Dr Zuleyka Zevallos

So its hypothesis is already flawed: it forces an evolutionary perspective that does not take into history & culture, as I've just shown.

Study begins by considering that same-gender attraction in women may be a genetic mutation. To put it another way: that it's abnormal. WRONG

Taking a leaf out of Queen Victoria handbook, study does not consider gay men's sex with empiricism or how gay sex fits with this evo theory

Study does not ask (under their warped logic): has gay men's sex evolved to satisfy heterosexual men's evolution?

Consider why this was not even hypothesised: homophobia prevents a male-led team to apply same (erroneous) evo psych logic to gay men

Study then admits that gene mutation is not the whole story- mind you the references cited DO NOT have emprirical evidence for this theory

In fact, of the 7 sources cited, 3 are general texts on sexuality NOT proof of gene mutation & rest are the 1st author citing himself (!).

Study then develops its "male choice hypothesis" for same-gender attraction among women using the NON SCIENTIFIC concept of cuckoldry.

Cuckoldry is the idea that hetero men need to protect themselves from women who may trick them to raise kids that aren't biologically theirs

Cuckoldry is a historical idea that stems from Christianity & colonialsim. It transformed institution of marriage to protect men's assets.

Study argues that since violence against women is tough to maintain (!), having same-gender attracted partner increases evolutionary fitness

Authors argue this is because women who have sex with women don't get pregnant, so they won't trick men into looking after extra babies

Study also argues men have access to twice the number of sexual partners with little effort, increasing his changes of having children

This is where we see how the researchers have absorbed patriarchal constructions of lesbian sex: 1) women have sex with women to please men

2) men are welcome to interject in lesbian sex as they see fit, and lesbians are 100% compliant. This is dangerous scientific heterosexism

The methods are also flawed. Study is based on 4-question survey & four demographic measures (sex, age, marital status, sexual attraction)

Questions: 1) I prefer a mate attracted to: only same sex or opp sex; predom opp sex but sometimes same sex or vice versa; both sex equally

Question 2) in a long-term relationship, I prefer that my partner has sexual contact with people of same-sex: never/occasionally/frequently

Question asks same of casual relationship preference. Q3) Scenarios of finding long-term & casual partner w/ opp sex vs same sex infidelity

Lots wrong here: hypothetical not the same as reality. E.g. studies show long-term partners more forgiving of infidelity than short-term r/s

Study finds around half of hetero men surveyed prefer partner who is sometimes attracted to women, but around 10% hetero women say same

Hetero men in short-term relationships are more likely to want their partner to sometimes have sex with women than those in long-term r/s

In order to make the case for evolutionary drive, they would need longitudinal data over generations. Instead, they have 590 psych students

Also, that women reported being less interested in seeing their imaginary partners with other imaginary men is seen as evidence of evolution

It isn't; Western popular cuture (romance, erotica, pornography) produces less materials appropriating gay men's sex for hetero women.

So there you have it: poorly designed study, with self-referential hypothesis, skewed data, & conclusions steeped in scientific heterosexism