Althouse: "Women who have multiple sex partners 'preserve humanity.'"

February 26, 2010

"Women who have multiple sex partners 'preserve humanity.'"

Seriously. It "reduces the spread of a sex-ratio distortion (SR) chromosome that would lead to all-female offspring."

44 comments:

Chennaul said...: Now if they did this in China...

Double down!; 2/26/10, 10:19 AM
Charity said...: Ha! Take that, patriarchy!; 2/26/10, 10:20 AM
Chennaul said...: The new research is the first to suggest that female humans should also have more than one man to safeguard our future.

Why does this sound like it's from Revenge of the Nerds...?; 2/26/10, 10:21 AM
MayBee said...: Hm. Weird characterization in the headline.

Women who have multiple sex partners don't preserve humanity.
Women who actually produce offspring with multiple partners preserve humanity.

Birth control is destroying humanity.; 2/26/10, 10:22 AM
chuck b. said...: The actual research deals with fruit flies, not women.

http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982210001399.pdf?intermediate=true

I'm sure you can still criticize the science, but I would lash out first at the science writer, and then maybe the blogger for not really getting the difference.; 2/26/10, 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: This is the patriarchy trying to up the chances of getting laid tonight.

Very inventive, those Scots!; 2/26/10, 10:29 AM
traditionalguy said...: So Temple Prostitutes are the true secular answer to the Judeo-Christian restraints policy. Saving the whole human race can be so much more fun now.; 2/26/10, 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Tiger woods to hold his next press conference and claim he was only trying to save humanity in
.
.
3
.
.
2
.
.
1; 2/26/10, 10:33 AM
X said...: Why does this sound like it's from Revenge of the Nerds...?

or a reverse Dr. Strangelove.; 2/26/10, 10:36 AM
X said...: Feministing is going to have trouble with this one. Conflicting goals.; 2/26/10, 10:39 AM
Scott said...: Home yesterday afternoon, saw the Maury Show (host Maury Povitch); a "trailer trash on parade" spectacle. One of its regular features is where women accuse guys they slept with of fathering one of their kids. The show brings the father in, and Maury reads the results of the DNA test on the air.

I can't find the video, but if I recollect correctly, one woman had four kids, and, over many shows, had dragged fifteen different guys in for public DNA challenges. So far, only one guy matched up with one kid.

This woman has had more men riding her than the town bicycle. Yet it's comforting to know that she's doing her part to keep the gene pool healthy.; 2/26/10, 10:40 AM
Scott M said...: That's pretty funny. Is it the same kind of logic that may be factually correct, but not really all that palatable in practice? Like the fact that people who never would have survived to breed due to infirmities or lack of intelligence are now able to live into child-bearing years and pass on bad genes?

LOL; 2/26/10, 10:43 AM
Anonymous said...: "I would lash out first at the science writer, and then maybe the blogger for not really getting the difference."

The science writer is merely reporting what the scientists held a press conference to announce.

The real story should have been that, once again, scientists have extrapolated something that occurs in an insect species and held a bogus press conference to announce what that means for people.

This characteristic scientists possess of extrapolating any data they hae until the end result is the destruction of all mankind is known as: "Global Warming Syndrome."

It's a mental illness.

One day, the press will hold these people up to the ridicule they deserve for attempting to cash in on grants using this sort of deceit.

This study explains how it might be beneficial that fruit fly females are dirty, dirty whores.

It says nothing to explain the vast numbers of women eligible to appear on Maury.; 2/26/10, 10:53 AM
Paddy O said...: "Women who have multiple sex partners preserve self-rationalizations"; 2/26/10, 10:53 AM
Paddy O said...: "Men scientists who want to have an affair with their colleague preserve scientific reasons why infidelity is just fine"; 2/26/10, 10:55 AM
Paddy O said...: Hey baby, let's do it like the fruit flies gotta do it.; 2/26/10, 10:55 AM
Paddy O said...: Hey darling, let's get it on for humanity's sake.

WV: cathumps. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about...; 2/26/10, 10:57 AM
Bender said...: Women who have multiple sex partners don't preserve humanity.
Women who actually produce offspring with multiple partners preserve humanity.

Don't be so naive.

Sex isn't for procreation.

Test tubes and lab technicians are for making children.; 2/26/10, 10:57 AM
Paddy O said...: "Yo, if you don't sleep with me I might just be the last man on earth."

or back to the women...

"I'm sorry honey, I have to sleep with him, it's for science."; 2/26/10, 11:03 AM
SteveR said...: Don't get your hopes up guys.; 2/26/10, 11:10 AM
The Drill SGT said...: A study by the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool contends that if all women had children with just one partner, a male- destroying chromosome could be reproduced and spread until humanity eventually became 100 per cent female, precipitating its extinction.

I disagree with the overall analysis, but beyond that, didn't somebody think about the facts that:

1. these new multiple partners are just as likely to be carriers of the SR gene?

2. We may go extinct because of this SR gene, but those last males will die happy and worn out :); 2/26/10, 11:15 AM
traditionalguy said...: Mein Fuhrer, we can select the most attractive young, nubile females to repopulate the planet. Science is so empowering.; 2/26/10, 11:23 AM
Unknown said...: The reason you had polygyny was the result of a shortage of men due to war or hunting accidents (think Plains Indians). I know there were a few polyandrous societies (South Seas, I believe), but I don't recall what caused them.

In any case, humanity (including Utah) seems to have survived harems just fine.; 2/26/10, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: What extrapolative horse shit.

For instance, being polled is dominant in cattle. In other words, having horns is a recessive trait.

Take a look at the world's wild cattle.

Many things work on keeping genes in check. They don't simply spread like oil on water.; 2/26/10, 11:33 AM
The Drill SGT said...: For instance, being polled is dominant in cattle. In other words, having horns is a recessive trait.

Take a look at the world's wild cattle.

LOL

Horns may be recessive, but obviously Bulls with Horns get more than their share of cows, when the hornless Bulls are lying there bleeding with holes in their flanks; 2/26/10, 11:42 AM
Meade said...: Fruit flies like multi-headed lines of crazy sex.
Scotsman.com flies sex headlines like crazy.; 2/26/10, 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: "We may go extinct because of this SR gene ..."

No, the Japanese will be our end long before the SR gene will have a chance.

The Japanese are making a large-eyed robot that will happily cook a cheeseburger and give its owner a wicked blowjob at the same time as serving as the remote control for the television set.

With an "off" switch for "that time of the month."

Homo sapiens is doomed.; 2/26/10, 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: God bless women who have multiple sex partners.

Remember, men, wear a condom if you don't know her that well. A ribbed one, but wear it inside out, so you get the pleasure.; 2/26/10, 1:06 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: As my God-Mother told me one day, "Some women are here for no other purpose than to breed."

Didn't exactly make my respect for 'em rise,...

Sorry, but I already knew women will pat themselves on the back for breathing. This story is just making the point to the rest of you. Or maybe not.

Whatever.

I'm convinced women are their own worst enemies.; 2/26/10, 1:17 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Women who have multiple sex partners preserve humanity."

And you ladies thought we were just hitting on you for our own selfish desires. Men are heroically trying to help you save humanity. Every drink bought is self sacrifice of the highest order and every slap in the face is a slap to the face of all humankind.; 2/26/10, 1:28 PM
rhhardin said...: Fruit flies like bananas.; 2/26/10, 2:04 PM
traditionalguy said...: Seriously, how come it's always some women's job to keep the human race alive , well, clothed and fed, raised from childhood and genetically righteous. She needs a rest.; 2/26/10, 2:21 PM
Fred4Pres said...: What straight man hasn't fantasized about a world of only women...except for him.

Well, I suppose there would be room for several dozen more guys located around the globe so the kids would not have to marry their siblings.

That would be very win win. You could have a convention every year of the guys to get together to watch the Super Bowl (which of course would be all female teams that played naked).; 2/26/10, 3:36 PM
Tibore said...: Wait, wait, wait... folks who are criticizing this based on the fact that it was based on observing fruit flies miss the point: It was a study of chromosomal propagation. Using an alternate species who's population can easily be isolated and controlled is a completely valid way of modeling what could (not will, just could) happen to humans if the SR chromosome successfully dominated.

Better criticisms would be in regards to differences in how human populations reproduce and propogate the chromosome. For starters, there's some effect from the fact that not all humans reproduce; whether that results in a dominance or elimination of the SR chromosome is only determinable via empirical research, but my point is that there's an effect from that. Furthermore, fruit flies do not take steps to deliberately direct their chromosomal propogation; with modern medical technology, humans are able to determine their percentage chances of propogating a genetic defect and react accordingly. Furthermore, humans are working towards being able to openly modify genetics, and already have some means of doing so, my point being that in some point in the future, technology may progress to the point of being able to correct the effect of the SR gene after conception. So yes, there are lots of ways to criticize the conclusions, but doing so merely on the fact that fruit flies were the research subjects is unfortunately a little glib. Extrapolating research from fruit fly genetics is an absolutely valid way of generating knowledge about human genetics.

{end of stuffy pedantry}; 2/26/10, 3:40 PM
Fred4Pres said...: We need to protect those precious bodily fluids!; 2/26/10, 3:43 PM
Fred4Pres said...: A minimum ratio of 10 women to every man!; 2/26/10, 3:46 PM
Traveller said...: So if I understand your position, you seem to be saying "True things shouldn't be true if they offend my sense and sensibilities."

Maybe you should be complaining to god for creating such a reality?; 2/26/10, 3:55 PM
Tibore said...: "Fred4Pres said...
A minimum ratio of 10 women to every man!"

Unfortunately, the research shows that this is backwards. Supposedly, it needs to be 10 men for every woman.

Yeeech... uncomfortable memories of some bachelor parties arise at that... :-S; 2/26/10, 3:59 PM
A.W. said...: um the article is retarded.

Why? because if a woman is having multiple partners, then presumably the man is, too. Thus if a man carries a man-killing gene, he is spreading that around more too.

And charity, dear heart, do you think it really benefits women to have lots of different sex partners. yeah, then how do you find one to pay the bill when you have to buy diapers?; 2/26/10, 4:13 PM
Steven said...: The article is so wrong, it's not even funny.

If women outnumber men by a ratio of 2:1, than men as a group will average twice as many children as women as a group. People with genes that produce sons will thus have more descendants, on average, than those who have genes that produce only daughters. Genes that produce only daughters will accordingly be selected against, and become increasingly rare.

The study bears this out. Only five of the twelve monogamous groups died off. In nature, the other seven would then expand into the habitats of the five groups that died off. The failed genes of the five dead groups would not propagate, and thus are irrelevant; the seven groups that survived would populate the Earth.

The only thing promiscuity really does is allow the SR gene to survive. Without promiscuity, the SR gene dooms sub-populations to extinction and replacement by fruit flies without the SR gene. With promiscuity, the SR gene fails to wipe out the subgroups it exists in, allowing the SR gene to survive.; 2/26/10, 4:58 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Why? because if a woman is having multiple partners, then presumably the man is, too. Thus if a man carries a man-killing gene, he is spreading that around more too.

I think that the problem I see is that if there were truly a man-killing gene, those men would ultimately not reproduce, or at least not reproduce as effectively and extensively, which is the same thing almost long term. But that means that the guys who don't carry this gene, or carry one that overcomes it will out reproduce those who have it. Which will push the man-killing gene towards extinction, and the man-saving one towards dominance.

As someone pointed out above, it isn't how many men a woman has sex with, but rather, in this age of abortion and birth control, how many she has kids with. And that is a problem.

I should note that traditionally a notable percentage of kids born within wedlock had a different father. My memory is maybe 1/4 to 1/3. And similarly, that somewhere in that range, both men and women cheated in their marriages. Men at a slightly higher rate, but just slightly. It used to work just fine, because everyone in a village looked pretty much alike, at least to an outsider.

It isn't like one case I know, where the mother and putative father were light skinned European stock (he has light enough skin for skin cancer problems). The mother's daughter has some Negroid features, and darker skin than either parent. The girl was born in wedlock, so is officially his daughter, but by now, 50 years later, no one believes it.

It used to be that women could sneak around, acquire genes from a local alpha male, and then have her beta male husband help raise the kid, with no one the wiser. It is much harder to do today, first because the potential breeding population is much more heterogeneous, and more recently because of genetic testing.; 2/26/10, 5:04 PM
Quaestor said...: From The Scotsman article:
But some men also carry the SR chromosome and when a human egg is fertilised, the SR kills the Y – producing a female baby.

Someone is having some on. Not surprising given the source. The Scotsman is the Calvinist version of The Sun.; 2/26/10, 9:42 PM
Joe said...: The most desperate ploy to get laid. Ever.

(Reminds me of the following:

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.; 2/26/10, 10:46 PM
Skyler said...: Seems to me that fruit flies have very large "litters." (not sure litter is an appropriate word for bugs)

Women usually only have two to four children in most cases. Bugs have hundreds per breeding. If a woman reproduces with only one man with the SR trait then the number of women born to her is not much different and does not have much of an impact on the over all population.; 2/28/10, 10:06 AM