Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Stephanie Pulford | April 29th 2009 02:54 PM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
About Stephanie

As engineering grad student at UCDavis, I am interested in the common ground between biology and machinery. Incidentally, my column's title refers...

View Stephanie's Profile
At least once a year, Cosmo’s cover story is about how to have better, longer sex: a turgid treatise on positions and anatomy.  Our finest ladies’ mags are ignoring the obvious.

To improve the mating of our species, we must learn from the mistakes of garden spiders and band together to end sexual cannibalism once and for all.  

Female Argiope spiders only want what all of us want—the upper hand in the war of the sexes.  But your friendly neighborhood garden spider has more at stake than the proper replacement of the toilet seat. 

Garden spiders’ evolution has been greatly influenced by a certain antagonism between the genders.  They regard each other as enemies who happen to have reproductive uses for each other.  As their arms race intensifies, the truculent female has evolved to a much larger size than the male, which makes her a formidable aggressor. 

The male responds with sleazy tactics like waiting near a female’s web for her final molt, and forcing copulation while she’s disoriented and physically unable to defend herself.

Even in their one common goal, reproduction, the spiders are in conflict.  Garden spiders generally get two chances at mating; they can switch partners or remain monogamous. 

The male’s best strategy to pass along his genes is to make sure he lives to inseminate twice, and two successive encounters with the same female might give him better odds. It’s in the female’s interest to make sure that her progeny have the best chance of survival, and she seems to have a slight advantage if she’s had two genetically diverse partners. 

But the female’s strategy has a misandrist bent to it, too—in the garden spider arms race, there’s a motivation to ensure that the next generation of females retains the upper hand.  

Preying on their mates seemed like an excellent way for spiders to have their cake and eat it, too. 

Female garden spiders will attack and devour their suitors at any time in a courtship sequence—before copulation, during or after a first insemination, and during a second.  But after a second insemination, female spiders seem to lose interest in repurposing their suitor as a post-coital snack.  Notably, female spiders prefer to attack and devour the largest of their tiny males during courtship and mating. 

This behavior looks suspiciously like a ploy to limit the sexual contribution of large males to the gene pool, preserving the size difference between the genders. Thus the ladies keep control of the gene pool, handicapping the men of the next generation.

However, cannibalizing large suitors has proved about as effective as bra stuffing for selecting quality males.  Though the big guys got weeded out, their mid-mating demise didn’t prevent the spiders from successfully passing along their genes. Instead, sexual cannibalism selected for fast sperm transfer.  Males that could finish the deed quickly were more likely to escape before a female could attack, winning the males their chance for a second mating. 

Thus, any male can finish a first mating once it’s underway, and the fast males get to mate again.  The female isn’t really exerting any significant control over the next generation’s male traits unless she manages to cannibalize her suitor before he begins.  Unless fast mating has some unforeseen value to the female spider, sexual cannibalism in garden spiders amounts to an evolutionary maladaption.

Ladies, sexual cannibalism ruins it for all of us and our granddaughters too.  Though we may think we’re thinning the field toward a more physically desirable male population, we’re actually skewing the gene pool towards men who can finish up and run. 

Let’s work together to end sexual cannibalism—or at very least, finish it before copulation.

Comments

Fossil Huntress's picture
How did I miss this? Great find Stephanie!

dorigo's picture
The right way to evolve for women is to change the environment by getting better jobs and salaries than men, and then get the freedom to kick in the butt the lousy partners. I think we are slowly headed there, but it takes a while, as always with evolutionary trends...

Cheers,
T.

I don't understand the correlation between the spider behaviours and human sexual preferences that you're trying to allude to here. For that matter, I don't understand what exactly you're even advocating.

Stop bra stuffing or your grand daughters will have to sleep with premature ejaculators? Dur?

I hope you realize this is a joke.

I hope you realize this is a joke.

Nicholas Horton's picture
I'm glad you mentioned this.  I'm tired of wearing my sprinting shoes to bed!

Your explanation of the actual science was sub-par.

"It’s in the female’s interest to make sure that her progeny have the best chance of survival, and she seems to have a slight advantage if she’s had two genetically diverse partners."

You assert this without explaining why in any way. In the females case it seems intuitive enough, greater variation= more likely at least one will survive, although you could flip and say that it would be more productive to breed with one male that had more desirable traits for that environment. It is even less clear why it would be the case for males to only go after one. The opposite is almost always true, and the exceptions are when gender roles are reversed such as in certain wren species and sea horses where the male takes care of offspring. This condition obviously doesn't exist in spiders.

Your relation of this to human biology is not only unfounded, but also doesn't make any sense in any humorous sort of way. In fact it really doesn't make any sense at all. I think I see a couple of the things your trying to get at, something about not selecting for men that are quick in bed. HAHA, it probably is true that you could make some jokes about this in a funny way, but in this you didn't succeed.

And this whole idea of "female" pride is just ridiculous to me. Like your friend T seems to be so smug with. There are 3 billion people on this planet who are women. Within that group is a very large amount of variation in tastes beliefs cares etc. Even if you just look at America by itself that is still 150 million with the same problem. Trying to lump all of them into a group and pretend that you are all part of some vast sisterhood that looks out for each other is ridiculous, although I am sure the concept is comforting. Equal rights are important, but at the end of the day any PERSON should be concerned with their own success if that is what is important to them and not worry about what everyone else is doing. Men don't get upset when some men are successful and others are not, and the reason is that they don't feel as if there are part of some big brotherhood because they were born with a y chromosome. There is a distinction between equal opportunity and rights, and equal "success" rates between groups. Just because you have the former, it doesn't necessarily follow that the later will be equal as well.

This isn't the 1950's any more, there isn't some sort of conspiracy out that holding women back. Women who apply themselves can and are successful. If anything there are more affirmative action type things in place to entice women, like bonuses to female science professors simply because they have a vagina. If you don't think that is sexist then you are a hypocrite. If there is a difference in success rates at this point it has more to do with the individual choices of women vs. men.

Why are there less female science students, because girls tend to like it less and choose other things. Women tend to have more variety in their talents. By that I mean a woman who is good at science is also likely to be good at counseling or social things and given the choice they will often choose the later. A man who is good at science is less likely to have that ambidextrousness if you will. I think girls should be encouraged to go into science because there have been and are good female scientists, but they should not be pressured by these idealistic feminists into doing something they don't want to do just because they are talented at it and the feminists want a 50/50 ratio in everything. Men and women are not the same, their interests are not the same, and the careers they choose are going to reflect this. This 50/50 goal in gender distribution in all fields is not only unnecessary and unreasonable, but likely to hurt those your trying to help the most: by putting young girls in professions they will be unhappy in.

In addition, most women still want to have children even if they want a career too, and that takes time away that may have been spent toward advancing a career. Unfair? Well, life is unfair. Why should a company or government foot the bill and wait on standby while you take a couple years off. It isn't their problem, nor should they be forced to accommodate your personal life choices. If a career is important then have a career, if children are important then accept that you are making a life choice and that advancement in a career may suffer.

Sorry, T was such a moron I had to get on my soapbox a little. Did she like social darwinism when it was applied to people of different races, or to poor people by the exceedingly wealthy? Or, gasp, women? I doubt it.

Are those that gave a serious comment about this piece for real????

It thought it was great! You have a wonderful sense of humor and got me to smile a little after a real crappy day.

Thanks!

Frank

Hank's picture
Science readers take their sexual cannibalism pretty seriously.

Nicholas Horton's picture
As they should!  Stephanie is exposing a serious threat the species that deserves a full and thorough vetting in the scientific literature. 

Too bad, I'm sure you're quite tasty.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.