4 stars for content, 2-3 for writing. A friend of mine recently picked up "Sex at Dawn," which I'd read a few years ago when it was released and hyped. While I was more than ready to agree with its premise and was looking forward to some good old-fashioned scientific evidence, I was incredibly disappointed not only by the condescendingly smug tone, but the pseudo scientific, poorly-defended arguments from cherry-picked (often intentionally misrepresented)sources. I was further put off by Christopher Ryan's puerile and defensive online attacks on those people who expressed doubt about the book; if you think people are misunderstanding your work, back it up with evidence and refute the claim - don't get into silly arguments in the comments sections of online reviews.
Discussing the book with my friend really brought back my irritation, so I did a little more research and discovered that quite a bit of material has been published in the meantime refuting Ryan's arguments in SAD. "Sex at Dusk" was perhaps the most thorough, and it presents what I was hoping for from the first work: clear arguments (from multiple angles), thorough research, less male bias, not pushing an agenda when it contradicts scientific evidence, and a willingness to acknowledge what is still unknown. It's not perfect, by any means; there ARE many unknowns, and the writing itself is often not that strong (at times it's downright poor), but I think she was probably compelled to write the book to get a significant counter-argument out there. I'd encourage anyone who read Sex at Dawn to take a look at this book, too.