I’ve been stewing up an FAQ for FF101 for a while, and it hasn’t come together as well as I’d like. I want to take on EvPsych, basically, and look at some of the crap on offer that claims that somehow evolution has forced men to be attracted to (totally coincidentally highly physically vulnerable) young waifs in the pursuit of propagating their genes rather than strong healthy buttkicking women offering a genetic propensity to muscularity such as, say, Serena Williams.
From a comment at Pandagon’s thread about Britney being shamed as “fat” (unprofessional and unentertaining, yes, but fat?), the discussion got derailed by some EvoPsych rubbish, and a shaft of light was mercilessly shone upon the bullshit by Doctor Science:
Crikey. As an Actual Evolutionary Biologist I get really frustrated with Ev-Psycho rationalizations because they make so little biological sense. I’m going to use Godmonkey as an example, here, but he’s hardly alone.
Both logically and biologically, male humans *can’t* be both naturally unselective (willing to fuck anything) *and* picky (only interested in certain types of women). That the rules of patriarchal society require this contradiction is IMO ipso facto proof that those rules are not based in natural evolution, because evolution is not illogical (at least, not in that way).
Not every natural sexual system is the same. male Mallards are pretty much as Godmonkey described men: willing to stick their dicks into anything that holds still long enough. Swans mate until death do them part.
But what you should notice is that male Mallards are strikingly beautiful and the females are dull & camoflaged; both male and female Swans have display plumage and behavior. How the species looks is a sign of how it acts.
So, if humans *naturally* acted like Mallards, we wouldn’t *naturally* care how Britney looks. If we *naturally* care about her looks, then we must be *naturally* more like Swans “” though we’d also be likely to be looking at Justin Timberlake in a sparkly thong, too.
My conclusion? Human sexual behaviors incorporate features that are not only un-evolved, but which are directly contrary to what we expect in a naturally-evolved system.
I am saying “naturally evolved” because I’m coming to suspect that humans are domestic animals “” that is, that we have a long history of not always choosing our own mates, which has given us some of the biological features of pets or livestock.
This neatly encapsulates so much of my own less expert understanding that I’m thinking of having it bronzed.
I’d love some suggestions on other great posts on the arsehattery that is EvoPsych. I may already have bookmarked some of them, but I have the feeling I’ve missed out on some of the best ones. Hit me!