Sex at Dusk (a counter to Sex at Dawn)

I listened to a podcast on the book with one of the authors of Sex at Dawn. Super interesting! Basically contends that there's about as much evidence to suggest human nature is non-monogamous as there is evidence to suggest it's monogamous. It doesn't argue we should necessarily be non-monogamous.

However, I've since discovered the significant negative reception from academics and some of their counterarguments to the thesis of the book. It seems that it is generally regarded as pseudoscientific because of its distorted and incorrect interpretation of existing theories and evidence on human sexuality. This Amazon review does a summary of the counterarguments written in Sex at Dusk.

Here is one example of a false argument made by Sex at Dawn.

A particularly humorous claim of [Sex at Dawn] is that the noises some females make during sex are an attempt to advertise their readiness for other males.

Here is an alternative explanation from a recent study on human sexuality.

On the proximate level, it seems that sexually less restricted females may use sexual vocalization to increase their sexual attractiveness to their current partner by means of boosting their partner’s self-esteem. Enhanced vocalization by sexually unrestricted females may ultimately secure higher paternal investment and increase the confidence of the paternity of current sexual partner. Source

I've published this in the hopes of discrediting Sex at Dawn. For the record, I'm partial to non-monogamy and using humans' newfound sexual freedom to explore the pleasure, jealousy and other feelings involved in casual sex. But I'm more for the idea that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and a fair representation of science.