Luckily we have fancy modern stuff like barrier contraception and medicine to mitigate the risks of promiscuous sex, which is not itself a modern phenomenon.

AIDS infection rates are dropping.

It would seem that their evolutionary strategies are not so different after all, at least with regard to promiscuity.

OK, I take it back. Sorry for pegging you wrong (oo-er).

Is this evopsych though? I can't read the study linked to. If it's demonstrating that promiscuity is a successful evolutionary strategy for women, or that there are non-human species where females engage in promiscuous sexual behaviour, that's not evolutionary psychology. (It's also not a new finding, though).

If that's the case, why were you defending the study that attempted to explain a correlation between gender and attitudes toward promiscuity as due to evolutionary "hardwiring"?

No, it doesn't. Evolution and evolutionary psychology are two different things, in that evolution is supported by science and evolutionary psychology is a bunch of made-up horseshit.

The opposite is also true. People like you and obvioushuh are all "See SCIENCE PROVES that women are naturally chaste because EVOLUTION" but then when a study like this comes along you're all "Nuh-uh". I mean, at least be consistent.

It's really funny how you defend evolutionary psychology when it's reinforcing your view that men are hardwired to be promiscuous and women chaste, but call bullshit on it when it's attempting to demonstrate the opposite.

So Google Voice used to have this hot robotic male voice if you chose the "British English" option. Now they've changed it to some dame. I'm outraged.

Yup. People. Not women specifically. Not not women, but not especially women.

Hyphens are important, people.

Literally go fuck ourselves?

"Institutional racism" describes a particular kind of covert racism. It's not about trying to make it seem more important than overt racism, it's just a useful term for identifying systematic discrimination.

So much evopsych bullshit.

It does not matter a whit whether you asked your friends if they owned a console or whether you observed that they did. The point is that your friends do not constitute a statistically valid sample to generalise from.

You ARE polling your friends, though, when you say stuff like "I know 4 girls with consoles... compared to roughly 30 guys". That's not a random sample, that's a selected population, so you can't assume that the same split is going to hold true for the population in general. Just like I can't assume (and I don't) that…

It alienates me, because I really don't want to reward this kind of tone-deaf assholery with my hard-earned cash.