Survival Of The Fittest
There have been a couple of entries over the past month or so that have triggered some thoughts that I wanted to share with the readership. One was the Thai Man No Good (TMNG) and the others were about the PC crowd’s disgust with “old”
men and young women (notice these are not girls, but fully adult young women). I believe all of this is from a misunderstanding of what human beings are, and what the biological imperatives are for any species.
To start this off the prime axiom is that human beings are animals, and a part of nature. I hate the tree huggers that seem to think that Nature (their goddess) would be fine if we could just get rid of the people (who apparently are not part of nature.) So, what is the purpose of all animal species? The answer is; to perpetuate the species. It is really that simple. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with your personal success, bank account, academic achievement, or ability to do integration in four dimensions in your head. The 60 year old Ph.D. CEO of a major corporation that has one child is less fit than the 25 year old crack addict selling drugs on the street corner, who happens to have produced 12 children with 10 different women. It is strictly how many offspring you produce, and how many of them live to produce even more descendants. So the super fit young lout that is disgusted by the sight of the fat, old, bald guy (me) with a young girl on his arm is unaware that I am already much fitter than he is; because I have children, and my children have had children.
Stick commented on one of my earlier rants that this PC attitude is shifting from bitter middle aged western women (sorry, it is unnecessary to put bitter and women in the same phrase) to the entire younger set, including men in their twenties. This is very true. Last year while I was diving in Mexico, I met a <25 year old Danish bricklayer, who had been to Phuket on his previous dive trip. I asked about the conditions there, as I had wanted to go back there to dive again. He said the reefs were great, but he had been absolutely disgusted with all the old men with young Thai girls. Doesn’t he realize that he will be old one day; if he lives long enough?
The PC issues rise from the different strategies used by men and women to achieve the biological goal. The number one strategy for men is to have as much sex as possible with as many healthy women in their prime child bearing ages as possible. Let us refer to the practitioners of this strategy as 3Fers (Find them, F**k them, and Forget them). TNMG is just a 3Fer following a successful biological strategy for propagating his genes. Morality has nothing to do with it. A man can produce so many offspring with this strategy that he need not concern himself with the survival rate of the children produced; hence the third F. This maximizes the spread of his genes down through time. And since he does not have to be young or healthy to produce these young, nature sets a man up to produce the children throughout his life. So, we old, fat, bald guys trying to have sex with hot young women are just following a successful strategy to perpetuate our genes. It is perfectly natural, and not any more disgusting than that if you eat you will eventually excrete. It is just biology. I don’t think I have to bring proof of the widespread use of this strategy throughout the world.
Women have a more complicated strategy, due to their biological limitations. Once again, any inherent moral superiority of their gender has nothing to do with it. They have the capacity to produce only a very limited number of offspring during their reproductive years. So, they must ensure the survival to maturity of those they can produce. They also have to produce offspring while they are young; in order to be around as long as necessary to ensure their survival. (Also, in nature, bearing children is very hard on the body, and best done while the woman is young enough to survive to produce follow on children.) This requires a two pronged strategy. First, in nature, they must secure the continuing support of a man capable of providing for them and their children during their child bearing and rearing years (I will refer to these men as hosts, as in parasites and hosts.) This gains her the maximum resources to ensure the survival of her offspring (and never forget that they are hers, and not the two of yours.) At the same time she wants any male children she may have to have the characteristics of the 3Fer, because that maximizes the spread of her genes; piggy-backing with the genes of the 3Fer. Clearly this calls for some deception. She must enslave a host to obtain his resources by the selective use of sex, or the promise of sex, while maximizing her access to sex with the “hotter” 3Fers to produce children likely to maximize the spread of her genes in the next generation.
I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth by those saying, “Women aren’t like this. Women are naturally monogamous. It is men that are the cheating bastards.” So, I will provide some results from research studies, and court statistics, which support my contention. The first supporting statistic (I will not call it a fact) comes from a UK study of paternity testing requested during divorce. It was found that slightly more than 30% of the time the husband was not the father. This was in the early 2000’s. You can’t impute the same percentage to the general population, but it sure is a frightening statistic that when it was measured, about a third of the time us hosts were not the fathers of “our” children. Genealogists call this casual bastardry, which they say is grossly underestimated.
In a 1983 book, “American Couples”, a sociologist named Pepper Schwartz described the absence of sex in long term lesbian couples as “Lesbian Bed Death”. In an effort to refute this supposition, a German study proved that any woman’s sex drive greatly diminishes once she is in a secure relationship. (This validates the large knowledge base of married men who long established that the food which reduces a woman’s sex drive by 90% or more is wedding cake.) The study refuted the lesbian part by verifying the bed death part. I contend the German study missed a major point; the sex drive only diminishes in relation to the secure long term partner. Once again I will support this contention with study findings. A recent study by two Danish researchers (one male, one female) looked at women going to dance venues without male partners. They took a saliva test to determine where they were in their menstrual cycle, and asked them if they were in a long term relationship. They measured the percentage of skin being exposed and the relative size of their movements while dancing as measures of the degree of flirtatiousness. They also included more subjective measures, but they were fairly vague. The study concluded two things. The degree of flirtatiousness was highly correlated to the woman being close to ovulation, and being in a long term relationship increased the correlation. So, women in a long term relationship, out in dance places without their partner, who have just ovulated or are about to ovulate (i.e. are at maximal fertility) are sending out the largest signals of their availability for sex.
Now to evidence that these women out for a little on the side are focused on the 3Fers. An American study asked a group of women to view photos of men’s faces and to sort them into either “soft” or “hard” categories; where soft was the nice guy they all claim to be looking for as a host (excuse me, boyfriend), and hard was the dangerous exciting guy who they know would f**k them and leave them (I am paraphrasing the studies guidelines somewhat). They then eliminated the indeterminate pictures, where the consensus opinion was not nearly 100%. They then took a group of women, took saliva tests to determine where they were in their menstrual cycles, and had them rate the pictures as to how attractive the men were. Those who were near ovulation found the “hard” guys attractive, and women farther from ovulation found the “soft” men more attractive; with very high correlation. So, there really should be no surprise when a bargirl goes trolling for a TMNG to father a child she chooses to have while she is young and attractive. She is following her biological imperative. She is not looking at any one man to support her and her child for life, but rather many men providing support one night at a time. I think this is more honest than what we usually see in the west.
I believe this is enough evidence to show what natural behavior is for men and for women. Neither natural tendency has any claim on moral ascendancy. In fact both strategies are harmful to the formation of stable societies and civilization. Marriage was created early on in every culture to restrain these natural tendencies. It is supposed to offer women a guarantee of secure financial support in exchange for her fidelity, so children will be raised in the best environment to produce responsible citizens. It is also designed so that the average man can obtain assurance that their genes are in fact contained in the children they are supporting. This was an equitable deal; as each gave up their self-interested behavior, to some extent, to maximize the societal outcome. In the traditional world, the enforcement of the woman’s side was much more necessary to ensure rightful inheritance and a stable society. My mother called it the justifiable double standard which women must bear for the good of society. In exchange women that lived up to these expectations were treated with great respect and deference as ladies.
So where are we now? Women in the west feel that they owe nothing to the marriage vows and that they can, and do, behave like whores. This is called being an empowered woman in charge of her own sexuality. They feel entitled to be treated like great ladies while acting, dressing, and speaking like gutter sluts. Men, however, who pursue their natural strategy, are called bastards, and their getting screwed by the courts is considered justice. Society continues to guarantee the financial support part for women, but provides no enforcement of the woman’s side of the contract. In fact women are held totally unaccountable for anything in the west.
I would like to make an apology at this time. I was unduly harsh in comparing western women to whores and gutter sluts. This was unfair to the many, many, honest hard working and dedicated whores and gutter sluts everywhere. In fact, some of my closest friends (in the biblical sense) are gutter sluts.
Thank you for reading to the end of another of my rants.
Not a rant at all, but rather a fair, clear and balanced explanation of how things are the way they are!