Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism beta males crackpottery evil women hypergamy misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts

Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2

Happy day!  Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.

This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at  Freedom Twenty-Five.

Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:

This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).

Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.

Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.

Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:

From "Hooking Up Smart."

Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,

the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.

Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.

Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!

But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.

So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.

Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.

Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.

But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:

What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …

Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.

Frost concludes:

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Betty Drapers of the world, unite!

Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.

Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:

It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia,  he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.

If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.

Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:

The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.

What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:

For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.

In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:

These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.

(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)

Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.

And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.

NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.

EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

515 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nobby
9 years ago

Speaking of biology and mating habits, Leopard slugs: disgusting and fascinating:

Credit to PZ Meyers

Nobby
9 years ago

Er, credit for bringing it to my attention, not the video itself.

Roz
Roz
9 years ago

So…men will not commit to monogamous relationships with women of comparable attractiveness (like they apparently did in the good old days before the 1960s ruined everything, amirite?) because there are ‘unattractive’ women engaging in no-strings sex, causing the men to have no interest in relationships (‘cos sex is all they want and if they can get it without commitment, they’ll always choose that option over a relationship).

As we all know, it is imperative that as many people as possible enter into heterosexual monogamous relationships (as if any other type exists anyway!) because…economics?

Therefore, ‘slutty’ women should be chastised. Both by ‘non-slutty’ women and all(?) men, because their sexual behaviour will surely lead to the collapse of…like…society and shit?

I don’t think I’ve ever had so much bullshit fired into my eyes in one sitting.

You know what? The hypothetical people who would buy line of thinking i.e. men who think of women only in terms of getting sex and women who would badmouth other women in order to curry favour with these men…sound pretty repellent. If I genuinely belived that ‘slutty’ women were causing these people to fail romantically, I be pretty happy with that.

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology. but arguing that something can’t be true because it might imply an ugly outcome doesn’t prove that the initial argument was incorrect. again, an argument without an argument.”
Oh my god, both parts of this are wrong. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong because if you were right that would mean discrimination has a biological basis, and that would be wrong; that would be an appeal to the consequences. I am arguing that nobody has a reason to think you are right BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR FACT CLAIMS.

Be less stupid.

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

I know I shouldn’t treat Walsh’s BS seriously until she has evidence to substantiate it, but if men have harems, doesn’t that make the men the sluts, not the women? Shouldn’t their ‘SMV’ be going down for it, making them stop being 10s or whatever?

It’s almost as if this is incoherent nonsense designed to shame women and reaffirm men’s pride that they can’t possibly be at fault for relationship troubles.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

“Their male organs extend and intertwine…”

Hmm, Leopard slugs going their own way. 🙂

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Aww that rope of mucus is so romantic!

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

Ew, me:
“I’d hate to think we were guilty of anything like that,”
If you weren’t so dense I’d think you were being sarcastic.

No, seriously. You made a factual claim, you need to back it up with evidence. That’s the way this works. So tell us: where do you see goalpost-moving here?

Tatjna
Tatjna
9 years ago

Here’s an article regarding the education level of women and resulting reduction in hypergamy, and it’s almost complete lack of impact on the ‘marriage market’ for them.

http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf

It has data and everything!

I may have upset someone over in the GL Piggy blog by asking for citations based on actual research instead of opinions pulled out of someone’s arse. Meanwhile, I see the “I can’t prove it so instead I’m gonna tell you that you have to disprove it narny narny” argument is going strong over here too.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

How much of behaviour is driven by sexual biology? :3

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
9 years ago

Susan Walsh is so fucking smug about her successful marriage that I expect the Ted Haggard Corollary to Murphy’s Law (which specifically deals with right-wing moralizing blowhards) to bite her in the ass within the next 5 years.

What should be the over/under on the number of mistresses her husband actually had?

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

-1000000! 😀 (they’re zombies)

Today, while I was out, I realized why MRA/PUAs/Sexual Economists (SEs? SEcos?) believe what they do! It makes life way more fun XD Seeing regular ppl go about their lives suddenly becomes an exercise in speculation xD Like I saw this guy and girl and ppl would prolly wonder why they’re together cuz he’s so hot and she’s… by conventional attraction things.. not… and cue the speculation! XD Maybe he’s a beta who like worked out a lot and is planning to trade up? xD Or is this the whole sluts are ruining the marketplace thing or something? Or… is this feminist craziness! Maybe he’s brainwashed!!!! Maybe she entrapped him w/ kids! Or maybe they just like each other…’s otters! 😀 Maybe she has rly hot pets! xD

Maybe he’s just w/ her to trade for her pokemon and then will leave when he gets her best ones! Muhahahahahaha >:3

Neways.. as I said, it did make standing in line more amusing 😀

Also he was checking me out.. so he was prolly looking to trade up xD

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“I expect the Ted Haggard Corollary to Murphy’s Law”

I look forward to the Roy Zimmerman song!

katz
9 years ago

NMMNG: I know you didn’t say you agreed with that Slate article you linked, but it’s actually pretty lame–not unusually so, but full of the obnoxious BS that gets cited over and over, like the “women didn’t agree on the spot to sex with complete strangers so women don’t like sex!” study.

NF4ever
NF4ever
9 years ago

Ho ho, the latest slut-shaming technique I’ve seen touted by evo psych types- or, I should say, hurled by evo psych believers at any women who dares to act without respect to the boundaries of normative “femininity”- is that women who enjoy “extra-pair copulation” do so only because they have more testosterone than other women. This explains their lack of ladylike deference to social pressures, and explains away any agency women may venture to exhibit in their own sex lives.

Yes, you heard it here first- sluts are women who are more like men. But it’s not bad to be a man! Death to the war on True Manhood(tm)! It’s only bad to be a man if you’re a woman. See how that works?

Zombine Developers!
Zombine Developers!
9 years ago

@Tatjna
Interesting, and it does show what you claim.

However, it also shows some troubling things:
” The Census data show, as expected, a decline in marriage rates for men at the bottom of the education distribution, but not for women at the top of the distribution.”

“Second, the decline in marriage is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the less educated segments of the population, particularly among blacks. Men’s education-marriage profiles have gone from being relatively flat in 1980 to strongly steep in 2000. The worsening labor market opportunities for less-skilled men have severely limited their ability to contribute to marriage. In terms of policy, measures designed to encourage marriage are more likely to be successful when targeted towards improving the economic prospects of men at the bottom of the economic
spectrum.”

Hypergamy is alive and well amongst the least educated, meaning that the least-educated young men still have a hard time finding a wife and starting a family. In a world where most high-school dropouts are men, this is a major problem.

Tatjna
Tatjna
9 years ago

@Zombine Developers! Yes I noticed that too, and it would be easy to assume that this is a product of hypergamy – but given the roughly even numbers of men and women in the world, if X number of men aren’t marrying, surely X number of women aren’t either? How does the increase in de facto relationships factor into this?

One thing I definitely agree with is that policy targeted towards improving the prospects of those at the bottom of the economic spectrum (regardless of gender) is good for society as a whole.

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“Hypergamy is alive and well amongst the least educated, meaning that the least-educated young men still have a hard time finding a wife and starting a family. In a world where most high-school dropouts are men, this is a major problem.”
You’re… only motivated to help end class oppression because it keeps men from getting wives? Because we really should either way.

Incidentally, I suspect another thing that’d prevent hypergamy is reducing the oppression the lower class feels to begin with; no need to flee your class so much if it’s not… crushingly horrible, right?

Well, one study seems to support this, I’ll need to look at hypergamy rates for other countries as well; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.4410&rep=rep1&type=pdf
The UK and Ireland experience almost no hypergamy whatsoever. They also have GINI Coefficients of ..35 or so as well. Still, only one pair of countries so far. We’ll need to keep looking.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Susanwalsh: What do you think it says? I conclude the post by saying that 20% of men are enjoying 80% of the sexual encounters, not 80% of the women. I also state that 20% of the population is slutty, and that they’re basically servicing each other.

So the sluts are sleeping with each other and everyone else is at home with battery operated toys because they aren’t clued in enough to talk to the other 80 percent of non-sluts and them being that clueless is the fault of the sluts (because of feminism).

Some intellectual rigor there.

I do not jump to conclusions.

False. Self-admittedly false. In the very post under discussion.

Men dissatisfied in the SMP have taken to learning Game in increasing numbers.

There is nothing to support this conclustion.

If the man you love won’t be your boyfriend because sluts hop onto his lap when he’s out…

Is an edge case, but you present it (esp. in context) as if the reason a man doesn’t go for someone is the sluts hopping in his lap; but you also say the sluts are sleeping with the sluts and the rest of us are out in the cold.

Those are mutally contradictory positions, and one of them (at least) is a conclusion you jumped to.

Those are the women, in my view, who present the greatest threat to other women, and the greatest risk for men.

That’s a conclusion you jumped to. Your idea is that this is the threat, and from that you prescribe a regimen (shaming, and social opprobrium) to bring back the ideal world you concluded (note the root) existed in the past.

It’s sort of like your conclusion that casual sex leads to economic stagnation.

And, for one last conclusion you’ve jumped to… Are you really this dense? Unattractive women and attractive men are not couples! They have no-strings sex briefly. Men do not happily date sluts. Men with options never date sluts.

Mind you, this is provably false, because there are marriages just like this, though you could quibble and say marriage isn’t dating.

Pecunium
9 years ago

G.I. Piggy: You are asserting that the majority of people agree with Susan Walsh that the sexual revolution has so skewed things that most people aren’t getting laid becaus the sluts are making sex too easy to get (despite most men not getting any) and as a result…

So if this is the majority view, why isn’t it changing? Why the need for the Susan Walsh’s and the G. I. Piggies of the world to convince the rest of us what most of us already believe?

In other words, when you answer the request for a citation of your claim of fact, saying, “I said so, and it’s true” doesn’t count.

In other words, [citation still needed]

G.L. Piggy
9 years ago

Nobby,

The paper your referenced is pure horse shit.

It is supposed to be some sort of refutation of classic studies which provided evidence that men were more receptive to sex proposals from women rather than the reverse. But look at the methodology. They had people *imagine* how they would respond in scenarios where strange men or women approached them for sex. The researcher also substituted famous people as proxies for known good-looking and unattractive people (Johnny Depp vs. Donald Trump).

The factor they came away with was that men and women were equally interested in whether or not the approaching partner was perceived as good in bed. I think this is silly because it could be interepreted another way – that men think that almost any woman will do whereas women think that only a certain caliber of man will work for them. Thus, men are much less picky across the board. Which fits into Susan’s argument that men’s sexual choice has greater variance than women’s sexual choice which is more picky and thus relatively more hypergamous.

In the study, women were more receptive to good-looking men whereas they were not receptive to random approaches. But men were receptive in both instances.

Yes Means Yes Blog reviewed the research.

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“The factor they came away with was that men and women were equally interested in whether or not the approaching partner was perceived as good in bed. I think this is silly because it could be interepreted another way – that men think that almost any woman will do whereas women think that only a certain caliber of man will work for them.”
Actually, that is possible. It would be interesting to come up with a study that would work out that possibility, do you have any-

“Thus, men are much less picky across the board. Which fits into Susan’s argument that men’s sexual choice has greater variance than women’s sexual choice which is more picky and thus relatively more hypergamous. ”
ALSDKLGSADHKGASLKDHFASLKDHRTRAGRAFTCLANS Inventing a potential confound is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING AS ESTABLISHING THAT CONFOUND AS AN ACTUAL FACTOR USING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.

It means it’s POSSIBLE that this is the case, and more studies are needed that will specifically test for that possibility, yes, but it doesn’t establish that as true.

For fuck’s sake, are you seriously trying to claim hypergamy is biologically motivated? Because I JUST FUCKING LINKED A STUDY THAT INDICATES ALMOST NO HYPERGAMY OCCURED IN A DIFFERENT PAIR OF CULTURES. What hypergamy was there was best explained as an effect of random chance, which is perfectly acceptable.

“In the study, women were more receptive to good-looking men whereas they were not receptive to random approaches. But men were receptive in both instances. ”
Do you read things you link to? Because it found that the difference was linked to the perception of risk, and the fact is that women risk a lot more than men in everyday interactions, especially an open and immediate invitation to casual sex.

tatjna
tatjna
9 years ago

@Rutee Almost all actual research into hypergamy suggests that it’s a product of gender inequality – ie there’s large correlation between societies that routinely oppress women and the existence of hypergamy in those societies.

Conversely, almost all the arguments I’ve seen that hypergamy is biological have been based on opinion and sophistry and a determination to interpret everything as ‘proof’ rather than research and evidence.

no more mr nice guy
9 years ago

I know the article was lame but it does show that you can use evo-psych to counter what MRAs are saying.

no more mr nice guy
9 years ago

I was answering Katz in my preceding comment.

If you want to have more fun, Badger Hut, a fan of Susan Walsh, defend her : http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/reflections-on-frosts-analysis-of-the-sexual-revolution/

Sharculese
9 years ago

The UK and Ireland experience almost no hypergamy whatsoever. They also have GINI Coefficients of ..35 or so as well. Still, only one pair of countries so far. We’ll need to keep looking.

the only explanation is that british people are unnatural

Magical Laura (@_magical_laura)

You’re right Sharculese, we’re doing this all wrong over here *leaves boyfriend and runs off to find a super rich guy who will…buy me shoes…and shit…*

kristinmh
kristinmh
9 years ago

Yeah, Laura, me too. What a mistake, marrying someone who makes roughly the same amount of money as I do in a related profession! I could be SWIMMING in shoes by now!

Does anyone know a rich Michael Fassbender lookalike who’ll marry a mouthy 30-year-old pregnant woman with limited housekeeping abilities?

Nobby
9 years ago

Yup, GL Piggy didn’t actually read the article, or even the well laid out review that he linked to, which explains quite well that the difference is mainly motivated by perception of risk by the women involved. But, nope, Piggy gets to make up random situations without actually reading through the whole thing.

And really, if you think that’s horseshit, Piggy, where does your study rank,l which doesn’t even have it’s own data or attempt to defend it’s own theory? Where does the original sexual strategy theory paper rank, who’s methodology was having a tester walk up small sample of random people on a college campus and say “hey, want to have sex?” and attempted to generalize this to biological principles? Because if my paper is horse shit, yours has to be somewhere around the level of toxic waste.

dan
dan
9 years ago

Sharculese

Well, when you consider that our alphiest alphas include Wayne Rooney, Ashley Cole, John Terry and Peter Crouch,it’s an explanation that really does make a lot of sense.

Pecunium
9 years ago

I read that paper, when it came out. As has been said, what it says is perceived risks, and benefits (largely situational) were the leading factors in selection; for men and women.

For some reason women didn’t think random men hitting on them on a college campus were all that likely to be good in bed (and might be something of a risk to their personal safety).

I don’t seem to have the pdf handy (I thought I’d copied it).

Ah well.

Matt C
Matt C
9 years ago

Nobby:

“No, GL Piggy. Evopsyche makes a claim: behaviors are governed by evolution. That claim needs to be substantiated, and has not. Not even your article even tries to substantiate it! It says, quite clearly, “some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested“, and offers no new data of it’s own. One does not need to disprove a theory until evidence has been posited, i.e. the theory has been tested! Scientists do not go around all day having to prove that little demons aren’t playing tennis with atoms. Unsubstantiated claims are useless until substantiated.”

So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?

What a preposterous claim. LOL!

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?”
No, he’s saying there’s no convincing evidence that it’s governed by evolutionary imperatives. You’re like those morons who think Natural Selection can’t be true because it’s governed by random chance, aren’t you? 747 in a junkyard tornado = Evolution is false, AMIRITE?

Nobby
9 years ago

“So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?”

As Rutee said, I never said it was random. But I have a question for you: if evolution and the desire to pass on out own genetic code is paramount, why do gay people exist? Why do gay animals of pretty much every species exist? That seems like a behavior bound to get weeded out pretty damn fast.

Nobby
9 years ago

And so Rutee doesn’t think badly about me, I will admit this is even a easy one (it is, after all, a cross-species behavior). But I bet you can’t do it while keeping the ideal of passing on one’s own genes as the all-important factor.

Matt C
Matt C
9 years ago

“As Rutee said, I never said it was random. But I have a question for you: if evolution and the desire to pass on out own genetic code is paramount, why do gay people exist? Why do gay animals of pretty much every species exist? That seems like a behavior bound to get weeded out pretty damn fast.”

Why does Type I diabetes exist, why does dwarfism exist, why are some people born without immune systems, why are some people born extraordinarily ugly, why are some people born with Down’s syndrome? All of these deformities seem like they would be weeded out pretty damn fast.

Oh yeah, because when genes are passed from one generation to the next, it doesn’t work perfectly. Deformities arise even though they should have been weeded out long ago.

Also, if my desires didn’t come from randomness and they didn’t come from evolution where did they come from?

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

Really? That’s your grand guess for a cross species behavior represented in a huge number of species? A transcription error that just happened to repeat hundreds of thousands of times? Is that your final answer? Nice job with the homophobia BTW.

Nobby
9 years ago

Matt C: How could a behavior trait that has a defining feature of not reproducing get passed on?

Vermin
Vermin
9 years ago

Oh, but this is not a trait, you see – it is a transcription error! Which exists in 5 percent of the population! And this doesn’t explain bisexuality in any way. But, Matt C, go grab your Nobel Prize, ’cause you have just discovered the cause of homosexuality!

Also, comparing non-heterosexuality and being ugly to genetic disorder … stay classy, Matt.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Actually I thought having gay members of any species was both a population control method and a way of helping the overall group because they produce resources without using them all up.

Which now makes me wonder if that is how humanity was able to develop grandparents. The latest issue of Scientific American had something on The Evolution of Grandparents and it would not surprise me if having members of the tribe who bring in those extra resources allowed for people to live long enough to see their grandbabies be born.

Just something I was thinking as I read this.

Nobby
9 years ago

Well, i did say it was easy. But you had to go and spoil it for a person that obviously doesn’t understand evolution.

Nobby
9 years ago

However, I’ll rephrase it for Matt C. If the ‘desire to have sex with women’ is purely a result of genes wanting to propagate, the explanation by Beth (which is still a little controversial, i think, but a testable theory) still doesn’t cover why being gay, a behavior that leads straight to not passing on genes (unlike even down syndrome and deformities which, as Rutee and Vermin pointed out, are not genetic in the same sense) is not weeded out of the population. Someone who’s gay doesn’t propagate, heterosexuals do. Why is it not gone in a single generation?

And again, why does it occur across so many animal species, and so frequently?

Matt C
Matt C
9 years ago

“And again, why does it occur across so many animal species, and so frequently?”

How about this, I don’t know. I don’t care. I could think about this and come up with some bullshit answer, but a real answer would have to come from a research team and years of studying data and testing hypotheses.

I know only three things about this:
1. Gay people still reproduce. I know a couple gay people who have children that are biologically their own.
2. If being gay is a trait genetically passed down, it could just be a deformity like Type I diabetes that persists even though it should be weeded out in a few generations. Especially since Type I diabetes almost always occurs in the 5-10 age BEFORE the child’s reproductive organs develop. This would kill the child before they had a chance to procreate.
3. It only occurs in a small part of the population. As vermin stated, only about 5% of the population. This leaves 95% of the population with the desire to have sex with the opposite gender, which would lead to baby-making.

Also, Nobby you went off topic from my original point. My original point was that the desire to procreate is governed by evolution. You say there’s no convincing evidence, yet all mammals I know of have sex in order to reproduce. The vast majority of humans/mammals have the desire to have sex with the opposite gender. To say this behavior is not governed by evolution, is stupid.

It’s like saying that my desire to seek out resources in order to eat and have shelter isn’t governed by evolution because some people commit suicide.

Rutee
Rutee
9 years ago

“The vast majority of humans/mammals have the desire to have sex with the opposite gender.”

“To say this behavior is not governed by evolution, is stupid.”

You… have continually failed to substantiate that it is because of evolution.

“It’s like saying that my desire to seek out resources in order to eat and have shelter isn’t governed by evolution because some people commit suicide.”
No, it’s like saying you can’t just declare evolution to be the reason for anything. I could declare evolution was the reason behind genocide because I’m ‘wiping out competitors’ even though it’s demonstrably bad for species fitness to do this. You need something weightier than “I say it’s evolutionarily derived with a just-so story” to actually establish something as being evolutionarily driven.

darksidecat
9 years ago

@z. developers, holy classism batman. Please, do us a favour and spare us your pet theories about poor people and our communities.

Also, G.L. Piggy knows as little about the huge variety of primate social behaviors as he does about everything else.

It is also worth noting that sex serves functions other than reproduction, such as social bonding…

Nobby
9 years ago

No, i’m not going off topic, because you were the one who brought up the fact that heterosexuality is a norm as somehow an argument against my statement about evopsych:

“So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?”

So, i am still arguing about evopsych. Just because you showed up doesn’t mean this is somehow a different conversation.

“Gay people still reproduce. I know a couple gay people who have children that are biologically their own.”

At a much slower rate, and through conscious effort on their part. This is considerably less true about other mammals, and therefore demonstrably not the case.

“If being gay is a trait genetically passed down, it could just be a deformity like Type I diabetes that persists even though it should be weeded out in a few generations. Especially since Type I diabetes almost always occurs in the 5-10 age BEFORE the child’s reproductive organs develop. This would kill the child before they had a chance to procreate.”

That is because the predisposition is genetic, not the condition itself. It must be induced by an environmental change. Absent this change, the diabetes does not manifest and thus they can reproduce. And considering the fact that, as far as I can find, this disease does not occur elsewhere in the animal kingdom (i can only find evidence of type 2, which is caused primarily by unhealthy diet), it is entirely possible this is the result of recent (by evolutionary standard) changes to living conditions. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is, again, quite prevalent across the animal kingdom and has had much, much longer to be weeded out.

“It only occurs in a small part of the population. As vermin stated, only about 5% of the population. This leaves 95% of the population with the desire to have sex with the opposite gender, which would lead to baby-making.”

If anything this strengthens my point. That 95% would easily drown out the piddling faction of that 5% that has children in a very short time.

Nobby
9 years ago

Slight clarifications, this: “This is considerably less true about other mammals, and therefore demonstrably not the case.”

Should be “This is considerably less true about other mammals, and therefore demonstrably not the reason for the continued prevalence of homosexuality.”

And this: “If anything this strengthens my point. That 95% would easily drown out the piddling faction of that 5% that has children in a very short time.”

Should be: “If anything this strengthens my point. That 95% would easily drown out the piddling faction of that 5% that has children in a very short time if behaviors were governed by straight evolutionary rules.”

Sharculese
9 years ago

5% is just 5% of the human population. there are animal species with higher rates of homosexuality than us.