Given that choice of partners is [roughly] a zero-sum game
Would you care to expand on that? It doesn’t seem particularly plausible to me. Different people have genuinely substantially different preferences, which means that the most obvious reason for it to be a zeroish-sum game doesn’t apply.
The reason why I think choice of partners isn’t very close to zero-sum is precisely that I don’t think there is a single scale of desirability; different people have different preferences, and a change in partner assignment can easily make everyone happier or everyone less happy.
What about a general shift for males to be more heterosexual than homosexual? Not saying this happens, but your statement obviously can be false. It is possible for all women to win.
I’m not sure that would be a net win for all women. Suppose a similar proportion of women are lesbians to the proportion of men who are gay, and if more men were straight instead of gay, lesbians would face increased competition for bisexual partners.
That is an excellent point. I didn’t notice this since we’ve (for the entire post) operated under pretty restrictive heteronormativity. It wouldn’t be a win for all women, but it would be a win for all women that we’ve been talking about.
I’m not totally sure what you mean by “wins” and “loses” here—you seem to mean increasing or decreasing some sort of relative attractiveness (to the average potential mate? To your definition of beauty, which seems universal?), which would then be zero-sum for whatever group it’s normalized over.
But just because something is called winning, doesn’t mean you can rely on it to describe human behavior—humans have a much more complicated set of motivations than “maximize relative attractiveness.”
Would you care to expand on that? It doesn’t seem particularly plausible to me. Different people have genuinely substantially different preferences, which means that the most obvious reason for it to be a zeroish-sum game doesn’t apply.
[comment deleted]
The reason why I think choice of partners isn’t very close to zero-sum is precisely that I don’t think there is a single scale of desirability; different people have different preferences, and a change in partner assignment can easily make everyone happier or everyone less happy.
[comment deleted]
No. The point is that desirability is subjective, and therefore “winning” or “losing” at desirability is a two-place word.
What about a general shift for males to be more heterosexual than homosexual? Not saying this happens, but your statement obviously can be false. It is possible for all women to win.
I’m not sure that would be a net win for all women. Suppose a similar proportion of women are lesbians to the proportion of men who are gay, and if more men were straight instead of gay, lesbians would face increased competition for bisexual partners.
That is an excellent point. I didn’t notice this since we’ve (for the entire post) operated under pretty restrictive heteronormativity. It wouldn’t be a win for all women, but it would be a win for all women that we’ve been talking about.
I’m not totally sure what you mean by “wins” and “loses” here—you seem to mean increasing or decreasing some sort of relative attractiveness (to the average potential mate? To your definition of beauty, which seems universal?), which would then be zero-sum for whatever group it’s normalized over.
But just because something is called winning, doesn’t mean you can rely on it to describe human behavior—humans have a much more complicated set of motivations than “maximize relative attractiveness.”