).
- Doesn't call a cis man taking off a condom mid-sex (or improperly wearing with intent to deceive) 'rape'. It is. Any person who does this has changed the context and needs to acquire renewed consent.
- He thinks prostitution and potential to rape are genetic. I swear.
- He makes an attempt to discuss China's One Child Policy without actually understanding anything about it (cultural nuance, historical background, impact on society, etc).
- This is probably the most minor nitpick of the entire thing, but he keeps saying "millions of years of human history." Sorry, modern humans do not have millions of years of history. Since he continually just says 'human history', he's making it sound as if we're older than we really are. If he, as an apparent evolutionary biologist, wants to discuss the 'millions of years of history', he honestly needs to explain whether he means everything in the cladogram for Hominini or Homo sapiens/Homo sapiens sapiens.
A list of direct quotes:
- "There is no intrinsic reason why licking a woman's genitals should stimulate her sexually any more than stamping on her foot."
- "In particular, he should avoid placing his penis in his partner's mouth or displaying his ejaculate too soon after being unfaithful."
- "But this could only happen if a woman had two men's penises in her vagina at the same time and both ejaculated simultaneously."
- "In the second round, they benefited most by allowing the men to play musical chairs with their vaginas."
- "Variability is one of the major problems in discussing the female orgasm. Every orgasm is a bit like every other orgasm, a bit like most other orgasms, and a bit like no other orgasm." (I'm pretty sure he just wanted to say 'orgasm' a lot.)
- "Women have even been known to recruit a cat or dog to lick their genitals during masturbation. Even more rarely, a woman may allow a dog or some other animal to have intercourse, again as a form of masturbation." (Btw, for some reason, men are not mentioned as engaging in bestiality despite the fact that at least one study has uncovered that 2.4% of males do so. Compare this to the 0.6% of females who do. And just for the record, this has been known since Alfred Kinsey did studies -- and as later studies were conducted -- into human sexuality, so Baker can kindly fuck off with this nonsense because it wasn't even true when he published.)
- "The woman in Scene 18 got it exactly right when she produced a daughter from her 'accident' while she was still at school, and two sons when she was paired to a wealthy man of high status. Just how she will have achieved this bias is not known." (Because it's not a bias that any human has, if left without options like contraception.)
- "By not having an orgasm during intercourse, therefore, a woman's body is in effect saying: 'Don't change a thing. The situation in your cervix is as good as it can be. Just let him inseminate you and your cervical filter will do the rest.'"
- "As we have noted, helping a woman to climax during foreplay is, on the whole, disadvantageous to the man."
- "While educating him, she was also testing his ability to learn sexual techniques. He was becoming 'quite good', suggesting that any sons and grandsons he might give her would also be at least 'quite good'." (Last I checked, sexual prowess -- being good at having sex -- was not something that could be passed through DNA. PS: If you're having sex with someone and are thinking about how good at sex your children will be, please don't sire any.)
- "She was in pain, both mentally and physically, and at a complete loss as to what to do. Three thoughts kept going through her head: she had been raped; she was no longer a virgin; and her vagina could take a penis after all, even if it hurt." (Excuse me, no. The overwhelming majority of women are not going to be thinking this last thing after getting raped.)
- "The complicating factor is that male persistence in the face of female resistance can be a normal, mutually acceptable facet of courtship and foreplay. So, too, can aggression and a level of physical trauma. We are back to the way that women set men tests as an aid to mate selection — which brings us to the function of rough-and-tumble sex play." (Basically, he's saying that 'no means yes'. Since he's a Red Pill Bible, I'm holding him responsible for the perpetuation of the 'if you persist enough, she'll give in' coercive sex bullshit.)
- "If they dare to suggest that female behaviour may sometimes invite rape, they are accused of violating womankind just as surely as if they had committed the act themselves." (Because suggesting that the victims of rape are responsible for being raped is incredibly shitty, and you are a horrible excuse for a human being if you do this.)
- "We have also discussed why women should do everything possible to avoid being raped. Having been raped, however, a woman may gain, reproductively, by then conceiving." (Because, you know, that baby takes away all the trauma that you've suffered.)
- "Those men in Scene 34 who decided not to rape the young girl did not live to produce more children who would inherit their compassion, whereas one of the men who raped her did produce a child to inherit his lack of compassion." (The men who decided not to rape the young girl did, in fact, rape the mother in the narrative. They are not compassionate; they are still scumbags.)
- "It is by this process of weeding [out] genes that do not enhance reproductive success that evolution has saddled the majority of men with the propensity to behave as rapists in the appropriate situation." (Men are rapists, apparently, because their genes are inferior. What an ass.)
- "As far as rape is concerned, young girls and older women are in a sense victims of their gender's success at unconsciously confusing and deceiving men. Unable to decipher female fertility, the male body has responded evolutionarily by a blanket approach — inseminating whoever and whenever it can." (This is literally not the point of rape, and we already knew this in 1996. Baker is a rape apologist, regardless of how much he claims otherwise.)
- "In Scene 34 the odds will have favoured the soldier in command because he was the first to inseminate both females, but any one of the doomed men could have left a descendant to perpetuate his rapist genes." ('Doomed' because the men in the fictional-but-based-on-history scene are all killed after they rape a woman and her young daughter. The adjectives he uses for rapists he writes express precisely how he views the men who engage in rape: he's actually pretty okay with it.)
- "In effect, as long as a man pursues a reproductive strategy appropriate to the size of his testes and his rate of sperm production, he should on average do just as well as other men with different-sized testes."
- "She had succumbed to the sexually transmitted disease which had become the scourge of their community and which she had probably been harboring on the night she offered herself." ('Their' community sounds like a nice way at hinting that this fictional woman died of AIDS and was queer-coded.)
December 31, 2007
Sperm Wars made me realize how evolutionary biology got such a bad rap. Through this book, Robin Baker alternates sexual scenes with explanations of how the physical battle to procreate that happens internally can lead to seemingly irrational, immoral, or simply puzzling behavior, ranging from infidelity, to why the desire of when and how the female has an orgasm changes, to why group rape occurs.
Baker provides information on how sperm ratio differs in different sexual contexts, what role the cervix plays in conception, and other biological mechanisms that occur below the threshold of consciousness. This is the part of the book I found fascinating and what made it a worthwhile read.
However, Baker falls into the trap of reductionist logic which could have been avoided with more rigorous thinking - this I am sure about because I have read Geoffrey Miller's evolutionary psych tome, The Mating Mind, which succeeds in this. If he had just been more careful in explaining to the reader (which he explicitly shapes as the layman in his Preface) which assumptions to avoid making as he presents facts, this could have been a worthwhile publication.
Add to this sin that he bypasses almost all discussion of the female's active role in conception, argues that one of the primary benefits of male bisexuality to the individual is that having multiple male partners of different character types will better prepare him to have multiple female partners of varying temperaments, and his weak chapters on homosexuality, rape, and prostitution...I do not recommend.
One last word: one might argue that since this book was published 11 years ago, when it came on the scene it may have been fresh, exciting, and stimulated real thought. That was my own conjecture as I started reading Sperm Wars, and found nothing in the Introduction to the 2006 Edition (starting on page xix) pertaining to this fact other than a pat on the back. I wish it were deserved.
Baker provides information on how sperm ratio differs in different sexual contexts, what role the cervix plays in conception, and other biological mechanisms that occur below the threshold of consciousness. This is the part of the book I found fascinating and what made it a worthwhile read.
However, Baker falls into the trap of reductionist logic which could have been avoided with more rigorous thinking - this I am sure about because I have read Geoffrey Miller's evolutionary psych tome, The Mating Mind, which succeeds in this. If he had just been more careful in explaining to the reader (which he explicitly shapes as the layman in his Preface) which assumptions to avoid making as he presents facts, this could have been a worthwhile publication.
Add to this sin that he bypasses almost all discussion of the female's active role in conception, argues that one of the primary benefits of male bisexuality to the individual is that having multiple male partners of different character types will better prepare him to have multiple female partners of varying temperaments, and his weak chapters on homosexuality, rape, and prostitution...I do not recommend.
One last word: one might argue that since this book was published 11 years ago, when it came on the scene it may have been fresh, exciting, and stimulated real thought. That was my own conjecture as I started reading Sperm Wars, and found nothing in the Introduction to the 2006 Edition (starting on page xix) pertaining to this fact other than a pat on the back. I wish it were deserved.
June 14, 2014
If one reads this book with an uncritical mind, you will be apt to find it very interesting, with many conclusions that make sense.
Yet it must be noted that this book lacks references, and anecdotal conjectures (for the evidence, read my other science-heavy publication!) aren't quite the same as scientific hypotheses backed by evidence.
A simple search disproves one of the more interesting claims (sperm specialisation) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/197/1/..., so there.
Baker's main thread seems to be the body has plans the mind knows not of, which manifested in various sexual behaviours.
Best read with an open, but skeptical mind. Please please please do not regurgitate his findings without reading up more on your own first, that is how ignorance spreads.
Yet it must be noted that this book lacks references, and anecdotal conjectures (for the evidence, read my other science-heavy publication!) aren't quite the same as scientific hypotheses backed by evidence.
A simple search disproves one of the more interesting claims (sperm specialisation) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/197/1/..., so there.
Baker's main thread seems to be the body has plans the mind knows not of, which manifested in various sexual behaviours.
Best read with an open, but skeptical mind. Please please please do not regurgitate his findings without reading up more on your own first, that is how ignorance spreads.
May 24, 2011
This is one of the most fascinating books I've read in the last few years.
In retrospect I am really amused at some of the reviews for this book on this site and elsewhere from women who are, for lack of a more adequate term, butthurt over the contents of the book. Sure, if taken from a certain misandrous point of view the stories written by the author can be seen to be very damning towards women. The trick is that these women (and some self-hating men) seem to be stuck in a (probably religious) mindset wherein the ONLY form procreation should take is consensual sex with the lights off in the missionary position with one's partner in marriage. This is ridiculous and totally ignores the truth of human nature. Jerry Springer's show and the USA's extremely high divorce rate should each be enough to convince any layman that this book contains a LOT of truth. Humans like to have sex. Humans quite often like to have sex with new people. This book explains why. It also explains why some people don't. It's not a one-size-fits-all book and never claims to be. Please go into it with your baggage left at the door.
I'd just come off The Myth of Monogamy when I picked this book up. While the former was great at explaining animal promiscuity in general (humans included) I found it was lacking, by design, a lot of the more human perspective that would have made it a great window into how we work the way we work. Sperm Wars acts as the perfect complement by taking the groundwork laid in Myth of Monogamy and making it fit the human experience.
I loved the way the author described the scenes in detail, but offered enough restraint (by way of his wife, apparently) that it didn't become a sordid read at any point. The summaries and explanations after each story were nearly all perfectly executed and were always fascinating.
All in all, this book actually helped me understand a great deal of why I work the way I work and with that has come a certain level of peace in my mind. I'm going to continue following this subject with great interest. Highly recommended to literally anyone, because there are absolutely zero humans in this world that are untouched by sex. Pick it up and read with an open mind.
In retrospect I am really amused at some of the reviews for this book on this site and elsewhere from women who are, for lack of a more adequate term, butthurt over the contents of the book. Sure, if taken from a certain misandrous point of view the stories written by the author can be seen to be very damning towards women. The trick is that these women (and some self-hating men) seem to be stuck in a (probably religious) mindset wherein the ONLY form procreation should take is consensual sex with the lights off in the missionary position with one's partner in marriage. This is ridiculous and totally ignores the truth of human nature. Jerry Springer's show and the USA's extremely high divorce rate should each be enough to convince any layman that this book contains a LOT of truth. Humans like to have sex. Humans quite often like to have sex with new people. This book explains why. It also explains why some people don't. It's not a one-size-fits-all book and never claims to be. Please go into it with your baggage left at the door.
I'd just come off The Myth of Monogamy when I picked this book up. While the former was great at explaining animal promiscuity in general (humans included) I found it was lacking, by design, a lot of the more human perspective that would have made it a great window into how we work the way we work. Sperm Wars acts as the perfect complement by taking the groundwork laid in Myth of Monogamy and making it fit the human experience.
I loved the way the author described the scenes in detail, but offered enough restraint (by way of his wife, apparently) that it didn't become a sordid read at any point. The summaries and explanations after each story were nearly all perfectly executed and were always fascinating.
All in all, this book actually helped me understand a great deal of why I work the way I work and with that has come a certain level of peace in my mind. I'm going to continue following this subject with great interest. Highly recommended to literally anyone, because there are absolutely zero humans in this world that are untouched by sex. Pick it up and read with an open mind.
Read
March 28, 2016I was "cautiously" enjoying the first quarter of the book when I peeped in reviews here. The one about the lack of proper references stung me. I wrote several academic peer-reviewed papers and I absolutely cherish this tradition. Thus upon reading the review I couldn't continue just flowing with the author.
Here and there I started noticing passages and claims for which I'd rather see some sources and quotes of some serious studies behind these, now appearing spurious, claims. Since he kept on showering me with one sensational idea or conclusion after another I grew annoyed and he lost my trust. I gave up the book. You can't treat such a serious matter without some trustworthy sources and stats to lean upon. Otherwise it's just at best your own very private point of view.
Here and there I started noticing passages and claims for which I'd rather see some sources and quotes of some serious studies behind these, now appearing spurious, claims. Since he kept on showering me with one sensational idea or conclusion after another I grew annoyed and he lost my trust. I gave up the book. You can't treat such a serious matter without some trustworthy sources and stats to lean upon. Otherwise it's just at best your own very private point of view.
November 15, 2007
Absolutely fascinating. I learned so much I don't know where to begin. Did you know that 99% of sperm's primary function is to do battle with other mens' sperm inside the woman, and that only 1% is capable of fertilization? The woman's orgasm is her way of helping the sperm of the man she prefers. 10% of children's real dad isn't the man who thinks he's the father. Just an amazing scientific work, well written, funny, and informative.
January 11, 2013
I don't usually enjoy books in the field of science, but this one was an exception, even though at times it was could be rather provocative and distasteful. But wow, a lot is going on 'down there,' and it has a greater impact on our behavior than we would like to think. It also provides reasonable explanations for seemingly strange behaviors (sexual and otherwise). The book is presented in a series of 'scenes' which serve to build upon one another in order to introduce more complicated concepts. It certainly is a great deal better than poring over dry, scientific studies. The only real drawback of the book is that it could be rather redundant at times, rehashing the same concept over and over again in successive scenes.
June 19, 2025
cuck p*rn disguised as an evolutionary psychology book. well written. very reductive. very pseudoscientific. no citations. no disclaimers of oversimplification or anything, just complete conviction that at least one of all of our grandparents was conceived via "sperm wars" (attempted cuckoldry). overall a fun read if you don't take it too seriously.
March 24, 2010
Here's an explanation of the hangover after the free lovin' 60's, and where you got that red hair!
So far it seems a bit gratuitous, just partly credible & somewhat unfair to women. Would be a weak echo of the selfish gene, except that SW anticipates that book by decades. On the plus side, huge points for boldly, (if somewhat clumsily) exploring a new genre space, including titillating and episodes which behavior he then ties into the sperm wars.
------------------------------------------------------
Below, the very crude beginnings of my thoughts: not recommended reading as of yet.
The metaphor of battle, complete with armies, strategy ambushes, and of course, maneuvers (!) is rife throughout the book. Baker attributes all the behavior to one's body, a consequence of genetics. There's an aspect of hapless rider on the willful hormonal horse that's going to go where it wants: sperm races and sperm wrestling, and sperm sieges, dalliances with the pool boy and orgies and careful calculation of the optimal load for "topping off" the ducts. Simultaneously a lot of evolved behavior and yet a lot of calculation, dare one say thinking, to determine the course. Partly I think he goes too far in attributing thoughtfulness to instinctual behaviors, what we are is just animals doin' what they do on the discovery channel.
And yet, one's "body" cannot be said to see, to count the men, to plan the number of sperm to be launched. The woman's body that's "deciding" to have a preliminary orgasm to stiffen up defensive filter is not so well informed of her spouse's income prospects as all that. The conscious person in contrast is very well informed, but would often deny the strategms in play or may even be in direct opposition to the goals of the sperm war, as in the case of selecting contraception. I'd like to suggest a triumvirate of the plumbing, meaning the body and it's motivating hormones, the conscious person in your head, and the subconscious, processing subliminally, equipped with all the information but not in direct and open exchange with YOU.
I have feel myself to be a very conscious person, analytical of my behavior. Recently, I hear of others' degree of consciousness, observe the way people act without knowing why, learn of the subconscious and its participation in our lives. To what degree are we conscious of why we act?
Are dogs conscious? How about rats? Were people always conscious? Are people today conscious to different degrees? Is the dividing line between conscious and subconscious behavior a clear one of a matter of degree, a gradual shading?
I am headed for the subconscious because I cannot find another place to embed this very specific, reactive, scenario-dependent behavior (which must perforce be connected somehow with mind, and perception) which is nonetheless at odds with conscious desires. This is where we lose our free will, for, if we act at odds with our overt goals and decisions, how are we (the conscious person) not the hapless rider? Are we talking of id and ego here? (I have no formal Freudian schooling, so dunno.) At some point I felt this to be a compelling idea, that (a) the "body" (as the surrogate for the conniving genes) could not exhibit such complex reasoning, while (b) the person would not (would even deny it!), so (c) where the heck is this behavior coming from: we MUST be "just monkeys" if we cannot control ourselves. [sigh!:] ...this all seemed so interesting before.
So far it seems a bit gratuitous, just partly credible & somewhat unfair to women. Would be a weak echo of the selfish gene, except that SW anticipates that book by decades. On the plus side, huge points for boldly, (if somewhat clumsily) exploring a new genre space, including titillating and episodes which behavior he then ties into the sperm wars.
------------------------------------------------------
Below, the very crude beginnings of my thoughts: not recommended reading as of yet.
The metaphor of battle, complete with armies, strategy ambushes, and of course, maneuvers (!) is rife throughout the book. Baker attributes all the behavior to one's body, a consequence of genetics. There's an aspect of hapless rider on the willful hormonal horse that's going to go where it wants: sperm races and sperm wrestling, and sperm sieges, dalliances with the pool boy and orgies and careful calculation of the optimal load for "topping off" the ducts. Simultaneously a lot of evolved behavior and yet a lot of calculation, dare one say thinking, to determine the course. Partly I think he goes too far in attributing thoughtfulness to instinctual behaviors, what we are is just animals doin' what they do on the discovery channel.
And yet, one's "body" cannot be said to see, to count the men, to plan the number of sperm to be launched. The woman's body that's "deciding" to have a preliminary orgasm to stiffen up defensive filter is not so well informed of her spouse's income prospects as all that. The conscious person in contrast is very well informed, but would often deny the strategms in play or may even be in direct opposition to the goals of the sperm war, as in the case of selecting contraception. I'd like to suggest a triumvirate of the plumbing, meaning the body and it's motivating hormones, the conscious person in your head, and the subconscious, processing subliminally, equipped with all the information but not in direct and open exchange with YOU.
I have feel myself to be a very conscious person, analytical of my behavior. Recently, I hear of others' degree of consciousness, observe the way people act without knowing why, learn of the subconscious and its participation in our lives. To what degree are we conscious of why we act?
Are dogs conscious? How about rats? Were people always conscious? Are people today conscious to different degrees? Is the dividing line between conscious and subconscious behavior a clear one of a matter of degree, a gradual shading?
I am headed for the subconscious because I cannot find another place to embed this very specific, reactive, scenario-dependent behavior (which must perforce be connected somehow with mind, and perception) which is nonetheless at odds with conscious desires. This is where we lose our free will, for, if we act at odds with our overt goals and decisions, how are we (the conscious person) not the hapless rider? Are we talking of id and ego here? (I have no formal Freudian schooling, so dunno.) At some point I felt this to be a compelling idea, that (a) the "body" (as the surrogate for the conniving genes) could not exhibit such complex reasoning, while (b) the person would not (would even deny it!), so (c) where the heck is this behavior coming from: we MUST be "just monkeys" if we cannot control ourselves. [sigh!:] ...this all seemed so interesting before.
February 18, 2015
Baker did his best to show various "reproductive strategies" without moralizing sex. Evolution of "whatever works," human behavior as strategies leaning towards better reproductive success. I love this kind of thinking.
This is a great introductory book to evolutionary psychology. Just be careful not to get too attached to the conclusions. Baker takes some observable facts (vagina's PH is hostile to sperm, and vaginal mucus is a sponge barrier blocking the sperm from the egg) and explains his fact with evolution. For example, "women are biologically at war with men because men want many children even if half will die, whereas women prefer fewer well-cared for children. Therefore, women try to avoid pregnancy, rigging the game inside their bodies so that only a tiny fraction of copulations end in conception." Years later we have found that when a woman is most fertile - from to 3 days or so before and during ovulation- the female reproductive system is extremely hospitable to sperm, creating a super highway of slippery comfort for the sperm, storing the lucky group of winners in a special cozy area, even feeding the sperm sugar (I imagine figs and dates) until miss egg is ready to appear and the sperm is needed. We can explain this too with evo psych: "Of course the female is receptive to sperm when she's fertile. Fertile females who are not receptive to sperm will have fewer babies!"
A few other ideas turned out to be probably wrong, like the upsuck theory saying that female orgasms increase the likelihood of conception because orgasm contractions suck up sperm (probably untrue), or the idea that men masturbate to keep their sperm fresh and fertile when in fact older sperm is more mature and fertile.
Evolutionary Psychology can make it look like all human behavior is somehow adaptive. Doesn't have to be. Not everything is here because it helps us. Some stuff we do (or are) because of chance, drift, behaviors and attributes that have equal pluses and minuses and so cancel themselves out.
Still, when you apply the "reproductive success" model to human behavior, evo-psych wins every time. It's a really seductive model, and I don't know a better one. Plus it was a very fun read.
It would be interesting to read an epigenetics version of this book: what happens in the brain when environmental conditions trigger the switching on or the switching off of various behavior-strategy genes.. and the degree to which we can manipulate the expressions of our genes with our behavior ..
This is a great introductory book to evolutionary psychology. Just be careful not to get too attached to the conclusions. Baker takes some observable facts (vagina's PH is hostile to sperm, and vaginal mucus is a sponge barrier blocking the sperm from the egg) and explains his fact with evolution. For example, "women are biologically at war with men because men want many children even if half will die, whereas women prefer fewer well-cared for children. Therefore, women try to avoid pregnancy, rigging the game inside their bodies so that only a tiny fraction of copulations end in conception." Years later we have found that when a woman is most fertile - from to 3 days or so before and during ovulation- the female reproductive system is extremely hospitable to sperm, creating a super highway of slippery comfort for the sperm, storing the lucky group of winners in a special cozy area, even feeding the sperm sugar (I imagine figs and dates) until miss egg is ready to appear and the sperm is needed. We can explain this too with evo psych: "Of course the female is receptive to sperm when she's fertile. Fertile females who are not receptive to sperm will have fewer babies!"
A few other ideas turned out to be probably wrong, like the upsuck theory saying that female orgasms increase the likelihood of conception because orgasm contractions suck up sperm (probably untrue), or the idea that men masturbate to keep their sperm fresh and fertile when in fact older sperm is more mature and fertile.
Evolutionary Psychology can make it look like all human behavior is somehow adaptive. Doesn't have to be. Not everything is here because it helps us. Some stuff we do (or are) because of chance, drift, behaviors and attributes that have equal pluses and minuses and so cancel themselves out.
Still, when you apply the "reproductive success" model to human behavior, evo-psych wins every time. It's a really seductive model, and I don't know a better one. Plus it was a very fun read.
It would be interesting to read an epigenetics version of this book: what happens in the brain when environmental conditions trigger the switching on or the switching off of various behavior-strategy genes.. and the degree to which we can manipulate the expressions of our genes with our behavior ..
December 16, 2019
Under what behaviors and reproductive strategies did humans evolve to develop sperm? If you'd like a scientific answer to that question then this book will disappoint you. It's a collection of made up erotic stories accompanied by "scientific" explanations of why each story seems plausible (to the author). There aren't many references to actual scientific studies and the ones cited have statistically insignificant samples.
At its very best, this book is a collection of erotic stories based on what seem to be mostly logical ideas. Some are entertaining. That is definitely not the author's intention though. I am pretty curious if the author does have more scientific evidence that he held back because he makes up these stories with the utmost conviction.
An example of one made up scene starts with a married couple who are trying to conceive but are having problems. The woman encounters an old fling and against her best judgement has an affair with him. After realizing the mistake, she has sex with her husband to "make it right" and ends up conceiving. The inferred science here is that humans have been genetically programmed for certain types of reproductive strategies. The winning strategies have resulted in successful offspring for thousands of generations and this explains why we share similar behaviors in society today. The author has some interesting ideas especially on the difference in strategies between men and women and how those strategies often compete with each other. It would all be more believable if it were based on solid facts rather than anecdotal evidence.
At its very best, this book is a collection of erotic stories based on what seem to be mostly logical ideas. Some are entertaining. That is definitely not the author's intention though. I am pretty curious if the author does have more scientific evidence that he held back because he makes up these stories with the utmost conviction.
An example of one made up scene starts with a married couple who are trying to conceive but are having problems. The woman encounters an old fling and against her best judgement has an affair with him. After realizing the mistake, she has sex with her husband to "make it right" and ends up conceiving. The inferred science here is that humans have been genetically programmed for certain types of reproductive strategies. The winning strategies have resulted in successful offspring for thousands of generations and this explains why we share similar behaviors in society today. The author has some interesting ideas especially on the difference in strategies between men and women and how those strategies often compete with each other. It would all be more believable if it were based on solid facts rather than anecdotal evidence.
February 28, 2014
I promise I'm almost done with these books. Even my review may be offensive to some, so be warned.
This is another of the evolution books I brought out to research my paper.
Baker has best answer I've found to why we masturbate. He argues that self-stimulation is a biological imperative with a very particular design. It helps us regulate our semen quality to maximize both our chances of procreation as well as our chances of outcompeting a rival's ejaculate if our mate has been unfaithful. The way it works is if my sperm is held too long, it begins to age and mutate. It loses its ability to swim and penetrate an egg. If it is too young, say a day or less, it has not had enough time to develop. It is consequently not mature enough to have the best chance of fulfilling its design. There is a goldilocks zone at about 3 days where its perfect. If we go longer than this without ejaculating, our bodies trigger a strong impulse to get rid of that geriatric ejaculate.
This was a nifty book. Everything about our reproductive systems is super fine-tuned for procreation, particularly as it pertains to advancing our own seed. If you put the ejaculate of two different men together and look at them under a microscope, you see all out war. Even the individual sperm have different functions. Some are designed like blockers in football. Its their job to run interference for the runners, who's only job is to make like crazy for the woman's egg. There are also spear-shaped sperm who seek and destroy enemy sperm. Really cool stuff.
This is another of the evolution books I brought out to research my paper.
Baker has best answer I've found to why we masturbate. He argues that self-stimulation is a biological imperative with a very particular design. It helps us regulate our semen quality to maximize both our chances of procreation as well as our chances of outcompeting a rival's ejaculate if our mate has been unfaithful. The way it works is if my sperm is held too long, it begins to age and mutate. It loses its ability to swim and penetrate an egg. If it is too young, say a day or less, it has not had enough time to develop. It is consequently not mature enough to have the best chance of fulfilling its design. There is a goldilocks zone at about 3 days where its perfect. If we go longer than this without ejaculating, our bodies trigger a strong impulse to get rid of that geriatric ejaculate.
This was a nifty book. Everything about our reproductive systems is super fine-tuned for procreation, particularly as it pertains to advancing our own seed. If you put the ejaculate of two different men together and look at them under a microscope, you see all out war. Even the individual sperm have different functions. Some are designed like blockers in football. Its their job to run interference for the runners, who's only job is to make like crazy for the woman's egg. There are also spear-shaped sperm who seek and destroy enemy sperm. Really cool stuff.
September 14, 2022
There is a hectic warfare going on in a female representative system that forced sperm throughout time to specialise into the egg-getters which account onlt for 1% of the "tadpoles" of the semen load, the blockers and the killers. This is, in simplistic way, what I can retain from reading this book which really interested me to try to understand why men and women, though mostly regarded as monogamous, showcase behavior that defy understanding unless you came to know the whole story. I daresay this book does it pretty well. It sheds light on a given principle and then after the chapter is over, it tells a fictitious story that we might have heard in a movie or a real story from the papers......
the book discusses how sperm from different inseminators try to compete to fertilize the egg. while women adopt different strategies to choose who is to get a win by controlling when the intercourse occur, with whom, the overflow and so forth.
Of course the book rely heavily on an evolutionary perspective and submit results of studies, but still, how much of these findings will be valid after we moved from the state of nature into the state of culture?.... how much of that would stay intact from one culture to another?
the book discusses how sperm from different inseminators try to compete to fertilize the egg. while women adopt different strategies to choose who is to get a win by controlling when the intercourse occur, with whom, the overflow and so forth.
Of course the book rely heavily on an evolutionary perspective and submit results of studies, but still, how much of these findings will be valid after we moved from the state of nature into the state of culture?.... how much of that would stay intact from one culture to another?
December 13, 2023
If you don't think that sperm competition is a thing, here's an entry from Anais Nin's diary from the mid 30s. Anecdotal, yes, but there's no way Nin'd heard of "human sperm competition" in the 1930s.
"What I call making a heaven for myself is making a harmony. I am always trying to compose a heaven, picking the best moments out of all relationships—like finding Henry starving, Hugh eager for Sunday, Gonzalo thirsty! I, ready to cry for mercy, have all the intensity I wanted. Spending three-quarters of my life in bed. Glad when I am taken only once in a day. Trying to avoid lying with Henry and Gonzalo the same day but sometimes it happens and their sperm mingles in my womb.
I know only one recipe for happiness: Take the sperm of three different men (as different as possible!), let it mix in your womb. If the transfusion can take place the same day the alchemy will produce perfection."
Also, read Sex at Dawn and everything on Wikipedia about sperm competition and human sperm competition. Also, remember you are an animal and the rules of evolution apply to you, like it or not.
Also, if you think this is "soft-core pron," then you're a tool who shouldn't be reading frank discussions about human sexuality in the first place.
"What I call making a heaven for myself is making a harmony. I am always trying to compose a heaven, picking the best moments out of all relationships—like finding Henry starving, Hugh eager for Sunday, Gonzalo thirsty! I, ready to cry for mercy, have all the intensity I wanted. Spending three-quarters of my life in bed. Glad when I am taken only once in a day. Trying to avoid lying with Henry and Gonzalo the same day but sometimes it happens and their sperm mingles in my womb.
I know only one recipe for happiness: Take the sperm of three different men (as different as possible!), let it mix in your womb. If the transfusion can take place the same day the alchemy will produce perfection."
Also, read Sex at Dawn and everything on Wikipedia about sperm competition and human sperm competition. Also, remember you are an animal and the rules of evolution apply to you, like it or not.
Also, if you think this is "soft-core pron," then you're a tool who shouldn't be reading frank discussions about human sexuality in the first place.
October 11, 2011
SPERM WARS
This was a disturbing book that took a while for me to get through. And I'm not sure why this is the case because (in my opinion) the book is a lot harder on women than on men. THE MORAL ANIMAL in contrast is a book which also derives from similar evolutionary pyschology principles and seems to be fairly hard on men.
Everyone should read this book and yet ...I'm not exactly sure why? Maybe because much of the information that exists between these pages has the ring of truth to it and I'd like to get as many different takes on this work as possible.
This is not a book that you can safely bring up in a group at parties. I tried that. It didn't work. People will look at you and think that you're weird. It's kind of like secret information that most people aren't supposed to know. And this is what makes it so cool. That is, if you can bring yourself to finish it because it is cynical at times.
This was a disturbing book that took a while for me to get through. And I'm not sure why this is the case because (in my opinion) the book is a lot harder on women than on men. THE MORAL ANIMAL in contrast is a book which also derives from similar evolutionary pyschology principles and seems to be fairly hard on men.
Everyone should read this book and yet ...I'm not exactly sure why? Maybe because much of the information that exists between these pages has the ring of truth to it and I'd like to get as many different takes on this work as possible.
This is not a book that you can safely bring up in a group at parties. I tried that. It didn't work. People will look at you and think that you're weird. It's kind of like secret information that most people aren't supposed to know. And this is what makes it so cool. That is, if you can bring yourself to finish it because it is cynical at times.
March 9, 2015
This book has NO REFERENCES. None. It has controversial theories and sexual vignettes (albeit some interesting ones) that root our sexual instincts and relationship behaviors in purely biological terms. That isn't a novel approach: what is novel is the purported contrivances the female body has evolved to collect sperm; his perspective on homosexuality; and his contention that female bodies are constantly trying to foment sperm wars within themselves. It's all highly cerebral and not very scientific.
The best science is studied attempts to extrapolate theory from empirical evidence while addressing competing theories on the topic at hand and using the evidence to substantiate the explanatory power of the theory that explains it all logically.
This book has none of that. Perhaps Baker is a fantastic scientists and a brilliant researcher/theorist, but those qualities are not displayed in this particular work.
The best science is studied attempts to extrapolate theory from empirical evidence while addressing competing theories on the topic at hand and using the evidence to substantiate the explanatory power of the theory that explains it all logically.
This book has none of that. Perhaps Baker is a fantastic scientists and a brilliant researcher/theorist, but those qualities are not displayed in this particular work.
December 27, 2016
After having heard about this one from various sources it has finally piqued my curiosity and I became engrossed into this brilliant book. Sperm Wars is a revolutionary and controversial thesis about sex that turned ancient biological assumptions on their head. Evolution has programmed men to conquer and monopolize women while women, without ever knowing they are doing it, seek the best genetic input from potential sexual partners. The fascinating description of what happens to the hordes of sperm inside a vagina is worth the read alone. This thought-provoking book reminds us that while we are rather developed in our social worlds, there is still plenty of mysterious laws of nature that exist inside our bodies.
March 28, 2009
Not really sure what the big deal is. There isn't anything here that isn't in any standard textbook on human sexuality (or at least nothing substantiated). I have trouble thinking of this as a 'science book'; not one footnote, no bibliography, only a back cover allusion to the author's many publications during a 16 year career as a university lecturer.
June 24, 2017
Good science book examining how evolution has shaped male and female humans into preserving good genes across generations. Most fascinating to me is knowing the complex machinery that is the female body and how it hides, obscures and deceives males and females alike, all with the main aim, eventually, of passing on the best genes to future generations.
July 21, 2007
Very Interesting. My only complaint that it gets hard to read the case studies as the book goes on, since they refer to previous cases by number only, and you have to remember that Case 34 was the one with the orgy (and so forth)
October 3, 2007
What DIDN'T I learn from this book?! If you want to find out why your body and your brain are often at odds, read read read this book.
August 22, 2013
High handed, biased, out of date; I forgot what the 90s were like until I read the line, "Most readers of this book will be exclusively heterosexual." p 282
Read
July 19, 2014awesome book! Revolutionary thoughts. It will change your life and your marriage!
April 5, 2019
Robin Baker does a fantastic job of explaining how our behaviour and choices are often subconsciusly influenced by our body’s desire to achieve reproductive success, even if consciously we justify them in a completely different way!
He achieves this by crafting engaging short stories or scenes as he calls them, where he presents different couples and their life choices, and does an analysis of their behaviour from a biological and reproductive standpoint.
Among other things he explains how infidelity, masturbation, prostitution, or bisexuality can affect our reproductive success and increase the chances of passing on our genes to future generations.
One thing I thoroughly enjoyed throughout the book were the parallels drawn with other species from the animal kingdom, proving that a lot of our sexual habbits and desires are actually a product of evolution, each serving a specific purpose.
A truly fascinating book, which will undoubtedly change the way you view human relationships and sexuality. Definately worth the read!
He achieves this by crafting engaging short stories or scenes as he calls them, where he presents different couples and their life choices, and does an analysis of their behaviour from a biological and reproductive standpoint.
Among other things he explains how infidelity, masturbation, prostitution, or bisexuality can affect our reproductive success and increase the chances of passing on our genes to future generations.
One thing I thoroughly enjoyed throughout the book were the parallels drawn with other species from the animal kingdom, proving that a lot of our sexual habbits and desires are actually a product of evolution, each serving a specific purpose.
A truly fascinating book, which will undoubtedly change the way you view human relationships and sexuality. Definately worth the read!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 212 reviews