Sexual Regret: Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences.

[ismnotwasm]

I have read the Galperin et al. study* (in evolutionary psychology) which argues that it has found evidence for evolved sex differences in sexual regret.

Read that again. The crucial word in both the title of this post and in the above sentence is "evolved." Keep that in mind.

What that little word means is the assumption that the different reactions men and women might have, on average, are not because societies, in general and certainly during most of recorded history, have punished women much more severely for casual sex than they have punished men. What that little word also means is the assumption that the different reactions men and women today might have, on average, are not because women and men are quite aware of the fact that the possible costs of casual sex, even today, are different for the two sexes. Women can get pregnant when pregnancy is not desired, women are more likely to be the victims of violence in a sexual encounter with a stranger than men and women are much more likely to be called sluts or whores if they engage in casual sex than men do.

Those are not the things the authors mean when they talk about "evolved" differences. What they mean is that in some sense women are "hard-wired" (pardon the term) to regret having had casual sex and that men are "hard-wired" to regret not having had casual sex.

If that is the case, then why have societies all over time and place punished women more for casual sex (both legally and in terms of ostracism) than they have punished men? Is it that our evolved differences concerning it are somehow not strong enough?

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2013/12/sexual-regret-evidence-for-evolved-sex.html

[Squinch]

1. Yeah, sure. I bet they found evidence that women have evolved to do laundry better, too.

[ismnotwasm]

2. LOL

These studies are simply pathetic; they actually remind me of creation "science"

[Squinch]

3. Right wingers have been known to use evolution as an excuse to be crappy to the poor, too.

[nomorenomore08]

5. While more or less completely misunderstanding how Darwinism actually works...

I'm reminded of Darwin's quote about how those who adapt to change, not necessarily the strongest or smartest, are the ones who survive.

[Dash87]

14. Social Darwinism was a perversion of Darwin's theories.

It was used to condone racism and greed. Darwin didn't have much at all to do with Social Darwinism. The Social Darwinists were more influenced by Malthus (Darwin was too, but he didn't talk much about Sociology). Darwin was British, and Britain mostly did not agree with the US's interpretation of his work.

[nomorenomore08]

20. He wasn't some proto-Ayn Rand, that's for damn sure...

Ragnar Redbeard (pseudonymous author of 'Might Makes Right') would be a better candidate for that title. In short, Redbeard was basically Malthus on steroids, and extremely racist to boot.

[Dash87]

13. Yeah - that's known as Social Darwinism.

The concept states that the inferior will be poor because they are not fit enough to make money, as compared to those who are good enough (genetically, or just in general).

Helping the poor is discouraged in Social Darwinism, as this enables inferior human beings to breed, thus passing their inferior genes along. The genetically inferior individual must die as well as their off-spring for the betterment of society. The more genetically inferior a society is, the poorer it will be. Charity was seen as a mechanism that created more suffering rather than exacerbating it.

Social Darwinism went hand-in-hand with the eugenics movement and evolutionary progressivism. It was a favorite of the Nazis. It's still heavily referenced by hate groups.

[Squinch]

15. Yes, I know.

[Dash87]

16. Cool. It's one of my interest areas, though, so I like writing about it.

[In_The_Wind]

4. I wonder if the study would have resulted in different findings if ...

The three studies in the article consist of one study (Study 1) done on heterosexual undergraduates (78 men and 122 women), one study (Study 2) done on heterosexual volunteers obtained thorough craigslist.org (156 men and 239 women, with a difference in average age which for men was 40 and for women 33) and one very large study, with 24,230 participants (Study 3), based on people who answered a banner ad at msnbc.com. The third sample, also self-selected, included both heterosexual men (11,203), heterosexual women (11,612) as well as gay men (334), lesbian women (215), bisexual men (359) and bisexual women (507). That sample has the advantage of not focusing only on heterosexual people. The disadvantage of all the studies is that they are not based on random samples.

... the same study were done with an older population.
For instance: the over 40 age group.

[ismnotwasm]

6. What an interesting question

They always grab college students for these studies.

[In_The_Wind]

7. One can only hope that with age comes wisdom.

IMO: The young are easily guided by their emotions, by peer pressure, by their family values.

As we age (I'm 65) we reflect differently on our past as we have more of a history to analise.

[seabeyond]

8. "guided by their emotions, by peer pressure, by their family values." which have NOTHING to do with

evolution. but then, that is too obvious and does not fit agenda

[In_The_Wind]

9. I think it does.

[seabeyond]

10. you think it has to do with evolution? you yourself state otherwise with what i quoted of yours.

omg... lol, what a hoot. this is the problem with the pro evolutionaries of psychology. they do not use reason, logic, or academia. it is all in the story telling.

you are suggesting that it has to do with outside influences and lets look at older people, once they dismiss the outside influence.

that alone is a statement AGAINST evolutionary psychology.

if it is innate. we do not just casually dismiss that us with aging. like we supposedly have not dismissed that part of us in how many hundreds of thousands of years?

[Dash87]

12. All three are localized. They're a snapshot of one culture.

[Dash87]

11. These studies are generally garbage, as they

A: Don't consider whether cultural or sociological factors may influence the findings

B: Do not offer any physiological, psychological, or even at least observational proof of their claims that women 'evolved' to this state of mind

C: They have a massive bias towards modern Western society. The stereotypical Western woman is used as the "normal" model that assumptions are drawn from, not world or ancient societies.

D: Make an assumption based on the above three findings as evidence (and more), despite the fact that the conclusion is reached on concepts that use a great number of logical fallacies and more baseless assumptions.

[MadrasT]

17. E: Are ridiculously, insultingly heteronormative.

[Dash87]

18. Yup. That too.

[seabeyond]

19. thank you dash. just another male dominance/superior mentality we must address no different

from the religions used against women.

you say it so well. and ya, .... i see it is an interest that you like talking about, grinnin'

[nomorenomore08]

21. Yeah, people are so "either/or" simplistic about this stuff. When both social conditioning *and*

biology obviously enter into it, and it's not so easy to separate one from the other.

All your points, though, are not just valid but important.