Paleoanthropologist and population geneticist John Hawks takes one look at a… questionable trend piece in the New York Times about “paleolithic diets” (notable quote from one practitioner “‘I didn’t want to do some faddish diet that my sister would do,’ Mr. Durant said.”) and finds the notion wanting. (Emphatic emphasis his.)
I’m the last person to promote gatekeeping in science. But a piece of free advice: Don’t get your information about human evolution from non-anthropologists who charge you money for subscriptions and seminars!
I think that’s actually pretty good advice by the way. And by profession Hawks pretty interested in ancestral diet and dietary practices. (See for instance You are what your ancestors ate, part 1 or Average diet versus extreme diet in robust australopithecines, although if you’re into that sort of things most of his posts on diet are fun to read.) And yet you don’t see him selling, or even offering, dietary advice.
Another one of his posts on food gets why that might be harder than it sounds. It also gets to the heart of the general problem with “ancient ancestors adapted for…” lines of reasoning.
[T]he idea that we are adapted to the Pleistocene can’t literally be true. [NYT science writer Marlene Zuk hits on the reasons very well: (a) the Pleistocene encompassed huge temporal and ecological variability, so that no human population was ever optimally adapted to any given time or place; (b) various historical and structural constraints make such optimization impossible; and© we’ve been evolving rapidly for the last few thousand years.
Proponents of evolutionary psychology bristle at accusations that their methods are “reductionist.” Which would be a bigger problem if a) they were all reductionist and b) there was anything wrong with a little reductionism in science. Instead, like proponents of “cave man” diets, the problem is more about radical oversimplification.
Well… it’s from Psychology Today, which doesn’t have the winningest track record in my opinion, but here’s an interesting tidbit to ponder about the allegedly life-extending practice of Calorie Restriction. (A.k.a. CR, with some practitioners referring to themselves as CRonies.)
The article is from 2004, by Willow Lawson, and it’s an interview with a CR practitioner named Dean Pomerleau. One side consequence of CR, at least for most men, is reduced libido.
[Lawson] Many CR practitioners lose their sex drive. How is that healthy?
[Pomerleau] Obviously, it’s not for everyone. When you’re on the high testosterone side of the fence and your libido is going strong, it’s virtually impossible to see the appeal of the side of the fence that I’m on now. Some veteran CRonies, but not all, have observed this virtual disappearance of sexual desire. Like most men, I used to think about sex many, many times a day. It’s inconceivable to think about not having that as a large focus. Now, however, it’s very hard to see the appeal of going back to that testosterone-driven way of life. I don’t miss my libido one bit.
One of the biggest difficulties for my wife is that I’m not as attractive and she isn’t as attracted to me as she used to be. But psychologically and emotionally, she’s much more attracted to me now. I’m a much more considerate husband and father than I was prior to starting the diet.
I’ve mentioned in the (distant) past that if it’s the case that women really have lower libidos than men then a libido-balancing solution that’s pretty much never discussed would be finding ways to reduce male libido. Not that that’s ever considered, in part, because…
But really, notice Pomerleau’s take on the side effect: “Now, however, it’s very hard to see the appeal of going back to that testosterone-driven way of life. I don’t miss my libido one bit.” There’s not a lot of personal tragedy there. Unlike having a damaged sex drive (where you want to have sex but can’t) when you don’t have a sex drive you mostly tend to wonder what the fuss is, was, or (have you ever watched a kid during kissing scenes in movies?) will be all about.
But wait! Since at this point many of your mouse-pointers are stabbing for the leave-a-comment box let me point out that while may not be a personal issue can be an interpersonal nightmare. It takes two to tango, and if you’re not into it (however blissfully) your partner may decidedly not be — regardless of your particular combination of sexes.
(Via Daze Reader.)
—-
Last minute obligatory inappropriate/insensitive humor: Calorie restriction doesn’t actually extend your life, it just makes it seem longer. Warka-warka-wark.
Really nice writeup of Sex 2.0 by Miriam Perez at Feministing. She concluded with
One of my favorite quotes from the weekend:
Ricci Levy, Woodhull Freedom Foundation Executive Director
“Imagine a country where you are just as comfortable talking to people about sex and what you like as you are talking about chocolate. That would be what sexual freedom would look like.”
The quote caused a bit of a ruckus among commenters. Some said Ricci was trying to sexualize everything. Others complained chocolate has become a plaything of the rich.
I thought a post from Lisa KS from Punkassblog.com, who also attended, might put the Levy quote in a more affirmative perspective.
“I didn’t notice for quite a while that I wasn’t being stared at like usual. Not til I went outside briefly and found myself being whistled at and ogled by two men walking past me on the street. That woke me up, as it usually does, and when I went back inside the hotel where the conference was being held, when I looked around, I found that really nobody was looking at me much at all. ... It was pretty awesome.”
The point being Ricci wasn’t saying “ooh wouldn’t it be cool if everybody could just talk about acculturated obsessions with dessert 24 hours a day.”
And not to sound nettled but to have jumped to that conclusion is to be no different from the two cat-calling passers by outside the conference site: so indoctrinated by the culture of sexualization they can’t tell they’re being rude.
For the record I was reminded by another commenter, Miriam, that food and sex are such excellent joint metaphors that they tend to produce “gotchas” when used as analogies for each other.
So had it been me I might have instead said “Imagine a country where you are just as comfortable talking to people about sex and what you like as you are talking about bicycles.”
Because whether one has one bike, or many, or none it’s unremarkable! And thus not likely to draw judgmental, uninvited, unwelcome, out of context, and/or appropriating remarks from passers by on sidewalks or online. Which was, of course, Ricci Levy’s point.

Images via the very neat Neatorama.com
I heard on the radio about some mashup of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and a zombie novel. It rang a bell and sure enough.
It seems to me that the problem with zombies, and what makes them such a great pop icon/metaphor, is that they want to eat your brains, sure, but it doesn’t make them feel any better when they do!
And they’re so distracted by their quest for something that doesn’t help they never stop to reflect on what they could be doing differently instead.
Going one step further, the humans being chased around by the zombies rarely reflect on what they could give the zombies instead. Ok, there’s some discussion of this in the original Omega Man, at least the book version, and I think maybe the Will Smith movie remake. But still.
Not sure why reading this made me think of that.

Photo by Flickr user stu_spivack. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Political blogger Ezra Klein, who sometimes moonlights about food on the weekends, wrote a cool point about cooking.
I like the basic idea behind this Grist article coaxing folks to incorporate the farmer’s market into their daily lives, but I don’t think it quite demystifies the task.
“Many of my friends want to shop at the farmers market, but they complain that they end up with drawers of rotting produce. It’s a common problem with an easy solution: a well-stocked pantry.” Sort of. Having staples is the first step. Most people who go to farmer’s markets, however, have some dry pasta at home. Even so, I know a lot of folks who walk by the produce stands and freeze: What the hell do you do with kale, anyway? Or with Swiss chard? And if you don’t come to the farmer’s market with a recipe in hand, won’t you then have to go back out later for more ingredients?
Here’s the thing: Just about nothing at the farmer’s market is specific to itself or its own recipes. Buy whatever. Buy anything. There are relatively few combinations of grain, vegetable, and protein that don’t work, and having a couple types of grains on hand will generally ensure you never have to face one of them down. That’s the point of the pantry. It lets you buy anything fresh, because you already have the basics at home.
I can’t say what a great point this is. My big breakthrough happened in college when, as always too broke to eat even in my college cafeteria I dashed home between classes to whip up a box of supermarket-brand macaroni and cheese only to discover the cupboard was… pretty much bare. In a bit of a panic to whip something up and still make it to class I boiled some dry spaghetti and then, at the last minute, decided to grate a bit of cheddar cheese from the fridge into the drained noodles. I sprinkled a bit of butter and then a splash of milk as the cheese melted in the residual heat, stirred, added a dash of salt and a twist of pepper from a pepper mill and… it was the best mac and cheese I’d ever eaten in my life. And incrementally quicker and cheaper than even the boxed stuff! I think I ate that stuff every day for lunch for the next five months. It was only several years later, when in a similar rush I discovered there was no cheddar or butter and tried… parmesan cheese and olive oil. If it took forever to try something besides cheddar it took only till the next day to try adding a few dried basil flakes to go with the parmesan and olive oil. A bit of cream instead of milk and more parmesan and I suddenly had a better-than-average-restaurant alfredo sauce! Again in as much time as it took to whip up a box of Kraft knockoff… and on a starving-student budget, schedule and skill level!
Which I think illustrates Klein’s point: sure, it might be nice to have a degree from Culinary Institute of America, a kitchen full of copper and chrome, Anthony Bourdan’s hair, and Rachel Ray’s travel budget… but if you look at what you actually need the list is a lot shorter: a little olive oil, chocolate, and maybe some wine, a few good utensils, somewhere to store things till you need them, clean surfaces to work on, something to heat things up and cool them down, something to keep things sanitary, a couple of simple how-to books, and a little unselfconscious willingness to fumble around a bit. Oh yeah, and someone to do it for or, no less important, with. (You’d think I’d add “enthusiasm” but I’ve found that tends to follow from positive results even when it doesn’t precede them.)
Now I could just stop there, and if this wasn’t a blog about relationships and sex I might. Instead I’ll add that my list for success applies in many aspects of life.
For instance I got an interesting comment on my post about flannel pajamas as “lingerie” from Texture612 who said, among other things
I know the fashionistas aren’t keen on it, but they don’t know this beauty since they’re all daisy-chaining each other.
...at least if the sentence means what I’m going to assume he or she meant then it’s a good point that popular culture sort of trains us to expect that “exotic” activities like “daisy-chain” group sex require that one wear “exotic” attire as well. In fact, however, my strong impression from various sources is that most people who regularly do “exotic” things tend more towards the practical… and easily laundered. Flannel pajamas being practical as well as comfortable and (especially important for folks in temperate climates) warm would work fine.
In fact it might be nice to have memorized all versions of The Joy of Sex, furnished your bedroom from JTStockroom, own a custom-fit leather corset or chaps, and have so much in-depth knowledge that vibrator manufacturers beg you to review their pre-release products, a Body by Jake, and any car that isn’t a minivan**. But really? All you need is…
...a little olive oil, chocolate, and maybe some wine, a few good utensils, somewhere to store things till you need them, clean surfaces to work on, something to heat things up and cool them down, something to keep things sanitary, a couple of simple how-to books, and a little unselfconscious willingness to fumble around a bit. Oh yeah, and someone to do it for or, no less important, with.
Flannel jammies optional.
So yesterday during a brief lecture on what was meant by “sex-negative” culture, our professor presented a very cool statement about food:
Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about food is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of food you like and negotiating with a dinner partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what to eat together. Some people prefer to eat with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to eat in a group and still others eat with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to eat anything or with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around food and their choices are respected.
Now what was missing from the presentation was the source of that quote. Once I got home and started Googling around I’m pretty sure the source must have been The Language of Sex Positivity, by Charlie Glickman, from Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, July 6, 2000. It contains the preceding paragraph and adds a nice follow-up…
While there are many examples of how our world is different from this food-positive one (as anyone who becomes vegetarian in a family of meat eaters knows,) it isn’t too hard to imagine this place. Now go back through the last paragraph and substitute “sex” for “food” and “have sex” for “eat.” How much more difficult is this world to imagine? How much more work would it take to make this happen?
On the other hand, our professor’s version contained a modified version of the first that didn’t require us to imagine…
Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about sex is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of sex you like and negotiating with a sex partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what kind of sex to have together. Some people prefer to have sex with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to have sex in a group and still others have sex with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to be sexual or have sex with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around sex and their choices are respected.
Our professor suggested that for all of society’s bragging about this or tisk-tisking about that, the fact that the two versions of the paragraph have highly different implications suggests that we have a sex-negative society. And I would add that the simple fact that we’d consider making the comparison in the first place is evidence of the same thing.
I adore food/sex analogies — I think they’re each wonderful metaphors for the other.
So back in 2005 I wrote about foods and flavors people like to lick off each other’s bodies in a post called Body Recipes. In that post I mentioned that while sweet, fruity, and minty flavors seem like the most popular choices I think savory flavors are highly underappreciated. Cumins, and soys, vinegarettes or mayonnaise or hollendaise sauces, and cream, mushroom, and even tomato sauces marvelously enhance people flavors.
While whipping up lunch for my children (I’ve mentioned in the past that my most salacious thoughts happen when I’m doing domestic things) I thought of another flavor that, while again not at all conventional, nevertheless meets rather than masks the way our partners taste and smell.
You know about lickable body dust that you sometimes see in retail and online sex shops? Some of the flavors are quite sophisticated and not at all artificial but again they tend towards the florals and mints.
But, seriously, you know what I’d love to powder-puff or sprinkle over a partner’s breasts, to sift over her shoulders and neck and down her back? On Not in huge clouds, of course, but just the lightest dusting?
The cheese stuff that comes in pouches inside boxes of macaroni and cheese. (No, not the orange stuff, the normal, white-cheddar stuff like Annie’s and other vendors use.
No, I’m not crazy. And don’t say you don’t know what I’m talking about. Even better, the stuff (the better stuff anyway) really is mostly just dried and powedred cheddar cheese, a little salt, a little lactose or maltose for a hint of sweetness, and possibly the kind of “anti-caking” ingredients they tend to put in cosmetics anyway. The point being that (as, I just remembered, Holly of Self Portrait as… says) it’s all surprisingly compatible with our bodies.
All that plus it just tastes great when I lick it off my fingers so it ought to taste great when you lick it off yours (say you don’t love having your fingers kissed, licked, and sucked on) or other parts (say you don’t love having anywhere else kissed, licked, and sucked on either.)