Chuck Rudd of Gucci Little Piggy argues that women who are attracted to assholes are really attracted to men who are assertive. The assertiveness is a signal for a man who can get resources. Are positive agentic men as attractive to women as negative agentic men?
But I think the “Chicks Dig Jerks” argument can go a little bit further. It’s not that women dig the jerkiness, per se; they just prefer the agency, the assertiveness.
I’d argue that women prefer positive agentic men, but often settle for negative agentic men – assholes – because the most desired group is in short supply and high demand. Along an evo psych framework – much like the one offered by the National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson who I think must be reading Heartiste – I argue that women, in general, are attracted to men who will increase their pool of resources. Positive agentic men have access to resources and are more likely to share those resources with the women in their lives. Negative agentic men will get resources through more direct and assholish ways, but they’ll obtain resources nonetheless. Even if the negative agentic is selfish the woman he is with will benefit indirectly.
My guess: there are genetic variants that cause different women to lean more toward positive or negative agentic men. How are those genetic variants distributed? Also, how does IQ influence a woman's attraction toward different kinds of agentic men? Also, does finger length ratio influence the preference for positive versus negative agentic men?
Update: My guess is that higher testosterone in women might make them less inclined to like agentic men because the testosterone makes them more like men. So feminine desire for agentic men would be lower in women whose minds are more like male minds. Could be wrong on this.
What I also wonder: Are higher testosterone women less likely to seek the advice of other women about which men to be attracted to? Does the female desire for confirmation of desires run less strongly among females whose minds are less feminine?
I have been with my partner for two years and we are talking about getting married. But, he says he won’t commit himself to me (or anyone) unless there’s a firm deal in place about how often we make love.
His marriage and last relationship ended because both women lost interest in sex. He says he wants an undertaking that we would have sex at least twice a week, unless one of us is ill or away.
Given that men desire sex more often than women the fact that his previous relationships ended due to low sexual interest from the women should not be too surprising. Though I suspect the guy needs to learn how to handle women in a long term relationship.
But why get married in the first place? The advantages of marriage seem small to non-existent and marriage causes weight gain and relationship stagnation. Really, the marriage deal has to offer compelling advantages. So this guy trying to get a better deal up front with guarantees of performance seems pretty practical and reasonable.
My take: Animosity toward Mormonism exceeds any opposition the Religious Right has against adultery. In fact, a sense of shared Christian identity was a major reason Gingrich won.
Strange new world indeed.
Yet not terribly conservative Newt pretends he's running against a relatively more liberal Romney.
“In the end, sooner or later, it’s going to become Romney versus Gingrich, and then the natural conservative Republican Party is going to repudiate a Massachusetts moderate whose actual record is, frankly, pretty liberal.”
Of course, Newt's sexual behavior is the natural result of different levels of male and female desire for sex.
As part of a rant about a double standard with regard to child pornography where movies and TV shows produced by large corporations can portray very sexualized teenagers Ferdinand Bardamu points out children are entering into puberty about 4-5 years sooner than they used to be. Where he gets it wrong is by arguing those kids are ready to handle their sexuality at the age of 12 or 13.
Mocking tone aside, am I the only one who’s noticed that as children sexually mature at younger and younger ages, we become more and more obsessed with protecting them from actual sex? For example, as late as 1850, the average age of menarche among European girls was 17 – now it’s 12-13. (Yes, that means that by modern standards, all of your ancestors were pedophiles. Pious Puritans, feminist or conservative, feel free to commit mass suicide to wash away the shame.) Children are clearly capable of taking on adult responsibilities at younger ages, yet our society is set up to prolong their adolescence as long as possible.
My take: The early puberty is a recent development that teens are not ready to handle. Sexual development should be delayed in order to give kids time to grow up and to avoid the cost for the rest of us that come from teen pregnancies.
The high calorie and high carbohydrate modern diet (irresponsibly blessed by the USDA food pyramid that supports big agricultural interests) is a likely cause of earlier menarche. Sugar and insulin probably accelerate puberty just as they probably cause myopia (more here). The brains of these kids do not go thru accelerated maturity as a result of the sugar and insulin that causes the early puberty. So arguing that they are ready to handle all the consequences is just plain wrong. They lack the education and job skills needed to support babies. They lack the emotional and intellectual maturity required for wise child raising.
In young girls at risk of early puberty and insulin resistance, the diabetes drug metformin delayed the onset of menstruation and decreased the development of insulin resistance, a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, according to a new study. The results were presented Monday, June 16, at The Endocrine Society's 90th Annual Meeting in San Francisco.
"The findings indicate that we can slow down puberty," said the study's senior author, Lourdes Ibanez, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona in Spain. "This is important because when puberty is faster in girls, the appearance of menses occurs earlier, and this sequence of events may ultimately result in a shorter adult height."
Get kids off the diets that cause early puberty and we will cut teen pregnancy, single motherhood, the ranks of welfare recipients, and high school drop-out rates. For how to do it see Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes.