#444 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Sentiment score: 23
Reddit mentions: 52
We found 52 Reddit mentions of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. Here are the top ones.
or
- Used Book in Good Condition
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9 Inches |
| Length | 6 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | June 2010 |
| Weight | 1.2 Pounds |
| Width | 1.29 Inches |
Advance warning: I'm only an anthropology undergrad. I am very near to graduating, though, and looking into advanced degrees and a research career in gender and sexuality. This is my passion.
Looking at the promiscuous (according to Westerners) sexual behavior of egalitarian foragers (which humans were for the majority of our existence), and looking at the behavior of the Bonobo, our nearest living relative, and finally looking at the way that both of us use oxytocin to ease social bonding...
It seems pretty obvious. So that we can have sex whenever we want. It's a good strategy. Sex is an enjoyable act that nearly all humans love. It's relaxing, it's great for forming emotional bonds (note: not necessarily romantic bonds, as most today would know them), and it produces children. It keeps things running smoothly, which is important in an egalitarian society.
Infanticide was pretty common in prehistory. The sheer number of infant remains seriously skews life expectancy data, actually, leading to the myth that prehistoric people didn't live past 30. It's not that these people were horrible, just that they couldn't feed every child they brought into the world. Foraging keeps a pretty hard limit on population growth. They didn't have the means to safely conduct abortions, and many, if not most people didn't grasp the connection between sex and pregnancy. This is understandable for people who are having a lot of sex with multiple people in their <120-ish person band; pregnancy would seem like something that just starts happening once a woman reaches a certain age.
But despite all the infanticide—or perhaps because of it—a child which is chosen to be kept has a very good chance for survival. With no parternity certainty, promiscuous foragers tend to care for all of the band's children; not just their own. They grow up with a great deal of social support. In a group dynamic like this, promiscuity is an advantageous behavior.
There's a great book on human sexuality that I would recommend reading. Not buying, unless you really dig it (I did). Just check it out at the library or flip through it over coffee at Barnes and Noble or something. Or, hell, pirate an ebook if you can find one. It's called Sex At Dawn, and I found it to be a pretty solid interdisciplinary analysis of the research thus far. It's written to the layman—in that it avoids jargon and keeps a playful tone—but it's quite informative, particularly if you follow along with the end notes. They go into much greater detail there. Also of value are the references. I've only just begun going through those.
It's because of the USFSPA, an act by Congress to counter to a Supreme court ruling in 1981. It's not automatic, but it definitely screws the military member over, specifically male members, but not always men, usually it's just the person who follows ethical actions that gets screwed. The less ethical person gets rewarded.
It was put into place because too many military men were screwing over their wives and kicking them to the curb for younger models, or abandoning their families, and men did have unfair advantages at the time. So the courts got involved trying to fix the problem, the feminists pushed for fairness for women, but now a women has more rights than a man in the court system.
And then you hear about nice guys getting cleaned out by their wives when she gets the 7 year itch and needs an "Alpha" guy now, and he's now in debtors prison because he can't pay the crazy spouse/child support, or can't see his own kids because Child Protective Counselors advised her to claim shit so she would be in control. Because the court system is incentivised to extract as much money from the man as possible, via lawyers and court mandated programs. It can be used against a woman who is the primary breadwinner in a relationship and happens also, but men still usually make more money, so that's why the courts target men. It's why /r/MensRights exists, even if they do come off as misogynistic assholes sometimes.
Now don't think that men are blameless, spousal abuse is horrendous, and the assholes who do it and need to be held accountable, but a woman can beat up a man in his own house, or cry rape and he's instantly the bad guy and removed from the situation. Who wants to help a pussy who can't defend himself, yet if he does, he's automatically thrown in jail, and can loose everything.
The reality of the situation is it's no longer beneficial for a man in today's society to get married any more, the financial/emotional/incarceration risks are no longer worth it. Only the religious think the "man ruling the roost" marriage is a good idea anymore.
You really want to blow your mind? Read this
So it's been 2 years now and you're still unsatisfied and things still aren't changing. Do you really think that he's just going to just suddenly develop a higher sex drive someday? Unlikely. So you really have a few choice:
Personally option 4 sounds the most appealing to me but I'm already in an open relationship so that's easy for me to say. Also that is a very awkward conversation to have any many people find it easier just to cheat on their partner than to have an uncomfortable conversation with them. That could be you, that's a choice that you're going to have to make, but since you're already seriously considering infidelity and asking for advice on it, it sounds like you might have already done that.
If you are curious about open relationships I could offer some literature to get you both at least thinking about the topic:
Bertrand Russel's "Marriage and Morals"
"Sex at Dawn"
Opening Up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships
Really the problem that people have with cheating and infidelity is the lying and deceit, it's not about the sex, it's about the dishonesty and disrespect.
The book Sex at Dawn is a great read. It has a lot of information on Bonobos and Chimpanzees and how they compare to us sexually. The major hypothesis is that humans are not actually biologically monogamous (and only culturally in ideal). He tries to prove the point by comparing us ti hunter gatherer cultures and to what is known of our closest ape relatives (Bonobos & Chimps) and the other Apes and primates.
Go check out a book called Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. I'd guess that's where OzmodiarTheGreat took most of his content from (maybe not, but that's pretty much how they lay it out) and it's a fascinating read, whether you end up buying the premise or not.
I agree. Sex at Dawn made a much better case for female vocalization than this article did. Moans can effectively be used for communication between active partners but the need to is a natural response for the female and not the male.
Perhaps you and your SO would benefit from reading the following books together: The Ethical Slut, Sex at Dawn, and Open Relationships.
Sex at Dawn gives a great evolutionary perspective on why some of us crave multiple lovers, The Ethical Slut will make you embrace your slutdom as long as you're ethical about it (which it sounds like you are!), and though I haven't yet read Opening Up, I hear it's a great how-to guide for open relationships and communication.
Hitchens perhaps spreading modern misconceptions and cultural bias about the nature of human existence before agriculture. For an entirely different perspective on say 90,000 years of human evolution read Sex at Dawn... which basically argues that Hitchens is full of shit (without naming Hitchens since Hitch wasn't a Scientist refuted in the book). At the very least, if you read this book you will have a very skeptical view of Hitch's argument from an evolutionary point of view. I don't know who is right, but it is very interesting to read a well argued alternative viewpoint that isn't religious.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Talk talk talk. That's the secret to any relationship - esp poly.
Poly means different things to different people. There is no one correct way. Poly is what you and partners decide it is. Everyone has different reasons about why they are poly.
Personally, I think that it is cruel to expect everything I want from one person. I have enough love to share and my lovers all have different roles in my life. I tired poly when I was not ready and got consumed by jealousy and relationship drama. We make mistakes and we learn. It takes a LOT of emotional maturity, patience, and trust to be in a healthy poly relationship. Poly is not for everyone and it doesn't need to be. Nothing wrong with monogamy if that's your thing.
I think people are more fascinated with the idea of poly. And reality is not always that glamorous. So many people want a quick peep into the lifestyle. The taboo is alluring. But many people also cannot get over the possessiveness and insecurity. No matter how secure you are in yourself and how strong your relationship is, being in a real life poly situation will bring up insecurities and challenge your relationship. If you both work on it together, you will become more close and trusting of each other. It can also drive a wedge between you both.
I would also suggest any of the the below books.
I've looked into this quite a bit myself, psychology/biology background here with lots of readings of anthropology. There are many ways in which humans can order their societies, and it's quite typical for every culture to believe its way is not only the best and most sensible, but natural - "the way things are."
This is a touchy topic, and one that is dangerous to talk about because of the inherent risk of questioning deeply-held values within a culture. Many things are taboo, but I think it's worthwhile to try to understand who we are as human beings, and part of that will have been shaped by our history - evolutionary as well as culturally. There are many myths out there about love and sex, and they can cause lots of pain and heartache. In general it's worth examining beliefs to ferret out ideas that exist at the expense of humans, and discard those that have more costs than benefits.
By far the best survey on the subject is a recent book called Sex at Dawn. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest reading it - I've come across many of the things talked about in the book from other sounds sources, and the book is impressive. It's scientific and evidence-based, and the authors take great care with the subject because they know it's touchy. It's also pretty damn entertaining and written at a very accessible level for having such detailed information.
I said many perhaps most.
I base it on a few things. Marriage statistics for one show that 50% of married couples divorce. Research into anthropology and evolutionary psychology such as what's referenced works like Sex at Dawn and in research like this.
Biologically, we're not really built for monogamy. Some species are. Historically, we don't practice monogamy. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Your bringing up race makes no sense though. Calling me a hedonistic pagan is just as absurd, my flair clearly labels me an atheist :) I don't hold pagan beliefs. Perhaps you could link me to some evidence that humans are entirely naturally monogamous?
It is an evolutionary trait,
Women actually moan during sex to attract other sex partners, because its in her evolutionary interest to get as much semen in there as possible and then let the strongest sperm win. So back in prehistory it was in her interest to signal to other males that she is ready to preform the reproductive act, other males would hear her and think "oh boy a horny chick" and go fuck her after the first dude was done. Scientists have observed the same behavior in chimpanzees and bonobos (our closest genetic relatives) They call this "“female copulatory vocalization" and generally the more promiscuous the species of ape, the louder the female is.
If you're interested in human sexuality from the perspective of evolutionary psychology (and who isn't!) I highly recommended the book "Sex at Dawn"
Edit: If you don't want to go buy the book heres a link outlining the study. Or see #15 on their sites FAQ.
TL;DR - Because we're horny monkeys
Sex at Dawn (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805) is about this - the author makes a pretty clear case that monogamy came to exist with the beginning of agriculture (i.e. the beginning of personal ownership of land / other stuff) since this was the time when inheritance made paternity much more important
Pre-agriculture, since women would have sex with several different men and it wasn't 100% clear who was the biological father (remember, people were pretty primitive and cause-and-effect isn't immediate with pregnancy), several men would end up believing they "have a stake" in the child's future and would help take care of it.
Read Sex at Dawn. Have your girlfriend read Sex at Dawn.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1290967913&amp;sr=8-1
Then have an open, honest conversation. And seek a sex-positive couples therapist. You will both need it. These are serious changes.
Sex at Dawn! More about sexuality and evolutionary biology (is that a thing?) but way relevant.
Here are two books you might be interested in.
Sex at Dawn
The Ethical Slut
Read Sex At Dawn Prehistoric Origins of Human Sexuality
Great book that challenges many theories about this.
Oh dear. Before you wander too far down this linear road, please read "Sex at Dawn, the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. I think the title was chosen by the publishing house to sell books, because the real premise dismantles the notion that human beings are selfish and prone to conflict, when actually all evidence predating agriculture points to the opposite. It's a MUST READ for any educated 21st century human being.
here's the amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
and if you do nothing else, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReQ4iuTNYtA
You should read Sex at Dawn. It is a pop-sci book about sex in pre-agricultural societies (and how it operated nothing like most people imagine it did).
I've struggled with this in LTRs. It's common.
On this topic, I cannot recommend Sex At Dawn enough. It's a fascinating exploration of how human sexuality, both in terms of physiological urges and expectations, has evolved. It does a great job of cutting down the usual "men evolved to want to spread their seed, women want a protector for their bay-bees; Venus vs. Mars" story and offering some compelling (and personally much more comprehensible) explanations of who we are sexually and how we came to be that way.
You're very welcome! By the way: you or your friend will have a craving to watch the movie Chicago immediately after reading "Girls of Murder City." If you want to make the package complete, toss in a copy of that right under it to prevent this egregious calamity before it happens! :D
EDIT: Also, if you want to read the chapter about prehistoric sex that Jared Diamond forgot to include in Guns, Germs, and Steel, then "Sex at Dawn" is a fantastic read — and, IMHO, it's more humorously written. :)
Check out /r/polyamory and read about people who are practicing ethical nonmonogamy. It can be a lot of fun if you do this as a way of enhancing trust and love, rather than telling yourselves that your natural biochemistry is a sign that you love each other somehow less.
Oh, and communicate, communicate, communicate! with your man. No "don't ask, don't tell"s unless you are both certain that it is the best choice for you.
And if you want to read a great book that will help you to quell some of that old-school social narrative scare tactic about sex and monogamous, committed love being inextricably tied, then read Sex At Dawn.
Being in love doesn't stop most people from needing sexual novelty. Needing sexual novelty doesn't stop people from being in love unless they try to crush that need under a mountain of guilt and denial.
Read this: Sex_at_Dawn
My favorite source for this: Sex at Dawn
Note that there's a number of things in that book that are controversial and/or still being debated, but I think for the most part it's pretty spot on, particularly in the sexual behaviors of ancient people.
Bonobos love sex and will have it with any other bonobo just as a show of affection or for pure pleasure. They're very friendly. It bothers me when people point to Apes as proof of our war-like nature, when really we're more like bonobos.
To the OP, Sex at Dawn is a really great book recently published on human sexuality and its origins. Has a nice chapter on bonobos.
I haven't got to it yet, but I understand Sex At Dawn has some interesting postulates on human sexuality.
That being said, I don't care as long as everyone is adult and consenting. Monogamy, open relationships, swingers, polyamory, etc. It's all good. I know people in each type of relationship and they're all very happy.
Read this book and get over it.
Humans haven't always been monogamous (and I would argue that we still aren't). Our mating practices used to (and in some cultures still do) more closely resemble those of our nearest cousins, the bonobos and chimps. That is, when humans were all still small bands of hunter-gatherers, their sexual relationships used to consist of many sexual partners. Or in other words, everyone had sex with everyone, thus the question never arose whether a specific mate might qualify as desirable enough. For further reading, I suggest this fascinating book titled "Sex at Dawn".
>a) marriage is a religious matter; this is at the forefront,
Not in the US. Not in many places. Many people get married without any religious elements at all. You would be coorrect only if you said "marriage is a religious matter for many people.
>b) marriage is a social matter; we like monogamy. Much as there are people out there who say other wise, it's true. We "slut shame" because the idea of people fucking freely is wrong to us as people.
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Cf.
>It's evolution, both social and biological, we like to settle down. It's why so many of us are quick to marry young, and why mothers judge you on "why aren't you married yet?"
Do you really want to bring in the ridiculous social Darwinism bullshit? Please trust me, you do NOT want to. Mothers do that because they have evolved biologically to be driven by perpetuation of their genes.
>c) and most importantly for these arguments, marriage is a political matter; marriage is the binding of two families that has, through the ages, itself evolved into an important legal venture of combined assets, power of attorney, and especially in the case of gay marriage versus domestic partnership, the ability to actually be in the hospital room with your spouse.
Well, yes. Up until recently in the west and to this day in the east a dowry is essential to marry off a daughter. Until very recently a married woman could not get a credit card in her own name. She was legally subservient to her husband, she was chattel.
Don't get me wrong - I am in favor of marriage equality. What I object to is overly simplistic, under-informed argument about it.
Ever read "Sex at Dawn?"
>Basically he's of the camp that insists there's something sacred about marriage defined as only between one male and one female. It's a foundamental rule of the universe that the human society must uphold for its own good.
There isn't anything universal or fundamental to monogamy in the first place.
I object to your use of "rarely." But yes, it can end poorly if everyone isn't on the same page.
But it does deal with the issue of infidelity. You should read this book that attempts to look at the evolutionary origins of human sexuality.
There are a few biology articles I could link to regarding the morphology of the genitalia, but the best summary of the research is a book called Sex at Dawn.
Although, heck, it turns out that multimale-multifemale mating groups were the norm in early human society.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Dan Savage is pimping this book this week. I don't know how good Sex At Dawn actually is, but I'm not convinced humans are evolved for monogamy.
politically inconvenient? when did i mention that? I was purely talking about marriage as an institution, and you decided to politicize it, i could care less about the political issues revolving marriage.
btw if you'd like to see how humans carried relationships for millions of years, maybe do some research, read a book....because in fact humans were monogamous for a very small sliver of our evolution from tree dwelling apes. sorry to challenge your status quo worldview, but you are grossly misinformed of the facts.
See here: http://www.amazon.ca/Sex-At-Dawn-Prehistoric-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Everyone in this thread should read "Sex at Dawn"
Why do you keep focusing on polygamy?
> Since our society is not egalitarian between the sexes much less amongst the sexes, it is highly likely that allowing polygamy would result in the same situations seen time and time again in history.
There are plenty of communities practicing polyamory without those issues. The evidence seems to be against you.
> In some species, like chimps and bonobos, promiscuous polygamy is practiced and that would eliminate the need for these issues, but humans are a species which tend towards pairbonding and social, serial monogamy.
There's very little evidence that humans "tend towards pairbonding". You may be interested in this book.
Sex at Dawn; The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
and Fast Food Nation
Both are totally worth the read.
you need to read this NOW: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805/
Patriarchal vs Matriarchal society. See: (Sex at Dawn)[http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805]
I agree with everything you said, but polyamory isn't for everyone, nor is being gay. Perhaps point this gentleman to some literature which explains the poly ethos so the OP is sure he's informed about what he's getting into? If he says he's willing to wait it sounds like he doesn't understand what OP is really asking for, or doesn't believe her and thinks he can convince her otherwise (as you said). He just might not be the right person for the poly model. The usual reading, Ethical Slut and Sex at Dawn would probably suffice.
Read Sex at Dawn. It's filled with examples and citations.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
It might make people reconsider how tightly they hold onto certain constructs of monogamy. Dan Savage recommends it constantly: "Sex at Dawn is the single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948. Want to understand why men married to supermodels cheat? Why so many marriages are sexless? Why paternity tests often reveal that the 'father' isn't? Read Sex at Dawn."
The last one is indeed a hypothesis however there is some compelling evidence (and many other interesting hypotheses) in it's favour which I recommend reading in this book ...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1312312059&amp;sr=8-2
It certainly rang true for me on lots of levels.
We don't know enough scientifically to say whether wanting to have sex with people of the same gender is choice or biology. I did not decide that I wanted to fuck women, it just happened.
There is a book titled "Sex at Dawn" it is an awesome book about sex. Its subject is the sexuality of humans before we began farming 10,000~ years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
It suggests, among other things, that at least partial homosexuality could increase bonding and cooperation between early humans thereby increasing their likelihood of surviving.
Any argument that someone is 100% gay because of genetics I find suspect because the tendency would be for gay people to remove themselves from the gene pool. But if bisexuality was beneficial in the past, gay people could be partially genetically gay and partially deciding to ignore their desires for heterosexual sex.
I would highly recommend reading http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805. It might shed some clarity and help you decide what`s best for you to do long term.
All non-fiction:
If you're interested in in the fundamental disconnect between how men and women view sex I'd recommend reading Sex at Dawn which is an in depth look at how human sexual urges have evolved. Although it may not be the best read for your marriage. The authors are fairly adamant that monogamous relationship aren't natural for humans. Myself being very committed to a marriage that works and lasts this book helped my expand my understanding by challenging what I thought was true. Either way it's an interesting read.
I'd also recommend against therapy but a lot of people get really mad at me when I share my views in that area, just do what you think is best.
Actually, the reason is not a lack of communication, it's biology. People did not evolve to have sex with just one person, and your tendency to become bored after a while helps maintain genetic diversity within a population and helps prevent possible incest from arising. Read the book Sex at Dawn for more about it. Great book, recommended to me by a redditor. :)
>try to understand me before you jump up on the bench with your white wig and your gavel.
I read some of your other comments before first responding to you. You're in your thirties, and oh so experienced. Except that you think you know more than you really do. Experience with only certain types of relationships, and second-hand at that, does not make you an expert on all things emotional or human. At least have the humility to accept that you don't know all there is to know about people before handing down your "wisdom".
>but it's another thing entirely for a guy to string a girl along for months or even years on end because she thinks that one day he's going to magically realize how good she is to him and he's going to devote himself entirely to her.
Which is exactly what I was referring to by reading things onto the OP's situation that were in no way hinted at or supported by her post. She seems to maybe still carry some of your assumptions, since she was initially hurt by his not wanting to be in a relationship, but has since realized that a relationship wasn't what she wanted either. Where's the stringing along? Where's the abuse you so readily assume must be there?
>I've personally watched friends of mine, both male and female, get sucked into these situations where one person thinks there's an emotional connection that is eventually going to come to fruition, while the other person laughs at the very idea of ever taking the relationship further than the bedroom.
Yes, of course this happens. But it doesn't always happen, it's neither the norm nor the majority of cases. There's nothing here to indicate that this is one of these situations...well, nothing except your obvious prejudices and preconceptions.
>Human beings, particularly women, are not biologically/emotionally structured to bounce freely from one sexual partner to the next without forming any emotional attachments.
Support that statement or stop making it. Or rather, clear up what you mean by "emotional attachments". As someone who's had a significant number of happy, consensual sexual friendships in his life, I freely admit that these friendships were deeper and meant more to us than most non-sexual friendships did. But caring about and for a person doesn't mean you want to form a long-term monogamous bond with them, and your assumption that feelings (particularly female feelings apparently) automatically require a traditional monogamous relationship to be healthy and not wounding is simply wrong. You go on and on about your experience, yet I doubt that yours holds a candle to mine. So sure, sexual relationships will always mean more than non-sexual relationships, because of the intimacy and trust required for consensual sex. But that meaning does not need to be expressed in the narrow forms you set out for it, and there need be no using of one party by another simply because they chose a different arrangement than you would.
>it's impossible to argue that there aren't elements of our physiology that encourage us to fall in love with someone and reproduce
I would recommend you read Sex at Dawn before you peddle unfounded "evolutionary" psychology as if it were at all valid. Yes, that hoary old chestnut has been repeated endlessly for generations, but it doesn't make it any more true. Romantic love, especially of the Taylor Swift variety (which seems to be what you're holding up as the natural state of human romantic relationships) is a relatively recent invention, not more than a couple hundred years old. At our deepest, most fundamental and instinctive level, we're wired to share several partners and form deep attachments with all of them, to share resources and child-rearing responsibilities amongst a small group of equal adults. We may not do things this way anymore, and deep-seated social mores and phobias (casually reinforced by people like you) may make these arrangements problematic for most people today, but that is what the elements of our physiology encourage us to do.
excerpts are from here http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805
>Huh? Even if this is true (which I'm not because it isn't referenced and I haven't done any research on it myself), what is the significance of this? What is biologically better about a larger penis?
If you have a monogamous animal sperm delivery is not a problem. The woman only has one mate, so the body readily accepts the sperm.
However, in promiscuous species the men's sperm needs to compete with other sperm to impregnate the ovum. Only 1-2% of sperm have the goal of actually trying to fertilize the egg, the other sperm are blockers and killers, that seek to stop other men's sperm.
The reason why a large penis is so advantageous is because the penis is shaped so during each thrust it creates a vaccum that pumps out the guy's sperm before hand. Plus the guy can ejaculate in a deeper area of the vagina than other men can.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf