Vaginas are icky because … SCIENCE! (779 upvotes on Reddit)

Well, it is testable to some extent. I would agree with you that it’s nearly impossible to verify claims about the distant past since we don’t have enough information about the psychology or culture (for the most part) of our distant ancestors to do that, and there aren’t any extant Homo species other than us for comparison. But it is certainly possible to test whether people with a certain heritable variation (in mind or body) have more children and grandchildren, whether certain psychological traits are actually influenced by genes at all and whether they can be passed down from parents to children, whether mating behavior is actually affected by variations in reported preferences, etc. You can verify a good chunk of stuff from evo psych, it’s just that a lot of the people who do it haven’t bothered to verify the things that would actually give it any validity (such as fecundity data or the relevant cross-cultural studies). And they’re often aiming for far too specific hypotheses that fall under a very narrow conception of cognitive science (“innate cheating detection modules”) instead of more general ones (“heritable sensitivity to social abandonment modulated by cultural factors”).

Kladle, that Daily Beast article is fascinating:

Even the notion that being a brave warrior helps a man get the girls and leave many offspring has been toppled. Until missionaries moved in in 1958, the Waorani tribe of the Ecuadoran Amazon had the highest rates of homicide known to science: 39 percent of women and 54 percent of men were killed by other Waorani, often in blood feuds that lasted generations. “The conventional wisdom had been that the more raids a man participated in, the more wives he would have and the more descendants he would leave,” says anthropologist Stephen Beckerman of Pennsylvania State University. But after painstakingly constructing family histories and the raiding and killing records of 95 warriors, he and his colleagues reported last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they turned that belief on its head. “The badass guys make terrible husband material,” says Beckerman. “Women don’t prefer them as husbands and they become the targets of counterraids, which tend to kill their wives and children, too.” As a result, the über-warriors leave fewer descendants—the currency of evolutionary fitness—than less aggressive men.

This falls in line with what I was saying earlier — humans are social creatures. Our offspring is vulnerable for an extended period of time compared to other species. We require cooperative groups just to survive, and ultra-violent monsters who not only attack “enemies” but also turn on their own group are simply not desirable community members.

Yeah, exactly, blitzgal, your comment is what made me go dig that stuff up 🙂

“Rape as adaptation”, for example, has never really made sense for a number of reasons. Mainly because violent rape is exactly the sort of thing that a community is going to punish unless there is some extreme cultural reason not to (bride stealing, for example, and even so that’s usually extra-community). I mean, some communities have fucked up morally and punished both women who are raped and the men who commit rape, but that doubly makes sure no children will result from a rape. Even acquaintance rape isn’t adaptive because women have known how to induce a miscarriage for literally ages, infanticide was stunningly common until very recently, and resources can be strategically withheld from children; an unwanted child (especially outside of the context of a marriage or similar pair bond) has historically not had a very good chance of surviving very well.

As you said, humans are extremely social animals. In a small community context it does not pay to be anti-social, and rape, aggressiveness, and extreme jealousy are definitely not conducive to surviving or passing on one’s genes in that sort of environment.

I’d like to see a lot of better EvPsych, but the things which are testable, are going to require some seriously detailed longitudinal studies of large (and widespread groups).

I don’t see that happening.

I think it’s possible, and I would really love to see it, but I’d agree that it would take a lot more effort than many evo psych-ers are willing to put in. I think a chunk of evo psych researchers are honestly more interested in being wHoOoOaAa cOnTroVeRsIaL!!!! than doing good science, as they get a lot more attention and grant dollars for saying ridiculous reactionary shit than they do for doing careful, detailed, long term work. They also have a bad tendency to complain about being oppressed by the “PC Brigade” or whatever and feel like they’re bravely fighting to find the Scientific Truth against the evil forces of science-denying liberal ninnies (see that whole Kanazawa racism deal earlier this year). That’s why I personally try to keep my criticisms of the actual research (rather than how it’s used or reported in the media) located within scientific discourse rather than in feminist/political/moral discourse or whatever, just so they can’t play the “PC card” on me. 🙂

yeah so much of evo-psych is just so awfully convenient, a lot of people want it to be true because i think it makes them feel like we are the finished product of humanity or something and no need to change and can’t get any better than us. i think it’s a combination of ego/not wanting to do any work to better humanity. if evo-psych had more strong evidence there could be an even stronger market for so many of the beliefs we’re already sold. but it is flimsy at best. and yeah i’m sure they do say they’re kept down by the pc-crowd to which i say “pshhhh”.

Raise your hand if you think tits, even saggy tits, are perfectly fucking attractive! *raises both hands*

Arks, I’m not sure I totally agree. Small breasts, yeah, they kind of look not so attractive exposed, but large breasts can look fine.

I also think it’s hilarious how negatively the women here react to being told their bodies are disgusting. That’s what the mainstream media tells men every single day.

kladle: Surely you do realize(as does Arks) that there is quite a bit more to the female form than just bewbs! Why is white america so obsessed with breasts when the rest of the world is all about the beauty of women’s Booty’s? Maybe some women really think they’re special for having cleavage since (most) men (usually) don’t. :-p LOL

BTW,When I first heard the word “tits” I assumed it mean nipples LOL(“tits” <- "teats" =nipples), but that's another story.

Yeah, it’s full on blank slate or evo psych. Those are your options! CHOOSE! CHOOOOOOSE!

Let me spell it out – There’s absolutely every reason to believe evolution shaped us psychologically. There’s very little reason to believe much of the sad, sad sorry state of evolutionary psychology as it stands, which basically amounts to coming up with “just so stories” as speculative as anything in myth or folklore to account for a version of humanity strangely suspiciously very like modern Western stereotypes of “the way things are” – Often ignoring history, anthropology, and just about any “but, look over there, those peopel don’t do it that way. Also, can you prove that our ancestors did in any meaningful way?” questions by dismissing them as crazy pc idealogues that hate science. So… Yeah.

Arks, I’m curious- what do you think penises (I’m sorry I just can’t say “penes”!) look like?

Personally, I find them a little silly looking, but I’m not going to shame anyone for it. It’s not like we have a choice in the matter or that it makes men bad or disgusting because penises are kinda goofy looking to me. Are these the same people that like to criticize women for being shallow? Grow the fuck up already.

@Pecunium
“I also think that the insulting of people who don’t adhere to the preferences of a person/group is wrong.”

Yet that’s all you do. Why isn’t it just as wrong?
————-
@CassandraSays
“I’m thinking of the Scott Capurro line “ah, England – skinny pale boys!”.

And I’m thinking of an american insult, “Fat American entitlement whores.” Is this funny as well?
————-
@ithiliana
“typical double standard.”

There’s no double standard. Men and women are different. They have different standards.
————-
@Kavette
“The same guys who think it is icky are also jerking off it in one way or another to actually hopefully somewhat normal porn sex.”

Maybe it’s not the vagina that’s icky, but the pompous, self indulging, haughty, entitlement princess surrounding it. I notice how you use a man jerking off as shameful. Is a man being in the company of a woman so glorious? Does a man having sex with a woman make him more socially acceptable and worthy to simpy exist?
————-
“There is no way that these girls made this eel/anal porno without digress.”

Do we have your word on that? Stop over to Ozy’s blog and see what modern women have devolved into. These girls took drugs and stuffed eels up their asses because they chose to. They’re nothing but debased animals.
————-
@blitzgal
“That would not solve the problem of women and children being exploited in order to produce this kind of thing.”

Why do feminists, the MSM and most women clump women and children together? Do they share the same mental maturity? Are neither culpable for their actions? Do they both need guidance in any decision making process? Do they both need saving from any poor decision they make?
————-
@bobbyjo (@bobbyjo1950)
“The government is mostly run by men and I got to ask these mrs’s how is it that American women was so tricky as to get all these men running our country to give them special treatment?”

Obama is black. By the definition you give, black men should be the most privileged people in this country yet they’re the least privileged. This is the poorest arguement ever put forth. The race or gender in power has no bearing on who is privileged in society. Misandry is the order of the day, every day.
—————-
@blitzgal
“The two are not mutually exclusive. Nature and nurture are inextricably linked, but do not pretend that rape is completely a biological imperative.”

Yet we’re supposed to pretend women dressing and acting like animals in heat isn’t women devolving down to an animalistic state. It’s cold across much of the country, yet if you go to any mall and virtuall all women will be showing a good bit of cleavage to attract the attention of men. What does this say about the evolved nature of women as a whole?
—————
@kladle
“The real reason why a lot of evo psych fails is that it often never bothers to justify its hypotheses by actually going out and finding out whether people with X trait are more fecund than people with Y trait instead or whatever.”

Observation of the actions of men and women is all that’s needed.

Sorry. NWO you made a direct accusation against me (patently false, as I obviously, in this thread, to say nothing of the How to Creep out the Internet thread) have any number of non-insulting comments.

But I’d really like to see what he thinks is,”all” I do, and what he defines as insulting people for not adhering to someone else’s preferences.

I know he won’t, but hope springs eternal in the human breast.

Obama is black.

HOLD THE PHONES EVERYONE NWO SAID SOMETHING TRUE