Image by figleaf published with a Creative Commons license.

So some evolutionary biologists, Yana G. Kamberov and Pardis C. Sabeti, recently published a paper about a relatively recent (only 35,000 years old) gene mutations in humans that appears almost exclusively in East Asians. The mutated gene, EADR, appears to be responsible for thick hair, distinctively-shaped teeth, small breasts, and extra sweat glands. It's not carried by populations of European or African descent. With me so far? Great! So far we're just talking about regular, everyday genetics research.

The problem arises, as it usually does, in the interpretation of regular, everyday genetics research. Because sooner or later -- usually sooner -- some asshat "evolutionary psychologist" or sociobiologist is going to come along and insist it couldn't be about anything but sex.

Katy Waldman has the scoop.

Joshua Akey, a geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle, [says] it all comes down to pretty ladyparts.

According to Akey, “thick hair and small breasts are visible sexual signals which, if preferred by men, could quickly become more common as the carriers had more children.” In fact, he claims, “the sexually visible effects of EDAR are likely to have been stronger drivers of natural selection than sweat glands.”

Basically, the genetic mutation flourished because men wanted to do the no-no-cha-cha with women who carried it. Oops, I’d forgotten that science, the world, etc., revolves around what males find attractive. Never mind that this assumes an alarming passivity on the part of the females. Did they have no say in their mating partner? (That’s a rhetorical question: Studies throughout the animal kingdom show that it’s usually the females who decide who gets action and who doesn’t.) And even supposing that the women had no agency, were prehistoric East Asian men really so very picky? Did they typically refuse intercourse with large-breasted or fine-haired women? I am trying to imagine a caveman turning down a willing sexual partner on account of a triviality like insufficiently luxuriant tresses, and not just one caveman but the entire sperm-producing Pleistocene population.  

Source: Slate.com

So let's review. Here we've got a gene mutation that codes for four characteristics.. If one of those characteristics increases the survival prospects of one's descendants the whole mutation will likely be conserved and might even eventually outcompete all other variations on the gene. So it could be better ability to sweat -- but how useful would that have been in the extremely hot, muggy climate of east Asia 35,000 years ago? It could have been the teeth. It could have been the hair. It could even have been the breasts. And even if it was the breasts, it could have been that the particular configuration of smaller breasts were more efficient for nursing, less subject to infection, less likely to interfere with running or other physical activities. And sure, they could even have been more attractive to men, although given how many generations it takes for a characteristic to evolve and how fickle fashionable preferences tend to be in humans, it would have had to have been hella more attractive than all other breast types to have consistently been preferred by mating decision makers (men or, often as not, matchmaking parents) over tens of thousands of years.

But one way or another, if all characteristics are encoded by a single gene and just one of them confers a reproductive advantage then all the rest are just carried along for the ride.

Which, without considerable further research, makes it essentially a value judgement and/or an expression of conscious or unconscious bias to proclaim that one and only one of those characteristics "must" be the important one.

Now. Did the original researchers, Kamberov or Sabeti, make any such claim? No. Did their co-author Daniel Lieberman, another genetics researcher make the claim? Quite the contrary. Instead when Waldman asked him outright he said " “The problem with all selection, but especially sexual selection, is that it’s impossible to test on humans. We were careful not to make assumptions about the selective benefits of the gene.” And did Jerry Coyne, another evolutionary geneticist Waldman spoke to make any such claim? Nope! Once again an actual evolutionary geneticist said the idea was "extremely dubious" and, besides, sexually selected traits tend not to work that way anyway. (They usually arises in one sex only and generally impose that would otherwise be filtered out by increased mortality if the other sex didn't preferentially select it.)

Nope. The only scientist to jump on the titties and hair bandwagon was someone from the David Barash school (literally! Barash and Akey are both at the University of Washington) of just-so storytellers, a.k.a. making shit up to fit your expectations.

And what a story it is! A mutation crops up that affects teeth and chest shape, number of sweat glands, and hair thickness in both men and women. Some of these characteristics -- thick, shiny hair in particular -- are considered attractive in both men and women. And yet, somehow, the only possible advantage a nominally professional geneticist can imagine the mutation might convey is to make women more sexually desirable to men. But not the other way around? Really? No woman might be more attracted to a man with thicker, more luxurious hair? And therefore preferentially want to "mate" with him (a.k.a. jump his bones?)

Oh right. Based on all the evidence the primary purpose of reflex "evolutionary psychology" speculation is to buttress the dominant paradigm: it's simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire; it's simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired. Therefore it's doubly inconceivable to Mr. Akey and his kind that nicer hair would make any difference to a woman's partner preference. End of story.

Fortunately there are other kinds of scientists.

Photo by Flickr user marsmet462. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Echidne says

Not a single popularization I saw suggested this:  Women!  Do more traditional female chores and you get more sex!  But that's also the implied conclusion of the study.

Source: Echidne of the Snakes

That's because we all know why no woman would ever do anything to get more sex!

The very idea is inconceivable!

Echidne also notes the consistency with which men doing any kind of chores is referred to as "helping around the house." Because, you know, that's the only reason women ever "give" sex -- as payment for help with their job around the house: housekeeping.

In my necessarily anecdotal experience, doing all the chores, half the chores, the "manly" half of the chores, doing the "womanly" ones, or or doing no chores around the house whatsoever has never had any effect on the frequency of sexual activity with any of my domestic partners. Nor the enthusiasm level. Nor, when there was a lack of it, the lack of enthusiasm.

And while my experience might be anecdotal it's also noteworthy: if I recall correctly from a radio interview with one of the authors the other day, the difference in frequency is only about two percent. Various decidedly non-sex-related studies including time motion, industrial, and marketing research suggests the average person has difficulty noticing anything less than a 5% change in the frequency of pretty much everything.

Probably not worth the additional aggravation of letting a coffee cup sit next to a sink or leaving a lightbulb un-screwed just because a) it's not your gender's job and b) doing the "wrong" chore might reduce your frequency of having sex, on average, by once every 10-25 weeks.

Photo by Flickr user Anne Petersen. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Geekyvamp, commiserating with another woman sex blogger about the number of unsolicited penis photos she gets sent to her Tumblr dashboard, raises and interesting point about how women feel about men's bodies vs. how men feel about our bodies. (Emphasis mine.)

Hah! I often wish I had a dick too, so I could a) not send it to people, and b) have sword fights. I see guys all over my dash playing meat-sword jousty-time, so it must be common, eh?

Source: A Heart Like Crazy Paving

Just because she doesn't like getting unsolicited penis photos doesn't mean GV doesn't like men. Or penises. (The idea that not liking unsolicited penises equals not liking penises at all is, of course, embedded in bogus Rule of Desire #1. Also rape culture. But I repeat myself. And digress...)

Instead GV likes penises, and men, quite a lot. In fact she thinks we can be pretty hot. In ones, and, as in the case of men playfully sword-fighting each other with their penises, in multiples. (See for instance her animated outtakes from Supernatural.)

I'm pretty sure most hetero Anglo/Austro/American men don't spend much time thinking about sword-fighting each other with our penises. (Hmm... there's no doubt about rape culture but I think old 70s-style feminists were mistaken about the part about men routinely regarding our penises as actual weapons. But I'm digressing again...)

As I said before I so rudely interrupted myself (as men evidently do tend to do... Dang it I'm doing it again!)

As I said, again, it's a good bet most hetero men don't think of male/male genital contact as erotic. And it's a sure bet almost no hetero men think such contact would be erotic to women.

There are probably numerous reasons for this -- both Rule 1 (it's simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to have sexual desire) and Rule 2 (it's simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for men to be sexually desired) play a big role obviously. The accompanying cultural belief (perpetrated not least by Cosmopolitan Magazine) that heterosexuality is all about men's gratification probably contributes to the notion as well.

The biggest reason, I think, is the deep cultural belief that men and women are not just poles apart but whole planets! And so it never occurs to... well... either sex that it stands to reason that if men think female/female contact is erotic, which many men do, then women would be just as likely to be similarly aroused by male/male contact.

And for the same reasons! Especially for hetero men and women! In fact, the more hetero (I'm guessing) the more likely seeing the opposite sexes together is going to seem erotic because sort of by-definition if we're hetero we're not only attracted to the opposite sex we're not particularly attracted to the same sex. Which means that two members of one's opposite rather than one of the opposite and one of your own means not only twice as many of your preferred sex to look at, it also means one less of your non-preferred sex.

Which in turn means less distraction and/or dismay (if you're phobic.) It means less self-conscious comparison. It means no matter how they arrange themselves the view of individuals you want to see aren't obscured by individuals you're indifferent to and/or uncomfortable with (again if you're phobic.) It means no particular source for envy. It means no particular source for competition. It means you can identify with the actions of either partner. And so on.

These are fairly obvious observations. Or would be if we weren't all gendered out the wazoo. When we're gendered, especially when that gendering assigns all sexual focus on one of those genders, then it's not obvious at all.

One area where we are different is plain old anatomy. For this reason in fantasy it's easy to imagine members of the opposite sex doing things actual members of the opposite sex probably wouldn't. Like sword-fighting each other with your erections. Because, gender constructions of brutal, domineering men not withstanding, penises are actually pretty sensitive. And easily sprained or even fractured(!!!)

According to Twitter the comment of the day at TheGoodMenProject was

Keith asks, “Is the casual sex marketplace heavily biased against men?” —#CommentoftheDay
[link to goodmenproject.com]

Well, there is bias but it's bias in the samples, not so much bias in the results.

Consider that the bias isn't against men, it's against whoever does the asking. By definition the odds of me getting a "yes" every time I ask is going to be lower than 100% even if I'm Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. For instance some non-zero percentage of potential asks are involved with someone else, recovering from another relationship, you're not his or her type in general, or there's something specific about you that doesn't work for them this time. Heck, they could even have just had an amazing couple of rounds with themselves and just plain not be horny at the moment you're asking no matter how hot they might find you some other time, right?

Consider even further the simple lag time in the ask/answer dynamic: I've obviously made up my mind before I ask -- any dithering, option weighing, courage summoning, and just general all-round emotional investment is water under the bridge. The person I ask, on the other hand, now has to go through everything I've been through (including the considerable emotional investment of answering) with the additional pressure of time: you're sitting in front of them with (almost literally) nothing to do but wait for the answer. Yikes! Not fun for shy people no matter how they want to answer! But I digress...

Point being, if even under the most ideal circumstances (i.e. you're Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie) you're likely to get a "no" chances are high that almost everybody's going to frequently be told "no" when he or she does the asking. So. Biased against men? I'm going to change my initial answer from a no to a qualified yes: to the extent that men do the asking then yes, the casual sex marketplace is biased against them. But only to the extent they ask.

But remember, asking bias is only one kind of bias. There's another kind that totally blew me away when it finally sank into my thick skull: there's extraordinary but invisible bias against those who are never asked.

The person who brought it home for me? A woman who's screen name was "scarred." She thought the whole idea that "women have the power" was the bitterest lie on the planet. Because the "power" to say yes or no exists only when one's opinion is asked. The power to respond to an initiative depends entirely on whether or not someone takes the initiative.

And to the extent it's women who are asked rather than doing the asking, the "casual sex market" might seem to be overwhelmingly biased against them. Although, really, it's only biased against anyone, man or woman, who might (never) be asked. No matter how much they long for a chance to say "yes."

I'd just add, by the way, that it's not just "homely" people who are never asked (if we could even meaningfully say what "homely" means, given the incredible range of qualities people are attracted to.) For some women the words "she's out of my league" are a blow to the gut, and the words "she probably has a boyfriend who could break me in half" are salt in the wounds. But again, the "bias" comes in the form of men who decide for themselves the answer will be "no," and never ask. Again, creating the hidden bias against those who wait to be asked.

Last "bias." The person who says "no" because they're waiting for that one person who, for whatever of a million reasons, never asks them.

It's super easy to see only one side, but if you do then you might be missing the bigger picture.

Update: Of course I only glancingly mention another pervasive bias in the post above: for what are mostly purely historical reasons among heterosexuals it really is men who are more likely to ask and women who are more likely to be asked. But as it happens I have just enough first, second, and third-hand experience to have noticed the same dynamics apply when the roles are reversed.  Enough to, err, well, confirm my observation that sex and relationship markets are more biased against askers and the never asked regardless of sex or gender.