Male Choosiness, Female Beauty And Monogamy

Here’s a hypothesis that I haven’t seen elsewhere: More beautiful women will be found in monogamous cultures, or among monogamously-inclined races.

Where women don’t (or can’t) sleep around, and where men are expected to assume a heavy economic and emotional responsibility for the women they woo, men will be choosier about the women they date and marry. Monogamy selects for male choosiness.

If you’re a man, and you’re limited to dating only a few women in your lifetime, and there are onerous familial and cultural pressures to marry the first or second woman you date, you are not going to throw away your one shot at a girl — not to mention all those resources you accumulated to win her over — on an Amanjaw Marcuntte. You’ll take your time assessing the available female goods, and aim for the hottest babe you can get. You’ll waste little time or energy spelunking slutty fat chicks or mustachioed feminists.

Over eons, this results in the more monogamous races and cultures of humanity producing more beautiful women. Of course, seismic shifts in the mating market have been underway for the past 60 or so years, so I expect a future of less beautiful women, on average and proportionate to their overall numbers, compared to the recent past. The one exception to this uglification trend will be the total bifurcation into a female beauty oasis of the 1% ruling class from the Gorgonian masses.

Relatedly, I am familiar with the theories that cad societies where men hypervigilantly (and hyperjealously) guard their women from alpha male interlopers, and geographic regions where high parasite loads influence the sexual selection process so that beauty — a sign of health and lack of genetic mutations — is favored, produce more beautiful women.

Arguing somewhat orthogonally to my monogamy-male choosiness theory is the theory that skewed sex ratios which favor men would produce more beautiful women over the generations. Such societies would be notable for their polygyny, de facto or de jure.

Perhaps all these theories reinforce each other, such that we would find the most beautiful women in countries with established monogamy norms, higher parasite loads, and sex ratios favoring men (caused predominately by men dying young, or otherwise taking themselves out of the sexual marketplace). Where we won’t find the most beautiful women, or any halfway-decent looking woman, is among the readership of Jizzebel or Feministing. Their high parasite load is offset by their self-selecting loserdom.





Comments


  1. Where we won’t find the most beautiful women, or any halfway-decent looking woman, is among the readership of Jizzebel or Feministing. Their high parasite load is offset by their self-selecting loserdom.

    The culture that writes and reads Jizzebel is not a manly culture.

    It is a parasite culture that can only survive by leeching into healthy strong host societies.

    Parasites must act like a female, like a woman, indirectly.

    So this is reflected in the actual culture of parasites.

    The females are too manly, the men are latent homosexuals, if not outright gay.

    Roosh recently said, “Why do all the characters on American TV sitcoms sound gay?”

    My answer: Who are the fucking screenwriters in Hollywood writing it.

    The masses always need to be lead. They WILL ape the ideas of anyone who is wily and cunning enough to take control of media

    What we are seeing with the repulsive husband of Ana Calhoun is the inevitable outcome of a parasitic culture which has been trying to break traditional culture since 1960’s.

    American men have LOST THE ABILITY to actually be men through no father examples to begin with (divorce) or fathers who themselves are betatized.

    The easiest way to kill your enemy is to have your enemy hang themselves, before you even fire a shot.

    You feed the masses ideas that break their men.

    You break up families.

    You make women into men, men into women.

    You DEMORALIZE men by mocking/trivilizing masculinity in sitcoms, movies, in magazines.

    You take control of the construction of culture (K. MacDonald), instead of traditional hand to hand fighting.

    It is NOT premeditated – it is simply the way of a parasite. A leeching pussy who tells you black is white, and night is day – a peddler of lies, a hater – because a parasite can never create anything> he can only lie, cheat, and steal, and resent those who are stronger than him, those who are men, those who can be what he never can..

    Like


    • +1

      Like


    • Sometimes I suspect that the Frankfurt School actually did premeditate all of this.

      Like


    • But it was premeditated and has now taken on a life of its own. Excellent post. Cultural Marxism in one page.

      Like


    • Damn good post man.

      Like


    • on September 20, 2012 at 1:35 am Subway Masturbateur

      Paranoia Will Destroya.

      “The sky is falling. The Jews! The Illuminati!! No, the Muslims. No The Communists! (That one has a time machine) The Blacks! ”

      You know, any one of them could get you.

      But isn’t the fear and hope of defeating them really a masked fear of death, and an unhealthy, angry way of coping/negotiating with your death by picking ancillary problems?

      Like


      • Protecting your society is unhealthy and angry? You are exactly what the first Anon described. The scourge of broken families is a very real problem, for whites *and* blacks, though the causes may differ. So keep with the SWPL ennui and mockery anytime people take a problem aside from abortion rights (lol) seriously. That way you don’t actually have to concern yourself with anything of importance.

        Like


      • Mockery, or cognitive dissonance?

        Your masters love your work… don’t spend those 30 shekels in one place.

        Like


      • You’re an anti-white cunt, but you put half a finger on something here.

        It isn’t fear of death. No organism fears death but in the moment of its encounter therewith.

        It is, of course, sexual anxiety. What is the ultimate danger of Jews? That they have reinforced Feminism: which wreaks havoc upon the mating prospects of average men.

        The technology to which Whiskey would oh so earnestly point exists in symbiosis with this problem. I believe Facebook is emblematic — invented by a Jew, but in itself, enormous disastrous sociologically.

        Jewish women basically invented the American cosmetics industry. Don’t forget that.

        Also the entire counter culture. Woodstock? Don’t forget that either.

        There is no doubt that without Jewish agitations, we’d have a better society today, one, if nothing else, that might not be so far along in decline.

        By enshrining faggotry (which white women use against white men), birth control, age of consent paranoia, etc., a very grave and permanent blow has been struck at mating prospects for millions of our kind.

        Merely being aware of this means two things: one was odd enough to see through the veil of lies to begin with, and one becomes odder yet for letting the power of this insight to work on one’s mind, inevitably increasing distance between one and the herd, i.e. females.

        This in turn aggravates the anxiety, fueling the reactionary mentality. This is good and bad, in my view. Good because I like to see a people, a species, a single organism fighting back. Bad because it leads to phantasmagorias which you, in your anti-white attitude, discern in a caricatured fashion.

        As if one would have prospects otherwise, e.g.

        Like


      • The Jews gave us monothesism and Marxism. They should be much more careful what they say to the Gentiles.

        Like


    • Ok, I see further down there is another poster commenting as Lily so I’m changing my moniker to NiteLily, which is part of the email I use here. This way there is no confusion and I am not accused of being an apologist for parasitic feminists.

      Excellent comment. Every word is 100% true. And it’s interesting…. I have called feminist parasites many a time. It fits them to a T. Of course, they hate me and I love it.

      Regarding the state of fathers in our society, we don’t produce Alpha males anymore in the West. That’s why fathers don’t or can’t do anything anymore about their daughters whoring themselves. They trust their wives to speak to their daughters about sex, which is not as effective or preventive. Feminists truly hate men and use the courts and other social institutions against men, to limit and restrict their power. All the divorce and family courts are run by feminists who try to undermine the father’s authority and transfer power, resources, and goods away from men and give it to women. It’s another form of government stealing from the working and giving it to those that didn’t earn it. Feminism only exists to break traditional culture and ruin society. Why do you think it’s so closely aligned with the homosexual movement? If it weren’t for women’s non-judgmental embracement of the homosexual lifestyle, accepting it as legitimate, we wouldn’t be speaking same-sex marriage now. Nothing destroyed the family more than homosexuality, and nothing undermined the father’s authority more than feminism. They both should be defeated.

      Like


      • on September 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm gunslingergregi

        its not the feminists in the courts fucking men over it is other men who are judges fucking them over cause they think woman do no wrong all the guys fault even though dude has no power to do anything about it

        Like


      • Of course judges are the ones destroying the father’s authority. BUT, the family courts are run by the feminist ideology, and many of those people with this ideology are men. So again it’s the feminist. Who cares if they are male or female, same shit. There are men who have adopted this mindset and think of themselves as feminist. I hate feminist men more than I hate feminist women. Those men are weak-minded individuals; they’re no better than idiotic weak-minded women. like you said, they think women can do no wrong. It’s the same type of people who think Muslims, illegal immigrants, or 3rd world dwellers can do no wrong, even if they riot, murder, and start world conflicts for all to see. They always make excuses for them. They believe only the West or whites are evil and their power should be curtailed, especially white men. People with this kind of mindset think white males are to blame for all the ills and wrongs in the world since civilization began and they think it’s their job and responsibility to set things straight, and they first do it by “equalizing” everything. Later, they’ll move to destroy the white race. We all know there is nothing equalizing about their policies. If anything it’s reverse racism, sexism, prejudice, and intolerance. In fact, these people are the most intolerable types around. They can’t stand any rejection or challenge to their ideals, policies, or beliefs, and they project their own intolerance on whites, specifically white males. No place is this war on white males more obvious than in family courts. Of course, affirmative action is their 2nd battlefield, and the list goes on. These people will not rest until they destroy the white culture and replace it with backward-ass 3rd-world low standards, and the immoral nonjudgmental values which they love. Obama Mamma is the perfect mirror image of this backward-ass 3rd-world low standards. Who would vote for such a president? Only a society that’s already going down the drain. He wouldn’t have been voted 10 short years ago. Things are getting worse faster now.

        Like


      • Getting worse faster, indeed. Like that poem goes, the center cannot hold.

        Like


  2. Let me sum up.

    In cultures past, good looking women would be snapped up quickly, breed early, and stay married because divorce was taboo. The kids? Beautiful.

    In today’s culture, ugly lower class women, as single moms, breed early and produce hellion spawn. In contrast, beautiful women with career options ride the cock carousel and, by the time they get around to breeding, it’s too late.

    Ergo, beauty in the society wanes.

    Like


  3. Heh…Jizzebel. If I’m feeling bored I’ll throw out some statement disagreeing with their distorted view of the word just to rattle the cage.

    Like


  4. Male choosiness is why human females have such an exceptional set of secondary sexual traits – tits, booty, spectacular hair, soft skin, big smiles, big eyes, and willingness to sexually satisfy men in ways not conducive to reproduction. In comparison, all other female animals have very dull bodies and behaviors. You may be right that men choosiness is related to monogamy.

    Like


    • Hello! ATTENTION:

      Can i please request a few good (keyword GOOD, intelligent, nice, honest) White males to weigh in on a topic I just made on my website. Please. I kinda need to hear from the horses mouth on this issue since i am in a very heated debate with a bunch of in denial delusional women on another website. its regarding online dating, Black women, and responses.

      Thanks in advance!!

      Like


      • not sure why the site is not coming up when you click my profile. but the website is

        http://www.neecysnest.wordpress.com

        Like


      • (keyword GOOD = intelligent, nice, honest)

        Pick any two.

        Alas, the dilemma! I’m not sure if Neecy wants me in the back of the bus, or under it!

        Like


      • FWIW, I stopped reading after:

        Are men confused little babies that truly don’t know what they want

        Like


      • Ok I need to rephrase that b/c you are the 2nd person who took it the wrong way as me literaly saying”men are confused little babies”. Actually I was being sarcastic towards the BLACK WOMEN who kept saying “men don’t know what they want”. I was trying to point out that men really aren’t helpless little babie that don’t know what they want and in fact DO KNOW what they want and have no confsions about it. Does that make sense? I’m gonna take that part out bc you and another person took it the wrong way.

        Like


      • Being part-black rather than all-black may be a factor. Not just for blacks; I think half-Asian half-white girls are on average much more attractive than pure Asians, who usually don’t appeal to me at all. Latinas are hot too, unless they’re fat (which they very often are nowadays). It may be biological to prefer women who are at least somewhat like us rather than completely alien, but that’s how it goes.

        Like


      • Actually the last part of your post is something to ponder. it is an argument that a woman did post to me that in fact for White men doing this it could be that they like the idea of someone who is more close “to home” than foreign in the sense that a Black woman with racial admixtures is closer to them.

        She also admittedly made another great point. That b/c BW are generally deemed as abrasive, unfeminine and other not so great perceptions, that when a White male sees other racial admixtures, he may subconsciously think this Black woman is not like a “regular” Black woman in her behaviors or thoughts b/c possibly the other mixes make her act more closley to Non black women than Black?.

        Hmmmm interesting….

        Like


      • HI GREGORY!!! How it going. i already know your response to the questoins. LOL

        Like


      • FWIW, tootsie, if I ever decide to cross the Great Divide, you’re my huckleberry.

        Like


      • And you’ll be my FINN 😉 😛

        Like


      • First In Neecy’s Nonny? :confused:

        Like


      • Why do you always give me terms i have to look up in Google?! YEESH!

        Ok so i now know what a NONNY is and no I’d never make you my NONNY! 😈

        Plus that ALPHA in you wouldn’t allow such a thing now would he? 😉

        Like


      • You didn’t scan the urban dictionary meanings enough… check out definition 4.

        Like


      • AHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!! LMAO! Yeah.. I failed to scroll down further. He he!!! And WTH do you know about the term “poonani”? that is a Jamaican slang term. LOL!

        Like


      • I am a master of all parlances and argots… the grand ultimate cunning linguist.

        Like


      • However, music aside, Shakespeare may also be punning on the idea of ‘nonny-nonny’. The phrase can be used as a euphemism for vulva, ie a woman’s privates, though as the Oxford English Dictionary says, it is an obsolete and rare use of the term ‘nonny-nonny’.

        Like


      • mmm Hmm leave it to Shakespear to refer to a womans privates as NONNY. Man he had a way with words.

        Like


      • Sigh no more, ladies, sigh nor more;
        Men were deceivers ever;
        One foot in sea and one on shore,
        To one thing constant never;
        Then sigh not so,
        But let them go,
        And be you blithe and bonny;
        Converting all your sounds of woe
        Into hey nonny, nonny.

        Sing no more ditties, sing no mo,
        Or dumps so dull and heavy;
        The fraud of men was ever so,
        Since summer first was leavy.
        Then sigh not so,
        But let them go,
        And be you blithe and bonny,
        Converting all your sounds of woe
        Into hey, nonny, nonny.

        -Shakespeare

        Like


  5. No way. The more monogamous cultures that come to mind – middle eastern, mexican, indian – have grotesque women. Maybe over the very long run (centuries) your theory will play out but the short-term behavior you describe is not going to affect the main determinant of the relative beauty of cultures – genetics.

    Like


    • I tend to agree… genetics über alles.

      But I can see the issue from the monogamy side as a fair point.

      On a side note, I’d like to get a cookie for my use of ‘spelunking’ with the same connotation in a recent thread that I flatter myself influenced the heartmeister’s use of it in this one.

      Like


    • SInce when is the Middle East monogamous? It’s about the most polygamous place on Earth! Rich dudes snap up the cute women, Abdul Beta Male makes do with the goat or jacks off a lot, and no pussy goes unplumbed. Why do you think Abdul and his pals are always so eager to rape European chicks?

      As to India — you’ve got some weird standards of beauty if you think those ladies are “grotesque.” I can’t recall seeing any Indian woman under 40 who wasn’t attractive.

      Mexico . . . maybe. For every stone fox chica there’s at least a couple of beasts who look like El Santo.

      Like


      • You fail to realize that the goat farmers in those cultures pass around boys around like Jerry Sandusky trading cards. In Islam, it is not considered “homosexual sex” unless the boy being fucked can grow a beard, because he isn’t yet a “Man”.

        Ask any soldier or veteran who has spent significant time in Iraq or Afghanistan working with the indigenous personnel. Those Hadjis are boy lovers.

        Like


      • Yup… Manlove Thursday, ask ’em about those Afghans flipping for it or drawing straws to see who gets to be the woman.

        Like


      • you have a good point on the middle east.. but with Indian women, there is a lot of variability, some hot, some really, really ugly. and even the cute ones have more body hair than my dick finds appealing.

        Like


      • And then there’s the smell…

        Like


      • Learn to love curry if she’s hot.

        Like


      • Remember that guy that was always going on about hairy pussies? I wonder what happened to him;I guess he got bored w/Game. I dont see him having much real pussy–hairy or otherwise!

        Like


      • Holy shit, the GNP guy. Forgot about him.

        Like


      • I guess the body hair especially on the arms indicates a higher than normal level of testosterone for a woman.

        Like


      • I would make one exception for the Middle East – Lebanon. Traditionally that area was inhabited by Maronite and Greek Orthodox Christians and they were monogamous. I’ve met a lot of pretty Lebanese girls and it always shocked me how much better looking they are, on average, compared to women from the Arabian peninsula and Egypt.

        Like


    • Been in some parts of the middle east, Mexico and India.
      Nowhere have the women struck me as being “grotesque”. There are dogs and some jaw-droppingly beautiful women in the extremes. 9s and 10s are rare for sure, just like in Europe and the US. But there seems to be a strong middle-class of 6-8s.
      The only country where I’ve been overwhelmed by weird-looking chicks is England.
      Your theory needs revisiting

      Like


      • England, being an island, has not had a mass die-off of males at any time in its history, except maybe World War I.

        Mass die-offs of males, in a monogamous culture (and where men don’t marry their cousins, as in the Middle East), will make the next generation better-looking as the surviving men pick the beauties and leave the plain janes’ genes to go extinct. This is undoubtedly why Eastern European women are so beautiful; the constant wars in Central and Eastern Europe over the centuries selected for beauty.

        Like


      • They had reputations for beauty well before they had major wars decimate the population.

        Like


      • I don’t remember reading any ancient Greek accounts about “Scythian beauties” — in fact, they generally weren’t thrilled with their looks — but if you have any complimentary Greco-Roman accounts about them, I’ll be glad to look at them. It was during the late Roman Empire the Huns came in, and then other hordes of people coming from the east over the next thousand years, until the Russian Czars started to assert their rule over that area.

        Like


      • I do remember an anecdote from “Letters of Frederic Chopin” (Dover) that told of three German princes being given separate orders: one to get a treasure lode, one to get a good horse, and one to get a bride. In the event, all three rush to Poland to get a girl.
        I’m butchering a story I read many years ago, but its point was, Polish women famed for beauty.

        Like


      • My guess is that they had been reading Heinrich Heine, but regardless, the Poles are close cousins of Russians and Ukrainians.

        Like


      • Prussia much?

        Like


      • Read up on the Vikings for starters. They had a roaring trade in Slavonic women. This matter was discussed in detail a few weeks ago.

        Like


    • The most monogamous cultures are in Europe and East Asia. The Middle East and South Asia have a different problem: inbreeding. Because clan and familial ties are so strong, men generally marry their female cousins. Hence, ugly people.

      As for Mexicans… they have a higher rate of illegitimacy than whites, but not quite as bad as blacks. Hence, their looks are in between the two.

      Like


    • The Middle Eastern culture isn’t monogamous…

      Like


  6. There’s a lot to that theory. Where there is strong sex selection pressures (think Northern Europe up until recently), one will find more beautiful women on average.

    However, in places where marriages are arranged, there is less sex selection pressure since the priorities will lie elsewhere (family ties, status, class/caste, etc). Examples will be Middle East, India, North Africa.

    In places where the pressure is lax due to polyamory (or variations thereof), there will be less beautiful women on average since it is less critical to have beauty (fatties and fuglies can get laid and have kids as well and men can still have a shot at bedding beauties).

    With the increasing masculization of the Western female, it will be interesting to see how men respond. As Western women continue to slut it up, choosiness is less critical. However, the converse may not be the case. Western women are more choosy than before (in terms of marriage and/or having children). Meaning there may be more sex selection pressure on men.

    Like


    • Female “sex selection on males” does to a much smaller, though non zero, degree work along beauty lines. Thus game for men, primping for women.

      Like


    • Choosy, but only with whom they fuck in their 20’s. By the time these sluts are ready to be a mom, they get a schlub or adopt.

      Like


    • Agree with this:

      “Where there is strong sex selection pressures (think Northern Europe up until recently), one will find more beautiful women on average.

      However, in places where marriages are arranged, there is less sex selection pressure since the priorities will lie elsewhere (family ties, status, class/caste, etc). Examples will be Middle East, India, North Africa.”

      Like


  7. Middle Eastern, Indian (don’t know about Mexican) have a history of arranged marriages where beauty was secondary (family ties, class/caste being the deciding factors). Thus, one will not expect to find too many beauties. This appears to be the case.

    In cases were sex selection was strong, such as Europe (and esp. N. Europe) one finds many beautiful women.

    However, with the increasing masculization of the Western female (sluttiness being a big factor), the pressure to be beautiful will wane. As has been pointed out, the best genes are being bred out as pretty, but slutty women follow education and careers and start looking to procreate at the end of their fertility while fat, dumb sows get knocked up. So, we can expect the Western female to eventually deteriorate rather rapidly.

    Like


    • This is the important part. Arranged marriages select for wealth or power, or family connections. When the kids are free to select their own partners they go for beauty.

      Like


    • Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the north women needed to wear clothing from head to toe year round to stay warm, all that was visible for men to select from was their face. That is why blond hair and blue eyes developed in the north. Don’t know if it’s true but it seems plausible.

      Like


      • FWIW, Tacitus wrote that German women were fairly unclothed, by Roman standards, which matches the Roman commentary on both sexes of Germanic and Celtic peoples — they did not wear much clothes often.

        Like


      • The selection for Blond hair, Blue eyes and white skin occured in prehistory (the gene for white skin is considered 6,000 years old).
        The logic is simple, blue eyes can recieve more light, blond hair reflects more light, white skin absorbs more light (less melanin).
        In regions without a lot of light, these features ensure that people won’t be depressed and won’t have problems (light is required for a lot of bodily mechanisms).
        For example, black immigrants to northern countries have a three-times larger prevelance of Schizophrenia, because they don’t have enough vitamin D (or whatever is the vitamin you get from exposure to light).

        Like


      • (the gene for white skin is considered 6,000 years old).

        Interestingly enough, that corresponds to the timeline many believers cite as Adam’s creation.

        And God saw that there was no man to till the earth.

        I’ve heard that the word “Adam” is a variant of “shows blood in the face” or “ruddy”.

        And that the timeline described in Genesis suggests males and females being in existence before Adam… (e.g., post-Eden, why was Cain worried about getting killed by other people, and whence came his wife?)… yet no one with the capacity for things like agriculture, wildlife taxonomy, etc.

        I’ve also heard the above disputed, but that’s to be expected when discussing the Bible, even among staunch believers.

        Like


  8. So the Walmart walrus will become the cultural norm?

    Like


  9. I wonder how this theory explains Eastern Europe and Russia, where the men are hideous but the women supply a disproportionate number of models.

    I read somewhere that it had something to do with a culture of horse-warriors, raids, abductions of the women, and such.

    In more stable farming-based communities, that’s where you find the system of arranged marriages, and a high number of stodgy women who could pass for men.

    Like


    • Gender roles are always stronger in inhospitable environments where men have more hand. The stronger the gender roles are, the more biological mate preferences will express themselves. The men are ugly, but naturally dominant. Or in old game terms, the women have more reproductive value because the men have significantly more survival value.

      Like


      • “Or in old game terms, the women have more reproductive value because the men have significantly more survival value.”

        Dude, that’s just a conclusion. Elaborate. Why would Russian women have more reproductive value (i.e. be better looking) as a result of Russian men having more survival value?

        Like


      • That’s just a conclusion. Elaborate. Tell me why Anna Kournikova flows from Vladimir Putin.

        Like


      • Men are increasingly treated as anachronisms in a society with no threat of starvation or violent death. Simple logic suggests that women need men more in environments of danger and scarcity, that the men they need are more conventionally masculine, and that men in greater demand will have more room to make demands of their own.

        That’s the logical argument. For an actual look at comparative gender relations in societies with different levels of instability, read Culture of Honor, (ironically) Sex at Dawn, David Schmitt’s 42 country sociosexuality comparison, or Prosperity is the Problem in the CH archives.

        Like


      • No no. You missed the point of my question. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. What I am asking is this: Guy A is a dominant man but not great looking. Guy B is very good looking but is the exact opposite of dominant. From what you are saying the offspring of Guy A will be better looking than the offspring of Guy B. But why would this be? Why wouldn’t Guy B have more attractive offspring (specifically daughters)?

        This is what I meant when I asked why Anna Kournikova flows from Vladimir Putin.

        Are you saying that a more masculine man will produce a more feminine female as a daughter than would a less masculine man?

        I’m asking seriously and not rhetorically. Because what you’re saying sounds counterintuitive to me, and so I’d like to know what your explanation is.

        Like


      • I think you’re example is too narrowly focused but I’ll try to apply it to this society because I think I see where your confusion lies.

        I’ll illustrate it this way. Guy B in your example might be better looking than Guy A, but in a harsh environment where females are strictly attracted to men that can provide them with safety and protection, he may never mate. He’s an omega male and if he failed to mate, his genetic line will end.

        Since female beauty is valued highly and resources are scarce, we can imagine that an “omega female” could be defined as a very ugly woman, who would be a very unattractive mating prospect even to the lowest beta male on the totem pole. Her mating value is so low that she is not worth the risk of investment to the eligible males around her. In this society, she will also fail to mate and her genes will be wiped out.

        In the meantime, every beautiful woman in this society is finding a suitable male to mate with since she needs to assure her survival and the survival of her offspring. Some of these strong men will be good looking, some will not be. It’s irrelevant though because as long as a higher frequency of beautiful women are passing along their genes to their sons and daughters, the aggregate genetic makeup of the entire population will become “better looking” over the course of many generations.

        I think this is a roundabout way of explaining what collapseofman is describing. Obviously it doesn’t directly follow that masculine men will have beautiful, feminine daughters but, over the long haul, lots of beautiful women reproducing will lead to a more attractive population.

        Like


    • There are reasons beyond looks for Eastern Europe and Former Soviet supplying a disproportionate share of models. 20-30 years ago, during the catalog boom, the industry was flooded by young Scandinavian, and other Western girls. But scandals like the “Fuckingham Palace” brouhaha, meant rich country girls with other options, and their now wiser parents, were less willing to move to Milano and other model towns by themselves at 14.

      Ever more entrenched feminism in Western countries also resulted in girls and parents devaluing modelling as a career vis-a-vis staying in school. And, then as now, waiting until legal age / end of mandatory schooling, means missing the modelling train for all but the most exceptional girls.

      While pretty girls from places with fewer other options, have fewer hangups about doing what it takes.

      Like


    • My guess: Men in those countries repeatedly got killed off over the centuries, the surviving men would marry the beauties, and leave the plain janes’ genes to go extinct.

      This is why English women are so ugly: no mass male die-offs in England ever, as it’s an island. Except maybe World War I, but that wouldn’t have been enough to fix things.

      Like


  10. The world has become smaller. The hottest girl in an ancient village would go with the alpha male chief or warrior. She had no choice nor did she mind being with the top male.

    Now an attractive female has the whole world to choose from. Here is an article about a website that links pathetic beta males who will pay travel expenses for attractive females: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/miss-travel

    Monogamy makes no economic sense for today’s attractive female. Simple demand and supply.

    Like


  11. Heartiste, you seem to be making the distinction that beautiful women are more monogamous (i.e. faithful?) than their less attractive counterparts? Possibly because of the halo effect?

    I know that you’re making an argument for the systematic uglification of women based on the idea that unattractive women have less children in monogamous societies. We do not know, however if this is true.

    While I find this discourse intellectually stimulating, my own standard for beauty (white, light hair, etc.) prevents me from finding foreign women exciting.

    Which is why some of the time Roosh and Krauser’s stuff doesn’t really engage me.

    Like


    • on September 20, 2012 at 1:44 am Subway Masturbateur

      I think there’s more blonds than in USA in Scandinavia, EE, maybe Holland– what do you mean by foreigner?

      Like


  12. Re: the WaPost article tweet.

    Chicks dig the offspring of jerks. Reminded me of the kidnapping of Jaycee Duggard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

    Not only was she raped as a child, but she bore two children as a child. The dude was sentenced to life in prison. There is a ‘fly in the ointment’ of the happy ending. She absolutely adored and loved the two children, who happened to be the bastard spawn of a kidnapping raping piece of shit.

    No-one seemed to question that the genes of the rapist have been successfully passed on, and that she is sooooo happy with her children (which are 50% criminal). Women might consciously hate criminals, but the writing is on the wall with her behaviors and actions- jerks get a free pass.

    Like


    • Are you insane? It sounds like you support the single mothers who abuse their children that are fathered by men who wronged them.

      Mentally healthy mothers are supposed to love all of their children. It’s horrific that a little girl was made to have 2 kids with her rapist. But how do you expect the society to “question” it? Kill the kids to prevent the rapist’s genes from spreading? Lock them up? A mother is supposed to feel attachment and love for the baby, regardless of the circumstances. These were the only 2 people in her life who didn’t wrong her in any way and who were related to her. Of course, she loves them to pieces.

      Would a mother love her child more or less depending on the actions of the father, in your perfect world? That’s screwed up.

      Like


      • This site is here to make known the red-pill reality. Chicks dig jerks.

        “Witnesses interviewed stated Jaycee Dugard was seen in the house and sometimes answered the front door to talk to people, but never stated a problem or attempted to leave.”

        The red-pill reality is that evolution has selected for things like Stockholm Sydrome. In other words, like Rollo’s “War Brides” post, women have evolved a hardwired component to falling for their immediate aggressors. It might be imperative for her to fall in love with a rapist lest she lose her life trying to resist.

        It isn’t up to me personally to decide what happens to the kids. It is up to me to advocate to all men to read and deliberate on the REALITY of human nature.

        “Kill the kids to prevent the rapist’s genes from spreading? Lock them up?”

        If all men consciously understand the implication of raising a rapists children for him, I agree with whatever we men decide as a group having deliberated on that conscious agreement. Leave emotion and ad hominem out of this blog.

        Like


      • Grit, I think that you and Lily are using two different definitions of “rapist”.

        Her implied definition: An omega loser doing her in an alley with a weapon against her throat. Nameless, never seen again.

        Your definition: A shrewdly manipulative sociopath who keeps a very young woman locked up for years, playing endless mind games, even renaming her, until the girl is so confused that she can barely remember her previous life.

        A woman would rightly abhor the child of the first rapist. A woman *may* (if the Stockholm Syndrome were strong enough, and she were mentally weak enough) come to love the child of the second rapist. Which is what happened with Dugard.

        I fail to see how a woman could ever come to love and defend the child of the first rapist. But correct me if you’ve seen evidence contrary.

        [heartiste: when a woman is raped and impregnated by the act, the resulting issue is still half her genes, which is the same amount of her genes the child would have if conceived under more loving circumstances. analogously, when a man is cuckolded the child does not have any of his genes. this is why, evolutionarily and practically speaking, a woman can and will love the child conceived by a rapist, while a man will be indifferent to at best, and actively despise at worst, the child discovered to be conceived by another man.]

        Like


      • I’m skeptical, H.

        A drunken omega rapist with a knife is still … an omega. The mother will never forget that, and may project upon the child the anger she feels towards the criminal father–perhaps not so much for being a rapist, but for being a pathetic omega who had to use a weapon to get what he wanted.

        A sociopathic alpha male rapist with all of the corresponding dark triad characteristics is still an alpha, albeit a very immoral one. And we all know the rationalization that can occur in the female mind when she feels that an alpha is “taking care of” her, even when it occurs in the most twisted ways.

        Your explanation seems to ignore a few too many psychological variables.

        Like


  13. 1 monogamy norms
    2 higher parasite loads
    3 sex ratios favoring men

    The Eastern Europe, and especially the Ukraine, definitely fit 1 & 3, with Christianity and endless warfare. I wonder where the higher parasite loads would be. Anybody know anything about the history of disease in that part of the world?

    Like


  14. I don’t agree. This ignores the fundamental driving force of the female sex: hypergamy. And the only society where hypergamy is maximized is a polygynous one; one supreme alpha male, multiple women.

    When alpha males are doing the choosing, they will obviously choose only the sexiest ladies for their harem, which exploits the fundamental male sexual attraction to hot babes.

    And then there’s the simple math involved. Which combination of male-female sexual relationships will produce the most new humans (i.e. new hot women) in one year: a polygynous one that is 99 women and one man, a monogamous one with 50 men and 50 women, or a polyandrous one with 99 men and one woman? The polygynous one wins hands down, outbreeding the other ones with 99 potential new humans in one year. (it’s also nice to point out that the feminist paradise of 99 men and one woman would spell doom)

    Like


    • I am sure Genghis Khan spread his gene to make Russian women look slender like an Asian women but with Anglo features: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456789/Genghis-Khan-The-daddy-lovers.html

      Like


    • Nah. You know what mass polygyny gets you? Detroit!
      Monogamy ideals and taboos against female promiscuity means that an ugly sluts’s hypergamy is never realized. Ugly chicks get stuck with a guy at her own level when she can’t use the lure of easy pussy to mate with males above her league.

      Like


      • …so the ugly chick will have children with the ugly guy in a monogamous society, and the hot guy will have kids with only one hot girl. Logically, a monogamous society would yield fewer good looking people overall.

        Like


      • Lily.

        I almost always use a condom for intercourse… but on the those occasions that I have temporarily lost my mind… the chick has been smoking hot! Primal shit.

        The ugly woman will get married later, have a less horny husband, read 50 shades of grey for arousal, and produce 1 kid that survives. The good looking woman will get married earlier, be primed, get mounted 3 times a week and have multiple kids that survive.

        Think wolves. Only the alphas breed.

        [heartiste: in the past, the beautiful woman would have outbred the ugly woman. nowadays, though, easily available cheap contraceptives and careerism thwart the natural procreative advantages of better looking women.]

        Like


      • Exactly… Monogamy was once defined as be fruitful and multiply you hot bitch. Now it simply means fuck a bunch of dudes, but only one at at a time, hide it, and then marry a sucker when you are old and need to adopt a baby because your vagina don’t work.

        Like


      • Add a high parasite load, and the offspring of the “hot” guy who pumps and dumps, don’t survive to count as neither ugly nor beautiful. Historically, and almost certainly in the not too distant future, resources will be scarce enough that lack of paternal involvement puts a severe crimp on children’s potential to achieve even such basics as looking decent.

        Like


      • Without a doubt. I’d argue that most issues of single mothers and otherwise poorly invested parents are less attractive than their peers and that their peak years of looking good are short. Look at the differences in obesity rates between the upper middle class kids and the welfare spawn. Look at the difference in the quality of their skin. That’s not even counting the noise/chin jobs that many girls in the middle class and up get as graduation gifts from their dads. And welfare might cover braces, but it doesn’t make sure that the kid takes care of that harder to brush, harder to floss, braced mouth.

        Like


      • Evolution doesn’t give a shit about producing economically prosperous cities. The only thing that matters is reproductive success. If only 30% of your children are fuckable (most attractive), then you churn out more children. Even if the percentage of attractive children is higher in monogamy, polygyny would still win. It’s why you don’t think you have a brain tumor if you have a headache, even though brain tumors cause headaches 100% of the time.

        Like


      • Detroit is polygyny lite and thus ugly. I wasn’t talking about their economy or their sports teams. Stick with me man.

        Like


  15. I have found that the median female attractiveness is higher in monogamous societies, where reproduction is relatively egalitarian — everyone reproduces, and everyone keeps it within certain numbers. In societies with more infidelity, there are two tiers — many more gorgeous women and many more dogs. This is the case in Italy, Mexico, all of South America, etc…all of which have a reputation for infidelity. In fact, when the cell phone was first introduced to Italy, the divorce rate spiked dramatically because husbands and wives quickly saw the text messages and call lists of their spouses!

    If you consider it, it makes sense. I have dated 10s before….but only for a month or two, because they were so unbearable to be around. In a society with a short term mating strategy as the norm, I would have gotten them pregnant and created a BEAUTIFUL fucking baby. Similarly, though, I probably would have gotten 20 or 30 last call dregs pregnant as well. A greater openness to sociosexuality probably just exaggerates the existing disparities in beauty.

    Like


  16. I think it’s a dynamic situation. To me it seems more intuitive that more beautiful women would be the driving force behind a societal shift toward monogamy rather than the other way around, as beautiful women have more bargaining power in their relationships and are thus better able to extract a price of monogamy from higher status men.

    Forcing a guy to marry the first woman he gets with would degrade the gene pool as the most successful men generally don’t start coming into their powers and pulling top notch women until their late 20’s and early 30’s.

    Like


    • Nope. That just means the hottest chicks marry guys 10-20 years their seniors.

      Like


      • You need to elaborate.

        Like


      • I agree that evilalpha didn’t quite make sense there. If the hottest chicks marry older men (despite shows like Gossip Girl trying to socialize them into dating their own age), how did those older men stay single so long? In the current world culture (premarital sex is the norm in most countries, including the non-feminist ones) it’s because a man was able to have casual sex relationships with increasingly better looking women as he got more successful or got more game or non-financial status while growing older.

        If these late blooming successful men were born into the Victorian Era and were poor through most of their twenties, having no access to even lower class wenches, there would be a higher likelihood that they would choose to enter a marriage with a less good looking girl their own age at age 30 (after having blue balls for 12 years) than to wait until they’re really successful at 40 when they could get the hottest 18 year olds around.

        I know I would be married to a really ugly woman my own age if, many moons ago, a pro-beta society had given me as an early twenties beta a bride my own age. Because I live in a pro-alpha society (most countries are like this now and I believe most countries always were like this), I have been able to get better and better looking women to the point where I won’t date less than a 9 now despite always being more than twice their age.

        Social conservatives mistakenly (unless they are older women) idealize the idea that a society is better off if early twenties beta males are given brides their own age where these young women are not allowed to mess with older successful males including the patriarchs who are supposedly running the societies. In fact, the very idea that “patriarchs” would castrate themselves this way is absurd and proof that only conservative females could idealize such a society, which would be more a matriarchy than a patriarchy. No old man would promote a culture where the hottest girls are disgusted by the idea of having sex with him. That kind of older “male” would basically be worse than a cuckold fetishist.

        Hard monogamy cultures would offer men nothing to do while they tried to get maximum status and they would have nobody to practice game on to get the best looking women down the road compared to the women they could get when they weren’t yet good at game. As the socialist conservatives dream, you would get pot luck early in life and you’d almost always never have much of a sex life after 40. Since females almost never have much of a sex life after 40 themselves, this dream is only in the interest of older females. Misery likes company.

        Like


    • Wrong. Monogamy came to be as a result of the fathers in Northern agrarian societies needing all their sons to stay on the farm and help.

      [heartiste: the latest evidence from the scientific arena points to older women being the ones who pushed for enforced monogamy. pre-monogamy, these old crones would risk losing their hubbies to younger competition.
      now whether monogamy is good for society as a whole is an issue separate from the question of whether monogamy is good for the individual man or woman.]

      Women would rather share one great man between many of them than have a mediocre man all to themselves. That usually caused the majority of the men to engage in fights, travel and lead lifestyles that were otherwise not beneficial for the rest of the society. In African societies where the climate allowed women to do most of the farming, such an arrangement suited elderly fathers just fine. Their multiple wives and daughters would feed them. But a father in colder climates relied on his sons staying near and being productive if he hoped to survive once past his peak. So the fathers started to make arrangements with the other fathers to trade daughters in order to keep each one of their sons near and motivated to work.

      Monogamy was a risky proposition for a beautiful woman. Her father might of might not have chosen the most attractive man for her. Having that man all to herself wasn’t really an improvement. Don’t assume that polygamous men treat all their wives the same. They don’t. A beautiful woman in a primitive society got to choose the man she wanted, and he was likely to give the majority of his resources to her and her children because he’d like her best out of all his other wives. Remember how Jacob had 4 women bearing him children, but he loved Rachel best and treated her sons better than the others long into their adulthood.

      Like


      • You’re right about the general preferences of women, but you’re creating a false dichotomy. Women will give up some status for a higher certainty of fidelity, just like men will trade some in the looks dept for a more agreeable disposition. Women with high market value will be able to get something closer to the ideal, giving up less in either category.

        @CH
        Not sure if I buy the older women pushing monogamy theory. My money would be on the male relatives of the woman. First, with them being genetically close to the woman, the survival of her genes is the survival of theirs, and probability of that happening is maximized when the guy sticks around. A guy won’t stuck around if he can’t be sure of paternity. Second, women have never really had the juice to enforce monogamy. It’s the male relatives of the woman who will come after you if you impugn her honor. I don’t consider female monogamy here because of the two sexes, females are much more inclined toward monogamy.

        Like


      • I respectfully disagree Specimen. Older women, since they got the vote, have been making laws to restrict male sexuality the likes of which the world has never known since the dawn of recorded history. These hags are highly, highly motivated now that they control American culture and politics and they produce TV series that ram home the idea that hot girls don’t date older men (Gossip Girls, Twilight) while also producing TV series that ram home the idea that cougars can have boy toys (SATC).

        Male relatives of women are guaranteed that the baby she has will be hers. Because of this, I’ve never seen the fathers and brothers of the women I date care too much what happens. Male relatives of women figure she will pick the best genes. Whether the donor of those better genes is the one who sticks around to raise the children is less important. Sure, shotgun weddings existed in some cultures at some points in time, but I’d say older women of today have promoted the idea that this happened a lot.

        So I respectfully disagree completely with the idea that male relatives have cared too much historically about enforcing monogamy, especially because they would be limiting their own options in the process.

        Men do want women to be disease free and virginal when they get to them, but then they want to take full advantage themselves, as individuals, when they meet with those women who are disease free and virginal. It isn’t altruistic or “for the good of society” that men will want women to be clean when they get them.

        Like


  17. I have a different (slightly related) theory.

    The poorer a country is, the more beautiful the women will be. Why is this? Because in a country where all the people know is abject poverty, there is no such thing as marrying for funny. Economic considerations are completely taken out of off the dating market value equation.

    And when one term is taken out of the dating market value equation, it follows that the remaining terms, absorbing the weight of the removed term, are more important than they otherwise would be.

    Stated more succinctly: when money is not a factor in determining who is having sex, looks become that much more of a factor. Several generations of this results in a fine looking population.

    Do I have evidence of this? Not really. But I know that Brazilian women are smoking hot, and I also know that African women are smoking hot (if you’re into black chicks…and I am into black chicks). And those places are poor as a dirt.

    Is that an airtight argument? No, but it isn’t nonsense either.

    Like


    • Ouch, so much wrong here I’m not sure where to start, but I’ll just inform you that in a land where people make a dollar a day, the man who makes five dollars a day is filthy rich. The wealth effect is intensely magnified, not eliminated. Go to southeast Asia if you want to witness the power the USD can have in turning a western omega into at least a lesser-alpha.

      Oh and African women good looking? Bwahahahahaha.

      Like


      • True. The poorer the society, the more money determines which man gets laid.

        Prosperity is what hurts successful men the most. If daddy gave her a T-Bird, she will be as happy doing a poor surfer dude who can still earn 2,000 dollars per month at McDonalds than some guy making 6,000.

        The same girl who doesn’t have a rich daddy and can’t earn 200 dollars per month herself, won’t be so happy about dating the slacker who also earns 200 dollars per month. The man who earns 600 dollars per month is king in this circumstance.

        This is why it is batshit insane for any American male to think he has to continue living in the US because he feels he can’t make a fraction of what he now earns if he goes overseas.

        It is all about relative income. If American girls can make 2000 dollars per month flipping burgers, you need to be making 5 times that per month to have the same status you would have just being an American in another country.

        Like


      • If you don’t think African women are good looking, the joke is on you, friend.

        Like


    • Don’t know about your argument being airtight or not, but the fact that you’re in to black chicks, and think women from the parts of the world where chicks are black are smoking hot, doesn’t really reveal that much 🙂

      Like


    • …….. and I also know that African women are smoking hot (if you’re into black chicks…and I am into black chicks).

      It takes a real man and BRAVE one to admit this. Glad to see there are still some of you left who dontgivafugg what other people think about your choices even if they are not popular 😉

      NO FEAR BABY – NO FEAR!!! VIVA the fearless man!!!

      Like


  18. “marrying for money”

    Like


  19. The first theory wasn’t fleshed out well enough.

    The opposing theory was good however. That theory had more to do with sex ratios. In a soft monogamy society with a high female to male sex ratio, betas can believe the girl who marries them at age 23 is a virgin or was “treated badly and left barefoot and pregnant” by a guy who “unfortunately” met her before the beta did. The alpha males, presumably the better looking or at least most confident, know the girls are hot to trot at a younger age, that an alpha can easily have 10 virgins per year and these girls are just lying to their fathers and their future beta husbands about their status. The alphas clearly mate more optimally for looks and they will get multiple girls pregnant, Hence better looking kids overall (but not smarter). In a society like this, an American like Roosh can make better looking kids because of the better sex ratio alone.

    If this place was strict monogamy, however, the sex ratio wouldn’t matter and a guy like Roosh would end up with a worse looking kid. I’ll explain.

    What happens that makes the first theory probably wrong, is that men with personalities or brains will get quickly caught up with a best friend type of really smart, brainy girl who corrals him into spending most of his free time with her and he does so because he likes her as a person. In a polygamous society, this would be incidental because he can spend a lot of time with this central member of his harem and still have better looking girls on the side who aren’t really his best friends. With hard monogamy he will be stuck in a low sex frequency marriage with his best friend, the smartest but not the prettiest.

    So in a hard monogamy society, the likes of which rarely existed in history because men with money have always had access to hot peasant wenches, the children end up being SMARTER because the man ends up choosing the woman he actually wants to be around after sex or even instead of sex. But he doesn’t get the product of the fantastic same night lay with a 10. Someone does get that 10 pregnant, but it won’t be as good looking a guy if she hadn’t had the opportunity to play the field and share the best men.

    The more beautiful children, as opposed to the smarter children, would result from the outer harem pairings of alphas with wenches.

    Like


    • I understand it would be hard for guys to make theories about this when the live among feminists in a country that is committing racial suicide while also suffering from a low nubile female to male ratio (used carousel riders over 25 in a SWPL city shouldn’t count in determining the ratio in that city). The suicide factors far outweigh the monogamy vs polygamy issue in the US now.

      Like


  20. Any halfway enthusiastic surfer of youp-rn knows that the very hottest lesbian videos are of Russian girls. And they are not club whores faking it. They are real, actual girls without tattoos, etc. If they lived in L.A. they would be flying around in private planes from here to there in a non-stop party.

    Could it be hardship that makes for beautiful women? Not in their life times, but before? In the U.S., anyone can spawn and the government will take care of it. Hence, women that cannot even attract a mate to stick around are having kids.

    Like


    • What you’re hinting at is probably a good way to increase female beauty: Women who, often for reason of looks, cannot get her children’s father to stick around, are culled, along with her kids. I’m not saying it’s a particularly moral way to go, and over time I suspect a culture that callous will fail, but in naive, low order evolutionary models, it rapidly boosts inherited female beauty.

      Like


  21. on September 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm Amanjaw Marcuntte

    If you’re a man, and you’re limited to dating only a few women in your lifetime, and there are onerous familial and cultural pressures to marry the first or second woman you date, you are not going to throw away your one shot at a girl — not to mention all those resources you accumulated to win her over — on an Amanjaw Marcuntte.

    Woohoo! Shout-out!

    The feminist PZ Myers ironically produced another gem: Rebeccunt Twatson.

    Like


  22. Forcing people to marry to have sex; and forbidding them to divorce or have sex outside of their marriage; and forcing them to raise the kids and be responsible for them are some of the very positive, society-building features that Christian-dominated countries had.

    Now, churches have given up the roles that made them powerful and improved us all.

    Like


    • Yes, but when a man is so forced, he will choose the woman he likes the best and not the one he is most sexually attracted to. Kids end up smarter, but not better looking. Better looking kids come from extra pairings he might make. Fortunately, there mostly never existed hard monogamy societies as prostitution, for instance, was only banned in the last century and only because females got the right to vote for the first time in history.

      Let’s not forget that half of today’s social conservative platform is really the platform of the female suffragettes who got their Republican husbands to win them the right to vote (the Irish Democrats fought tooth and nail to stop women from getting the vote) and then these women ended up taking over both parties in the US, banning prostitution and bars (night life) because they wanted to enforce a hard monogamy the world had rarely ever known if at all.

      Like


      • You can see why alpha males fought Prohibition so hard and why the underworld has so much tacit support. Older jealous females, who had just won political power for the first time in history, were trying to enforce one of the first real hard monogamy cultures ever. Medieval and Puritan cultures had plenty of extra curricular sex going on despite the pretense or ignorance today’s right-wing feminist religious nuts make about “the good old days”.

        Like


      • Puritano-feminism nicely explains things like setting the drinking age at 21 and the age of consent at 18, and all the time and effort police departments go to punishing offenders of those rigid age barriers.

        Like


      • The age of consent varies from 16 to 18 depending on the U.S. state in question. I think we all know that here.

        The 21 drinking age, believe it or not, isn’t related to Puritanism. A federal commission recommended that it be raised in order to reduce drunk driving deaths (and which has worked, I might add). The feds ensured compliance by threatening to reduce annual federal highway funding by 10% to any state that didn’t play along.

        Like


      • Commiefornia never lowered it to 18. I could buy hard liquor in dumb old Alabama at 19.

        Like


    • Mainstream Western society rejected the Church, not the other way around. Anything they do and say now is to hold on to what shreds of influence they have left. Outside of the deep South, they have to toe the leftist line to get a few women and betas in the pews. Girls don’t want to be lectured to when they could be tweeting about the Bachelor or planning their next trip to Italy.

      Churches are affected by market forces just like any other non-governmental entity.

      Like


    • “Now, churches have given up the roles that made them powerful and improved us all.”

      Thank God!

      Like


  23. Also in an egalitarian society where individual wealth is not so important, women will be more attracted to physically attractive males resulting in even better looking kids.

    In a more bifurcated society, women will be more attracted to less attractive but wealthy males resulting in less attractive kids.

    Our society has become dramatically more bifurcated, and our class system is very permeable. Losing status is a real risk, so women tend to be more attracted to wealth (and status) rather than looks. (It’s like an internal barometer that they cannot control.)

    End result: Americans are not nearly as good-looking as Eastern Europeans, Russians and other places. (Just an idea.)

    Like


    • You haven’t been to Russia I guess. You don’t think money counts there, much more than in the feminist US where all feminists do, night and day, is try to convince hot girls to date guys their own age?

      Look at Gossip Girl. It was pure propaganda telling American girls to date the most physically attractive guys their own age but not tie themselves down with marriage until they nailed down their careers.

      Like


      • In other words, when feminists tell girls to make their own careers, the money men have becomes much less a factor. Feminists promote the idea of the hottest women having sex with young beefcake men like the boy toy Samantha took on in SATC. You could then argue that kids would get more beautiful in a feminist society.

        I don’t think that’s happening because the girls most inspired by feminism are not having as many babies.

        Like


      • Naw.

        Feminists are the biggest groupies in the world.They promote the idea that female independence is sexy.
        Thus an ugly careerist is theoretically entitled to fuck men who are way out of her league.. all while not being labelled a slut and not ruining her marriage opportunities.

        Feminism does not make kids more beautiful as it fosters
        Delayed motherhood.
        Fat apologism.
        Wealth redistribution.
        Sluttiness over choosiness.

        Like


      • I think you’re right now in the present day but these hot girls did not just come from nowhere. Who knows how many decades or centuries it took for the women to get this hot. I was thinking more about breeding during Communism — maybe even before.

        If the women know the men will all achieve roughly the same status, people might just mate with whomever appeals to them. The good looking more often mate with the good looking.

        Like


    • You just attacked the welfare state up above and now you posit that “egalitarianism i.e. wealth distribution makes for better looking children.

      You need to make up your mind.
      I live at the beach the EE’s are hotter than the American girls for a variety of reasons…it is not income “inequality” but weight inequality that is the biggest culprit. American chicks carry 20 extra lbs on average.

      Like


      • I say this all the time, but being in SoCal for so long you forget how fat women get in the rest of the country. It is so incredibly different here in a good way. You can tell the out-of-staters that just moved here. Unless they are rich they tend to carry an extra 10-20 lbs but still consider themselves in shape. They all lose it if they stay here long enough.

        Like


    • I have a better theory and it’s based on the American concept of men needing to pay child support.

      I’d say Americans are getting uglier because the 190 year old feminist spirit, begun by the christian busybodies of the Great Awakening of the 1820s, which directly led to women’s suffrage (pushed through by henpecked evangelical beta males) and then to control of both political parties to this day, has threatened the better looking men with great punishments for getting more than one hot girl pregnant.

      The Russians never had onerous child support laws. Hence the alphas and good looking guys there, over the same 190 years, have spread their seed a lot more (at the expense of betas who ended up raising other men’s children – feminists and betas have common ground here).

      For practical purposes, child support laws are the hard monogamy enforcer if anyone here hasn’t noticed. Sex with condoms is biologically not sex.

      Divorce laws are also meant to keep good looking men from having enough money to even date a new hot woman.

      CH has been correct to blog about why alphas and feminists are natural enemies. The latter has been successfully keeping the former from spreading their seed, incidentally resulting in an uglier population over time.

      Like


      • What’s up with you obsession with male looks? Are you gay or something?

        I have a better theory. The welfare state and feminism allows American women to be fat, ugly and slutty while still breeding at much faster rates than they normally would.

        Like


      • In the England of old, many, many women (majority?) did not have babies. They worked for upper class women that did have babies. Only in America could anyone own a home and have babies. Now it is even easier for women, of course.

        Like


      • That would mean those servants weren’t having sex with the masters of the house. I understand that, in the Victorian era, this was happening and the resulting babies were sent off with the mothers to homes.

        No support for the theory that onerous child support laws result in uglier and dumber offspring overall for a culture?

        Like


  24. Smells like bullshit to me. Standards of beauty simply change too much over time.

    [heartiste: no they don’t.]

    Look at what was considered the epitome of attractiveness just 100 years ago: skinnyfat, plain Janes.

    [no they weren’t. height-weight proportionate slender babes were attractive then as they are now.]

    And don’t be fooled by the terrible quality of cameras back then, they were even more cakefaced than the modern hooker.

    [grace kelly could go toe to toe with the hottest broads alive today.]

    Like


    • “grace kelly could go toe to toe with the hottest broads alive today.”

      Unless you have some truly peculiar tastes in women, even Ms Kelly wasn’t all that attractive back in 1912. 50 years later, on the other hand….

      Mary Pickford was supposedly quite the looker 100 years ago. And I’d be surprised if you didn’t think of her a a bit man jawed.

      I don’t really disagree that beauty standards are fairly consistent. But at the same time, most guys just don’t seem to care all that much, as long as a certain threshold is reached. It’s likely the old diminishing returns thingy raising it’s head again.

      What is different nowadays, is that all this culturally sanctioned, even promoted, promiscuity; has gotten many men invested in some sort of competition for who has, or can bang, the mostest/hottest chicks. So that tiny, historically irrelevant to happiness or sexual satisfaction, differences between a historical 9 and a 9.1, is blown all out of proportion. Which is good for bringing the most spectacular specimens of femaledom to Victoria’s Secret catalogs, but not really for much else.

      Like


  25. Well, in cultures where you get one shot, you can better believe that your family will give you some useful advice and support when it comes to choosing a mate. These days, people of all classes are too busy on their own stuff to bother giving their kids real support & guidance when it comes to life.

    A couple of people have mentioned the hardship theory. This works universally, not just for women. People do better when challenged. We all want to have an easy ride, but that’s the worst possible thing for a person.

    Like


  26. India has the parasites and monogamy (not the sex ratio though), but ugly women.

    Like


  27. on September 19, 2012 at 5:04 pm RappaccinisDaughter

    Although the standards for what constitutes beauty are relatively easy to qualify and define mathematically–even across cultures and time–the genetic mix that results in that beauty is not. There is no guarantee that a beautiful mother will produce beautiful children. Case in point: Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, two of the most attractive people Hollywood had to offer in the 1980s, produced Rumer Willis.

    I feel terrible saying that about her, the poor girl never asked to be in the limelight, but…she’s tragic.

    It’s not just about the beauty of the woman or the handsomeness of the man, it’s about how those features look when they get mashed up. Ugly parents can and frequently do produce beautiful children, and vice versa.

    You don’t need a beauty argument to support the concepts of monogamy and intact families. Our crime statistics will do that for you…beautifully.

    [heartiste: beauty is truth, as much as any crime stat (which argument i agree with btw). this is why i harp on objective universal beauty standards — i know that the denial of these standards is merely a pretext to lie and live by lies.]

    Like


    • People tend to assume Hollywood celebrities are the cream of the crop looks-wise, but that’s simply not true. They don’t really look on average any more attractive than the people you’ll see on an ordinary college campus.

      [heartiste: hollywood actresses are much better looking than the average woman, but that’s not saying much. there are a lot of no-name hotties roaming the college campuses and SPWL enclaves. a few actresses are truly stunning and can compete with the best from state U. generally, hollywood doesn’t recruit ugly or plain women except for character roles.]

      Like


    • “Case in point: Demi Moore and Bruce Willis, two of the most attractive people Hollywood had to offer in the 1980s, produced Rumer Willis. ”

      Or the set of genes that induce beauty can skip a generation or two.
      The important thing is that they remain in the gene pool. Over time, the descendants will have a better shot at being attractive themselves or having attractive offspring.

      [heartiste: right. genes are probabilistic, not deterministic. so a demi-bruce pairing can occasionally produce a rumer, but most of the time demi-bruce pairings produce more demis and bruces.]

      Like


      • Off topic question. Isn’t Demi a manjaw? Do you guys consider her attractive, even though she has a very, very strong jaw?

        [heartiste: she doesn’t have a “very, very strong” jaw. demi is borderline manjaw. and back in the day when she was hotter, her jaw was daintier. rumer, her daughter, has an epic manjaw.]

        Like


      • If the two had sons, they’d have inherited their father’s manly chin and brow, and hence be quite masculine. As it is … their daughters are … quite masculine. Hence the appeal of the “pretty boy” … his sons are never as manly craggy handsome, but his daughters still look pretty.

        Like


      • Like Kurt Cobain’s daughter. She looks exactly like him, including his jaw, but she’s still very pretty because he was sort of a pretty boy himself.

        Like


      • Hey, other than a backhoe bucket for a jaw, Rumer’s a good-looking kid.

        Like


      • She’s not bad. The most important thing is if a woman is pretty enough so that if you like each other you’re able to fall in love with her. How emotionally sterilized and immune to someone’s affections do you have to be to be the vaunterd “Alpha”. It seems like all this is headed to a society of robots.

        Like


    • “Beauty is truth” is itself is a statement that contradicts itself, although I think it’s from Keats ( who died at 24, so although he was a genius, his wisdom is highly suspect.) It’s a beautiful statement, but not true.

      And how do we know this? Because of Andy Warhol, hahahhha not exactly the the most admirable guy by the stern, manly, uniformly Alpha Ch readers.

      And what did loathsomely gay, modern Andy say that retutes both Keats and CH? ( I may be paraphrasing)

      ” Everybody’s beautiful from some angle. But to think that beauty represents some inner quality is wrong. A lot of murderers are good-looking, so there goes that idea. ”

      Haha. A gay guy is smarter than CH, stiff-necked worshiper of Alpha. I love, love LOVE the irony.

      [heartiste: you, and your idol warhol, are wrong. ugly people are more likely to be criminal. check the archives. there was a study posted on just this subject.]

      Like


      • oops. You are correct, many criminals are ugly and ill-bred, true. But there are counterexamples which disprove that beauty really consistently means anything. Some of the worst serial killers were good looking.

        Like


  28. hey, you left out adoption. Emphatically monogamous societies have wiggle room for girls to have a kid- they go off to homes for unwed girls- and have the kid- and then get back to growing up responsibly. The first kid is from some good-looking guy who hustled them. The kids after that are from a careful, kind guy.

    Adopting out bio-moms tend to be really pretty- they aren’t domineeringly beautiful, they aren’t homely, they’re just really femmey and pretty. Go to a room full of 50 year old+ women and pick out the prettiest, softest, gentlest ones- they’ll have given up a baby in their youth. It’s usually their big secret heartache.

    Look at models, at least from before abortion and single mom-ness. They were usgackually adopted.

    Like


    • True.

      A couple in my wife’s extended family has an adopted daughter who’s just reaching maturity, and she’s turned out to be a stunning blonde. I also knew two teenage girls who gave up babies — good Catholics, both of them, no aborting — and they were both 8s.

      Good comment.

      Like


  29. Monogamy schmogamy. Monogamy is a concept that is only applicable nowadays since people age into and past their 50s. Men lose interest in their wives that just didn’t happen to the same extent in the past. So monogamy as the force that drove female beauty selection? Unlikely.

    More likely factors are wars AND weather. A lack of male supply due to combat coupled with living in close proximity during 10 months of the year is why Russian and Scandinavia have the most beautiful women. The remaining men could only choose a maximum of 1 woman to co-breed with and keep sanity in their own homes.

    So Heartiste, your premise is half right, male choosiness is what causes female beauty, but your cause is wrong. Wars AND weather are just too logically correct.

    Look at the Middle East, the cost of building an acceptable house is so low that 1 man could impregnate 1000 women, provide for their accommodation (hut+sticks) and nullify any effect a man-limiting war would cause. Ergo, you need wars AND weather to create hot chicks.

    Like


  30. I DISAGREE (on logical terms).

    Because studies have shown that cultures are more monogamous and traditional where the sex ratio favours women.

    So basically, saying that a monogamous culture is one where men are choosy is a contradiction of real-life data. Men in such cultures will try hard to get any girl by offering resources because women are scarcer and so can make men be monogamous since there’s less pussy available.

    Whereas in cultures with ratios favoring men (like USA atm I THINK, not sure), women compete for men and are therefore sluts, less monogamous, etc.

    Like


  31. Ay, I go confused by the logic…am I missing something?

    Like


  32. Actually, in an ideal Christian society, one would have complete beauty since those “called” to marriage would be fruitful and multiply, while those “called” to the “consecrated” life would abstain. As such, the “beautiful” would marry and procreate, while the less physically “beautiful” would teach the “beautiful” to be faithful.

    Interestingly, heartiste’s asthetics seems to be approaching a Christian asthetic much like GK Chesterton’s:

    “It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure. It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross.”

    Like


    • on September 20, 2012 at 11:41 am Subway Masturbator

      Mumbo jumbo . Sophist idea of primary colors as usable ideal for life. What does he think people should actually DO?

      Like


  33. on September 19, 2012 at 6:24 pm 3rd Millenium Men

    Another article essentially promoting monogamy. Good, because as it often said in the Manosphere- men love sluts for what they’ll give up, but we don’t take them seriously. When it comes down to it, we want good girls. Virgins. These Manosphere ideas are here: http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/manosphere-virginity

    Like


  34. on September 19, 2012 at 6:44 pm Johnycomelately

    Equatorial civilizations produce more girls and northern latitude cultures produce more boys. So northern culture males have to compete for women and only the fittest reproduce. In Southern cultures its a free for all and all the schlubs reproduce, not to mention the tradition of inter family marriage.

    My retarded Lebanese neighbor (genuinely retarded), says it all.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-equatorial-enigma-why-are-more-girls-than-boys-born-in-the-tropics-ndash-and-what-does-it-mean-1658981.html

    Like


    • I see hot ass girls on the streets of Jakarta every day, says it all.

      Like


      • How hard hard are they to get for the typical loathsome middle aged guy fleeing Murka (like me) ? ( How unfat and rich do you have to be)

        Like


    • I think you mean “intra” family rather than “inter”, and are implying that inbreeding may be responsible for your neighbors unfortunate condition.

      Like


  35. I’d like to read a study on how the Civil War’s devastating effect on the male population affected the sociosexual aspects of America, short and long-term.
    For some communities, entire eligible male populations were wiped out.

    Like


    • A lot of women married below their social station if you believe Margaret Mitchell. I do.

      Like


    • With the industrialization of the North following the Civil War, women began moving into huge anonymous communities called “cities”, working in overheated rooms full of machines called “factories”.

      They probably had no better option, seeing as how half the boys in their small hometown never came back from the front lines. And the womenfolk couldn’t run farms all by themselves. So it was off to the cities, where they started to hear lectures on new ideas … like socialism, feminism, and temperance.

      Like


  36. Turning that theory around, you might also hypothesize that the current shift in the mating market was designed to give unattractive women access to high value men. As you say, if men have one shot, they don’t waste it. But, what if women are encouraged to be promiscuous and not judged for it? This offers many shots and no consequences. Simultaneously, what if the value of men is reduced socially, and they are shamed into emotional dependence and needing acceptance from ALL women? That would create the perfect storm for even the lowest sexual market value woman being able to bed a stud.

    Like


    • Yup. Feminism 101… Reduce the power of men. Increase the power of women. Specific sexual tactics.

      Slut apologism.
      Fat acceptance.
      Single Motherhoodism.
      Sexualizing “independence”, “careers”, and “opinion” over beauty.

      And it’s working…

      Like


    • Dr. Jeremy, you are awesome. Keep causing chaos at Psychology Today.

      Like


  37. So wartime rolls around. The males capable of conceptual abstractions will be the first to sign the dotted line and march of into the meatgrinder, for sake of god, science, country or the innocent maidens. The weak, botched, malingerers, pebblecounters and cowards will obviously curb their enthusiasm, appropriately considering the fucking mountains of pussy available with goody two shoes gone. So, in the wake of 2 world wars, slaughtering literally millions (mortality statistics of officer corps most relevant), is it any fucking wonder we find ourselves where we are now? The best of “us” became fertilizer, in TWO servings. And hey, it’s still let him and you fight.

    Like


    • This is true and your not the first person I’ve heard say as much. I’ve heard German veterans as well as seen it written in memoirs say as much. It’s a common theme in James Jones’ novels. A lot of very good men still made it through. And yet they went willingly and with gusto in many if not most cases. Most were just kids after the first couple of years of war, in the ages of 18-21, for the most part.

      Like


    • The western world is so fucked.

      Like


    • With Melvin and Sidney sitting it out.

      Like


    • The soldiers came from all groups, from 65 IQs to 140. If anything guys with IQs 120+ were almost certainly more able to figure out ways to get out of serving, or at least get assigned posts that reduced their chance of dying.

      While I don’t think the war had a negative effect on average IQ, I think it killed tons of salt-of-the-earth guys. Men with average IQs but who had strong characters and did “what’s right.” The guys remaining at home were more shiftless and of weaker moral fiber.

      Like


  38. To be more succinct: Women’s suffrage = War.

    Like


    • WWI was mostly fought by monarchies.

      Like


      • White feathers.

        Like


      • on September 20, 2012 at 11:49 am Subway Orgy Organizer

        Aren’t “smart” and “dead early ” kind of hard to hold up as synonyms? You all volunteered for the Halliburtonstan wars, right ?

        Like


      • If your ingroup is in danger, self sacrifice makes sense, tho you yourself will never experience its consequence, id est the continued well being of your people, as opposed to their extermination. Sure, malingering is smart, right up until the invading horde puts your contemptible ass to the sword.

        Check out the American Historical Review, ca. 1916. A very Un PC and eminently logical conclusion of the end of Rome. By the time of the Emperors, most of the genuine Roman lineages had long since seen the writing on the wall and left for prosperous colonies, in lieu of sticking around in a melting pot going rancid and fast.

        Like


      • Well-done.

        Like


      • Very interesting. What were some of the good colonies?

        Like


  39. Fucking fat,ugly,entitled career bitches will result ina society of extremely beautiful women.

    Like


  40. Hey, Heartiste. Take a look at this: Dimensions of a Perfect Woman.

    Like


  41. Rumer Willis looks like a cross between THREE people instead of just two: Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, and Jay Leno.

    Like


  42. My nigga, you read my post on reddit!

    Like


  43. Stark

    For example, black immigrants to northern countries have a three-times larger prevelance of Schizophrenia, because they don’t have enough vitamin D (or whatever is the vitamin you get from exposure to light).
    ——————————————————
    Ive seen Eskimos as dark as me; why do they have a lower suicide rate than white Scandinavians?

    Like


  44. Forcing a society to be monogamous just means that 1) guys like me will come up with sneaker ways to discreetly fuck everyone’s wives, 2) the girls will be easier to seduce because it’ll be so rare for a guy to attempt it that they won’t have any defense prepared (compare bitch shields in the day VS a nightclub), and 3) the girls will enjoy it more because it’ll be that much more forbidden and risqué and exciting.

    And if I’m gonna go to all that trouble and take all that societal risk, it’s only gonna be for the hottest wives not the ugly ones. Thus the other guys will be raising my beautiful children lol

    Like


    • Right, so either way, beautiful women

      Like


    • What if there are laws that make adultery punishable by death?

      Like


      • Well that certainly stopped murder, didn’t it?

        Like


      • Not murder itself, which will always be with us…

        But, when applied, it certainly stopped the given murderer.

        Like


      • I worked with many, many murderers ( not as a fellow criminal) . I’m a published researcher on it. Of course, you may disagree because Christians don’t need science because they have the Bible. The design of the IC and UNIX, enabling Christians to post, is in secret code in the bible. I know because Pat Robertson told me so.

        I’d be curious how many criminals you’ve known. The great majority have low IQ and neurologically poor impulse control. It’s nothing like the masterminds of TV and movies. Although murder is legally supposed to have intent, most of these guys are so dumb and impulsive there was little consciousness of outcome when they did their crime. Nothing like the bizarre rationalizations of the Nazis or of medieval Inquisitors.

        Like


      • I should soften my criticism of Christianity however. Jesus espoused the idea that every person has a soul and has value, an important step towards the development of the basic civility and trust that enabled the vastly increased wealth and physical comfort within Christian culture nations.

        Like


      • And this mini-screed of yours has what to do with the simple fact that I stated?

        Namely, that although murder is not preventable, killing the murderer will prevent him/her from murdering again.

        I personally don’t care whether brain chemistry, IQ, or the alignment of the [email protected] stars is at fault for the initial murder.

        More importantly, it wasn’t the issue at hand.

        For an alleged published researcher (lolzz, as if THAT means anything in the pseudo-intellectual PC-swamp that is academia), your half-assed anti-Christian folderol does not reflect well on your imagined intellect.

        Like


      • I should soften my criticism of Christianity however.

        Pretty white of you to toss that begrudging bone… although again, it seems only because that imagined aspect of Christianity tickles your otherwise godless universalist PC warm fuzzies.

        Like


      • Outlawing murder certainly lowers the rate of occurrence. Imagine if murder was legal. There would be no civilization anymore.

        Like


      • Murder leaves inevitably discoverable evidence in the form of “that person no longer exists and people no longer see them around” lol

        The only evidence a good affair leaves is that the satisfied smile on a woman’s face. 😉

        That’s why I say, monogamous societies still have the same shit we do. They just have to be sneaker.

        Like


      • Ah, but you can’t merely take everything at material value.

        A lie kills something in the world.

        Like


  45. “Relatedly, I am familiar with the theories that cad societies where men hypervigilantly (and hyperjealously) guard their women […] produce more beautiful women.”

    But Middle Eastern women are mostly as ugly as sin.

    Like


  46. Two factors play against Heartiste’s hypothesis.

    1: Restricted supply. Men can be as choosy as they want, but as long as there is 1.01 females per male, they can’t be all that choosy. Half the men have to take the below-average girls. The hypothesis only works if there is a significantly higher number of females than males.

    2: Adolescent horniness. It’s all well and good to say that men will “save” their shot for a hottie if they risk being locked in, but let’s face it, a lot of guys will risk it just to get their dick wet. And then they’d be stuck, and the whole theory goes tits-up.

    Like


  47. Some selective pressure also applies to men, by their looks and height (not as much as to women though). Just wondering what kind of an effect a monogamous culture has on that.

    I would reason that in such a culture, since women can’t use their “thug spawn raised with help of a boring beta provider” strategy to optimize their own situation, the lesser-looking men also get to reproduce. How does this affect the overall gene pool in the long run, if at all?

    Like


    • The culture ends up with uglier but smarter spawn. Not allowing good looking alphas to clear the decks every generation while the betas just do the raising, will result in less good looking but smarter kids overall.

      Like


  48. ” sex ratios favoring men (caused predominately by men dying young, or otherwise taking themselves out of the sexual marketplace).”

    Indeed, in a highly monogamous society, men would likely delay marriage and spend their 20’s engaged in relatively high-risk ventures to accumulate enough wealth to marry a hottie. If the high-risk ventures also take them to foreign lands where they can pillage the local poon without needing to marry it, so much the better. Regardless, a fair number of them will probably never make it home, leading to the favorable sex ratio for the survivors.

    And lots of ugly spinsters.

    Like


    • on September 20, 2012 at 12:22 pm Subway Masturbator

      Less than 10% of the initial crew of Magellan’s expedition, the first circumnavigation of the world, made it back alive. I asked myself, “What were they thinking when they signed on!?”

      Like


  49. Pattinson and Kristen are together again..perhaps he did not read your blog and suggestions from readers!!

    Like


    • on September 20, 2012 at 8:33 am anonymous does not forgive

      betas gonna beta

      Like


    • Wonder which 40-something Stewie spreads her legs for next…

      Like


      • I’m wondering if that whole “affair” was a publicity stunt, although the extreme of her financial success as an actress makes that seem unlikely. How did everything come out so quick, with no denial from them, or how did they allow themselves to be photographed if the guy even had the most minimal respect or sympathy for his wife?

        Like


  50. […] completely socially acceptable. What’s not acceptable is anything other than serial “monogamy” (contradictory when there’s overlap) and nice guys patiently waiting for women to step […]

    Like


  51. Death seems to be more frequent, indiscriminate, and random in the tropics than in temperate climates. The tropics have higher parasite load and a broader spectrum of diseases. Those factors serve to keep a population below the environmental carrying capacity. This means women are less dependent on men to feed them and their children. That leads to polygyny because women have much to gain from mating with the most disease resistant males and relatively little to lose from lack of support from the father. The wet tropics breed the most r-selected human populations of all. R-selection means sexual selection pressure is mostly on men. Genes for female beauty matter little.

    In temperate climates death is initially less frequent and more predictable and preventable allowing population densities to reach the carrying capacity of the environment. This makes the survival of women and their children highly dependable on food provisioning by men. Hence the human populations of arctic and cold temperate regions are the most K-selected of all. Sexual selection pressure on women is much stronger in K-selected populations.

    Like


  52. I’ve heard at least one other hint at this hypothesis.
    http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire020801.shtml

    Like


  53. I don’t get it. The more parasite infested a place is today and the more guarded the women are, the uglier the women. According to the theory of male-female ratio the most beautiful women should be found in central Europe but German/French/Belgian women aren’t anything special.

    Like


  54. Makes sense. If men started to have higher standards and not sleep with everything in front of them, women would put more effort into lookin fit and sexy. If you have a lazy culture like we do now… Women are lazy and get fat and ugly since men are still sleeping with these uglies.

    Like


  55. I think there is nothing to fear about losing the beautiful women of the world. With the rates of science progress, soon everyone will be able to get cheap plastic surgery or some other, beauty enhancing procedures.
    This is an interesting topic. Lets imagine the market gets filled with genetically or high tech surgically modified males and females. What kind of world would that be?

    Like


    • Great question. Everybody’s an 8 or above except those who abstain for philosophical reasons. Does it become an arms race between beautygene designers? The guy who can make you look like Adriana Lima would be _expensive_. Maybe just an exaggerated version of now, where wealthier women are generally prettier.

      Like


  56. Okay, this is tangentially related, so bear with me:

    Do lesbians actually exist?

    By which I mean, are there actually women who are actually brain-wired to only want sex with other women rather than men? Sure, there are women who say that about themselves, but there’s one thing they all have in common: they’re all incredibly unattractive.

    We know that women have a lower reluctance to playing around with other women than men do to situational homosexuality — because a fling with another chick doesn’t lower a woman’s value to men. We’ve all seen cases of “lesbian until graduation” among college girls, especially at women’s colleges.

    We also know that lesbian couples complain among themselves about “lesbian bed death” — the decline of sexual desire in a long-term lesbian relationship. In other words, not even lesbians find lesbians attractive.

    Finally, there’s the whole “boi” phenomenon: for women who “don’t like men” lesbians sure spend an awful lot of time having sex with women who go to great lengths to look like men.

    This insight hit me hard a couple of weeks ago at a wedding. The bride was the daughter of two friends, and I was a little surprised to get the invitation because the last I’d heard she had “come out” as a lesbian and was involved with another girl. But the wedding was to a man (a fit, good-looking, professionally successful young man, too). And at the ceremony I didn’t recognize the bride except by the wedding dress she was wearing. During her lesbian phase she’d been untidy, overweight, and awkward. With her new husband she was poised, fit, and frankly smoking hot.

    So back to my question: do lesbians actually exist? Aside from a handful of genetic freaks, I think the answer is no. I think pretty much all “lesbians” are simply unattractive, unpleasant women who turn to other equally unattractive women because no man would touch them with a ten-foot pole, let alone his dick.

    This hypothesis explains the otherwise bizarre way that feminists hold up lesbians as somehow “ideal” women. Feminists hate men, can’t get laid, and want to encourage attractive young women to kneel between their flabby thighs. It explains why lesbians strive to recreate the atmosphere of a genuine husband-and-wife household with kids. And it explains why lesbians are, in the main, so incredibly unattractive and unpleasant. It’s a cause, not an effect.

    Like


    • Hear hear! Very well said. I agree and I think the same is also often true of male homosexuals. I think this is why we used to classify it as a personality disorder.

      Like


    • Are you including bi girls in your definition of lesbianism?

      I am strongly attracted to both men and women. I have a naturally feminine face, body, and demeanor (in other words, I am conventionally attractive to men – was about an 8.5 in my prime years of 17-21ish and am probably still an 8.5 in comparison to other 24 year olds, but am probably now a 7.5 or 7 in comparison to my 17-21 year old self. My body is still the same as it was at about 18 or 19 but my face does look about 22 or 23 years old). I am indeed more masculine in my thoughts and in my interest in sex, but those things don’t seem to affect the way I present myself (in other words, I don’t think I come across as dykish in any way).

      I suspect that there are a decent amount of girls out there like me – I’m a feminine girl who is attracted to both men and women, but I chose to not pursue my attraction to women because it made life much simpler. I think it is harder for feminine bisexual or lesbian women to “come out” – if I had done so, it would have created much confusion in my family, with friends, and with men, since as you have suggested in your post, most everyone expects women who are attracted to other women to be dykish. Dykish women can go all out and “claim their identities” through their lifestyle and appearence, so to speak. There didn’t seem to be any established, accepted way to present myself in society, so I chose the easy way out by burying this part of me. The point of me relating all this is that I do think there are attractive, normal looking girls out there who like women but they either blend right in with other straight women or choose to pursue their attractions to men instead.

      The nature of my bisexuality presents me with a useful worldview. I am attracted to men and women in different ways. I am deeply mentally attracted to men, whereas I am much less mentally attracted to women. I love the male body, but there is something about an attractive woman that pulls me in a qualitatively different and very powerful way. What this all means is that while my perspective is not perfect, I can step into both straight male and female minds and understand much of what goes on there. Neither mind is a total mystery to me, because in a way I have both.

      Like


      • Plus there’s always the chance of a threesome!

        Like


      • I’ve never fantasized about a threesome. In my opinion they’d be too much work. At least it would be too much work with another man and a woman…I probably would have had fun with two girls though.

        Like


  57. In my reformed crusade to highlight the benefits of Christianity for civilization, I want to quote:

    Matthew 25:40 And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

    Jesus believed each person, even the “least” of brothers and sisters, had value.

    He was a goddamned pinko equalist.

    Like


    • The key point is whom he referred to as his brothers and sisters.

      He also enacted violence upon the moneychangers of the temple, and roundly berated the scribes and Pharisees… and those who attempted to trip him up with their sophistries… in hard language.

      Furthermore, we are told to depart from, whilst even ‘knocking the dust from your sandals’, any town/people who resist the Word. For “what fellowship does light have with darkness?”

      So if you’re trying to paint Jesus as the Mickey Mouse egalitarian that current debased PC MSM and universalist-type churches, both sacred and profane, attempt to… well… you’re off the mark.

      It’s always amusing when nonbelievers attempt to use Scripture as a weapon… then again, the Bible itself tells us that Satan himself is a master quoter of Scripture.

      Like


      • Greg Eliot, I’m getting a sense that you feel like you somehow *own* the Bible, that because you’re a believer, you must therefore know its contents better than nonbelievers.

        Many of us nonbelievers have been raised with and studied the Bible — in my case, a LOT. The difference is that we see the inconsistencies in the Bible — both internally and with the greater world — and simply can’t abide by such a weird concoction of ideas. Believers are more willing to live with such dissonance.

        There’s no denying that the Bible isn’t a theologically or philosophically consistent text. Its earliest origins in nonliterate cultures make this basically impossible.

        Guess what? The Old Testament (“your” Bible) tells us that God is vicious and vengeful and punitive towards people who don’t listen to him. He gives them orders on stone tablets and then drowns them in crickets when they are bad. Meanwhile, the New Testament (“Mr. Pointyface’s” Bible) tells us that God is helpful and tolerant and even sent his very own son to save us from ourselves.

        BOTH in the SAME book.

        Stop denigrating what other people see in the Bible. The beauty of its long, Wikipedia-style creation via multiple authors over multiple centuries is this: It is so contradictory that you can see practically ANYTHING you want in it. Which explains its incredible persistence in our human history.

        It can be used to justify virtually anything at all, from charity to rebellion to forgiveness to execution to capitalism to Marxism. (Read about liberation theology, if you don’t believe that last one.)

        Like


      • Your ilk claims to have been raised with and studied the Bible, but the verses you cite and the way you cite them invariable gives the lie to any ‘knowledge’ of it that you flatter yourselves to possess.

        And your own personal biases further distort what you claim or believe others to be saying… fast example, you say: “stop denigrating what other people see in the Bible”… when in fact, I was rightfully parrying the snark of another one of your allies who attempted to appear knowledgeable about scripture by quoting it when, in fact, he was merely practicing the same sort of disingenuous sophistry that Jesus Himself often slapped down the Pharisees over.

        Your superficial misrepresentation of the OT and NT is another classic example of how you nonbelievers THINK you know what it’s all about, but never truly approached the complexities with an open mind, let alone open heart, of a true seeker of the mysteries contained therein.

        So spare me your so-called ‘knowledge’ of scripture and humanism-only-for-those-who-agree-with-me hypocrisy.

        Like


      • I didn’t cite any Scripture. This isn’t the place for it.

        Being advised to keep an “open heart” from someone who onnly loves those with the same skin color as his own is truly, miserably laughable.

        I haven’t misrepresented anything in the BIble. If anything, in my scant few words, I’ve UNDER-represented it. It’s a marvelously complex text … and utterly paradoxical.

        That was my only point.

        So you can stop denigrating so-called “Mickey Mouse” Christianity. Proof of that is right there in the NT. A more “Darth Vader” Christianity is found elsewhere in its pages. So is a “Jaycee Dugard” Christianity. As is a “Che Guevara” Christianity. The list goes ever on….

        Got it?

        Like


      • I didn’t cite any Scripture.

        I said “your ilk”.

        And I’ve often said I side with all men of good will, regardless of race… but there again, that’s your selective reading which only comprehends that which tickles your prejudices.

        I say this because I’m sure you didn’t mean strictly romance and matrimony when you said “only loves”, you disingenuous twerp.

        Got it, you poseur alpha who loves to type.

        Like


      • “And I’ve often said I side with all men of good will, regardless of race…”

        This is a flatout lie, Greg Eliot.

        I distinctly remember arguing with you several months ago about slavery. You were adamant that the only tragedy in the history of U.S. slavery was that 600,000 white men (or some number close to it) had to die as a result. Black people figured nowhere in your calculations, and you refused to even recognize that they may have suffered during those centuries.

        You have posted many, many times about the need to recognize the white race first and foremost, at the expense of other races. Your hundreds of other nasty one-liners about the stupidity of black people (many of which I’ve refrained from commenting on) have further revealed your true feelings in the eyeballs of everyone reading this site.

        It’s useless to backpedal, Greg Eliot. We know who you really are.

        Like


      • Oh, bullshit… parrying snark about past injustices, some real, most imagined, that the antiwhites still try to throw into the collective white face is not the same as wishing anyone ill will.

        I’ve often quoted Ali himself as saying, when he returned from Zaire “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!” to hammer home of the point that, compared to Africa today, blacks in America can very well describe their initial slavery here as a ‘forcible upgrade’ in their standard of living.

        And you remember every little (again, real or imagined) reply of mine you can gleefully point out as ‘hateful’, but as usual, no mention of the truly vile things said that prompted those replies from the antiwhite shock troops.

        You tiresome pismire. The folks around here at the chateau recognize your sorry ass for what it is as well.

        Like


      • How do you explain the cognitive dissonance you so willingly embrace for the belief system you have adopted? It is easily as inconsistent and far less useful.

        Like


      • They only see sacred inconsistencies, whether real or imagined.

        Secular folderol they swallow whole.

        Matt. 23:24… blind (would-be) guides, who swallow a camel but strain for gnats.

        Like


  58. My mother has three kids from three men. I have 2 sisters. My mother and all of our fathers had very high SMV. My mother was a very attractive model when in her late teens and into her 20s.
    It used to bug me as a kid that guys would hit on her constantly when we were out either shopping or at hockey practice. This was honestly a day to day thing for her. My father was also very attractive to women. Looked like a young clint eastwood and had some admirers himself. My sisters fathers were also very handsome.
    Us 3 kids are not ugly , but we do not have the same beauty that or biological parents have.
    I think it is a stretch to assume that beautiful women have beautiful children . Genetics are way too variable and its really the luck of the draw.
    By the way my mothers parents were only average looking as well.
    British background on both sides

    [heartiste: again, genes are probabilities, not guarantees. if your good-looking parents had had ten kids instead of three, there would be a good chance that more than a few of them would have inherited their good looks. so, no, genes are not “way too variable.” a moment’s time spent in the company of the upper class will convince you of the error of your thinking.]

    Like


    • | British background on both sides.

      Well that explains the sisters. Your mom was the anomaly, not them. In general British guys aren’t bad looking. You carry half your father’s genes. 4/5 people in your story fit with the genetic data – fathers, daughters and you.

      Like


  59. This blog is becoming the number one go to place for junk science.

    Like


  60. Wars and weather do not create beautiful women they multiply them. Otherwise suppose the hottest chick did not reproduce due to abortion and contraception. Then the Genes of the hottest chick are gone forever after death.

    Like


  61. How would you isolate monogamy?

    Which cultures are most monogamous?

    The density of attractive women in a given population has mechanisms that are higher correlated than the presence of monogamy, I would safely assume.

    There are easily definable physical beauty indicators and their sources are sometimes social. Monogamy seems a little vague. I don’t know a culture that practices an alternative, and would assume more promiscuity would lead to more grooming in order to “sell the goods” as in any marketplace.

    Like


  62. adoption! monogamous societies foster adoption! which means the first kid is from a pretty girl and a pretty guy! The baby is raised by normal, level-headed people, so the baby is not fucked up. So, great personality, pretty face. Do this enough times, you’ve got a near separate race of beauty. Spouse is from 4 generations of first birth adoptions. He looks like a Norse God. His cousins, the second, careful choice kids? look like Morlocks.

    Like


  63. […] Heartiste – 182 Days Of Blue Balls, Women Don’t Handle Rejection Well, Male Choosiness, Female Beauty And Monogamy, Are Messy Girls Easier Lays, White Woman, Dimensions Of A Perfect […]

    Like


  64. […] Male Choosiness, Female Beauty And Monogamy – Chateau Heartiste […]

    Like


  65. “Relatedly, I am familiar with the theories that cad societies where men hypervigilantly (and hyperjealously) guard their women from alpha male interlopers, and geographic regions where high parasite loads influence the sexual selection process so that beauty — a sign of health and lack of genetic mutations — is favored, produce more beautiful women.”

    I would not say so. One half of my genes comes from an ethnic group which discourages women from ‘marrying out’, and lots of females from marry-in couples do not look that beautiful.

    Unless, I guess, beauty is that subjective-submissive thing. In which case it also did not work out well, as these women tend to be very loud and selfish. Inbreeding is not the solution towards more beautiful women, genetic diversity combined with strong male/female role modelling will increase the chances.

    Like


  66. Many monogamous cultures also have arranged marriages where the families choose a match….. and looks are only one of the qualifying factors in such a match. plus, not everyone in societies with arranged marriages can “afford” a good looking girl ( dont have high enough social standing, business, money, career, etc.). How would you account for this in your little theory?

    [heartiste: an arranged marriage is not a free sexual market. it’s equivalent to the government interfering in the economic market.]

    Like