As I wrote in one of my “Ugly Truths” posts, unconditional love is a happy fantasy sentimental people want desperately to believe because they think it sullies love to have it debased by the reality of conditions placed upon it, as if love, oh wondrous exalted love, could be just another business transaction in the sprawling biological bazaar of human mating. I helpfully cleared up the issue for them:
There is no such thing as unconditional love. If a girl gains 50 pounds her boyfriend will fall out of love with her. If a guy loses his job and drifts into months of unemployed depression his girlfriend will fall out of love with him. Thinking clearly on this will give you the best chance to find real love.
I used to think that the only example of what could conventionally be regarded as “unconditional love” in the natural state was a mother’s love for her child. Well, piss all over another pretty lie, because yet again one of my maxims has been further buttressed by the imprimatur of science: Women More Likely Than Men to Reject Unattractive Babies.
The differences between men and women in motivational effort to extend or shorten the viewing time of abnormal-looking babies “may reflect an evolutionary-derived need for diversion of limited resources to the nurturance of healthy offspring,” the paper concludes.
The findings question the concept of unconditional parental love, at least among women. “What our results suggest is that this is determined by facial attractiveness,” said Rinah Yamamoto, first author and a research fellow in psychiatry. “Women may be more sensitized to aesthetic defects and may be more prone to reject unattractive kids. Men do not appear to be as motivated. They didn’t expend the same effort.”
Do mothers love their babies unconditionally? Not if the kid isn’t cute. Throw another wrench into the gears of the platitude spouting mental machinery of the mediocre masses. It’s grimy Dirt and DNA all the way down.