What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: And Other Reflections on Being Human
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will” really exist? And why is the penis shaped like that anyway?
In Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?, the research psychologist and award-winning columnist Jesse Bering features more than thirty of his most popular essays from Scientific American and Slate, as well as two new pieces, that take readers on a bold and captivating journey through some of the most taboo issues related to evolution and human behavior. Exploring the history of cannibalism, the neurology of people who are sexually attracted to animals, the evolution of human body fluids, the science of homosexuality, and serious questions about life and death, Bering astutely covers a generous expanse of our kaleidoscope of quirks and origins.
With his characteristic irreverence and trademark cheekiness, Bering leaves no topic unturned or curiosity unexamined, and he does it all with an audaciously original voice. Whether you’re interested in the psychological history behind the many facets of sexual desire or the evolutionary patterns that have dictated our current mystique and phallic physique, Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? is bound to create lively discussion and debate for years to come.
In Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?, the research psychologist and award-winning columnist Jesse Bering features more than thirty of his most popular essays from Scientific American and Slate, as well as two new pieces, that take readers on a bold and captivating journey through some of the most taboo issues related to evolution and human behavior. Exploring the history of cannibalism, the neurology of people who are sexually attracted to animals, the evolution of human body fluids, the science of homosexuality, and serious questions about life and death, Bering astutely covers a generous expanse of our kaleidoscope of quirks and origins.
With his characteristic irreverence and trademark cheekiness, Bering leaves no topic unturned or curiosity unexamined, and he does it all with an audaciously original voice. Whether you’re interested in the psychological history behind the many facets of sexual desire or the evolutionary patterns that have dictated our current mystique and phallic physique, Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? is bound to create lively discussion and debate for years to come.
Audio CD
First published November 1, 2010
118 people are currently reading
2515 people want to read
About the author
Jesse Bering
6 books281 followersJesse Bering is an experimental psychologist and a leading scholar in the cognitive science of religion. He is also an essayist and science writer specializing in evolution and human behavior. His first book, The Belief Instinct (W. W. Norton, 2011), was included in the American Library Association’s Top 25 Books of the Year and voted one of the “11 Best Psychology Books of 2011” by The Atlantic. This was followed by a collection of his Webby-award nominated essays, Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2012), and Perv (2013, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), a taboo-breaking work that received widespread critical acclaim and was named as a New York Times Editor’s Choice. His most recent book was A Very Human Ending (Doubleday, 2018).
Bering’s writings have been translated into many different languages and reviewed in The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and many other outlets. He has also been featured in numerous documentaries and radio programs, including Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, Conan, Chelsea Lately, Q&A (Australia), and NPR’s All Things Considered.
Bering is Director of the Centre for Science Communication at the University of Otago. He lives in Dunedin, New Zealand with his partner, Juan, and their two cheeky border terriers, Hanno and Kora.
Bering’s writings have been translated into many different languages and reviewed in The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and many other outlets. He has also been featured in numerous documentaries and radio programs, including Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, Conan, Chelsea Lately, Q&A (Australia), and NPR’s All Things Considered.
Bering is Director of the Centre for Science Communication at the University of Otago. He lives in Dunedin, New Zealand with his partner, Juan, and their two cheeky border terriers, Hanno and Kora.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 268 reviews
March 1, 2016
There's a book-cafe close to my house. It is owned by an old couple(the woman is 82 and her husband is 76. Yes, he is younger than her. I know this because she told me). It is a fifteen-minute walk, and sometimes I take my kindle and escape to this place for it's unbelievably calm and peaceful environment, in addition to that, it incorporates a heap of non-fiction books, particularly science. When I took a break from what I was reading, I detected this book on the shelf, initially, I believed the title must be 'why is the pencil shaped like that?' however I might've read it as 'penis'. I looked around, there were a couple of good-looking women who were relishing their coffee and seemed to be unaware of the events happening around them because of the book they were reading, therefore, I slowly got up, walked up to the shelf and lingered for quite a while as I was trying to absolutely make sure it was 'penis' and not 'pencil'. Ahoy! I noticed it was indeed 'penis' and not 'pencil'. So I got my hands on it and left the place as quickly as I could.
Now, talking about the book. I went to the book-cafe to return the book, and the conversation with the 82-year-old-woman was
She: "So, what do you think about the book?"
Me: "Good."
She: "Try to express it. Be punctilious. Don't be hesitant."
Me: "All right. It was a fascinating and an informative book. There's a lot to analyze from the book. It shows the writer did a lot of research. I like science books with a smack of humor. So I enjoyed reading this."
She: "True. I think, if people can knock off their fatuous religious views, they can enjoy such books."
Me: "Couldn't agree more."
She: "So, what are you having today?"
Me: "The usual."
She: "Okay."
I went and sat at the place where I always sit and looked up for the meaning of the word punctilious.
Now, talking about the book. I went to the book-cafe to return the book, and the conversation with the 82-year-old-woman was
She: "So, what do you think about the book?"
Me: "Good."
She: "Try to express it. Be punctilious. Don't be hesitant."
Me: "All right. It was a fascinating and an informative book. There's a lot to analyze from the book. It shows the writer did a lot of research. I like science books with a smack of humor. So I enjoyed reading this."
She: "True. I think, if people can knock off their fatuous religious views, they can enjoy such books."
Me: "Couldn't agree more."
She: "So, what are you having today?"
Me: "The usual."
She: "Okay."
I went and sat at the place where I always sit and looked up for the meaning of the word punctilious.
May 5, 2013
I was going to leave this un-reviewed, but since I struggled between giving it a 2-star or 3-star rating...
First...
The Good: Interesting tidbits of science conveyed with a bit of humor, along with some thoughtful ponderings on what it all -- or at least, what some of it -- means. The essays are short, meaning you can easily pick it up for a quicky as time permits, which leads to...
The Bad: This is a collection of previously-published essays. As such, there's a certain lack of narrative flow -- the whole comes across as a series of discreet thoughts bundled together under the guise of *reflections*, without much tying it together. This is especially true as the book progresses: the first sections focus on all things sex-related (as the title might suggest), but the latter portions veer off into Religion, Free Will, and Death.
This, in turn, leads to a bit of repetition on two fronts, namely: Jesse Bering is Gay, and Jesse Bering is an Atheist, and he wants you to Know This. Or at least, that is how I perceive it. If you were to read these essays in their original forms/forums, it would likely be less apparent, but sardined together without much editing, these two identifiers repeatedly hit you over the head. The net effect, for me, is to make the fact that *Jesse Bering is a Gay Atheist* as much the center of attention as the topics he holds forth on. He seems especially keen to point out his godlessness, which leads to...
The Ugly: Snarkiness. I've got nothing against Atheists -- even the non-heterosexual ones ;-). Being a PK, with gay friends and family members, who falls squarely in the midst of the dual-A camp (Atheists and Agnostics) I'm right there, for the most part. But True Unbelief requires the same amount of faith as True Belief, a fact that seems to evade many True Unbelievers, including, apparently, Jesse Bering. And while I appreciate a good mocking, here it seems contrived, as though he repeatedly brings the subject up just so he can make fun of it, even when it has only tangential bearing to the subject at hand.
And so...
This book was a disappointment for me. Given the title, and the fact that one of the back-cover reviewers christened Mr. Bering "the Hunter S. Thompson of science [writing]", I was expecting something at least as funny -- and focused on the naughty bits, if you will -- as Bonk, by Mary Roach, especially since I'm a huge HST fan. Instead, what I got was a disjointed, though still at times funny and thoughtful, glimpse at what keeps Jesse Bering awake at night. Honestly, were it not for *The Ugly*, I'd have given this 3 stars...
August 12, 2012
Okay so plain and simple: the book is AMAZING. Didn't want it to end. The title refers to just one of the 33 essays and I don't think does the book justice because it is in fact a work of intellectual breadth covering an incredible range of material. What I mean is that it's not as superficial as it probably sounds. It's one those books that I think readers will either love or hate (or maybe just completely not get?) because of the author's very unique style, the provocative subject matter and the sometimes really, REALLY uncomfortable points he makes. While I didn't agree with everything he says I found that so much of the fun in reading this book is the fact that you find yourself debating with him throughout, then usually coming to the conclusion after listening to him unpack his argument that, yeah, if you're being honest with yourself you know he's probably actually right. Bering is consistently almost preternaturally logical in his thinking but also weirdly playful and frankly kind of hard to explain. I got the distinct impression that he was teasing the reader just to drag out your headshaking for his own delight. And you enjoy his teasing in the process! I snorted--mind you not just laughed but SNORTED at some of his lines they were so funny. What this book did was make me think about things in totally new ways (actually about things that hadn't even occurred to me to wonder about) and I *love* when a book does that. I first heard about Bering on an NPR show (I think "All Things Considered" maybe?) where he was talking about his first book "The Belief Instinct" which I also read and while totally different (it was about God being a figment of the human mind) it had a similar effect on me. I'm hooked!
December 1, 2012
Wildly uneven book of essays. Some of them were very good and some of them were amusing. A couple rubbed me the wrong way entirely because they were so personal and Bering assumed that his feelings were universal (f'rinstance, polyamory can't ever work for anyone because Bering gets so jealous he throws up). The essays about suicide were especially interesting. Bering's corny jokes were cute at first but wore on me by the end.
September 23, 2020
OK!! Vem ai talvez uma unpopular opinion sobre esse autor.
É o mesmo autor de PERV, que li a uns meses atras. Comecei PERV achando que seria um livro que falava de fetiches, kinks e coisas do tipo. Ate fala, mas pouco. Ele foca mais na sociedade e na culpa catolica e como a igreja e ate a psicologia antigamente caracterizavam tudo como perversão sexual. E nesse contexto ele fala muito sobre homessexualidade.
O autor é um psicologo e pesquisador de sexualidade e psicologia e é um homem gay.
Nesse livro Why is the Penis shaped like that, eu ja comecei a ler sabendo que seria um livro mais cientifico focando em anatomia e sexualidade. E realmente foca mesmo. POREM sinto que ele esta sempre voltando pro mesmo assunto, que é: ser um homem gay.
CLARO que é importante ter autores gays, falando sobre serem gays e sobre sexualidade. POREM!!!!! Você nao sabe que o livro vai focar muito nisso quando começa a ler. Esse é o segundo livro dele que eu leio e eu sinto que o nome, a capa, a descriçao.. TUDO, dá a entender que vai ser um livro focado em sexualidade humana, fatos curiosos sobre anatomia, fetiches, ‘’parafilias’’ e etcs. E ele tem capitulos pontuando essas coisas mas a maioria é sobre homossexualidade. E nem engloba lgbts num todo nao. Ele raramente fala de mulheres que sentem atraçao por mulheres por exemplo. Ele só foca no homem gay.
Me faz pensar no quanto um autor consegue (ou nesse caso, nao consegue) se retirar da narrativa do proprio livro.
Sem falar que ele pega alguns assuntos meio espinhosos relacionados a mulheres e sinto que ele ta sempre meio que ON THE VERGE de abordar tal assunto de forma não muito responsavel.
Meu ponto é: ia adorar ler um livro dele sobre as vivencias de um homem gay, sobre pesquisas focadas na sexualidade de homens gays, sobre estudos sociologicos da sexualidade de homens gays. Mas um livro que seja vendido com essa proposta!! POREM os livros dele parece que vendem um assunto e abordam outro e isso me deixa extremamente frustrada durante a leitura.
É isso, thank you for coming to my ted talk 🤙🏻
É o mesmo autor de PERV, que li a uns meses atras. Comecei PERV achando que seria um livro que falava de fetiches, kinks e coisas do tipo. Ate fala, mas pouco. Ele foca mais na sociedade e na culpa catolica e como a igreja e ate a psicologia antigamente caracterizavam tudo como perversão sexual. E nesse contexto ele fala muito sobre homessexualidade.
O autor é um psicologo e pesquisador de sexualidade e psicologia e é um homem gay.
Nesse livro Why is the Penis shaped like that, eu ja comecei a ler sabendo que seria um livro mais cientifico focando em anatomia e sexualidade. E realmente foca mesmo. POREM sinto que ele esta sempre voltando pro mesmo assunto, que é: ser um homem gay.
CLARO que é importante ter autores gays, falando sobre serem gays e sobre sexualidade. POREM!!!!! Você nao sabe que o livro vai focar muito nisso quando começa a ler. Esse é o segundo livro dele que eu leio e eu sinto que o nome, a capa, a descriçao.. TUDO, dá a entender que vai ser um livro focado em sexualidade humana, fatos curiosos sobre anatomia, fetiches, ‘’parafilias’’ e etcs. E ele tem capitulos pontuando essas coisas mas a maioria é sobre homossexualidade. E nem engloba lgbts num todo nao. Ele raramente fala de mulheres que sentem atraçao por mulheres por exemplo. Ele só foca no homem gay.
Me faz pensar no quanto um autor consegue (ou nesse caso, nao consegue) se retirar da narrativa do proprio livro.
Sem falar que ele pega alguns assuntos meio espinhosos relacionados a mulheres e sinto que ele ta sempre meio que ON THE VERGE de abordar tal assunto de forma não muito responsavel.
Meu ponto é: ia adorar ler um livro dele sobre as vivencias de um homem gay, sobre pesquisas focadas na sexualidade de homens gays, sobre estudos sociologicos da sexualidade de homens gays. Mas um livro que seja vendido com essa proposta!! POREM os livros dele parece que vendem um assunto e abordam outro e isso me deixa extremamente frustrada durante a leitura.
É isso, thank you for coming to my ted talk 🤙🏻
January 3, 2023
مضادات اكتئاب في السائل المنوي!!
.
.
يحتوي السائل المنوي على ملف كيميائي معقد للغاية ، يحتوي على أكثر من خمسين مركبًا مختلفًا (بما في ذلك الهرمونات والناقلات العصبية والإندورفين ومثبطات المناعة) ، لكل منها وظيفة خاصة وتتواجد بتركيزات مختلفة داخل البلازما المنوية. ولعل أكثر هذه المركبات لفتًا للانتباه هو حزمة المواد الكيميائية التي تعزز المزاج في السائل المنوي. هناك شيء جيد في هذه المادة اللزجة. تشمل هذه المواد الكيميائية المزيلة للقلق ، على سبيل المثال لا الحصر ، الكورتيزول (المعروف بزيادة المودة) ، والإسترون (الذي يرفع الحالة المزاجية) ، والبرولاكتين (مضاد طبيعي للاكتئاب) ، والأوكسيتوسين (يرفع الحالة المزاجية أيضًا) ، وهرمون إفراز الثيروتروبين (مضاد آخر للاكتئاب) ، الميلاتونين (عامل يحفز النوم) ، وحتى السيروتونين (ربما يكون الناقل العصبي الأكثر شهرة كمضاد للإكتئاب).
بالنظر إلى هذه المكونات - وهذه مجرد عينة صغيرة من "المواد" التي تغير العقل والموجودة في السائل المنوي البشري - افترض جالوب وبورتش ، جنبًا إلى جنب مع عالم النفس ستيفن بليتك ، بجرأة إلى حد ما أن النساء اللاتي يمارسن الجنس غير المحمي يجب أن يكن أقل اكتئابًا من اللواتي يمارسن الجنس المحمي .
للتحقق مما إذا كان السائل المنوي له تأثيرات مضادة للاكتئاب ، جمع المؤلفون 293 طالبة جامعية من حرم جامعة ولاية نيويورك ، واللاتي وافقن على ملء استبيان حول جوانب مختلفة من حياتهن الجنسية. تم استخدام النشاط الجنسي الحديث بدون استخدام الواقي الذكري كمقياس غير مباشر للبلازما المنوية المنتشرة في جسم المرأة. أكمل كل مشارك أيضًا Beck Depression Inventory ، وهو مقياس سريري شائع الاستخدام لأعراض الاكتئاب.
كانت أهم النتائج التي توصلت إليها هذه الدراسة ، التي نُشرت في أرشيف السلوك الجنسي ، هي: حتى بعد تعديل معدل تكرار الجماع ، أظهرت النساء اللواتي مارسن الجنس ولم يستخدمن الواقي الذكري أبدًا ، أعراض اكتئاب أقل بكثير مما فعلن أولئك اللواتي مارسن الجنس مع استخدام الواقي الذكري "عادةً" أو "دائمًا". الأهم من ذلك ، أن هؤلاء النساء الناشطات جنسيًا ، اللواتي لا يستخدمن الواقي الذكري ، أظهرن أيضًا أعراض اكتئاب أقل من أولئك اللواتي امتنعوا عن ممارسة الجنس تمامًا. بعبارة أخرى ، لا يقتصر الأمر على كون النساء اللواتي يمارسن الجنس أكثر سعادة فحسب ، ولكن يبدو أن السعادة هي نتيجة للسائل المنوي الذي ينبض في أوردة المهبل وينتقل إلى باقي الجسم.
.
Jesse Bering
Why Is The Penis Shaped Like That
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
يحتوي السائل المنوي على ملف كيميائي معقد للغاية ، يحتوي على أكثر من خمسين مركبًا مختلفًا (بما في ذلك الهرمونات والناقلات العصبية والإندورفين ومثبطات المناعة) ، لكل منها وظيفة خاصة وتتواجد بتركيزات مختلفة داخل البلازما المنوية. ولعل أكثر هذه المركبات لفتًا للانتباه هو حزمة المواد الكيميائية التي تعزز المزاج في السائل المنوي. هناك شيء جيد في هذه المادة اللزجة. تشمل هذه المواد الكيميائية المزيلة للقلق ، على سبيل المثال لا الحصر ، الكورتيزول (المعروف بزيادة المودة) ، والإسترون (الذي يرفع الحالة المزاجية) ، والبرولاكتين (مضاد طبيعي للاكتئاب) ، والأوكسيتوسين (يرفع الحالة المزاجية أيضًا) ، وهرمون إفراز الثيروتروبين (مضاد آخر للاكتئاب) ، الميلاتونين (عامل يحفز النوم) ، وحتى السيروتونين (ربما يكون الناقل العصبي الأكثر شهرة كمضاد للإكتئاب).
بالنظر إلى هذه المكونات - وهذه مجرد عينة صغيرة من "المواد" التي تغير العقل والموجودة في السائل المنوي البشري - افترض جالوب وبورتش ، جنبًا إلى جنب مع عالم النفس ستيفن بليتك ، بجرأة إلى حد ما أن النساء اللاتي يمارسن الجنس غير المحمي يجب أن يكن أقل اكتئابًا من اللواتي يمارسن الجنس المحمي .
للتحقق مما إذا كان السائل المنوي له تأثيرات مضادة للاكتئاب ، جمع المؤلفون 293 طالبة جامعية من حرم جامعة ولاية نيويورك ، واللاتي وافقن على ملء استبيان حول جوانب مختلفة من حياتهن الجنسية. تم استخدام النشاط الجنسي الحديث بدون استخدام الواقي الذكري كمقياس غير مباشر للبلازما المنوية المنتشرة في جسم المرأة. أكمل كل مشارك أيضًا Beck Depression Inventory ، وهو مقياس سريري شائع الاستخدام لأعراض الاكتئاب.
كانت أهم النتائج التي توصلت إليها هذه الدراسة ، التي نُشرت في أرشيف السلوك الجنسي ، هي: حتى بعد تعديل معدل تكرار الجماع ، أظهرت النساء اللواتي مارسن الجنس ولم يستخدمن الواقي الذكري أبدًا ، أعراض اكتئاب أقل بكثير مما فعلن أولئك اللواتي مارسن الجنس مع استخدام الواقي الذكري "عادةً" أو "دائمًا". الأهم من ذلك ، أن هؤلاء النساء الناشطات جنسيًا ، اللواتي لا يستخدمن الواقي الذكري ، أظهرن أيضًا أعراض اكتئاب أقل من أولئك اللواتي امتنعوا عن ممارسة الجنس تمامًا. بعبارة أخرى ، لا يقتصر الأمر على كون النساء اللواتي يمارسن الجنس أكثر سعادة فحسب ، ولكن يبدو أن السعادة هي نتيجة للسائل المنوي الذي ينبض في أوردة المهبل وينتقل إلى باقي الجسم.
.
Jesse Bering
Why Is The Penis Shaped Like That
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
July 16, 2012
A few months ago, I noticed myself just looking at good-looking guys (some of whom used to make my heart palpitate a bit) and feeling nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was then that I realized that I must be getting old, since just a decade ago, butterflies in my chest and stomach were a constant whenever I would come face-to-face with a "potential mate" (in the Filipino language there is a word for this: kilig).
And so I reflected on it. Maybe, I theorized, evolution has dictated that female thirty-somethings should have long concluded their "mate-hunting" phase and should instead focus on rearing healthy offspring (who would, in turn, ensure the health of the global population). Stomach butterflies, in this case, are only for those females who have yet to choose "dependable and loyal" mates destined to help them rear those little gene-passers. Okay, plausible answer.
So this is the kind of mind I have (and I will not apologize for it), and the kind of mind I wish to encourage in my future offspring (a questioning, not salacious, mind, MIND YOU). This is also the kind of (nerdy) mind that would be intrigued with Dr. Jesse Bering's Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That: And Other Reflections on Being Human. Needless to say, I enjoyed his essays (and evidence-based theories) immensely.
Now I must admit that there were some topics in the book that made me uncomfortable (I will not enumerate them here lest I be accused of prudery). They still make me uncomfortable now that I have finished the book. Nevertheless, I think Bering was right in saying that "the great thing about good science is that it's amoral and objective and doesn't cater to the court of public opinion." He further pointed out (and rightly so): "Data don't cringe; people do."
Some of the concepts that Bering introduced(I don't know and can't verify at the moment if these are new, by the way), such as "green burial" and "animal laughter," were really thought-provoking (I am now seriously considering of someday having myself buried, not with a non-biodegradable coffin, but with a shroud—and a special acacia tree planted above me). I was also interested in Bering's scientific examination of the suicide phenomenon and his reflections thereafter: "If there is one thing I've learned since those very dark days of my suicidal years, it's that scientific knowledge changes perspective. And perspective changes everything. Everything. And, as I alluded to at the start, always remember: you're going to die soon anyway; even if it's a hundred years from now, that's still a blink of a cosmic eye. In the meantime, live like a scientist—even a controversial one with only a colleague or two in all the world—and treat life as a grand experiment, blood, sweat, tears, and all. Bear in mind that there's no such thing as a failed experiment—only data."
This book is definitely not for the moralists and the faint of heart. But for those who are open to learn about (and subsequently discuss) usually "icky" topics, Dr. Bering's book is one hell of a joyride.
And so I reflected on it. Maybe, I theorized, evolution has dictated that female thirty-somethings should have long concluded their "mate-hunting" phase and should instead focus on rearing healthy offspring (who would, in turn, ensure the health of the global population). Stomach butterflies, in this case, are only for those females who have yet to choose "dependable and loyal" mates destined to help them rear those little gene-passers. Okay, plausible answer.
So this is the kind of mind I have (and I will not apologize for it), and the kind of mind I wish to encourage in my future offspring (a questioning, not salacious, mind, MIND YOU). This is also the kind of (nerdy) mind that would be intrigued with Dr. Jesse Bering's Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That: And Other Reflections on Being Human. Needless to say, I enjoyed his essays (and evidence-based theories) immensely.
Now I must admit that there were some topics in the book that made me uncomfortable (I will not enumerate them here lest I be accused of prudery). They still make me uncomfortable now that I have finished the book. Nevertheless, I think Bering was right in saying that "the great thing about good science is that it's amoral and objective and doesn't cater to the court of public opinion." He further pointed out (and rightly so): "Data don't cringe; people do."
Some of the concepts that Bering introduced(I don't know and can't verify at the moment if these are new, by the way), such as "green burial" and "animal laughter," were really thought-provoking (I am now seriously considering of someday having myself buried, not with a non-biodegradable coffin, but with a shroud—and a special acacia tree planted above me). I was also interested in Bering's scientific examination of the suicide phenomenon and his reflections thereafter: "If there is one thing I've learned since those very dark days of my suicidal years, it's that scientific knowledge changes perspective. And perspective changes everything. Everything. And, as I alluded to at the start, always remember: you're going to die soon anyway; even if it's a hundred years from now, that's still a blink of a cosmic eye. In the meantime, live like a scientist—even a controversial one with only a colleague or two in all the world—and treat life as a grand experiment, blood, sweat, tears, and all. Bear in mind that there's no such thing as a failed experiment—only data."
This book is definitely not for the moralists and the faint of heart. But for those who are open to learn about (and subsequently discuss) usually "icky" topics, Dr. Bering's book is one hell of a joyride.
July 5, 2012
Why is the Peni$ Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections on Being Human by Jesse Bering
“Why is the Peni$ Shaped Like That?" is the irreverent, thought-provoking and rather sensational book of essays on human sexuality. Dr. Jesse Bering takes us on a journey of surprising and even shocking peculiarities of being human. Using the latest of scientific research in psychology, neuroscience, biology and a naughty sense of humor Bering succeeds in enlightening the public on fascinating issues pertaining to human sexuality. This entertaining 320-page book is broken out into the following eight parts: Part I. Darwinizing What Dangles, Part II. Bountiful Bodies, Part III. Minds in the Gutter, Part IV. Strange Bedfellows, Part V. Ladie’s Night, Part VI. The Gayer Science: There’s Something Queer Here, Part VII. For the Bible Tells Me So and Part VIII. Into the Deep: Existential Lab Work.
Positives:
1. A fun and informative book for the masses.
2. The fascinating topic of human sexuality in the irreverent hands of Jesse Bering.
3. A frank conversational tone. Bering holds nothing back to the point of being uncomfortable but when it is all said and done you are thankful that he did.
4. This book is anything but boring. The pages turn themselves. The ability of Bering to immerse science, anecdotes, sound logic, personal experiences, pop culture and humor into an engaging narrative is what makes this work.
5. This book will at times surprise, inform, disgust and educate you. In short, it’s thought provoking.
6. Understanding the male reproductive anatomy. The activation hypothesis and yes an evolutionary-based explanation for the title of the book.
7. Interesting facts and findings throughout the book. Let me share one because I can’t contain myself, “In fact, frequency of erotic fantasies correlates positively with intelligence”.
8. Curious oddities of the human body.
9. Cannibalism…bite me.
10. The correlation between brain damages and behavior. One of my favorite essays.
11. Dirty brain science. Some very uncomfortable topics…but I couldn’t look away. Fetishes…
12. Understanding the female anatomy. It’s the ladies turn.
13. Unflattering stereotypes…understanding straight women who gravitate toward gay men.
14. Interesting studies on homosexuality. The differences between men and women. The roles and preferences. Educational.
15. Wonderful use of evolution. “Right is irrelevant. There is only what works and what doesn’t work, within context, in biologically adaptive terms…”
16. Burial practices that need to change. A very interesting essay.
17. A hard look at suicide and a unique take regarding suicide as adaptive and from an evolutionary perspective.
18. A look at free will and one of the most thought-provoking statements, “If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative”. In general, I disagree with the statement but talk about a conversation ice breaker.
19. Comprehensive notes section.
Negatives:
1. I didn’t like the title of this book. Sure, it reflects the author’s irreverent and humorous side but for one I can never remember the title. It’s like an entertaining commercial where you can never remember the product being promoted. Secondly, the title alone might keep some people from reading it and these are perhaps the ones who need to read it the most to begin with. How about a title like, “Naughty Science: Reflections on Human Sexuality”?
2. This is not so much a negative on the book but on the lack of scientific research on human sexuality. Such a fascinating topic yet it’s clear that for whatever the reasons the science of human sexuality is its infancy.
3. A lot of the findings in the book are tentative. In truth, all science knowledge is tentative but it seems to me that the some of these studies require much further research. Enough there to whet the appetite but not enough to reach strong conclusions.
4. No direct links to notes on the kindle version, a real shame.
5. Some of the findings will cause cognitive dissonance. I don’t agree with everything in this wonderful, thought-provoking book. As an example, I disagree with the general notion that a person who believes in supernatural punishment may be more trustworthy than one who isn’t. In the fantastic book, “Society without God”, Phil Zuckerman makes the compelling case that those societies without religious beliefs (or less of) are more successful, better functioning and happier places to live in. As a personal example, if was looking for a babysitter and a member of the clergy were to ring my doorbell, I’d probably be more inclined to call a policeman.
6. This book whets your appetite for more, more, more.
7. No formal bibliography.
In summary, what a trip this book was. First of all the topic of human sexuality is fascinating and rarely dealt with at the scientific level. I’m glad that for once an author has the guts in lieu of another word, to get a book like this out for the public. This book will make your cringe, laugh, disagree, concur, and ultimately think. The only thing that limits this book is the fact that the scientific research on human sexuality is still in its infancy. Be that as it may, I learned so much from this book while having fun with it. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “The Belief Instinct” by the same author, “Subliminal” by Leonard Mlodinow, “Society Without God” by Phil Zuckerman, ”The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths..." by Michael Shermer, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Who’s in Charge?” and "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique, by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, “The Myth of Free Will” by Cris Evatt, and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.
“Why is the Peni$ Shaped Like That?" is the irreverent, thought-provoking and rather sensational book of essays on human sexuality. Dr. Jesse Bering takes us on a journey of surprising and even shocking peculiarities of being human. Using the latest of scientific research in psychology, neuroscience, biology and a naughty sense of humor Bering succeeds in enlightening the public on fascinating issues pertaining to human sexuality. This entertaining 320-page book is broken out into the following eight parts: Part I. Darwinizing What Dangles, Part II. Bountiful Bodies, Part III. Minds in the Gutter, Part IV. Strange Bedfellows, Part V. Ladie’s Night, Part VI. The Gayer Science: There’s Something Queer Here, Part VII. For the Bible Tells Me So and Part VIII. Into the Deep: Existential Lab Work.
Positives:
1. A fun and informative book for the masses.
2. The fascinating topic of human sexuality in the irreverent hands of Jesse Bering.
3. A frank conversational tone. Bering holds nothing back to the point of being uncomfortable but when it is all said and done you are thankful that he did.
4. This book is anything but boring. The pages turn themselves. The ability of Bering to immerse science, anecdotes, sound logic, personal experiences, pop culture and humor into an engaging narrative is what makes this work.
5. This book will at times surprise, inform, disgust and educate you. In short, it’s thought provoking.
6. Understanding the male reproductive anatomy. The activation hypothesis and yes an evolutionary-based explanation for the title of the book.
7. Interesting facts and findings throughout the book. Let me share one because I can’t contain myself, “In fact, frequency of erotic fantasies correlates positively with intelligence”.
8. Curious oddities of the human body.
9. Cannibalism…bite me.
10. The correlation between brain damages and behavior. One of my favorite essays.
11. Dirty brain science. Some very uncomfortable topics…but I couldn’t look away. Fetishes…
12. Understanding the female anatomy. It’s the ladies turn.
13. Unflattering stereotypes…understanding straight women who gravitate toward gay men.
14. Interesting studies on homosexuality. The differences between men and women. The roles and preferences. Educational.
15. Wonderful use of evolution. “Right is irrelevant. There is only what works and what doesn’t work, within context, in biologically adaptive terms…”
16. Burial practices that need to change. A very interesting essay.
17. A hard look at suicide and a unique take regarding suicide as adaptive and from an evolutionary perspective.
18. A look at free will and one of the most thought-provoking statements, “If exposure to deterministic messages increases the likelihood of unethical actions, then identifying approaches for insulating the public against this danger becomes imperative”. In general, I disagree with the statement but talk about a conversation ice breaker.
19. Comprehensive notes section.
Negatives:
1. I didn’t like the title of this book. Sure, it reflects the author’s irreverent and humorous side but for one I can never remember the title. It’s like an entertaining commercial where you can never remember the product being promoted. Secondly, the title alone might keep some people from reading it and these are perhaps the ones who need to read it the most to begin with. How about a title like, “Naughty Science: Reflections on Human Sexuality”?
2. This is not so much a negative on the book but on the lack of scientific research on human sexuality. Such a fascinating topic yet it’s clear that for whatever the reasons the science of human sexuality is its infancy.
3. A lot of the findings in the book are tentative. In truth, all science knowledge is tentative but it seems to me that the some of these studies require much further research. Enough there to whet the appetite but not enough to reach strong conclusions.
4. No direct links to notes on the kindle version, a real shame.
5. Some of the findings will cause cognitive dissonance. I don’t agree with everything in this wonderful, thought-provoking book. As an example, I disagree with the general notion that a person who believes in supernatural punishment may be more trustworthy than one who isn’t. In the fantastic book, “Society without God”, Phil Zuckerman makes the compelling case that those societies without religious beliefs (or less of) are more successful, better functioning and happier places to live in. As a personal example, if was looking for a babysitter and a member of the clergy were to ring my doorbell, I’d probably be more inclined to call a policeman.
6. This book whets your appetite for more, more, more.
7. No formal bibliography.
In summary, what a trip this book was. First of all the topic of human sexuality is fascinating and rarely dealt with at the scientific level. I’m glad that for once an author has the guts in lieu of another word, to get a book like this out for the public. This book will make your cringe, laugh, disagree, concur, and ultimately think. The only thing that limits this book is the fact that the scientific research on human sexuality is still in its infancy. Be that as it may, I learned so much from this book while having fun with it. I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “The Belief Instinct” by the same author, “Subliminal” by Leonard Mlodinow, “Society Without God” by Phil Zuckerman, ”The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths..." by Michael Shermer, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Who’s in Charge?” and "Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique, by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality" by Patricia S. Churchland, “The Myth of Free Will” by Cris Evatt, and "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" by Paul Thagard.
October 10, 2022
4 stelline su 5
Ho impiegato un bel po' a leggere questo libro, perchè è un saggio bello tosto.
Mi è piaciuto di meno rispetto a quello sulla vagina (quello è davvero fenomenale), tuttavia sono dell'opinione che anche questo saggio debba essere letto da tutti. Non solo è altamente istruttivo, ma aiuta anche a capire meglio noi stessi, il nostro corpo e quello degli altri.
Consigliato.
Ho impiegato un bel po' a leggere questo libro, perchè è un saggio bello tosto.
Mi è piaciuto di meno rispetto a quello sulla vagina (quello è davvero fenomenale), tuttavia sono dell'opinione che anche questo saggio debba essere letto da tutti. Non solo è altamente istruttivo, ma aiuta anche a capire meglio noi stessi, il nostro corpo e quello degli altri.
Consigliato.
September 18, 2019
Funny and informative, full of puns and dad jokes, which was the best thing about this collection of essays. But I couldn't help but see a few issues with how he frames the research.
Early in the book, when talking about how sperm contains antidepressants, he gave this as the reason why gay men engage in "barebacking". He went on to criticize authors of a study who explained this predilection with social reasons, "promoting closeness" etc, by saying, well, come on, don't we think it's obviously more likely biological evolutionary reasons than the "postmodern" reasons given by the authors? Wellll.. that's problematic. These a priori arguments don't really work in science like that. It kind of set the tone for how he framed other research, especially all the stuff on gender differences. Hey, haven't neuroscientists been telling everyone for decades to stop using brain differences as evidence of biological determinism because the brain is shaped by a person's history and experiences?
Another thing that made me take pause was his insistence that hebephilia is only a problem in a moralistic society, that it's perfectly accepted in many societies in the world, and a person can be a hebephile and an upstanding member of society, just look at Roman Polanski... well, let's look at Roman Polanski, because I don't think anyone really has ever said that the problem with him is that he is a hebephile. The problem with him is that he acted on his attraction by drugging a child and raping her, and the problem with that is the lifelong emotional and maybe physical trauma that such a deep violation of body integrity early in life can cause.
(Tbh this sounds just like those anthropologists who claimed there was no rape in certain societies, only for it to be discovered by a woman that they just didn't have a word for "rape" because women mattered so little that their consent wasn't even on the radar).
How thorough is this science, how complete is this data, if we completely ignore an entire side of the story, if we only center our perspective on men's desire? How accurate are you if you say women are biologically less prone to physical violence, if you ignore an entire lifetime of being told certain kinds of behavior are inappropriate?
I enjoyed reading this book because it was funny and there were some laugh out loud moments, but as for the science I think it left quite a bit to be desired.
Early in the book, when talking about how sperm contains antidepressants, he gave this as the reason why gay men engage in "barebacking". He went on to criticize authors of a study who explained this predilection with social reasons, "promoting closeness" etc, by saying, well, come on, don't we think it's obviously more likely biological evolutionary reasons than the "postmodern" reasons given by the authors? Wellll.. that's problematic. These a priori arguments don't really work in science like that. It kind of set the tone for how he framed other research, especially all the stuff on gender differences. Hey, haven't neuroscientists been telling everyone for decades to stop using brain differences as evidence of biological determinism because the brain is shaped by a person's history and experiences?
Another thing that made me take pause was his insistence that hebephilia is only a problem in a moralistic society, that it's perfectly accepted in many societies in the world, and a person can be a hebephile and an upstanding member of society, just look at Roman Polanski... well, let's look at Roman Polanski, because I don't think anyone really has ever said that the problem with him is that he is a hebephile. The problem with him is that he acted on his attraction by drugging a child and raping her, and the problem with that is the lifelong emotional and maybe physical trauma that such a deep violation of body integrity early in life can cause.
(Tbh this sounds just like those anthropologists who claimed there was no rape in certain societies, only for it to be discovered by a woman that they just didn't have a word for "rape" because women mattered so little that their consent wasn't even on the radar).
How thorough is this science, how complete is this data, if we completely ignore an entire side of the story, if we only center our perspective on men's desire? How accurate are you if you say women are biologically less prone to physical violence, if you ignore an entire lifetime of being told certain kinds of behavior are inappropriate?
I enjoyed reading this book because it was funny and there were some laugh out loud moments, but as for the science I think it left quite a bit to be desired.
February 9, 2020
This is the second of Jesse Berring's books that have read, and i am likely to read all of them. I'm still binging on evolutionary psychology- it just explains so damn much- and Jesse's willingness not to shy away from uncomfortable weird, macabre, 'disturbing' material is rare and badly needed. It's very hard to get bored while reading about autofellatio, how finger length can reliably predict sexual orientation and even preference of sexual positions, the neurochemistry of heartbreak, superior alternative burial techniques, and even the evolutionary adaptiveness of suicide. Just one fascinating essay after the other here.
November 11, 2021
-2021 reread-
An oddly enjoyable listen from the author. I had expected that the second read of this book would not yield the same amount of enjoyment compared to my first read, but it was almost the same. If anything, it was more digestible - physically reading it the first time took more time (3ish weeks?) but I zoomed through the audiobook. I don't think I'd call this book a favourite anymore, but it's definitely in my top five favourite nonfiction reads. I love what Bering brings to the table and his quest for searching for uncomfortable answers to uncomfortable questions.
Looking at my original review, I still agree that the chapters on religious people being more trustworthy are rubbish.
Can't wait to read Bering's other book(s)!
---
I saw this book on display in a used book shop in Oregon. I loved the title and knew I would have to read it. I loved it. I knew I loved learning about evolutionary psychology, but this book reminded me on a constant basis how FASCINATING the whole subject is and how much more we have to learn!
I loved all of the subjects for this book. Penises, bodies, the brain and sex, sexual preferences, homosexuality, suicide, and religion. This book was by no means an easy read, nor did I zoom through it, but it made me think. It forced me to remain objective in my thinking and abandon morality to consider the science and the facts. I rarely read books that force my brain to do such strenuous exercises!
I have to say, I was disappointed that the women section was so lacking. I do understand that a lot of women's studies in science, like on their orgasms etc. is lacking research, but seriously, like 4 chapters and each one 2 pages? It was kind of ridiculous. I think he could have found more to talk about.
Also, the first chapter in the religion section was absolutely maddening. His so called "data" and analysis of explaining why religious folks are more trustworthy was bogus. The experiments detailed and reasoning presented was faulty. Clearly, religious people are only more trustworthy because they are like-minded with a majority of already religious people, not because they actually are. What nonsense. The rest of the section was pretty awesome, especially the section on green funerals.
I learned so much from this book, and I would love to learn even more of the subjects presented. I hate to drop it back at the library - maybe I'll buy it one day! On with science!
An oddly enjoyable listen from the author. I had expected that the second read of this book would not yield the same amount of enjoyment compared to my first read, but it was almost the same. If anything, it was more digestible - physically reading it the first time took more time (3ish weeks?) but I zoomed through the audiobook. I don't think I'd call this book a favourite anymore, but it's definitely in my top five favourite nonfiction reads. I love what Bering brings to the table and his quest for searching for uncomfortable answers to uncomfortable questions.
Looking at my original review, I still agree that the chapters on religious people being more trustworthy are rubbish.
Can't wait to read Bering's other book(s)!
---
I saw this book on display in a used book shop in Oregon. I loved the title and knew I would have to read it. I loved it. I knew I loved learning about evolutionary psychology, but this book reminded me on a constant basis how FASCINATING the whole subject is and how much more we have to learn!
I loved all of the subjects for this book. Penises, bodies, the brain and sex, sexual preferences, homosexuality, suicide, and religion. This book was by no means an easy read, nor did I zoom through it, but it made me think. It forced me to remain objective in my thinking and abandon morality to consider the science and the facts. I rarely read books that force my brain to do such strenuous exercises!
I have to say, I was disappointed that the women section was so lacking. I do understand that a lot of women's studies in science, like on their orgasms etc. is lacking research, but seriously, like 4 chapters and each one 2 pages? It was kind of ridiculous. I think he could have found more to talk about.
Also, the first chapter in the religion section was absolutely maddening. His so called "data" and analysis of explaining why religious folks are more trustworthy was bogus. The experiments detailed and reasoning presented was faulty. Clearly, religious people are only more trustworthy because they are like-minded with a majority of already religious people, not because they actually are. What nonsense. The rest of the section was pretty awesome, especially the section on green funerals.
I learned so much from this book, and I would love to learn even more of the subjects presented. I hate to drop it back at the library - maybe I'll buy it one day! On with science!
August 20, 2013
This was not an easy rating to arrive at. On the one hand, the book is full of interesting and at times valuable information presented in readable prose, fully accessible to a general audience. It was for the most part fun to read and edifying which generally earns a book at least four stars.
On the other hand, the book reads like a collection of previously published pieces, cobbled together under more or less logical headings, then sent off to the binder with a perfunctory introduction and little else. It does not appear that Bering attempted to edit the pieces to prevent repetition, and certainly he does nothing to create a narrative flow.
It's a rare writer who can write about sex and be funny without being juvenile. Dan Savage usually succeeds. Mary Roach and Jesse Bering do not. Too many jokes have the effect of an off-color line delivered too loudly in a slightly slurred voice at a black tie party. Everything stops suddenly, then you try to act like that didn't just happen.
Finally, I have a real problem with some of the early chapters. The piece on pedophilia in particular hit some wrong notes for me. I suppose the big problem is he talks about the legal implications of, for instance, classifying ephebophilia as a mental disorder, without bothering to actually research those implications (if he had, he would have discovered that it would avail a defendant of an insanity defense.
In a few other places he drifts from science to discussing law, ethics or morality, none of which he does well.
I'm glad I read the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in pop evolutionary psychology. But with a little work it could have been so much more.
On the other hand, the book reads like a collection of previously published pieces, cobbled together under more or less logical headings, then sent off to the binder with a perfunctory introduction and little else. It does not appear that Bering attempted to edit the pieces to prevent repetition, and certainly he does nothing to create a narrative flow.
It's a rare writer who can write about sex and be funny without being juvenile. Dan Savage usually succeeds. Mary Roach and Jesse Bering do not. Too many jokes have the effect of an off-color line delivered too loudly in a slightly slurred voice at a black tie party. Everything stops suddenly, then you try to act like that didn't just happen.
Finally, I have a real problem with some of the early chapters. The piece on pedophilia in particular hit some wrong notes for me. I suppose the big problem is he talks about the legal implications of, for instance, classifying ephebophilia as a mental disorder, without bothering to actually research those implications (if he had, he would have discovered that it would avail a defendant of an insanity defense.
In a few other places he drifts from science to discussing law, ethics or morality, none of which he does well.
I'm glad I read the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in pop evolutionary psychology. But with a little work it could have been so much more.
January 28, 2014
If you do not feel that you are not particularly interested in the shape of penises, don't let the title of this book put you off. The subtitle is “... and other reflections on being human” which is a more helpful description of the collection of essays within.
Bering is a professor of evolutionary psychology, or something equally as fascinating and beyond the reaches of my full understanding. The book begins with a chapter where he does tackle the male genitalia in some detail (pun intended) but many people either have their own penis or live with someone who has one, so may find all this of at least some interest. Many of the essays are about sexuality or our privates, but from the perspective of someone who knows a lot about human nature and our evolution. Much of these facts could be used to populate polite conversation at the family dinner table. He also has a section on homosexuality, religious belief (which he went on to write a whole book about) and suicide.
The book is peppered with references to his own life. Bering basically gets to read about stuff he is interested in, writes a paper about it, and gets paid to publish it in a journal, then gets paid again to publish it all together in this book. What a lucky guy. There are over thirty essays in this book, all on various subjects relating to being human, so it is a great read for any humans you may know with a very short attention span.
click here to read the rest of my reviews
Bering is a professor of evolutionary psychology, or something equally as fascinating and beyond the reaches of my full understanding. The book begins with a chapter where he does tackle the male genitalia in some detail (pun intended) but many people either have their own penis or live with someone who has one, so may find all this of at least some interest. Many of the essays are about sexuality or our privates, but from the perspective of someone who knows a lot about human nature and our evolution. Much of these facts could be used to populate polite conversation at the family dinner table. He also has a section on homosexuality, religious belief (which he went on to write a whole book about) and suicide.
The book is peppered with references to his own life. Bering basically gets to read about stuff he is interested in, writes a paper about it, and gets paid to publish it in a journal, then gets paid again to publish it all together in this book. What a lucky guy. There are over thirty essays in this book, all on various subjects relating to being human, so it is a great read for any humans you may know with a very short attention span.
click here to read the rest of my reviews
February 3, 2021
This was really an interesting read. I actually learned a lot of new things about our bodies, especially the genitals and evolutionary development. Unfortunately most about women's bodies, their genitals or hormones is still not known, this really bugged me. Not the authors fault, he spoke quite frank about this, but most of chapters talking about women didn't include many scientific information, because there is barely any. How can this be? Why doesn't science care about this? But this was the only thing I found disappointing about the book, and as said, it isn't the authors fault. In general the writing is very open and colloquial, Jesse Bering also gives private insights and opinions and some sarcastic comments which makes it fun to read.
August 13, 2012
I was hoping this book would be an informative and fun read, but the author's irritating voice kept me from enjoying the material. I could never really get into the topic he was writing about, due to his constant efforts to draw attention to himself in the form of "humorous" asides and digressions, often seemingly intended to shock the reader with how outré he is. Can we just assume that someone who is willing to pick up a book titled "Why is the penis shaped like that?" is someone who is reasonably open-minded and who won't dissolve into tittering blushes every time the word "semen" is mentioned?
I just couldn't get past the style on this one.
I just couldn't get past the style on this one.
May 18, 2013
This book's aim was to titillate, rather than educate. I found it immature at best and rather spare on its actual science reportage.
Annoyingly, the author seemed to think the reader needed to know how much he loathed the idea of having intercourse with a woman. He mentioned it a few times in the book.
This book was more about the author's opinions and predilections than factual information.
I was deeply disappointed given I looked forward to a good non-fiction read.
Annoyingly, the author seemed to think the reader needed to know how much he loathed the idea of having intercourse with a woman. He mentioned it a few times in the book.
This book was more about the author's opinions and predilections than factual information.
I was deeply disappointed given I looked forward to a good non-fiction read.
June 20, 2018
Meh, meh e ancora meeeh... non fidatevi di questa roba, non prendetela per oro colato perché cita gli studi più biased che io abbia mai letto. Siccome si tratta di una raccolta di saggi, l'andamento è discontinuo, ma s'aggiusta le cose un po' come pare a lui per quanto riguarda la legittimità delle, chiamiamole, "opinioni comuni" intorno a certi temi più o meno scabrosi.
Ho molto da criticargli, innanzitutto il fatto che la psicologia evoluzionistica, per come la concepisce lui almeno, parta da un errore metodologico che ricalca il panselezionismo, quello in cui tutto sarebbe andato per il meglio nei lontani tempi dell'evoluzione della scimmia-uomo, e tutto si sarebbe armonicamente sviluppato per raggiungere le più alte vette dell'adattamento. Si chiede costantemente "in che modo sarebbe adattativo?", il che non è di per sé illecito, ma Bering stesso sembra ancora non volersi arrendere all'evidenza che non tutto è adattativo, molta roba che ci portiamo appresso è "monnezza" derivante da processi di evoluzione fuori selezione (sì, anche roba disadattativa), per una serie di motivi. Sembra che per loro l'uomo abbia smesso di evolversi diversi millenni fa, e si lascia troppo spazio a spiegazioni estremamente meccanicistiche, che, per quanto possano avere un loro valore, non sono sufficienti a svelare l'enorme complessità del comportamento umano, e mi sembra che il ragionamento che molti psicologi evoluzionisti utilizzino per giustificare il loro riduzionismo (cioè: beh ma noi analizziamo solo un aspetto, poi c'è il resto, che è complementare, e viene studiato da altra gente) sia davvero debole, e non regga.
L'errore è, a mio avviso, metodologico, nel voler insistere in un approccio ormai superato di nature vs nurture, ove quel vs non ha senso di esistere. L'errore è metodologico nel voler insistere su una media poco sensata, e porre l'accento sulle differenze sbagliate. È estremamente difficile interpretare in termini riduzionistici causa-effetto standardizzati il comportamento umano, inoltre i gruppi in cui vengono divisi gli essere umani sono troppo spesso uomo vs donna, in questo caso le differenze sono esaperate (perché tanto tutto è adattativo per la perpetuazione della specie = riproduzione, uff).
Non viene data enfasi ai fattori ambientali, relazionali e culturali che modellano il comportamento del singolo, a come li modellino, se c'è un pattern, insomma non viene dato risalto all'aspetto empatico della nostra specie, che poi è una bella peculiarità, e si scimmiotta un approccio vecchio della biologia, e male.
Poi è incoerente, alcuni studi menzionati sono molto interessanti e prendono in esame tutta una serie di influenze ambientali (v. suicidio, disadattativo?); altri io non li avrei pubblicati nemmeno sulla cartaigienica, es. le presunte virtù antidepressive dello sperma, basatosi su un semplice sondaggio in un campione di circa 300 studentesse americane (o inglesi boh), che correlerebbe i rapporti non protetti con un minor rischio di cadere in depressione. Un sondaggio. Dal valore arbitrario. Niente valori misurabili, niente valori plasmatici di sostanze presumibilmente antidepressive, niente studi sull'assorbimento, niente eventuali correlazioni con i contraccettivi orali, con lo stato mentale in cui viene consumato un rapporto sessuale, una cosa regà da cani maledetti, e io non gli avrei mai dato spazio in un libro. Uno studio replicato da un tizio slovacco (ho cercato lo studio e le citazioni) e che non ha ottenuto risultati comparabili, il che vuol dire che manco quella correlazione, quasi sicuramente spuria o comunque estremamente indiretta, s'è riusciti a dimostrare. Fermiamoci poi un attimo a pensare che implicazione hanno questi studi, così profondamente male-biased, sull'opinione pubblica e sui giornali. Guarda caso ne escono sempre titoloni da colonna destra, "DONNE FATE I P*MPINI CHE VI FA BENE" condiviso da chissà quanti maschi infoiati su fb, giustificati dal fatto che beh, lo dice la scienza (come se avessimo necessità di legittimazione per farli). Pensiamo anche un minimo di responsabilità sociale che possono avere sti studiunculi, è un accanimento da cui si vuol far discendere forti differenze comportamentali senza considerare le similitudini... Gli studi nel campo sembrano fatti ad hoc per cercare delle conferme dei propri bias, e non per esplorare altro, e sono sempre le stesse ipotesi, mai altre.
ESEMPLARE è il capitoletto che vorrebbe spiegare che le adolescenti siano stronze di natura per via della competizione con le altre donne. Studi fatti su ragazze delle scuole superiori. Intrisecamente stronze. E l'influenza esterna? E i condizionamenti ambientali? E i modelli comportamentali di successo per fattori culturali? E tutto quello che esula dal determinismo?! E la cultura che ci pervade, quella che appunto ci continua a ripetere che alle ragazze piace il rosa e che sono subdole e stronze?
PERÒ quando c'è da sparare contro il poliamore ecco che il Bering questa faccenda la tira fuori, perché non si può giustificare tutto con la nostra tendenza alla poligamia, c'è anche l'empatia (eh maddai), presumibilmente perché avere le corna lo fa incazzare come un pitone (lo dice lui e non è una mia speculazione). Lì, però, la questione della non necessità di legittimazione scientifica dei comportamenti umani la tiriamo fuori. E come mai?
Ecco, lui parte da questo:
"Le femmine fanno questo, gli uomini quest'altro, gli uomini gay questo altro ancora comparati e subordinati agli uomini etero: perché?" oppure: "gli uomini sono feticisti dei piedi, come mai? E come può essere adattativo?" (ma perché dovrebbe esserlo per forza?!)
Mentre io partirei da questo:
"siamo sicuri che le femmine facciano tutte questo? Ed esistono uomini che non fanno quest'altro? E cosa li differenzia da chi non lo fa? Quale ambiente diverso, quali variabili? E quanti e quante sono? E in altre ETNIE con cultura profondamente differente è anche così?" oppure: "le donne sono feticiste dei piedi? Come mai? C'è qualche fenomeno occulto che sto ignorando? Le donne non hanno parafilie o semplicemente non se le strainc*la nessuno le parafilie femminili, perché tanto il mio modello di riferimento è sempre lo stesso stramaledetto uomo occidentale?"
Io intorno a questo libro potrei continuare con un pippone lungo cinquanta chilometri... partendo dal fatto che l'autore accusa gli altri di avere troppa morale e quindi troppi pregiudizi (anche qui correlazione poco sensata, una morale non implica necessariamente pregiudizi), passando per l'impronta fortemente maschilista del discorso -attenzione! La natura è profondamente sessista, il problema è come l'autore riporta alcuni fatti, il linguaggio che usa, come utilizza le critiche, che in alcuni casi sono aspre e in altri casi mancano totalmente-.
Concludo non dilungandomi ancora, ma dicendo che la scienza non è un monolite fermo e fisso, con le sue risposte scolpite nel marmo. Sono le persone a creare la scienza, assieme a tutti i suoi errori, assieme a tutti i suoi pregiudizi (ehi ciao Lombroso e altri scienziati razzisti!) che Bering pensa di non avere, invece li ha e forti, fa un mischiotto e non va bene regà, se volete leggere questo libro fatelo con un GROSSO occhio critico.
Ho molto da criticargli, innanzitutto il fatto che la psicologia evoluzionistica, per come la concepisce lui almeno, parta da un errore metodologico che ricalca il panselezionismo, quello in cui tutto sarebbe andato per il meglio nei lontani tempi dell'evoluzione della scimmia-uomo, e tutto si sarebbe armonicamente sviluppato per raggiungere le più alte vette dell'adattamento. Si chiede costantemente "in che modo sarebbe adattativo?", il che non è di per sé illecito, ma Bering stesso sembra ancora non volersi arrendere all'evidenza che non tutto è adattativo, molta roba che ci portiamo appresso è "monnezza" derivante da processi di evoluzione fuori selezione (sì, anche roba disadattativa), per una serie di motivi. Sembra che per loro l'uomo abbia smesso di evolversi diversi millenni fa, e si lascia troppo spazio a spiegazioni estremamente meccanicistiche, che, per quanto possano avere un loro valore, non sono sufficienti a svelare l'enorme complessità del comportamento umano, e mi sembra che il ragionamento che molti psicologi evoluzionisti utilizzino per giustificare il loro riduzionismo (cioè: beh ma noi analizziamo solo un aspetto, poi c'è il resto, che è complementare, e viene studiato da altra gente) sia davvero debole, e non regga.
L'errore è, a mio avviso, metodologico, nel voler insistere in un approccio ormai superato di nature vs nurture, ove quel vs non ha senso di esistere. L'errore è metodologico nel voler insistere su una media poco sensata, e porre l'accento sulle differenze sbagliate. È estremamente difficile interpretare in termini riduzionistici causa-effetto standardizzati il comportamento umano, inoltre i gruppi in cui vengono divisi gli essere umani sono troppo spesso uomo vs donna, in questo caso le differenze sono esaperate (perché tanto tutto è adattativo per la perpetuazione della specie = riproduzione, uff).
Non viene data enfasi ai fattori ambientali, relazionali e culturali che modellano il comportamento del singolo, a come li modellino, se c'è un pattern, insomma non viene dato risalto all'aspetto empatico della nostra specie, che poi è una bella peculiarità, e si scimmiotta un approccio vecchio della biologia, e male.
Poi è incoerente, alcuni studi menzionati sono molto interessanti e prendono in esame tutta una serie di influenze ambientali (v. suicidio, disadattativo?); altri io non li avrei pubblicati nemmeno sulla cartaigienica, es. le presunte virtù antidepressive dello sperma, basatosi su un semplice sondaggio in un campione di circa 300 studentesse americane (o inglesi boh), che correlerebbe i rapporti non protetti con un minor rischio di cadere in depressione. Un sondaggio. Dal valore arbitrario. Niente valori misurabili, niente valori plasmatici di sostanze presumibilmente antidepressive, niente studi sull'assorbimento, niente eventuali correlazioni con i contraccettivi orali, con lo stato mentale in cui viene consumato un rapporto sessuale, una cosa regà da cani maledetti, e io non gli avrei mai dato spazio in un libro. Uno studio replicato da un tizio slovacco (ho cercato lo studio e le citazioni) e che non ha ottenuto risultati comparabili, il che vuol dire che manco quella correlazione, quasi sicuramente spuria o comunque estremamente indiretta, s'è riusciti a dimostrare. Fermiamoci poi un attimo a pensare che implicazione hanno questi studi, così profondamente male-biased, sull'opinione pubblica e sui giornali. Guarda caso ne escono sempre titoloni da colonna destra, "DONNE FATE I P*MPINI CHE VI FA BENE" condiviso da chissà quanti maschi infoiati su fb, giustificati dal fatto che beh, lo dice la scienza (come se avessimo necessità di legittimazione per farli). Pensiamo anche un minimo di responsabilità sociale che possono avere sti studiunculi, è un accanimento da cui si vuol far discendere forti differenze comportamentali senza considerare le similitudini... Gli studi nel campo sembrano fatti ad hoc per cercare delle conferme dei propri bias, e non per esplorare altro, e sono sempre le stesse ipotesi, mai altre.
ESEMPLARE è il capitoletto che vorrebbe spiegare che le adolescenti siano stronze di natura per via della competizione con le altre donne. Studi fatti su ragazze delle scuole superiori. Intrisecamente stronze. E l'influenza esterna? E i condizionamenti ambientali? E i modelli comportamentali di successo per fattori culturali? E tutto quello che esula dal determinismo?! E la cultura che ci pervade, quella che appunto ci continua a ripetere che alle ragazze piace il rosa e che sono subdole e stronze?
PERÒ quando c'è da sparare contro il poliamore ecco che il Bering questa faccenda la tira fuori, perché non si può giustificare tutto con la nostra tendenza alla poligamia, c'è anche l'empatia (eh maddai), presumibilmente perché avere le corna lo fa incazzare come un pitone (lo dice lui e non è una mia speculazione). Lì, però, la questione della non necessità di legittimazione scientifica dei comportamenti umani la tiriamo fuori. E come mai?
Ecco, lui parte da questo:
"Le femmine fanno questo, gli uomini quest'altro, gli uomini gay questo altro ancora comparati e subordinati agli uomini etero: perché?" oppure: "gli uomini sono feticisti dei piedi, come mai? E come può essere adattativo?" (ma perché dovrebbe esserlo per forza?!)
Mentre io partirei da questo:
"siamo sicuri che le femmine facciano tutte questo? Ed esistono uomini che non fanno quest'altro? E cosa li differenzia da chi non lo fa? Quale ambiente diverso, quali variabili? E quanti e quante sono? E in altre ETNIE con cultura profondamente differente è anche così?" oppure: "le donne sono feticiste dei piedi? Come mai? C'è qualche fenomeno occulto che sto ignorando? Le donne non hanno parafilie o semplicemente non se le strainc*la nessuno le parafilie femminili, perché tanto il mio modello di riferimento è sempre lo stesso stramaledetto uomo occidentale?"
Io intorno a questo libro potrei continuare con un pippone lungo cinquanta chilometri... partendo dal fatto che l'autore accusa gli altri di avere troppa morale e quindi troppi pregiudizi (anche qui correlazione poco sensata, una morale non implica necessariamente pregiudizi), passando per l'impronta fortemente maschilista del discorso -attenzione! La natura è profondamente sessista, il problema è come l'autore riporta alcuni fatti, il linguaggio che usa, come utilizza le critiche, che in alcuni casi sono aspre e in altri casi mancano totalmente-.
Concludo non dilungandomi ancora, ma dicendo che la scienza non è un monolite fermo e fisso, con le sue risposte scolpite nel marmo. Sono le persone a creare la scienza, assieme a tutti i suoi errori, assieme a tutti i suoi pregiudizi (ehi ciao Lombroso e altri scienziati razzisti!) che Bering pensa di non avere, invece li ha e forti, fa un mischiotto e non va bene regà, se volete leggere questo libro fatelo con un GROSSO occhio critico.
December 23, 2020
Took me a while to finish this one but who can blame me its a book about the penis. The title is meant to reel you in and as provocative as it may sound the contents therein are far much more than penis talk. There is a slightly deeper look at the sexually abnormal ..."...in studying the sexually abnormal, researchers can gain a unique insight into the nuanced, otherwise hidden mechanisms os standard human sexual development and psychosexuality''.
Do you know why the scrotum is hanging out of the male body? Curious about the contents of the male semen? Effect of male semen in the female body apart from making one pregnant (or not)? By the way, why is the pubic hair there and why is it with such texture? What motivates cannibalism in humans? Why is acne only found in primates? An exploration into the female body and mind and what stood out to me is the difference between the female orgasm and female ejaculation The book also delves into human sexual paraphilias, fetishes, and conditions. There is a lot more that's just the tip (no pun intended) lol.
The book is great if you are into human sexuality, the history of sexual evolution, human psychology, and physiology. Welcome to impropriety and let your mind wander and wonder at the different theories. I definitely do not subscribe to the school of some-things-are -better-left-unsaid. How boring!!!
Do you know why the scrotum is hanging out of the male body? Curious about the contents of the male semen? Effect of male semen in the female body apart from making one pregnant (or not)? By the way, why is the pubic hair there and why is it with such texture? What motivates cannibalism in humans? Why is acne only found in primates? An exploration into the female body and mind and what stood out to me is the difference between the female orgasm and female ejaculation The book also delves into human sexual paraphilias, fetishes, and conditions. There is a lot more that's just the tip (no pun intended) lol.
The book is great if you are into human sexuality, the history of sexual evolution, human psychology, and physiology. Welcome to impropriety and let your mind wander and wonder at the different theories. I definitely do not subscribe to the school of some-things-are -better-left-unsaid. How boring!!!
July 10, 2022
La lettura dei saggi per me rimane un mondo quasi inesplorato e spesso non mi azzardo a uscire dal terreno che conosco meglio, la divulgazione matematica.
Anni fa avevo ricevuto inaspettatamente questo libro e l'ho lasciato a covare sullo scaffale quasi una decina d'anni. In realtà, poverino, non se lo meritava proprio.
Questo saggio affronta tanti temi della sessualità dal punto di vista evoluzionistico senza tabu. L'autore condisce il tutto con un po' di sano sarcasmo e tanta irriverenza e la lettura scivola via come l'olio.
Ho trovato molte domande e altrettante risposte (o tentativi di risposta) e ora posso snocciolare nei miei incontri mondani (spoiler in queste settimane sono pochissimi) un sacco di curiosità e riflessioni atipiche.
Nel suo genere una chicca.
Anni fa avevo ricevuto inaspettatamente questo libro e l'ho lasciato a covare sullo scaffale quasi una decina d'anni. In realtà, poverino, non se lo meritava proprio.
Questo saggio affronta tanti temi della sessualità dal punto di vista evoluzionistico senza tabu. L'autore condisce il tutto con un po' di sano sarcasmo e tanta irriverenza e la lettura scivola via come l'olio.
Ho trovato molte domande e altrettante risposte (o tentativi di risposta) e ora posso snocciolare nei miei incontri mondani (spoiler in queste settimane sono pochissimi) un sacco di curiosità e riflessioni atipiche.
Nel suo genere una chicca.
April 3, 2020
This is the second Jesse Bering book I read. The first one was 'Perv. The sexual deviant in all of us'. I must say that Jesse has a great way of engaging the reader and keeping things (even difficult topics) easy to read through. He has a way with puns that I can appreciate and laugh at.
The book title though is a bit of a ''click bait'' as only one chapter actually reviews this particular question [penis shape]. However this read does give you great insights in all things sex(uality) and life. I do recommend it to folk curious and open minded enough to explore the many topics it tackles.
The book title though is a bit of a ''click bait'' as only one chapter actually reviews this particular question [penis shape]. However this read does give you great insights in all things sex(uality) and life. I do recommend it to folk curious and open minded enough to explore the many topics it tackles.
February 25, 2023
Absolutely Amazing Book. I truly loved it. Penis is pretty interesting when you take a look at it. Gotta love this book if you love anatomy!
August 18, 2020
Overall an interesting read that will give you a lot of information around how we function as sexual beings, as well as a smattering of psychological topics, backed by some interesting research. I agree with other reviews here that the book lacks a flow and that the various essays just feel bundled together. Individually, though, most are quite excellent. Some sections also felt particularly weak, but others are very enlightening and interesting. An informative book that is somewhat disjointed and at times a vapid read.
February 20, 2019
Fans of Mary Roach will enjoy this pop-sci look at a variety of aspects of the human condition, including anatomy, sex, death, religion/ethics, and the brain.
Like any good scientist, Bering keeps an open mind. He describes a wide variety of human behaviors with fascination, even those he knows that readers are likely to cringe at.
Do I think the author was a little too soft on people who sexually abuse animals (and that’s what it is—because contact like this is by definition nonconsensual)? Yes, I do. Yet this is just one of the seemingly unending ways in which humans use other beings’ bodies for their own gratification—and indeed, a sizeable section of animal agriculture relies on this deeply taboo contact. On the other hand, unlike much of Roach’s writing, which looks at animal experimentation with a detached, unsympathetic eye, Bering frequently makes asides about the cruelty or pain caused by a certain experiment…so he does seem to possess a sense of ethics regarding animals.
Which brings us to the author’s gag about how “dead pigs taste so good.” Normally, I wouldn’t focus on one throwaway line, but since it was literally the last sentence in the book…the author’s parting words to his reader, I am going to. Bering went into detail about an experiment that showed that rats actually laugh when tickled, indicating that these most humble of animals may be more complex and emotional than we’d like to give them credit for. The author admitted that reading about this research had him reconsidering his abandoned vegetarianism, but then does a dumb 180 to soothe his readers and most likely, himself. Subjecting a sentient creature to a life of living hell for a moment of pleasure is hard to argue for in any rational or ethical way. So instead, smart, thoughtful people resort to dumb jokes and defensiveness. Meanwhile, the factory farming industry continues on its merry, ruinous path.
Like any good scientist, Bering keeps an open mind. He describes a wide variety of human behaviors with fascination, even those he knows that readers are likely to cringe at.
Do I think the author was a little too soft on people who sexually abuse animals (and that’s what it is—because contact like this is by definition nonconsensual)? Yes, I do. Yet this is just one of the seemingly unending ways in which humans use other beings’ bodies for their own gratification—and indeed, a sizeable section of animal agriculture relies on this deeply taboo contact. On the other hand, unlike much of Roach’s writing, which looks at animal experimentation with a detached, unsympathetic eye, Bering frequently makes asides about the cruelty or pain caused by a certain experiment…so he does seem to possess a sense of ethics regarding animals.
Which brings us to the author’s gag about how “dead pigs taste so good.” Normally, I wouldn’t focus on one throwaway line, but since it was literally the last sentence in the book…the author’s parting words to his reader, I am going to. Bering went into detail about an experiment that showed that rats actually laugh when tickled, indicating that these most humble of animals may be more complex and emotional than we’d like to give them credit for. The author admitted that reading about this research had him reconsidering his abandoned vegetarianism, but then does a dumb 180 to soothe his readers and most likely, himself. Subjecting a sentient creature to a life of living hell for a moment of pleasure is hard to argue for in any rational or ethical way. So instead, smart, thoughtful people resort to dumb jokes and defensiveness. Meanwhile, the factory farming industry continues on its merry, ruinous path.
February 21, 2017
"The great thing about good science is that it's amoral and objective and doesn't cater to the court of public opinion. Data don't cringe: people do."
Jesse Bering is an evolutionary psychologist who studies sexual behaviour. Some of the essays were fun and interesting. Others, not so much. And some were so boring.
The title refers to just one of the 33 essays and I don't think does the book justice because it is in fact a work of intellectual breadth covering an incredible range of material. Penises, bodies, the brain and sex, sexual preferences, homosexuality, suicide, and religion.
I was disappointed that the women section was so lacking, and the religion and suicide sections were so superficial and boring.
Over all that was a book that is worth reading and was informative and deserved its price.
===================================
"During the female copulatory orgasm the cervix rhythmically dips into the semen pool, thereby increasing sperm retention (by at least 5 percent) relative to intercourse without orgasm, along with the probability of conception."
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
"The first documented case of full-blown Klüver-Bucy syndrome in humans arrived in 1955 ..... developed a ravenous sexual appetite, among other things."
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
"Male cats possess remarkably specialized penises. They come equipped with a band of about 150 sharp, backward-pointing spines that, literally, rake the internal walls of the female cat's vagina (hence the deafening yowl that often accompanies feline sex)."
Jesse Bering is an evolutionary psychologist who studies sexual behaviour. Some of the essays were fun and interesting. Others, not so much. And some were so boring.
The title refers to just one of the 33 essays and I don't think does the book justice because it is in fact a work of intellectual breadth covering an incredible range of material. Penises, bodies, the brain and sex, sexual preferences, homosexuality, suicide, and religion.
I was disappointed that the women section was so lacking, and the religion and suicide sections were so superficial and boring.
Over all that was a book that is worth reading and was informative and deserved its price.
===================================
"During the female copulatory orgasm the cervix rhythmically dips into the semen pool, thereby increasing sperm retention (by at least 5 percent) relative to intercourse without orgasm, along with the probability of conception."
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
"The first documented case of full-blown Klüver-Bucy syndrome in humans arrived in 1955 ..... developed a ravenous sexual appetite, among other things."
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
"Male cats possess remarkably specialized penises. They come equipped with a band of about 150 sharp, backward-pointing spines that, literally, rake the internal walls of the female cat's vagina (hence the deafening yowl that often accompanies feline sex)."
September 7, 2012
Interesting fodder for speculation, but I expected it to be more...data-heavy, I guess. Most of this books is, "Hey, think of this! BTW, someone did an experiment on this once, but beyond that...THINK OF WHAT THIS COULD MEAN!" A fun read, but I was looking for more analytically-based info. Probably because I'm a goofy f*cker like that.
Also: I guess I was looking for something...not as all about the author's sexuality as it was? It was (like I said) a fun read, but you can only read someone writing, "I'M GAY. LIKE LITERALLY, EXTREMELY, AND TOTALLY INTO DUDES" in each paragraph only so many times before you want to scream, "I F*CKING GET IT, OKAY! I WANT TO READ ABOUT ZOOPHILES NOW--BACK OFF." The author's constant referring back to his sexual orientation (and generally in a conspicuous manner too, such as, "...and that's why our fingers are shaped as such. And I'd know this from experience, because I am a homosexual") was REALLY distracting, and took away from the main body of each essay in this book. (I get it. You're gay. You're happy about it. I'm happy for you. But I got it the first time, in the first paragraph, in the introduction. We don't need to hear it eight more times per essay--calm down, Buckaroo. We got it. Really.)
Overall, though? If you like weird science in regard to evolutionary theories, read it--it's a good one. :D
Also: I guess I was looking for something...not as all about the author's sexuality as it was? It was (like I said) a fun read, but you can only read someone writing, "I'M GAY. LIKE LITERALLY, EXTREMELY, AND TOTALLY INTO DUDES" in each paragraph only so many times before you want to scream, "I F*CKING GET IT, OKAY! I WANT TO READ ABOUT ZOOPHILES NOW--BACK OFF." The author's constant referring back to his sexual orientation (and generally in a conspicuous manner too, such as, "...and that's why our fingers are shaped as such. And I'd know this from experience, because I am a homosexual") was REALLY distracting, and took away from the main body of each essay in this book. (I get it. You're gay. You're happy about it. I'm happy for you. But I got it the first time, in the first paragraph, in the introduction. We don't need to hear it eight more times per essay--calm down, Buckaroo. We got it. Really.)
Overall, though? If you like weird science in regard to evolutionary theories, read it--it's a good one. :D
November 18, 2012
How could you not want to read a book with this title? The book is a fast, enjoyable read: It's a series of short, clever and often funny, essays most them taking on a sexual topic (an ode to human seman, the female ejaculation) but, not exclusively (death, free will, suicide and animal laughter). All are science-based, AND it's science made user-friendly. Dr. Bering is gay, so unsurprisingly a few essays (5 of 33) deal with the science of homosexuality: repressed homosexuality; can you detect sexual orientation in children; and can you ask a gay man for directions. As to the latter, see what I mean by humor?
He fearlessly writes where many tremble to read -- zoophiles, pedophilia, the nature of fetishes, asexuality -- and these topics are where he uses the scientific approach to best effect. As Dr. Bering is also a neuroanatomist, he uses "brain science" as the lens to view these subjects and thereby -- at least for me -- elicits understanding if not compassion. None of choose our brain structure or the life experiences that mold us. Without directly stating this fact, he gently illuminates the humanity of the poor souls condemned in this life to the judgments from those of us born with socially-acceptable brains. Bravo Dr. Bering. You are gifted in oh, so many ways.
January 28, 2013
Humorous and entertaining. I'm not a big fan of evolutionary psychology, and as the author calls it, it's "backwards engineering", using what we know to explain it from an evolutionary perspective, a process that is highly speculative at best and downright absurd at worst. Another problem with evolutionary psychology is that one can probably do the same while taking the creationist perspective. I admit, though, that in some instances such explanations only work within an evolutionary framework and don't go well from a creationist perspective. For example, on the question why the penis is shaped liked that, the answer that God created it so it should flush out the sperm of a competition, is absurd because it means that God allowed for promiscuity, and he cares who one will win the impregnation war, an absurd position. But from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that natural selection should favor a design that helps you wash out the competition's sperm when you insert yours.
September 18, 2016
It was certainly educational. Even about parts I've owned for 51 years. Written entirely, almost, from the perspective of an evolutionary psychologist who was oddly biased towards Darwinian evolution, but who was honest enough to know its limitations. He, of course, in keeping with the presumption of evolution's truth broadly acknowledges dipping his toes deeply into speculation.
And the book lacks the traditional visceral hatred of religion and traditional morality one might expect. The essays in the book are broadly adapted versions of essays he's published in Scientific American and elsewhere.
The book is full of humour, anecdotes, interesting facts and wild speculations. An entertaining read and also a deep exposure of the author's inner self that I found refreshingly honest.
And the book lacks the traditional visceral hatred of religion and traditional morality one might expect. The essays in the book are broadly adapted versions of essays he's published in Scientific American and elsewhere.
The book is full of humour, anecdotes, interesting facts and wild speculations. An entertaining read and also a deep exposure of the author's inner self that I found refreshingly honest.
December 26, 2025
If you’ve ever wanted to understand sperm displacement theory, asexual persons, female ejaculation, homophobia as repressed desire, masturbation, nocturnal erections and if adult homosexuality can be forecast in childhood, this is the book to read. On these and very many other topics related to human and, in a few chapters, animal sexual behaviour, Dr Jesse Bering explores the specific topic, citing published academic research where appropriate, in a style that is informative but with liberal doses of amusement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 268 reviews