When you need to evoke feelings of jealousy try to have a meal with a former lover. My guess is a more attractive acquaintance would beat a less attractive former lover.
Sharing a meal with a former romantic partner is more likely than other, non-food-related activities to make your current partner jealous, according to a study published July 11 in the open access journal PLoS ONE.
The authors, led by Kevin Kniffin of Cornell University, asked undergraduate students to rate their jealousy in response to hypothetical scenarios involving their romantic partner engaging with a former partner, either by email, phone, coffee, or a meal. They found that a meal elicited the highest jealousy ratings, potentially pointing to the importance of meals for human relationships and intimacy. Interestingly, the researchers did not find any significant differences in the jealousy reported by male versus female participants.
Dr. Kniffin remarks, "Given the tradition and fashion of food sharing among co-workers, family members, and friends, our findings are notably consistent with the idea that eating together has importance beyond nutritional factors. By applying a functional view of jealousy, our studies yield the inference that people think meals can be more than just meals."
Dinner beats lunch. But all forms of interaction elicited a fair amount of jealousy. The choice of engagements isn't ideal. One wonders how a movie or sitting under a tree for an hour discussion would rate.
Heartiste is disappointed that Charles Murray, who has rather courageously written so much to bring people to a more accurate view of human nature (and gotten heavily attacked by leftist ideologues for his troubles), still shrinks from fingering female hypergamy as the biggest cause of the decline of the family. Heartiste points out that Murray is contradicting himself.
Look, I have no problem with shaming men who don’t want to work, or who can’t muster the motivation to at least try to find work. It’s not like the existence of self-destructive male bums is unheard of. But Murray DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his proposed shaming solution with his explanation for the bleak male employment scenario just a few paragraphs above in the very same article! Once more:
Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.
Where, pray tell, in that explanation does it follow that men are primarily to blame for their poor employment numbers? Doesn’t the exact opposite conclusion — that women’s mate choices are to blame for men dropping out — seem more obvious? Shouldn’t it be the case then, that single working women on the fast track to single motherhood and alpha cock carouseling are the ones deserving of shame?
Seems obvious to me anyway.
Has Murray missed the hypergamy debate? I still see too many commentators who, while willing to be realistic on IQ and other aspects of human nature, still shrink from looking at human sexuality without sentimentality. This is foolish because natural selection gave us mating strategies that have huge influence on how we behave. Any attempt to explain social pathologies without taking into account differences in female and male mating strategies will reach many serious errors when attempting explanations or to form policy recommendations. We need unsentimental realism about all aspects of human nature.
Murray, like most pundits, is deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy. For to confront it in full, with all the consequences that entails, would mean arousing the ire of every dim-witted, aggressively stupid feminist, mangina and talk show snarktard with a sympathetic media at its instant disposal. To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.
In one of his greatest accomplishments Heartiste's own writings on hypergamy have influenced mainstream writers. Hypergamy has entered the debate on single motherhood and drop-out males. The decline in benefits that males, especially lower class males, get from marriage has demotivated males toward getting married and working. But lower class male prospects for marriage are due in large part to female preferences for higher class males who they can manage to bed but not get to commit. Females basically playing out of their league have brought upon us the decline of marriage for the lower class and many social pathologies that have come as a result.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — New research suggests that individuals attempting to attract a mate often avoid advertising their political leanings. The findings, co-authored by political scientists Rose McDermott of Brown University, Casey A. Klofstad of the University of Miami, and Peter K. Hatemi, a genetic epidemiologist at Pennsylvania State University, are published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.
This makes sense to me. Why restrict the size of your potential mating pool over a characteristic that won't reduce the reproductive fitness of your offspring? Few guys will reject some hottie girl because she's a liberal Democrat. Similarly, a woman is unlikely to reject a solid wealthy alpha who leans right.
At a later stage of the mating ritual do people filter for characteristics that make them share more political views with their spouse. Or do they move toward their spouse in political views? Women who are married vote more right wing than women who are single. Though that's partly due to single women wanting services from the state that a husband would otherwise provide.
“Because we know that long-term mates are more politically similar than random attachment might predict, we were interested to see how people seeking a mate end up with people who share their political values,” said McDermott. “This is particularly important because political ideology appears to be in part heritable, and so mates pass their ideology on to their children.”
Online dating is very non-partisan.
For their study, titled “Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction,” the research team randomly sampled 2,944 profiles from a popular Internet dating site and examined whether people indicated an interest in politics or selected a specific political view. They found that only 14 percent of online daters included “political interests” in their profile, which ranked 23rd out of 27 interest categories — just below “video games” and above “business networking” and “book club.”
Another way to look at it: women are more practical than men and are less interested in abstract ideology. That makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Women were selected to want a provider and protector while they raise the kids. So political interests end up weighing less for women. At the same time, men are programmed to want fertility signals. So men are much more focused on hot-or-not. Politics is something they can argue about with other men. How many political debates by guys in a bar have been interrupted by a hot woman walking by? Plenty.
Scientific research produces the news you can use. Drive a Porsche for flings, not to get a wife.
New research by faculty at Rice University, the University of Texas-San Antonio (UTSA) and the University of Minnesota finds that men's conspicuous spending is driven by the desire to have uncommitted romantic flings. And, gentlemen, women can see right through it.
The series of studies, "Peacocks, Porsches and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous Consumption as a Sexual Signaling System," was conducted with nearly 1,000 test subjects and published recently in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
"This research suggests that conspicuous products, such as Porsches, can serve the same function for some men that large and brilliant feathers serve for peacocks," said Jill Sundie, assistant professor of marketing at UTSA and lead author of the paper.
So if a Porsche-driver manages to marry the girl anyway is he at greater risk of getting cheated on? Is a guy better off exuding totally paternal familial aura in order to get the kind of girl who will make a good wife?
According to the researchers, women found a man who chose to purchase a flashy luxury product (such as a Porsche) more desirable than the same man who purchased a non-luxury item (such as a Honda Civic). However, there was a catch: Although women found the flashy guys more desirable for a date, the man with the Porsche was not preferred as a marriage partner. Women inferred from a man's flashy spending that he was interested in uncommitted sex.
So peacocking really does work. But it only works on women who aren't ready to settle down.
"When women considered him for a long-term relationship, owning the sports car held no advantage relative to owning an economy car," said co-author Daniel Beal, assistant professor of psychology at Rice. "People may feel that owning flashy things makes them more attractive as a relationship partner, but in truth, many men might be sending women the wrong message."
Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of "bad boys" and other iconic gender types.
The study – which may cause men to smile less on dates, and inspire online daters to update their profile photos – finds dramatic gender differences in how men and women rank the sexual attractiveness of non-verbal expressions of commonly displayed emotions, including happiness, pride, and shame.
Very few studies have explored the relationship between emotions and attraction, and this is the first to report a significant gender difference in the attractiveness of smiles. The study, published online today in the American Psychological Association journal Emotion, is also the first to investigate the attractiveness of displays of pride and shame.
Roissy argues straight guys can learn from how gay guys treat women.
OneSTDV disagrees with Mike Huckabee over the issue of just why Natalie Portman should be criticized for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Says OneSTDV: Huckabee Criticizes Natalie Portman and Gets It Totally Wrong. Huckabee does not want rich, single, highly successful women making babies and setting an example that poorer women will follow. OneSTDV criticizes the materialistic slant of Huckabee's criticism:
In denouncing Ron Paul and ideological libertarianism as well as opining on the Ground Zero mosque controversy, I've lamented the rise of abject pragmatism. Our society increasingly ignores the "spiritual" and emotional concerns of the populace, both in a personal and collective context. In our pursuit of materialism (not the philosophical kind) and status, we too often focus on the quantitative and tangible. As in Paul's economic obsession over cultural importance, we ignore what enlivens the soul rather than invigorates the bank account.
Huckabee's entirely practical denouncement of single motherhood fits this perfectly. Notice that he doesn't discuss the need for fathers from a spiritual perspective, how having a supportive male role model makes a child (especially a boy) feel, how fathers provide a type of guidance and love that a mother can't, how a child can only know his entire self through his father's lineage and not merely from his mother, and how a mother and father pair enrich a child's life in a way that a single mother can't duplicate. He doesn't speak on the happiness of a family, the togetherness, the support of a close collective. No, he merely notes food stamps, poverty, and throws in an appeal to limited government politics. It's all about money, jobs, and healthcare.
Okay, they both make fair points. Visible celebrities serve as role models. Kids deserve loving dads. Fair enough. But I'm going to come at this from a totally different place: Smart women making babies are rare enough that we should celebrate their pregnancies even when they are single. Their babies will be smarter than the babies of the average single mother. We need smarter babies for the next generation.
To put it another way: The odds of smart women making babies are already too low. If we demand they find a guy who they find acceptable to marry who will make babies with them then today we might just be setting the bar too high.
Update: Commenters wonder why I assert that Miss Portman is smart. Well, as another commenter points out the Wikipedia page on Natalie Portman provides plenty of evidence for her braininess. Ever since we've escaped from the Malthusian Trap the selective pressures for higher IQ during the Malthusian Trap era have probably stopped and even reversed. This threatens the long term health of Western Civilization.
The study, released Thursday, is based on interviews of about 5,300 young people, ages 15 to 24. It shows the proportion in that age group who said they'd never had oral, vaginal or anal sex rose in the past decade from 22 percent to about 28 percent.
Why? A few hypotheses:
A change in brain metabolism due to obesity is quite plausible. The theory is that abdominal fat cells contain an enzyme that converts testosterone to estradiol.
In males with increasing obesity there is increased aromatase activity, which irreversibly converts testosterone to estradiol resulting in decreased testosterone and elevated estrogen levels.
You might want to use this as another motivation to improve your diet and exercise. Lower serum testosterone ("T") comes along with many other undesirable metabolic changes when the fat builds up.
It was found that with increasing BMI, levels of serum leptin, triglycerides, insulin, the ratio high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol/low-density liporotein (LDL) cholesterol, the waist circumference (WC), the area of visceral fat and systolic/diastolic blood pressure were higher, whereas insulin sensitivity (HOMA) and serum T were lower.
But what about Facebook and instant messaging? Does the virtual world eat up so much time that less time is available for socializing in person? Does this reduce teen sex?
If obesity lowers testosterone is it also lowering the crime rate? Arrested guys get more sex. Girls really do prefer bad guys.
Over at Le Chateau de Roissy a commenter makes the point that just as pornographic pictures make some males less interested in real life females cultural products for women serve as emotional pornography that makes them less willing to form relationships with the men within their reach.
But thankfully the world is blessed with the wit and wisdom — and the sadism to tell it like it is — of the Chateau. So you come here for the full truth, because you think you can handle it. And the truth is that modern women have been gluttonously absorbing their own version of expectation-raising and niceguy-desensitizing porn…
A commenter writes:
Women do have problems with false expectations of romance. Emotional pornography has really screwed with their heads.
Think Lifetime channel movies.
Bingo. Biologically, women don’t get off on visual porn the way men do. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own outlets for electrifying the beaver, or that they don’t avail themselves of these female-centric outlets with the same gusto that men do of theirs.
Let’s get right to it. Women masturbate to words. To stories. Stories as told in movies, books and TV. These stories share common themes, often featuring the hard-to-get, aloof alpha male preselected by tons of attractive women, and the maladroit beta male to play the foil. The alpha male in women’s fantasies is outsized. His kind exists in extraordinarily tiny numbers in the real world. Which makes his grudgingly surrendered love that much the sweeter.
A few years back (can't remember where) I read a version of this argument applied to Japanese women who in large numbers have lost interest in marrying the kinds of Japanese men who are within their range to attract. I think this is a real phenomenon. They've been fed books and media images that raise their expectations for men that exceed the sorts of men they can attract. Result? Birth dearth. At the same time the men are spending many hours playing video games, gambling with pachinko, or reading cartoon fantasies involving half-Japanese heroes (really).
We are no longer in what evolutionary psychologists call our environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). Both males and females have cognitive processes selected for to make them reproductively fit in an EEA. But now we see pictures, videos, books that send us signals that make us maladapted.
Getting messed up by porn or Lifetime movies? Just say no.
Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health some Duke and Boston College researchers have published a research paper Terms of Endearment", that shows high school freshmen boys have the hardest time getting girls to say yes to sex and high school senior girls feel the strongest incentives to say yes.
A tamer version of that observation is borne out in the economists' work among high schoolers. Unsurprisingly, the majority of high school boys want to have sex (though only 47.6 percent of freshmen boys do). Unsurprisingly, the majority of high school girls do not (though 50.1 percent of senior girls do). Over the course of four years, the power shifts from the freshman girls who don't want to have sex to the senior boys who do.
The conclusion? Though high-school girls don't really want to have sex, many more of them end up doing so in order to "match" with a high-school boy. For them, a relationship at some point becomes more important than purity. Because of that phenomenon, in schools with more boys than girls, the girls hold more cards and have less sex. Where there are more girls, the male preference for sex tends to win out.
The senior guys are most desired and they prefer younger girls. So the senior girls are at a competitive disadvantage and so offer more sexual favors. This prepares the college-bound girls for the sex and relationship market they'll encounter in college. Once in college the girls who aren't absolute hotties will offer themselves up pretty easily to the Lacrosse team.
After participating in the sexual marketplace dangerous bitterness over disappointments can result. The truth about human sexuality is not pretty.
Notorious Pick-Up Artist Roissy, despised by many feminists, reacts to a commenter who says reading Roissy has made him less misogynistic.
Would that the army of tards who occasionally spill into this exclusive estate reflect on the fact that the underlying message is in reality a romanticist hymn to the unique and abiding attributes of women, warts and all, and to the good that can come from seeing women as they really are instead of as what we wish they were, there would be more love in the world.
That's not just true about women as sexual beings. It is true of humans in general. The truth about humans can seem ugly to people raised on myths. But the myths set people up for heartache and disappointment. If you live in fantasies then reality keeps intruding in jarring ways guaranteed to anger or depress. Reality becomes easier to deal with if you give up fantasies about it.
Through an innovative use of cell phone records, researchers at UCLA, the University of Miami and Cal State, Fullerton, have found that women appear to avoid contact with their fathers during ovulation.“Women call their dads less frequently on these high-fertility days and they hang up with them sooner if their dads initiate a call,” said Martie Haselton, a UCLA associate professor of communication in whose lab the research was conducted.Because they did not have access to the content of the calls, the researchers are not able to say for sure why ovulating women appear to avoid father-daughter talks. They say the behavior may be motivated by an unconscious motive to avoid male control at a time when the women are most fertile. But a more primal impulse may be at work: an evolutionary adaptation to avoid inbreeding.
What I find most interesting here is that these women are changing their behavior while unaware that they are doing it. It took research on call records by researchers steeped in evolutionary theories about mating behavior to find this pattern. Humans imagine they have free will. But hormonal fluctuations pull at them like puppets on strings and they aren't even aware their strings are being pulled.
Behavior is altered in many ways by the menstrual cycle.
The study builds on a mounting body of evidence of subtle and significant ways in which women’s behavior is unconsciously affected by the approach and achievement of ovulation — a physical change that in humans has no outward manifestation of its own. Research has found that women tend to dress more attractively, to alter the pitch of their voices ways that are perceived as more attractive by men, and to contemplate more frequently the possibility of straying from their mates during high as opposed to low fertility periods of their menstrual cycle. Research has also shown that women are more attracted during high-fertility periods to men whose physique and behavior are consistent with virility, especially if they’re not already mated to men with these characteristics.
This guy was not harmed by the experience. It is absurd to treat consenting teenage boys as victims of rape at the hands of hot teachers.
A science teacher has been arrested for having sex with one of her students when he was 16 - and could be pregnant with his child.
Jennifer Riojas, who last month resigned from her teaching post at Cater-Riverside High School in Fort Worth, Texas, was bailed on Wednesday for sexual assault against a child under 17.
Guys, when you were a teenager would you have turned her down? Click thru and see her picture.
The foolish boy complained to the police after many hotel visits only when she got pregnant. How does complaining to the police help him dodge paternal responsibility?
Why are women prosecuted for this? Because feminist women want to pretend that male and female have minds that react to sex in the same way? Because moms do not want their boys having sex with teachers? These boys are not harmed. So why should the teachers be prosecuted?
I’ve gotten more emails to write about this Duke slut Karen Owen than I have on any other topic. I wasn’t interested at first, having scanned the notorious Powerpoint (also at this link in case first doesn’t work) and concluded that it was just another story of a whore riding the (alpha) cock carousel who happened to forego discretion and publicize her sluttery, nothing to see here move along dystopia down the hall and to your left. But a closer inspection of Owen’s tell-all reveals a river of scorned subconsciousness that the mainstream feminist bloggers have predictably failed to notice –
this chick was rejected by each and every one of these high status men she banged.
“But how can that be?”, some of the duller among you will ask. “None of the men turned her down for sex.”
They all pumped-and-dumped her. Read the full tragic analysis. It is the story of millions of women who try to basically punch above their weight while young.
So then what happens? The implications are for continued decay of civilization.
The Social Pathologist again takes up the effects of female promiscuity on marital stability.
Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%. Very roughly speaking each addition partner negates the benefit of a year of education with regard to infidelity risk. Yet another study demonstrating the effect of promiscuity on relationship exclusivity/stability.
Social science data is useful and should help guide you in making life decisions. Really.
You can catch on his previous postings on sluts and divorce here. It is a cautionary tale for guys who are thinking about marriage. Remember, divorce court is not exactly cricket. Unless you are marrying a woman who earns a large yearly income be very concerned about her sexual history. Either marry an 18 year old virgin or a 30 year old specialist MD who makes $300k+ per year.
The Social Pathologist has some posts worth reading, especially for guys with ambitions to marry: Defining Slut, Defining Slut 2, Defining Slut: More Data, and Defining Slut: Erratum. For additional commentary on these results see Chateau's Why Sluts Make Bad Wives. Some commenters there make some good observations as well.
The results in a nutshell: sluts are whole lot more likely to end up in divorce court. What I want to know: What is the direction of causation with slutty women? Does their promiscuity reduce their ability to form attachments to one guy? Does promiscuity change them? Do women who do not stay with their first true love have a diminished capacity to bind to the next guy? Or does the lack of desire to stay in long-term relationships predate the one night stands and short term relationships? Probably some combination of the preceding.
Does anyone know of good social science data that addresses this question? A twins study suggests a genetic component to promiscuity.
One possible mechanism: easy girls are more likely to end up in bed with the most desired alpha men. Once they've lived the high life they end up finding guys who are more equal to them in attractiveness just not good enough. Less spoiled virginal girls are more likely to find the guy they end up with as special since they have less to compare him with.
My guess is that both innate differences help cause promiscuity and promiscuity changes women in ways that make them less stable as marriage partners. Cruise thru the discussions in those posts and see for yourself.
My take: If you really want to get married and already have a suitable woman who hasn't had sex with anyone else then she's the one. Female virginity ought to be highly prized by guys who want to get married to stay married. Hook-up culture is your enemy.
The risks of marriage to a woman who has had even one previous partner are substantially higher and beyond one previous partner the risks go up to ridiculous levels. Better to have kids out of wedlock than get legally hitched to a promiscuous woman. Divorce law makes marrying a slut very high risk. Better consult a lawyer on the power of pre-nuptial agreements in your state if you are seriously considering marriage to a woman who has a big history of lovers and one-night stands.
Another thing: These results argue for marrying a younger woman. The older they get the greater the number of previous sexual dalliances and therefore the higher the divorce risk. Get yourself to an upper class church and look for smart girls in their late teens who have conservative reserved dispositions.
Update II: Audacious Epigone uses General Social Survey data to discover that Women who get around while unmarried get around once married. The results are pretty dramatic. You are forewarned.
Recently I asked: Why Are HotOrNot.com Ratings So Inflated? I found none of the answers satisfactory. I have a new theory.
While reading the comments of Roissy's post "What Should She Do" I was thinking about the range of scores assigned to the girl who was the subject of the post. Roissy's readers scored her from 4 to 8. That's quite a spread. The 8 score is ridiculous. So what makes guys score her that high? Beauty standards are remarkably objective. Relative beauty is less debated than absolute score numbers. That's key.
My theory: Guys do not want to think they have to settle. So they inflate the scores of the women they think they might have a shot with so that they can feel good about being attractive to them. They want to find a 6 to be an 8 so they can fancy the "8". They are not consciously aware they are doing this.
Women must do the same thing as I'm told that attractiveness rating sites also show inflated scores for men.
Tangentially, to gauge one's level of attractiveness, he suggests using the site HotOrNot.com. I created a profile there a few days ago and began rating people. I was immediately struck by how inflated the scores are. After giving someone a rating, you are shown that person's average score from all ratings she's received up to that point. After rendering judgment on 100 or so ladies, I was without exception always harsher than the stated average, but the mean score I dispensed was probably 6.0-6.5, which is presumably a bit overly generous (it's a scale of 1-10, after all).
I got to that site a few months ago and had the same reaction: Why are fuglies getting rated highly? You'll be hard pressed to find even 5 ratings, let alone 4, 3, 2, or 1. Yet the site has women (didn't check the men) that are fat and/or ugly. Plain women who deserve a 5 or 6 rating get scores of over 8.
Do people visiting the site want the posters of pictures to feel good about themselves? Or do the raters have low standards for what constitutes beauty?
Update California Kid points to the Australian site amihotornot.com.au as offering more realistic scores. So I tried it out. The scores there still seem kind of high. But the scores seem closer to realistic. Still, scores below 5 are rare and that seems unjustified. Go ahead and compare. Does that site seem more realistic?
This comes from a British TV series "That Mitchell and Webb Look".
In real estate, it's location, location, location. And when it comes to why girls and women shy away from careers in computer science, a key reason is environment, environment, environment.
The stereotype of computer scientists as nerds who stay up all night coding and have no social life may be driving women away from the field, according to a new study published this month. This stereotype can be brought to mind based only on the appearance of the environment in a classroom or an office.
"When people think of computer science the image that immediately pops into many of their minds is of the computer geek surrounded by such things as computer games, science fiction memorabilia and junk food," said Sapna Cheryan, a University of Washington assistant professor of psychology and the study's lead author. "That stereotype doesn't appeal to many women who don't like the portrait of masculinity that it evokes." Such objects help create what Cheryan calls ambient belonging, or the feeling that you fit or don't fit in somewhere.
Beta behaviors are driving women away from computers. Feminists who insist on equal representation of women in all the professions should promote alpha male training (start with easy changes) for all male computer science students. It is the only solution that might make a difference.
Washington DC pick-up artist and human nature realist Roissy takes a look at why the reactions to Sarah Palin are so extreme.
Sarah Palin has been in the news lately so I’ve decided to give it the Roissy treatment — one long kiss on the neck and an ass cheek squeeze.
She’s a palinpsest — people see reflected in her their particular American narrative. Why has she commanded so much attention? Because in her life, her mannerisms, her morals, and her views she is the embodiment of everything evil or everything good. Her existence alone reignites the culture wars.
For this reason she'd be the best part of a McCain presidency. If she can keep liberal whites livid then she'll earn her pay and then some.
Effeminate males stand in contrast to Sarah Palin.
In general, liberal white men are more effete than conservative white men. This has been my observation. I can tell with 80% accuracy whether a male caller to a radio talk show is liberal or conservative just based on the tone of his voice. Liberal — mellifluous, sing-songy, whiny, high-pitched. Conservative — baritone, even, throaty, resonant. Sarah Palin drives the point home even further. Her ability to field dress a moose in waist-deep snow strikes at the sissified soul of the simpering suckass conformist and makes him lash out like a stuck piglet.
Beta males are not Palin's biggest opponents. Urban women who're losing their shot at reproduction do not like the reminder that she provides.
But Sarah Palin’s worst enemy is not the mincing liberal betaboy, oh no. It’s the childless, career-tracked, urban slut machine, government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, spinsterette. Palin shits grizzly-sized dung all over that lifestyle with her outdoorsiness, large brood, and prole tastes. The thing about her they really can’t swallow are her FIVE kids. There’s no better way to remind a hip clubgoing single chick in the city who loves to travel and sip pinot noir of her impending infertility and genetic obsolescence than with the image of a woman who’s chosen not to ignore her biological imperative in favor of playing the field indefinitely.
I think Roissy might be rifting off of a recent Steve Sailer post where Steve says the hostile reaction to Sarah on the Left is all about white conservatives outbreeding white liberals.
Now, the Breeding Wars have moved into the political arena. Barack Obama launched his Presidential run at the 2004 Democratic convention by devoting the first 380 words of his speech to describing in great detail the two stocks from which he was crossbred. His message is that by uniting in his DNA the two races, he will end the racial conflict that has long plagued this land. (Noah should take a look at Henry VII’s speech ending Shakespeare's “Richard III” for the classic expression of the logic of dynastic merger, in this case between the Lancasters and the Yorks.) Obama left out the part about his mom being 17 when she got pregnant and his father already being married with a kid and another on the way.
Palin has horned in on all that subliminal symbolism with her own. She’s had five kids while shooting caribou (a picture of her and a daughter standing over a huge beast she shot is the LA Times most emailed article of the day even though it's not an article, just a picture) and throwing the crooks out, and now she has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant and will marry a handsome hockey player.The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them. Modern people tell themselves they don't care about stuff like that, but they do, oh, they do.
Since conservative whites are making more babies than liberal whites the genetic factors that contribute to political orientation are going to shift the white vote rightward. Only immigration is preventing a full shift rightward in the nation as a whole.
People will only turn against an alpha male when he attacks a weak woman.
Roissy thinks Sarah's strong maternal image makes her immune from serious criticism. So does Sarah the mom have more immunity from criticism than Barack the black?
This is Sarah Palin’s anti-missile defense shield. She isn’t weak, but she will be perceived as worthier of protection than her alpha male opponents. Her attractiveness, earthiness, motherhood, and gender means she will be almost impenetrable (heh) to frontal attacks, while affording her the latitude to fire at will.
As a person I like her. Politically, I dislike what she represents: populism, culture warmongering, and especially, the notion that if a woman is to hold power, she has to make herself non-threatening by emphasizing her domesticity and fertility. I don’t blame her for doing these things, since they seem to work. But I don’t like living in a society where this works.
So then Megan dislikes the results of evolution by natural selection. Roissy has realistic advice for Megan:
Megan, I’ve got news for you. There is no society where this doesn’t work. Check your libertarian fantasies at the door because the frontline of human nature - and innate sex differences - is everywhere.
My problem with libertarianism is that its believers build their political philosophy around an unrealistic model of human nature. When libertarian principles are applied to all policy questions the result is damaging because humans do not react to libertarian policies in ways that further the cause of liberty. For example, open borders where all are allowed to immigrate will make the original citizens of a prosperous society less free. By seeking the impossible libertarians contribute to a loss of freedom, not a gain.
Megan's unhappiness with war mongering and popular reactions to a fertile woman ought to serve as reminder to her that when forming political views she needs to look at biological humans as they really are rather than ideological humans as she wishes them to be. The genetic factors at work which cause her fellow Americans to react to her evident dissatisfaction are not going away. No amount of rational argument is going to convert people into libertarians when they have strong instincts calling them to think and act otherwise.2002 September 24 TuesdayFemale Monogamy Rare Among Species
Indeed, said Tim Birkhead, a professor of behavioral ecology at the University of Sheffield in England, the most striking result of these studies has been "the near elimination of the idea of male and female sexual monogamy.
"From organisms as different as snails, honey bees, mites, spiders, fish, frogs, lizards, snakes, birds and mammals, research has verified behavioral observations of females' polyandry by showing that multiple paternity is widespread."
In other words, said Birkhead in his book "Promiscuity," "Females of most species ... routinely copulate with different males."Advertise here. Contact randall dot parker at ymail dot comSite Traffic Info