July 5, 2007

A fun pop psychology article

From Psychology Today:

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

By Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

34 comments:

tommy said...

The whole suicide bomber/polygyny thing strikes me as questionable. Most Palestinian jihadists haven't exactly been drawn from the bottom of the social rung. Military officials in Iraq have frequently mentioned that (wealthy) Saudis are among the most likely foreign-born jihadists in Iraq to engage in suicide bombings. I wouldn't expect wealthy young men to have too difficult a time finding a spouse. Maybe religion really does have a lot to do with it.

The author mentions that Africans are violent and attributes that to polygyny. The author apparently hasn't noticed that African-Americans are exceptionally violent as well, no polygyny involved.

Anonymous said...

Tommy --

I'll submit you're not digging deep enough.

Tribal societies such as the Palestinian or Saudi ones require considerable wealth AND family connections to obtain a wife. As opposed to a "whore" i.e. some Western Infidel woman good only for sex.

Even wealthy scions of wealth Muslim men in the West complain about how difficult it is to get married. Only a "proper" Muslim girl will do, one whom the proper bride-price can be arranged, who is a virgin, and is not hideously ugly. A number of Canadian plotters (the ones who wanted to blow up the CN Tower and behead the Prime Minister) made videos expressing their frustration.

It is even WORSE for Saudi men, who can find plenty of "Western Whores" but not a wife from a good Saudi family. Recall that the Saudi princes and princelings soak up most of the available Saudi women of good standing.

African-Americans? Well the popular perception is that African-American rappers are stupid and misogynist. And sing about things they don't see with their own eyes.

It's not uncommon for a poor African-American woman to have three kids by three different fathers. This is guaranteed to produce low investment in children and women by men. As well as produce some severe violence over "trespassing" and the like. But it's a feminists dream.

What is disturbing is the Cutts-Davis affair. It appears that the man Cutts had three different kids by three different women: his wife, his first girlfriend, the Davis woman (who was pregnant with another kid by Cutts). By my math that's two additional women taken out of the marriage market before the murder.

It would appear that women are indeed chasing after the highest status man. Even if in a blue-collar neighborhood that high status man is nothing more than a semi-charismatic thug.

As evidence I offer the popularity of "Big Love" among women. You'd think they loathe it but it's extremely popular among disposable income-women (it's on Showtime so appeals to a high-income demo). Well, duh. The lead character is really, really rich.

tommy said...

I'll submit you're not digging deep enough.

I'll stick with my explanation. New motto: "It's the jihad, stupid."

Anonymous said...

I really enjoyed seeing that article in a mainstream magazine because even if they were wrong about some things, they were at least starting to look at things the right way, imo.

It's a start.

Maybe Steve can submit some articles to them...

Mark said...

As evidence I offer the popularity of "Big Love" among women. You'd think they loathe it but it's extremely popular among disposable income-women.

I have yet to see "Big Love," but based on all I've heard, it bears no relation to any actual Utah polygamists. I've been around these people. Others I know have been around these people, too. Our independently formed opinions are all pretty much the same:

The women seem brain-dead or brainwashed. The children - likewise. The men are a far cry from charismatic or charming. The families are often broke. A handful might be truly wealthy, but most scrape by and many, I'm quite sure, do so by bending or breaking the law - either not disclosing income or using child labor or whatever.

A teacher friend of mine had a member of the infamous Kingston clan (Google them for more info) in her English class and found her to be one of the most bizarre and troubled teenagers she'd ever met. The girl associated with no one at school. How many teenagers are that anti-social?

Anonymous said...

Hey, Steve, you're right this was an entertaining article.

Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. ....yeah, these two guys are funny!


4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim

...when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines).

So, first it's "nothing to do with Islam" and then it's "except for two lines". Gee, as a casual reader, I'm suddenly interested in those "two lines". But that is probably irrational, because we all know that typically religious texts rely on quantity of repetition to convey importance of ideas. That's why the Bible clearly states "Judge not, lest ye be judged" 1,000 times.

But, we wouldn't want place the blame on Islam, Mohammed, Allah, or the Koran. No, no, no. Don't go there. Religious authority is a discredited concept, no?

(The surprising answer is that) It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

Of course, the absence of sex is epidemic in China (and other non-Muslim societies), due to the single baby program and the childbirth gender imbalance. China in particular, stands out as an exciting laboratory for study of mass millions of bachelors, The Mega Bachelor Effect, on society.

But...hmmm...no suicide bombers yet in China! I wonder if that would change if they converted to Islam?

PhDs Miller & Kanazawa continue:


The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam...It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings.


OK, we got it. It's the Really Horny Guy theory of Islamic Terrorism.

But...

What about envy and raw hatred of the decadent infidel, sanctioned by a supreme religious authority, Doctor?

What about the power of religion to direct a man to action, Doctor?

What about religious orthodoxy and the command from Allah to slay the infidels as transmitted to earth by Mohammed, Doctor?

Hey, Steve, it occurred to me that we really need a lot more PhDs in positions of authority. Because, they are really really smart, and they don't get bogged down by dogma or groupthink. And they never, ever tailor the facts to fit an argument. Scientific method and all that, don't you know!

Anonymous said...

Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines).

So if these authors met say, Tariq, in an alley and Tariq said:

"My gun has no ammo left (except for two bullets)."

I guess they'd be OK with that.

Bill said...

OK, this is bunk. For one thing, most blond children lose their blondness just as they become fertile. So according to this psychologist men are characterized by pedophilia. Which is then contradicted in virtually the same breath with men's attraction to large breasts, which develop after menarche.

Also, what's this about women benefiting from polygamy? If that were the case, women would be demanding its legalization. Why is it that polygamous societies always have a surplus of males? Because girls in such societies are seen as a liability. Polygamous societies (Africa doesn't really count because they quite literally screw anyone -- I have had African friends and know this) produce three things in excess: males, homosexuality and cuckoldry.

Guys who get laid a lot are generally: good looking, clever, smooth talkers (liars to be frank), tall and have no shame. Sexual access is all about HERE and NOW. Love the one you're with and all that.

The only real advantage wealthy men have is in their control over their environment, which is pleasant enough to keep the women from straying too far. Chinese emperors, for example, went to great lengths to restrict access to their harems. You'd think their power, approaching that of the gods themselves, would be enough to stimulate their young concubines, but no, that isn't exactly how it works.

I could tell you plenty of stories about handsome young men getting not only a little tail, but financial rewards from their wealthy, married flames.

Hate to say it guys, but this kind of reads like wishful thinking on the part of middle-aged professionals: "Oh yes, my status really means that beautiful women want to sleep with me more than with that tall, handsome and muscular, but poor and crude young punk with the tight jeans and beat-up motorcycle."

You know, it's funny how people laugh about phrenology today yet they call psychologists like these two "Dr." I'd trust an astrologer about as much as your typical pop psychologist.

Anonymous said...

Mark -- no question Big Love is a fantasy that bears no resemblance to the ugly reality of impoverished polygamy. A fantasy btw from two gay guys (naturally) who want to explicitly "remake" the idea of heterosexual marriage to gain acceptance for their own. Translated that means make hetero sex look so weird gay sex seems normal.

But the show does lots of things to appeal to women. The women all live in suburban houses. Next to each other. The husband is a driven Type-A millionaire. Played by Bill Pullman. He provides them with lots and lots of money/luxury goods and homes that are HUUUUUGE (as Donald Trump would say).

Heck Mayor Tony has apparently his wife, the Telemundo Hottie, a female cop, a Korean developer, and few female lobbyists on the side. So I guess it can work. HE's certainly nothing to write home about (unless you like smarmy with an extra helping of smarmy). So says Mayor Sam's blog here

[It's hilarious, "written" by "two dead pols, Sam Yorty and Frank Rich."]

God, Tom Bradley, the most boring man who ever lived, had a couple of mistresses. How they kept from falling asleep during sex I'll never know.

As for the Muslim thing, I would agree that Islam helps the whole suicide bomber thing along, and Chinese men without women don't blow stuff up along with themselves. But ... Muslim men who are very poor in Saharan Africa: Niger, Mauritania, etc. don't make up suicide bombers or jihadis. And while poor they also have wives. My explanation is that these places are so poor that even the "big men" have so little that there is not enough resource differential that allows "big men" to hoard all the women.

It's the only explanation I have for why the really poor African Muslims aren't suicide bombers and relatively well off ME Muslims are. If all the "proper Muslim wives" were hoarded in the ME but not in dirt-poor Saharan Africa, that would explain things. Just like the French Revolution was not about poverty. But about people with rising incomes suddenly experiencing falling ones.

Anonymous said...

I've always found it fascinating that society is openly "Eugenic" about mating. Replace "love" with science and selecting for traits becomes evil.

RobertHume said...

Robert Pape in his book "Dying to Win" concludes that occupation of your country by an army of a different religion accounts for almost all suicide bombing.

The highest per-capita incidence of suicide bombing is by the northern Sri Lankan Hindu Tamil Tigers against the Buddhist Singhalese from southern Sri Lanka whom they view as occupying their land.

Pape says that religion is usually called into play as an adjunct motivation for the masses by religious fanatics, but the necessary factor is the occupation.

Thus Palestinian and Iraqi suicide bombers. And many Muslims have come to regard Muslim countries, (not their actual country of residence) as their homelands.

If we want to stop terrorism we need to get the settlements out of the West Bank and our Army (how did we get in there anyway?) out of Iraq.

Peter said...

The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka basically invented the modern suicide bomber concept, and they've been by far the most successful (so to speak) at the craft. Only a small percentage of them are Muslim, they're largely Hindu.

BTW - the War Nerd has called the Tamils the world's only terrorists with their own Air Force :)

Mark said...

The article makes for interesting reading, but too often it fails to acknowledge alternative hypotheses.

Why is it that young men are suicide bombers, for instance? Well why do young men (15-25) have higher crime rates in general? Higher testosterone, I suppose. As relates to religion, they are more often true believers, too. I've known many a religious fanatic at 19 who was substantially melllowed (if not apostate) by the age of 30.

If the authors wanted to really be politically incorrect they also might've mentioned that Arabs and Pakistanis in general are just plain nuts - and it extends way beyond suicide bombing.

As for polygamy: if polygamy is natural, then why, in our liberalized society, aren't more people living that lifestyle? Granted there are lots of people who simply sleep around. There are lots of married men (and women) getting action on the side. But there are scarce few people actively living a polygamous life, where wife (or girlfriend) #1 knows about and associates with wife #2 and wife #3 and wife #4.

Blonde hair? I had blonde hair - as a prepubescent kid. I lost it even before my voice turned to baritone. I suspect that a lot of people simply think blonde hair goes well with white skin color, just as some cars look good in red while others look good in green. Otherwise, if it's all about youth, then why didn't Eskimos develop it? After all, they don't exactly run around the tundra naked.

James Kabala said...

Some of the glibber parts of this article fall apart under careful analysis. If Bill Clinton's affair was an expression of his subliminal Darwinian desire to produce lots of bastard children, why didn't he ever have actual sexual relations (by his definition) with her? Their relationship as actually conducted made the production of bastards impossible (and if they had gone all the way I'm sure they would have used birth control).
I'd like to see a rigorous analysis of the claim that geniuses' productivity goes down after they father their first child. Dante, Shakespeare, Bach (obviously), Dickens, Edison, even the child prodigy Mozart - all did their best work (in some cases all their work) after (in some cases, such as Shakespeare, LONG after) becoming fathers.
The analysis of why blue eyes are more attractive seemed incredibly strained.

Anonymous said...

the number one suicide bombers in the world are the secular tamil tigers - and even 'muslims' do it for nationlists, not religious reasons...even Robert Pape and Sailer's on American conservative acknowledge that.

this article is fake 'political incorrectness' refusing to look in anything really challenging and most of the 'uncomfortable' taboos here are objects of traditional contempt by...well, figure it out: muslims and '"judeo"(ha ha) christian' values...

Anonymous said...

A lot of the article is an obvious crock, but some of it isn't and, hey, its a start.

Mark said...

A lot of the article is an obvious crock, but some of it isn't and, hey, its a start.

Agreed.

David Davenport said...

If we want to stop terrorism we need to get the settlements out of the West Bank and our Army (how did we get in there anyway?) out of Iraq.

Give Spain and the Balkans up to the Vienna city limits back, too?

Anonymous said...

Bill --

Take a look at Mayor Tony in LA. Now he's not in a strict polygamous relationship, but at the same time he was: banging Mirthala Salinas (who also had affairs with Fabian Nunez and another latino pol who I forget); a Korean developer on his City Planning Commission; a female cop on his protective detail; and three female lobbyists. Mayor Sam's Sister city blog has details.

All these women knew about each other, heck the Korean gal bragged about in in Korean language interviews. That's six girlfriends plus his wife. His appointee to the Animal Shelter had a fiancee and two girlfriends on the side. So it's pretty much standard. All these women BENEFIT from de-facto polygamy. Women will share powerful men with each other in preference to having their own ordinary man. Look at Mayor Tony's affair with his best friend's wife (he's short and ugly looking btw, is Mayor Tony). Why did she screw him? Why did Newsome's top aide's wife screw Newsome? Duh, they were powerful.

Yeah OF COURSE the downside of harems is the handsome young men that women like. The ideal is the wealth and power concentrated in a handsome young men. But why are the palace guards always Eunuchs? Duh.

Which is the inherent weakness of those systems: Eunuchs or serfs don't fight to protect the Sultan or Emperor's harem. That right there shows why Greeks kicked Persian ass, and most everyone kicked Chinese ass. Masses of non-elite males could be relied upon to really fight hard to preserve their right to their own family. You are absolutely right about polygamous societies. And those excess males always end up formenting revolts/revolutions. The cultural stability of the West in comparison is because of a "mega-affordable-family formation" i.e. ordinary guys could get wives too.

That's falling apart now in the West and explains (as women pursue high-status guys for de-facto Polygamy) much of Western collapse.

Peewee said...

Different races have different sex ratios. The highest percentage of females is observed in Bantus and the highest percentage of males is in Eastern Europeans. I'm not sure where I read that; it may have even been on this site.

Bill said...

anon, one of the most prolific manwhores I've ever known was a dirt poor little runt living off of friends while he collected numerous tails even as his main squeeze was pregnant with his daughter. The guy was charming and decent looking (tan, blond and fit but quite short), but above all a very prolific liar.

These women messing around with Tony are what are known as "whores". I have had the unfortunate experience of being acquainted with a number of such women in my time. It may seem that mayor Tony has exclusive access to them, but I'd be willing to bet that these sluts have at least as many men on the side as he does women. Do you think Monica Lewinsky, for example, was blowing only Bill Clinton? Please...

Exclusive access is extremely expensive, which is one of the main reasons monogamy works better than anything else. While I was a young punk learning about how to treat a woman right, I remember being SHOCKED that my girls would take offense at my "extra-curricular" activities. When I found that they would readily return the favor, I learned a valuable, and very painful lesson (it really is amazing how stupid I was back then).

So yeah, women will screw powerful men as a matter of pride, just as powerful men will feel pride at having access to the most exquisite whores (I somehow doubt Villaraigosa's measure up to the best). However, the whores are every bit as lecherous and power-hungry as our politicians, who are really whores for power, and they will delight in debauching innocent, noble young men as the ultimate proof of their desirability. Why not just read Tom Jones or listen to Carmen? You'll see what I mean...

BTW, the Chinese ideal is that of the "Cowboy and weaver girl"; not the wealthy prince, but rather the self-sufficient young couple that lives the traditional lifestyle of farming and industry. The Chinese really are a civilized people, and this story endears them to me far more than any stories of mighty emperors conquering the western desert.

The archetypal western story, Tristan und Isolde, Launcelot and Guinevere, or Siegfried and Brunhild is one of a woman betrothed to another powerful man who is unable to follow her heart. These invariably end in tragedy. A fitting lesson for us all. let not blatherers flatter themselves with base notions of the desirability of psychologists, who deserve to be cuckolded anyhow.

Mark said...

You are absolutely right about polygamous societies. And those excess males always end up formenting revolts/revolutions.

Or immigrating to other countries and fomenting revolution there. Entirely speculative, of course - no idea who those immigrants might be or where they might be going.

The cultural stability of the West in comparison is because of a "mega-affordable-family formation" i.e. ordinary guys could get wives too.

I've brought this up before: is there any known situation of a European king/emperor actively and openly keeping a harem? Every single case I know of kings maintaining large harems was outside of Europe. Yes, European leaders got nookie on the side, but they don't seem to have maintained large harems or been polygamous.

This might point to the fact that European men just find sexual monopolization by their leaders intolerable. Or it might demonstrate that European women don't care for it.

And is there a genetic basis for European rejection of polygamy, or is it cultural?

Which raises another question: if polygamy increases the size gap between men and women, then are Arab men substantially larger compared to their women than European men compared to theirs?

tommy said...

One trouble, of course, is that most Arab societies actually don't have much polygamy these days. Countries like Egypt have produced plenty of terrorists but polygamy is highly uncommon.

Nope, it's the jihad stupid.

mepo said...

This article reminded me of everything I hate about the pop version of evolutionary psychology. Facile explanations, just-so-stories about evolution, backfilling from the author's desired story to the "reason," etc. This article seemed like 90% crap to me.

As an aside, there have been Sikh suicide terrorists, as well as Hindu ones. And of course, there have been a hell of a lot of soldiers who've gone on suicide or near-suicide missions, most of whom weren't Muslim.

essex said...

Mepo said:

This article reminded me of everything I hate about the pop version of evolutionary psychology. Facile explanations, just-so-stories about evolution, backfilling from the author's desired story to the "reason," etc. This article seemed like 90% crap to me.

It's 90% oversimplified, which is not the same as being crap. Yes, the examples and explanations are dumbed down for popular consumption, but, as another poster mentioned, at least it's a start. The "politically incorrect truths" this article describes are still very controversial; see them reported in a semi-respectable publication is a good thing, even if the reporting is superficial.

Bill said:

anon, one of the most prolific manwhores I've ever known was a dirt poor little runt living off of friends while he collected numerous tails.

This would be a good example of Steve's definition of the phrase, "the exception that proves the rule." The fact that you even noticed his apparent lack of appeal marks it as exceptional. If he were rich and powerful, you'd be much less inclined to wonder how he got so much tail. (And you'd be far less likely to know about it, unless you happen to move in rich and powerful circles yourself.) For example ...

but I'd be willing to bet that these sluts have at least as many men on the side as he does women.

How many of "these sluts" can you name? Catherine the Great (by possibly exaggerated reputation) comes to mind - a woman whose supposed excesses were easily matched by countless kings and princes whom we don't remember as lechers, if we remember them at all, because there's nothing unusual or exception about a powerful man availing himself of many young women.

James Kabala said:

If Bill Clinton's affair was an expression of his subliminal Darwinian desire to produce lots of bastard children, why didn't he ever have actual sexual relations (by his definition) with her?

I think you're reading too literally. The desire to spread one's seed is a subconscious instinct, not, in most cases, a conscious motivator. Of course Bill didn't really WANT to get Monica preganant. Men in modern life usually try to avoid impregnating their mistresses for practical reasons. However, the underlying instinct is still built into our genes and influences our desires, even if modern concerns change the way the instinct is manifested in our behavior.

Several people have said things along these lines regarding Big Love:

But the show does lots of things to appeal to women. The women all live in suburban houses. Next to each other. The husband is a driven Type-A millionaire. Played by Bill Pullman. He provides them with lots and lots of money/luxury goods and homes that are HUUUUUGE (as Donald Trump would say).

This is wrong on a number of counts. The husband - who is played by Bill PAXTON, not Bill PULLMAN - is not rich by American standards. He is a moderately successful businessman who provides comfortable, but not huge or even "HUUUUUGE" homes for three families. The show's appeal to women comes in part from its dipiction of close female bonding by a diverse group of personalities under slightly titillating circumstances. Another appeal is the show's setting. Very few movies or TV shows nowaday have extensive, dramatic storylines that center around the home and domestic concerns, even though these loom large in most ordinary women's lives. Big Love is an exception, and that helps to draw in the female viewers.

Mark said...

The show's appeal to women comes in part from its dipiction of close female bonding by a diverse group of personalities under slightly titillating circumstances. Another appeal is the show's setting. Very few movies or TV shows nowaday have extensive, dramatic storylines that center around the home and domestic concerns, even though these loom large in most ordinary women's lives. - essex

My guess is that the show's appeal lies in the desire of people to be able to have the benefit of conventional expectations without having to commit to a conventional lifestyle. Sorta like the kids on "Friends" who always had sex yet never had to worry about STDs, and who always had money but never seemed to spend much time at work (or in NYC traffic, for that matter.)

James Kabala said...

Essex: Point taken, but I would still think that the the conscious motive that Clinton (or any powerful womanizer) simply finds sex with lots of women enjoyable (and maybe finds the risk of being caught exhilarating as well) would play a greater role in his choosing to have extramarital affairs than the subconscious motive of spreading his seed would.
P.S. Kudos one catching the Pullman/Paxton error. People just can't tell those two apart, can they?

Anonymous said...

Essex -- good points about Big Love, though my point was that the man was rich enough (probably in the upper 95th percentile) to provide for three households without any material want, AND was pointedly a small-town millionaire who ran and owned a small chain of stores. Certainly high status. Nothing like the mired in poverty welfare/food stamps polygamists of actual Southern Utah.

Tommy -- yes it's the Jihad stupid. But why the Jihad? There is a fellow here at the American Spectator that estimates ME polygamy at 12% (don't know his numbers cite) and African at 30%.

What is notable is that numbers are concealed on this subject (which makes me suspicious), and that anecdotally there are tales of lots of women being soaked up by the Saudi Princelings and such. Notable is that the CIA World Factbook has Saudi as a Tier 3 nation in trafficking of persons, and the UAE as Tier 2. Tier 3 means they don't even minimally try and stop sexual slavery, Tier 2 means they make minimal efforts.

You've probably seen the NYT articles on how female African emigres to NYC find themselves sharing another wife when their husband returns, and how Social Services "counsels" them but won't turn over the men for criminal prosecution (too PC and Multi-culti).

But what makes ANY polygamy bad in the ME is the requirement FOR: an arranged "cousin marriage" to cement clan/family ties, with a "proper" Muslim girl who is a virgin, and with the right bride-price paid.

This happens even in places like Canada where due to PC and Multi-culti nonsense the emigres don't assimilate.

Anonymous said...

The dating / mating stratgy of good looking men is to slip one in here and there. For women it is dangerous to mate "out of her leauge" because she ends up with a kid from a prior "relationship" and has to carry her baggage with her. My guess that these guys do well when they are young. She has a kid at 18 or 20 or maybe 30 (although 100 years ago 30 was today's 45)and can write it off to hormones. She still gets a shot at marrying again and getting her stability albeit at the price of marrying some guy who is older or less attractive so it averages out.

Keep in mind when they keep refering to rich that can mean a couple of things. In a patriarchical society of days gone by it meant wealth and power. But much of this was heridetary so the only advantage would be stability. Now in a more egalitarian society or meritocracy it means they guy is smart. Intelligence is becomming more important.

Bill said...

You guys do not get it. The most promiscuous people, male and female, are quite young on average. This idea that middle-aged men are as fertile as young miscreants is kind of pathetic.

Guys who end up knocking up numerous women and spreading their genes all over the place are not usually responsible well-heeled types. For the most part they are what are known as "cads" or "rogues". How do I know? Well, it is a bit personal, but let's just say that I have several siblings I have never met from a few different mothers, and these are just the ones I know of for sure.

As for how many of these sluts that I can name, I am not talking about famous wealthy women who have a lot of boyfriends, but rather the typical mercenary type of young women who attach themselves to rich men for security while they carry on romantic relationships with their young, typically poor boyfriends. If you don't think women have a similar inclination to abuse power and wealth for sexual and emotional gratification you are very naive.

As for the poster who said that most polygamists are mired in poverty -- very astute observation. Polygamy is rampant in the Somali community here in America, and this community lives off of the EIC and welfare. It is people like Villaraigosa who are the exception that tests the rule. For the most part Americans with power and responsibility are sexually more responsible than those who have none.

But Villaraigosa is just an example of a Mexican jefe. He is a cheap thug running a city that slouches further and further toward the 3rd world every day. If one of these girls' boyfriends had it out with him in public, it would be sweet justice.

Mark said...

How do I know? Well, it is a bit personal, but let's just say that I have several siblings I have never met from a few different mothers, and these are just the ones I know of for sure. - bill

President Clinton! Why are you hanging out here? Shouldn't you be off campaigning for Hillary?

Guys who end up knocking up numerous women and spreading their genes all over the place are not usually responsible well-heeled types.

The problem with rich men spreading their oats is that they have money to take - which is why they're more careful about what they do. That's why golddiggers go to to bars tracking down professional athletes - lotsa money, good (physical) genes, dumb enough to sleep around.

But with the widespread availability of birth control and abortion you have to think it's less common than before. The birth rates certainly say so.

But Villaraigosa is just an example of a Mexican jefe. He is a cheap thug running a city that slouches further and further toward the 3rd world every day.

Vivalaraza is in the best position to sleep around and abuse his power: he is powerful but has no money to take, and is a politician in a community that tolerates prodigals, especially because they're in an us (Hispanics) against them (whites and blacks and Asians) situation.

mnuez said...

There's only so much of the comment section here that I could stand to read. It's such a woeful mix.

In this section you have some wonderful demonstrations of learnedness, some fine articulation and humor, healthy offerings of the individual ego, some willingnesses to engage in independant thought and most importantly some fine examples of critical thinking

ALL SHAT UPON BY MISUNDERSTANDING DUNCES WITH THEIR ANECDOTAL 'PROOFS'!

If they would only go away when they know that their biases and/or shallow-mindednesses will preclude any ability to engage in intellectual discussion the rest of the comments board would be pristine and scintillating.

mnuez

Anonymous said...

I am overwhelmed, and have no idea where to begin in regards to this article, as pretty much every single sentence was bullshit. Using random statistics to postulate your own random theories based off of no facts is not science. Period. It is really insulting to everyone involved, and only reveals the writer's misogynistic, racist, and pathetic desires. I hate this kind of pop psychology. It is Nazi social darwinsim, with a splash of patriarchy, dressed up as a modern, scientific theory on the most traditional, outdated gender roles and racial superiority. I like how the authors throw in for kicks that Scandavians had to become blond, thanks to the magic of natural selection (which they apparently view as an omniscient power), because they were "wearing heavy coats," and thus needed to show their beauty more obviously with lustrous, yellow hair. First of all, what the fuck time period are they even refering to. Evolution takes millions of years, and there is not just some ideal little society during which all evolution of human personality took place. Second of all, what about every other race besides the white scandanavians? It is offensive to assume that the most beautiful ideal of all females on the earth is blonde, when this is not even a natural part of most people from other races' genes! If this was apparently such a competitive edge for reproductive success, why did not "evolve" (in the loosest sense of the term) in all other regions? And why would people necessarily find blonde more attractive if no one had it in their society?

Finally, this piece is literally the most outrageously unfactual and biased garbage I have read. It is remarkable that, despite how long the feminist movement has been around, you still read pieces of shit like this in supposedly mainstream journals. I hate them.

Anonymous said...

First of all, women don't "dye" their hair blonde, they bleach it. When, oh when are intelligent people gonna get that right? And hello, women all over the wolrd are and have been concerned about body image cause we do and have lived in a fairly misogynist global patriarchy--with a few exceptions--for quite some time now. I didn't finish the article...

http://www.aperiofilms.com/wdlunc.html