“I don’t know the question, but sex is definitely the answer.”
-Woody Allen
“In a perfect world, you could fuck people without giving them a piece of your heart. [But] every glittering kiss and every touch of flesh is another shard of heart you’ll never see again.”
-Neil Gaiman
“Sex without love is as hollow and ridiculous as love without sex.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
“The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.”
-George Carlin
I place blame for this piece squarely on the shoulders of the commentariat. Discussions that began with the absurdity of #metoo quickly went down the rabbit hole of analyses of the sexual marketplace, human mating strategy and unending (indeed, unendable) sexual conflict between men and women. This forced me to think about things, which forced me to want to record and share them, which further forced me to embarrass myself and torture you all once again by inflicting my writing upon you. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
The Backstory
Let me begin with a disclaimer: I am not a biologist nor an expert on evolution or human sexuality. There are likely droves of people in the commentariat that are infinitely more knowledgable about these things than I am. To them, I apologize and please throw rotten vegetables in the comment section. To everyone else that doesn’t know any better, I am a 100% super-knowledgable expert on everything, so take every single word I say as gospel.
Good, now that we’ve got that figured out, let’s start with a little story. You are Ug, an archaic male human, newly evolved to self-awareness and roaming the Savannah. You are 16, right in the prime of life, but rapidly approaching middle age. You are ruled by three overwhelming urges that dictate the terms of your existence; thirst, hunger and horniness. Fortunately for you, you have access to watering holes and you’re pretty handy with a spear so the first two are generally taken care of. One day, you come across Oog, an archaic female human with beautiful eyes and hairy pits just the way you like them. Because you are a human, you have no idea if she’s ovulating, all you know is that you need to get little Ug wet immediately. You show your best PUA skills, and 3 minutes later you have scratched that itch that has been bothering you for months. Nine months later, Oog has given birth to a beautiful baby girl Aag. You still have awkward encounters with Oog and see her about the Savannah, but when you see her with Aag you’re not really sure what to make of it. You don’t quite understand that your amorous activities 9 months ago could have caused this; you’re not really sure about anything. Oog could have had sex with 20 different guys and any one of them could be the father, but you don’t know that. Your knowledge of the situation is almost completely opaque. However, what you do know is that she has a baby with her now that needs nonstop attention and resources. Something inside you, another thing you don’t quite understand, is driving you to try and help her take care of this thing. So, against your better judgement, you start sharing your food and water with her and the baby and life goes on, a vision of domestic bliss, complete with a white picket fence around the cave.
The catch is that, Ug may not realize it, but he cannot possibly be sure that he is, in fact, the father of Aag. This is one of the two reasons that he doesn’t pull an alpha lion and kill Aag; the other one being “love” aka: a cascade of hormones (vasopressin, oxytocin, estradiol among others) that create a pair bond and make him want to take care of Oog and Aag and make more babies. So, rather than running back out on the Savannah and chasing some hot new strange, he embraces monogamy, otherwise known as making the best out of a bad situation.
Big Dicks and Horny Chicks
Our bodies and behaviors are museums dedicated to the millennia of evolution that have shaped the human race. Some adaptations are legacies from the larger course of mammalian evolution, internal fertilization, placental fetal nourishment and the eponymous mammary glands providing nourishment post-birth. There are, however, a number of adaptations that are unique (or nearly unique) to humans that must have evolved relatively quickly and can only be explained by sexual selection (physiologic changes brought about by mate preference pressure rather than environmental pressure). Human males have unusually large penises for primates, both as a percentage of body size and in absolute terms. They also lack an os penis or penis bone. The vast majority of mammals have a bone that will actually move into the penis during arousal to create an erection. Human males rely on hydraulic pressure from blood to get the job done. This also means that human penises are a bit more pliable during sex, getting to those hard to reach places. It’s an open question why these adaptations to the human penis happened, but it’s a safe bet that women chose men with these characteristics and had more babies with them. More pleasure? Consequence of bipedal locomotion? Not sure.
For the ladies there are two big ones. The first is my personal favorite; permanently engorged breasts. Biologists are reasonably certain that these are a consequence of humans’ preference for face-to-face sex and evolved as a visual stimulus analogous to the buttock that most male mammals would see while getting their freak on. Preference for large ones could be an indicator of age as bigguns tend to droop as a woman ages. The other adaptation is really important; concealed ovulation combined with year-round sexual availability. This means that humans have no mating season and women are DTF any time. It also means that a lack of being “in heat” ensures that neither partner knows if a particular copulation likely resulted in offspring being produced. This element of paternal uncertainty is essential to the way human relationships developed over time.
Whycome No Pics?
In case you need examples of how this all works (we’re all socially maladjusted failures around here, so it’s entirely possible), I have a pop-up book I can lend you. Before we completely lose the script here, I want to say that the previous story and examples of biological oddity that we humans have are simply to demonstrate that competing sexual strategy has always existed between men and women. This is expressed in our biology and it is certainly expressed in our behavior (what this tome will eventually come around to focusing on). Every animal has such an imbalance to some extent; it’s unavoidable.
Speaking strictly for humans, the cost of reproduction for women always has been higher. She is the one who is saddled with 9 months of pregnancy, followed by the necessity to care for an utterly helpless infant for years. This task, while not impossible to do alone, is light-years easier with Dad involved to procure resources and provide protection. Therefore, it’s in her best interest to be more restrictive when selecting a mate. Compounding her need to be choosy is the fact that she has a limited number of eggs and therefore a limited reproductive lifetime. She doesn’t want to waste scarce and precious resource on the wrong guy. Men, on the other hand, produce zillions of sperm from puberty until death and they’re all raring to be deposited in the nearest vagina, the more the better. Men, intrinsically, have a very low cost of reproduction. No pregnancy, an endless supply of sperm, why not go nuts? That is certainly one strategy that evolved (the “cad”). Fuck as many women as possible, banking on the fact that at least a few of the babies will survive after you love ‘em and leave ‘em. The other strategy (the “dad”), will stick around and help care for the baby, giving it a better chance of survival. The rub with this strategy is that dad only has an incentive to stick around if he’s reasonably certain that the baby carries his genetic material. Otherwise, he’s squandering his time, resources and opportunity cost taking care of someone else’s kid. On the flip side, mom is putting all her eggs (so to speak) in this guy’s basket, so she wants a guy with as many resources as possible. Resources often come along with strength and status, so women want those qualities.
From these few simple rules evolved basically all the pomp and circumstance surrounding human mating behavior. You see, the rules of the game are hardwired into us from thousands of generations. Despite progs’ desire to create the New Soviet Man, you can’t handwave away these realities and any changes to them will necessarily have to happen over a long period of time. Social engineering is a miserable failure when it comes to sex (and, well, pretty much everything else too, but that’s another article).
Modern Sex Pre-1960
Now we reach the crux of this piece, a survey of modern human sexual behavior as a consequence of these biological realities. Before people start throwing autistic fits, I’m fully aware that there are a multitude of other arrangements, lifestyles and aberrations to these rules (see: Sade, Marquis de); however, I’m working in averages here and looking at the most prevalent mating styles. I’m also not going to touch ancient societies with things like sacred prostitution, matriarchal societies (which, BTW, have never really been conclusively proven to have existed), “walking marriages” etc. Basically, I’m going to deal with post-Enlightenment, Western sexual relationships because that happens to be the world we inhabit.
Humans are often cited as being unusual in the mammalian world for our penchant for monogamy. Many social critics claim that this is an oppressive social norm forced on women (always specifically women) by the patriarchy to enslave them into becoming breeding cattle. I argue that this is utterly wrong and human monogamy is a direct consequence of concealed ovulation, paternal uncertainty and the complete uselessness of human children for the first 5 years (at least) of life. All of these factors put humans at the extreme end of the K-side in r/K selection (go look it up, I don’t have the energy to go down that rabbit hole). Yes, it doesn’t change the fact that men still have those zillions of sperm raring to be ejaculated in new and interesting places; it also doesn’t change the fact that women want a man with as much wealth, status and resources as possible, but as I said before, monogamy is a compromise on the part of both parties making the best out of a bad situation. Many men still would occasionally satisfy their deep-seated biological urges with low-risk third parties (like prostitutes) in which the chances of yet another woman making demands on his scant resources were minimal. Likewise, women tolerated this because it was a low probability of him leaving her holding the bag. For their part, women would encourage (read: nag) men to improve themselves and their social station to try and make more money or gain more influence. The perfect picture of domestic bliss.
Monogamy is an odd institution because it’s simultaneously natural and unnatural. As I’ve said in previous essays, humans are like onions; we have layers of conflicting desires built one on top of another from the various parts of our ancient evolutionary brains. Our reptilian, mammalian, neo-cortical and spiritual sides are all locked in a battle royale. On one hand, it’s natural for a man to want to stick it in every hole he can find, but on the flip side, it’s natural to want to care for your offspring to ensure their chances of survival. For women, on one hand, it’s natural to want to find the man with the most possible resources (the king or chief), but in that case, you’re most likely going to be competing with several different women for his attention. Therefore, it’s also natural to want to find a decent guy with decent resources who won’t run away and you have all to yourself.
The major rub here is that sex, love and reproduction were all inextricably linked. It was very, very unlikely that you have one without the others coming along for the ride. Our very hormones themselves alter after the birth of a child (for men and women) making it much more likely that mom and dad will stick around and care for that helpless little blob. These are things that are hard-wired into us. You’re not going to change it, at least not with current technology. However, that playbook; the one that got us from the Savannah all the way to airplanes, interchangeable parts, the polio vaccine and indoor plumbing got completely torched with one invention.
The Pill
Those of you who read my previous piece will already know that I consider this to be the most Earth-shattering, life altering invention ever in human history. First approved by the FDA in 1960, this little pack of hormones made possible things that humanity never before dreamed of. Sex, love and reproduction, arguably the most formative phenomena of human evolution, were no longer linked. The world envisioned in Stranger in a Strange Land (published one year after the Pill was approved) was not speculative; it really was possible for people to live in group marriages and sex communes without the messiness of children entering the picture.
And that’s exactly what people did. With gusto. Like a college kid going on a bender at his 21st birthday, the drought was over. No longer would the chains of biology enslave us and repress us. No longer would we have to choose between plodding bourgeois monogamy and family or celibacy. No longer would women have to be so circumspect about who they took to bed. No longer would men have to think twice about having a one-night stand with that hot girl he doesn’t really like that much but has a great rack. As long as she’s on the Pill, all bets are off; no harm, no foul. Everyone gets their various rocks off, then walks away as if nothing ever happened. As easy as playing a game of Gin-Rummy but more fun.
“Intentional communities” (I really hate that term) like Sandstone (counting The Joy of Sex author Alex Comfort and Sammy Davis Jr. as members) and Kerista sprung up practically overnight. The Summer of Love and Woodstock firmly established that consequence-free casual sex and promiscuity were here to stay. The swinging 70s moved it from young free thinkers into the suburbs and the bourgeois community at large. Key parties and swinging became part of the cultural lexicon. Ordinary people began to question what radicals and academics had been questioning for decades; are the expectations of matrimony, nuclear family, monogamy and fidelity a scam? Why do we voluntarily subordinate our urges to outdated social structures? Why do we put a higher value on responsibility and commitment (which can certainly be a drag sometimes) than we do on pleasure, fulfillment and liberation? And the clarion call that still resonates to this day “IT’S NOT NATURAL!”
As stated above, this is true. It’s also not true. It’s also irrelevant. The human situation is one that is much more complex than any 60s sexual radical could conceive of. The millions of years of evolution leading us to this point has, again, created many contradictory urges within us. The onion-like human psyche is far more complicated than than a philosophy of “if it feels good, do it” can contain. But, easy pleasure is a siren song that is very hard to resist. One immediate social consequence of this revolution was a drastic increase in divorce. No doubt, this was a life saver to many people in lousy marriages, but to others it was the first inklings of the “broken homes” and “mixed families” that are ubiquitous today. The mainstreaming of so-called “alternative lifestyles” (another term I hate) would probably have continued apace except for one unfortunate complication.
AIDS
To middle and late Gen-Xers like myself, I have never known a sexual world that did not have the specter of these four letters hanging over it. Previously, STDs were a mild inconvenience. Picked up the clap at the sex party last weekend? Just go get your shot and you’re good for the party next weekend. Even permanent diseases like herpes were NBD; just rub some cream on it and wait for the acute outbreak to go away.
Now, however, there was a badass new kid on the block and he wasn’t taking shit from anyone. No vaccine. No cure. Bringing about a horrible, painful, slow and humiliating death. It definitely changed the landscape of relationships and sex toward the more conservative. It’s an interesting coincidence that it just happened to occur during the Reagan Revolution and the New Moral Majority. Since anal sex was and is a much easier way to contract the disease, and since, on average, gay men tend to have more lifetime sex partners than straights and lesbians, AIDS first exploded among male gays. This was not only devastating to the community at large, but adding insult to injury, Social Conservatives used it to take potshots at gays calling AIDS “gay cancer” and “divine retribution” for their “deviant lifestyle”.
People like myself who came of age at this time were relentlessly bombarded with PSAs about how sex will kill you and, if you decide to be an idiot and have sex in spite of our warnings, don’t even *think* about not using a condom; you might as well just give a .357 a blowjob. It’s telling about the overwhelming strength of uncontrolled human sexuality that it took the threat of death to reign it in. Monogamy, sexual restraint and conventional family, never completely abandoned in the first place, came screaming back to overturn the sexual revolution for one brief moment, because the perceived alternative was Russian Roulette. This image was not helped by the fact that many prominent individuals known for their promiscuity contracted and/or died of HIV (Magic Johnson, Eazy-E, Liberace, Freddy Mercury and, more recently, Charlie Sheen).
However, time marches on and human ingenuity is a wonderful thing. New drugs and treatments started cranking out and, while initially very expensive, have become more or less available to anyone that has contracted the disease. Magic Johnson has been living with the virus for decades and seems as healthy as ever. HIV/AIDS was no longer an automatic death sentence; if, in fact, it was ever as big of a threat as it was portrayed in the first place. Some conspiracy-minded libertines maintain that the AIDS scare was trumped up as worse than it actually was to try and purposely counteract the promiscuous tendencies of the previous two decades. Regardless, it had the intended effect until the mid-late 90s when all of a sudden it just didn’t seem like that big of a deal anymore. Sleep around, but use a condom; it would definitely suck to catch it, but if you did it’s not automatically the end. You take drugs for life and, in some cases, the virus won’t even be detectable in your blood. You can even have HIV-negative children using advanced reproductive technologies. The beast of human sexuality was not completely unshackled as it was in the 60s and 70s, but it was let out of the cage and given a long leash.
Tinder, Hook-Ups and #metoo
So here we sit. The sexual revolution mostly back in full swing, so-called “alternative lifestyles” are very much en vogue again. To be fair, people were swinging, making “arrangements” with their spouses and creating sexual sub-cultures all throughout the AIDS scare, but it was definitely more underground and seen as dangerous and shameful. Now, these choices are out in the open big time and sometimes portrayed by the intelligentsia as superior to plodding, bourgeois monogamy; a middle ground between the new ground rules of non-child-bearing recreational sex and the continuing desire for stability and family. Perhaps it’s true. I suppose time will tell.
Sexuality among adolescents and young adults went through a secondary revolution of its own. It’s completely ridiculous to think that teenagers and students weren’t constantly having sex for centuries before the current era. However, many times these unions would involve quite a bit of emotional seriousness due to the looming specter of pregnancy. People married young and typically stayed married. The new rules of sex, intersecting with technology, made having sex more similar to ordering a pizza than a complicated dance of courtship and emotions. In many ways, the sexual revolution had reached its ultimate goal; totally unfettered, (mostly) consequence-free sex on demand. Just swipe right and you’re off to the races. For large swaths of young people, intercourse had become akin to a handshake.
As stated, and the theme of this plodding piece of mental excrement, is that human nature is never so simple and it’s not easily altered. You see, going along with the Savannah Principle (the idea that our brains haven’t changed much since the days of Oog and Ug), doubts, fears and general despair and dysphoria began to creep in to this arrangement. In spite of what the sexual revolutionaries had been saying for decades, intercourse is *not* a handshake, and even barring the physical consequences of pregnancy and disease there are emotional consequences of sex.
Recapping from earlier, on the Savannah, Oog and Ug have intrinsically competitive sexual strategies. This can be traced back to the fact that Oog has to carry the baby, then birth it and take care of it. This all comes at the a huge economic and physical cost; all to produce one lousy human. Ug, while his urges to impregnate as many women as possible are very strong, he also must protect his genetic legacy. Human babies are so useless for such a long time that there is a much higher probability that they will survive if they have two parents looking after them. Compound this with the fact that women have a much higher reproductive economic value; finite number of eggs and only able to carry one baby at a time vs. men’s zillions of sperm and ability to impregnate a theoretically arbitrary number of women; and further compound it with concealed ovulation and parental uncertainty, we have quite a complex social situation. Nature has concocted a cocktail of wonderful things to overcome this complexity; female orgasm, penis size, oxytocin, vasopressin, sexual jealousy among other things combine to bond mates together with strong emotions.
As if things weren’t already complicated enough, men and women are both hypergamous; ie: they want to “marry up”. This means very different things to men and women. Women’s reproductive value is derived from beauty and youth, so men want to find young, beautiful women with whom to mate. Men’s reproductive value is derived from strength and capability at procuring resources for mom and baby, so, in the old cliche, women prefer a big wallet to a big dick. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to these complexities. There are entire philosophies inquiring on the nature of love. Love, lust and sex have probably motivated the creation of more art than anything else in history (with the possible exception of religion). In drastic understatement, human familial relationships are very complicated. It’s no wonder there would eventually be a backlash against the often simple-minded form that they take today.
#MeToo
At first started by women coming out to claim that they had been victims of rape/assault and were too ashamed to say anything until now, it has now morphed into a sinister condemnation of male sexuality. Acting like a tactless boor is enough to get you #metoo’ed and potentially put your family and livelihood in jeopardy. Again, at the risk of over-simplifying, this can all be traced back to women giving up their leverage in the sexual marketplace. The ingrained biological behaviors from the Savannah cannot be forgotten or dismissed so easily. To put it bluntly, pussy used to be scarce and expensive, now it’s plentiful and cheap. The supply and demand have been drastically altered from the way things were for essentially all of human history up until 50 years ago (less than the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things). Men behave like boors and expect easy sex because those are the new rules of the game. Men have always wanted easy sex, but the possibility/likelihood of pregnancy incentivized women to keep pussy scarce and expensive; after all, they had a much higher cost associated with sex. This was their leverage, and it was the most powerful leverage known to humanity. Women have always had the upper hand in sexual relationships because of this, in spite of what pop culture and half-baked feminist theories argue. Women certainly got a raw deal when it came to political freedom and, in some cases, arranged marriage. I do not trivialize the treatment women sometimes got as second-class citizens. These were strategies concocted by male-dominated institutions to try and wrestle some control back from the omnipotent vagina. But, it is always in vain because pussy is the ultimate trump card. Men want it. Women have it. And women ultimately decide who gets it, in spite of social constructs designed to contravene that power.
#Metoo, in my opinion, is a reaction by women who find they don’t especially like the results of the revolution. They feel cheated that they no longer have that leverage, even though their Savannah brain is telling them they should. They feel used and cheap and, in many cases, through no fault of their own, they are. To try and win back some of the control they lost through biology, they now are, consciously or unconsciously, using the apparatus of the State and public shaming to try and reel in male sexual fervor. I’ve always thought it self-evident that male and female sexuality are different, but complementary. Men are the engine and women are the transmission. Men are filled with drive and energy and power; a walking hard-on looking for a hole. Women channel that energy from unfocused sexual excess into a sublimation of productivity, art, engineering, etc. Thus things have been since G-d said, “Let there be light”. Now, the transmission has lost its ability to direct the power of the engine; running out of control, the engine tears apart millennia of tradition, family structure and personal motivation. Both sexes perhaps should be more careful what they wish for.
The ultimate purpose of this tome is not to answer any questions, provide predictions or suggest how things can be “fixed”. There *is* nothing to fix. Things are what they are now. The toothpaste is not going back in the tube. Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps some new, even more badass STD will (likely temporarily) push people back to their old ways of sexual restraint. Perhaps the swingers and polyamorists are right that monogamy no longer has a purpose and will be phased out, paving the way for group marriages or some other such arrangement. Due to the hard wiring in our brains, I doubt this is something that would happen on a large scale anytime soon, however. More likely, we’re going to continue escalating the sex war to some kind of breaking point. What comes after that is anyone’s guess. We are indeed cursed to live in interesting times.
These ladies are contributing to the supply glut of punanny and we love them for it!
Been saving this one for you guys.
http://archive.is/EaN38
I’m converting to Islam so my three wives can be 16, 25 and 25 from morning lynx.
Link doesn’t work
Nevermind
Workin’ for me.
Original:
http://thechive.com/2018/02/13/navigating-the-peaks-of-mount-saint-cleavage/
Wowza. Fantastic collection, but if I had to choose juuuuuust one, it’s #39. Something about her just drives me insane (in a good way).
9 is a fantastic picture…..but isn’t it a bit out of place if the category is tits, since you can’t, y’know, see hers in that pose?
100?!?
Alas, there can be only one.
And 90 is the one!
Alas, there can be only one.
Nonsense.
Whoa, I’m catching around here. I won’t get to this article for a while. In the meantime, as I catch up:
If I were religious, Saint Cleavage would be my patron saint.
#27 and #74 excluded from the orgy for stupid piercings. #89 is Kendra Sunderland.
“Catching up around here”
Add 100 to that, just for the insanity.
TL;DR – Q sucks. Told you it was an impenetrable tome.
It is quite long!
And the article is lengthy, too
What you did there… I see it?
I certainly hope you did. How could you miss it?
It is a bit on the long side. Also all this sex talk sounds a bit gay
I start reading… then passed the threshold of “I have to go do something else.”
Strong points. I haven’t finished the summation at the end, but have you ever seen this video before, Q?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY
I hadn’t seen that, but it pretty much recaps in a better way what I was (poorly) trying to get across in this article.
I can barely even fap to this.
You can do anything you put your mind to!
Hmmm… Have you ever watched an episode of Girls?
Lengthy read (on mobile, at least), but I liked it. Pretty well thought out. Moral nagging aside, I don’t think it’s any surprise the Sexual Revolution bore such fruit; if the founding activists had put as much thought into it as Q did above (even discounting the unknown unknown of the AIDS epidemic), maybe they wouldn’t have charged on full-speed-ahead.
My goal was to avoid moralizing as much as possible. It’s a lesson in unintended consequences without a value judgement. The invention of the car forever changed society, the invention of the Pill is still in the process of forever changing society but, IMO, in much more profound ways.
Yeah, you did a great job leaving that outta the article and just giving a matter-of-fact look at something that seems to make a lot of people come unglued. All I meant was that I didn’t want to come off as a scold saying, “Told you so, you heathen libertine degenerate hippie animals!” Because that shit does nothing to help the real conversation.
I think another interesting facet to look at is the social implications of all of this. What works for some in this post-pill society may not work when generalized to society as a whole. (see birthrate issues in the West, creeping infantilization of adults, etc.)
Like I said below to Derpe with his comment about divorce, that’s a whole other ball o’ wax. This piece was long enough already 😉 .
I thought r k selection thing was racist
Overall i sort of doubt homo sapiens would wonder round the savanah having casual sex.
Although there was probably not full mo ogamy. There is also a theory that the more monogamous a creature the less sexual dimorphism due to less sexual selection.
Women channel that energy from unfocused sexual excess into a sublimation of productivity, art, engineering, etc.
So you are saying if pussy was easier to get civilization would stagnate?
Men are driven to pursue success because women want that. If men could keep getting laid without having to put in so much effort, society would implode.
Detroit, for example.
That is exactly what I’m saying. The male achievement gap can’t solely be put on feminist misandry. Many men don’t leave their parent’s basement or get a real job because they don’t have to to get laid. Getting laid is literally the root driver for all male achievement. Women need a reason, men just need a place. When (some/many) women stopped needing a reason because of alteration in the marketplace, men were no longer incentivized to give them a reason.
Excellent read, well thought-out, and some great talking points – thank you for taking the time!
Slightly off-topic regarding AIDS, I have recently noted an increase in advertising for HIV-1 and related treatments as well as significant public health/private organization PSA’s, donation requests, calls for advocacy, etc.
Was that not in response to the fact that cases of new infections had started climbing again as people became aware the risky behavior that produced AIDS, now with all the new treatments, was again not akin to playing Russian roulette?
That was my assumption, but I haven’t looked-up statistics. +1 Affordable Care Act to pay the treatment bills…
Oh, not denying that would also impact this resurgence of advertisement to combat the vector change, but in general, no matter how much free shit was available to people serving an assured death sentence, if risky behavior was deadly, most would shirk from it. In fact, I remember reading a n article by one of the doctors responsible for one of the more successful recent trials pointing out how disappointed he was their discoveries to help the unfortunate actually then resulted in others feeling free to ignore the risk.
HIV mutation was a significant concern a “long” time ago when I paid attention to the research, and there are new concerns regarding drug-resistance. As you note, more people are ignoring the risk which could result in a new virus with no treatment options.
That’s kind of like saying because I invented advanced bone and ligament repair I’m disappointed in all this pro athlete activity
Q, I just spent my almost my whole lunch break reading this. It’s like your boob triage skills were put through a wood chipper and the results danced on a keyboard.
I’ll be sharing this widely.
Ug is programmed to ensure Oog is carrying his kid. If another guy is caught trying to sneak in, he gets a spear in the guts and maybe Oog gets thrown out of the cave. Once kids arrive, they both grow up and worry about surviving and raising their kids until they are self-sufficient.
Today… people get hooked on chasing the initial high of sex in a new relationship. When it wears off, there’s no consequences for chasing it with the next man or woman to come along. Men have figured out that a single woman in the late 20’s who has had that high many times will get bored with him in a year or two. So they won’t marry her even though her biological clock is starting to tick loud enough to hear.
I think Roy Moore had this figured out 40 years ago. When he hit 30 and decided it was time to get hitched, he wasn’t about to marry some single hippie chick who slept with half the guys at Woodstock. So he went looking for a lady in her late teens, found and married one, and seems to have a happy marriage.
Human males have unusually large penises for primates, both as a percentage of body size and in absolute terms.
Well, I don’t mean to brag, but my bonobo cousins are pretty envious.
Very good article, Q! Well thought out.
Seriously i do think meetoo as a result of sex revolution is a bit oversimplified. Cannot dusmiss the fact that many women had limited control over life and choices for a good bit of history.
Another factor is that while biology amd evolution are important humans do have reason and some capacity to rezist some biological urges. It is what civilisation is about.
Furthermore there are plenty of men and women who are very selectiv in their choice of poontang.
I think meetoo is basically a feminist political ploy because many others started to fail. And as in most such cases it has little to do with helpimg women and many women are not buying it. I wrote this comment on my phone while waiting for trafic lights so it is probably full of typos and i know that
I’m not arguing that it’s the only reason, but watching Jus Say’n’s video up top, I think #metoo is the first inkling of female price fixing to try and reset the market back to what it was pre-Pill.
And it’s working. Just measure the intangible atmosphere surrounding dating among teens and early 20 year olds; it’s much more cautious, people rethinking that maybe they should get to know someone better before hopping in the sack, same as it was 100 years ago but instead of worry about pregnancy, men are worried about getting #metoo’ed.
That’s the optimistic spin. My teenage son and his friends are suspicious of women. In ways that didn’t occur to me until I was at least a decade older.
Women are going to have to dump the feminists if the want regain their pre-pill trust and value.
#MeToo seems like feminists jumping aboard with a trendy new hashtag, because progressive movements are nothing if not savvy marketers. But the impetus behind it seems real enough. What’s interesting to me is how these epiphanies suddenly coalesce after decades of evident nonchalance: did nobody care what Weinstein was doing, including nominal feminists? Or was it seen as a necessary evil to working in the industry, up until someone blew the cover and suddenly the trendy thing to do–the necessary thing, really, if you want to keep your job–is to virtue signal your support? I’m willing to bet a good deal of women working in Hollywood, including many supposed feminists, wish Ronan Farrow had kept her yap shut, because retweets don’t pay the bills. Men like Harvey Weinstein do.
did nobody care what Weinstein was doing, including nominal feminists? I belive that to be the case. People truly care about few things that are close to them. Beyond that it is a lot of posturing. I mean they do care somewhat but not in a significant way. They care as long as the cost is not to high. I mean want a good life for most people on the planet but i do not volunteer to take care of unvalids. and i donate to charity but not a truly significant portion of my income.
Thanks to all for actually slogging through this.
I read it Q. Good stuff. You applied Austrian economic theory to sex and it fits pretty well.
It’s terrific! I don’t think we’ve evolved as much as we think we have – the prime motivators still seem to be the same. And monogamy, while dull sometimes, still works for a lot of people.
Thanks for destroying my late morning productivity!
It was very well done and presented a well thought out argument.
I have been married and explicitly monomagous for almost 7 years now. It has its ups and downs, but I much prefer it to the single/dating/chasing life I lived before. It’s simpler to get to know and deal with the same woman than constantly trying to have to figure out a new one.
I was married for 23 years before that went south, and I can tell you that every time I thought I understood that “same woman”, she ended throwing a curve.
Everyone has different experiences. For you, being married was too much work. For Lach, being single was too much work.
… so what you’re saying is that women aren’t simply interchangeable?
I’m saying that all women are crazy in their own special way, and it’s easier to figure out one type of crazy than more than one.
Happy families are all alike; unhappy families are unhappy in their own way.
If I wasn’t at work, I would be finding the barker scene from From Dusk ’til Dawn for you right now.
I was thinking more of the video for “She’s a Beauty” by The Tubes.
Going on 24 years myself, and I agree, although after this long together, I wouldn’t even know where to start if I had to date again.
I met my wife when I was 19 and she was 21 so we kind of grew up into being adults together.
Excellent article Q, I also think part of the change is due to getting child support regardless of marriage status and being able to get an abortion without consent from the father. Both of these lead to less incentive for the woman to be selective.
Married at 19.
My 42nd anniversary is next month.
The pill is part of the change. Welfare is the other. Young mothers now marry the state instead of a man.
“Young mothers now marry the state instead of a man.”
True dat.
The welfare part is huge.
There is no shame in it anymore.
The third leg in the stool is Family Law that punishes men for having families.
So 1) pregnancy is easy to avoid; 2) young woman that still manage to get pregnant marry the state and live modest lives forever; 3) men that start families are brutalized by the courts when a marriage fails.
I would never council my grandsons to get married in this enviroment.
You have a central flaw in your assumptions here…
and here…
Both assume that the “couple” live relatively isolated lives and rely only on each other. This does not match the way ANY primate societies work. All primates operate on a tribal basis not just isolated pair bonds. The real organization of stone age and earlier humans was much more along the lines of open marriages. Pair bonds formed but wether it was culturally accepted or not both parties fucked quite a few people outside of the pair bond. For both the survival strategy was in the survival of the tribe not specifically their own children so it didn’t really matter to Ogg whether Ug’s 3rd child was his or not that child’s survival increased the survival chances of the tribe and ensured his own children, both with Ug and a couple of other women in the tribe would thrive. It was also beneficial to both to step out with humans from neighboring tribes. Ogg could spread his genes to another tribe so if anything happened to his tribe they might still live on and Ug could increase the genetic diversity of her offspring decreasing the risk that some genetic flaw in the men of her tribe would lead to the death of all of her descendants.
Combine this with the “peacemaking” effect that sex has on humans and “open” pair bonds, where we form a primary pair bond to make life easier and for child rearing but step out and periodically get some strange has ALWAYS been humans sexual strategy and most cultures even had some level of acknowledgement of this. What this means is that women have NEVER relied on pussy being scarce as individuals to keep control of men, rather the women collectively decided what cultural behaviors would be rewarded with pussy and men who failed to act in the approved manner found themselves shut out of it, for those who played the game by the womens rules however, pussy was relatively plentiful and not exclusively with just 1 woman.
“Combine this with the “peacemaking” effect that sex has on humans”
Maybe on the two having the sex, but not the one being adultered. There has been an awful lot of violence in human history over sex.
^^^This. Sexual jealousy is about as far down toward the brain stem as you can get. It’s present in every species that reproduces by internal fertilization (all the way down to reptiles). The fact that (outside of edge cases) overcoming it among humans today takes concerted, neo-cortical effort I think invalidates that archaic humans had a blase attitude toward infidelity (especially female infidelity). In a world in which resources are extremely scarce, and genetic legacy is everything, there is a *huge* incentive to make sure your offspring are your own.
I have yet to see any peacemaking effect of sex on humans outside of typical monogamous relationships. Infidelity and alternative arrangements (in my experience) almost always lead to upheaval and, sometimes, violence. I see that view of pre-modern sex as utopian and invalid. It works in bonobos, but humans are not bonobos. Keep in mind that I’m talking averages here and not passing judgement on anyone.
“Sexual jealousy” by other names also hits many levels of Maslow’s pyramid.
Eskimo and Viking culture are both based on it and Viking culture considered raising another mans child to be you getting one over on him because the kid would be loyal to you not him.
Also the mechnisms of the way human sperm work indicate that they were designed to combat other mens sperm. Why would our sperm evolve the means to attack and defeat other mens sperm unless our prehistoric ancestors were fucking women with other mens sperm inside them on a frequent basis?
“Also the mechnisms of the way human sperm work indicate that they were designed to combat other mens sperm.”
This is true. It’s also been shown that the shape of the human penis is designed to physically displace competitors’ semen. As I said, I don’t deny that humans did step out, but it was in their best interest to keep it quiet. There was no pre-modern sexual free-for-all. Also, behavior is much quicker to modify than biology and I think it’s telling that monogamy became more enshrined in law, religion and societal pressure as humans moved further and further away from the Savannah (up until the Pill of course, as I argue above). What people’s actual behavior was, on an individual basis or in aggregate, anyone’s guess, but you can see what was valued based on the cultural institutions that were created.
As you said, there is the aspect of private property and inheritance involved, but protecting one’s genetic legacy (the “selfish gene”) is a much more primitive and fundamental motivation.
With the Norse at least, my understanding is that they were like a lot of other “primitive” cultures, where a man might marry as many women as he could take care of financially, but women weren’t permitted to have multiple husbands. So you’d wind up with wealthy, powerful Norse men with multiple wives (having been able to pay their dowries, convince them to get along, and support them and the ensuing children) and as you went further down the social ladder you had fewer and fewer available women and more and more poor, single young men. In part, the Viking raids were crewed by these poor bachelors looking for wealth but also for slaves, frequently female slaves, for obvious reasons. Supposedly genetic testing of people from Iceland done fairly recently shows that there are a lot of Icelanders who have Scottish or Irish heritage as well as Norse as a result of this.
Which is interesting, given the Icelandic adoption of matrilineal descent in their names.
Wow, that took me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole. Today I learned that there’s an official committee in Iceland that decides what names are allowed to be used in Iceland. So yeah, if you want to name your kid something, you’ve got to make sure it’s on the approved list. And they typically don’t have family names, you just pick which parent you want to rep and now you’re Olaf Momsson or Blaer Dadsdottir.
That’s got to get confusing as hell after awhile.
And if there are more than two people present?
Ogg inviting Grok over for a threesome with Ug is going to make Grok pretty friendly towards both.
I can’t prove it because, you know cavemen didn’t bother to write anything down, but I suspect that jealousy over adultry did not arise until humans discovered agriculture and moved away from tribal structures into more “civilized” structures and also started possessing real wealth to pass down.
It is one thing to spend resources on a kid who is not yours when you need that kid to help the entire tribe to survive but when you have wealth to pass down you want to make sure that wealth is benefiting your kids and not someone elses
“Ogg inviting Grok over for a threesome with Ug is going to make Grok pretty friendly towards both.”
And if Ogg decides that Grok is better looking, has more resources and lives in a better cave so she takes off? Ug is gonna be pretty pissed.
I’m sorry I still think this is utopian and glosses over humans’ brutal nature.
Indeed, and I am sure cavemen fought and died over such occurrences. I am also sure that given the way hunter gatherer tribal societies function some level of this, whether open and acknowledged or concealed occurred.
I’m certain it occurred, but like I said below, secretly. False paternity is still pretty frequent to this day, it just behooves all parties involved to keep things as uncertain as possible.
Humans’ various natures and urges are in constant war with one another. It’s one of the most fascinating things about us.
I think that whether your ‘wealth’ is sitting in a bank account, or resides in the carcass of bison you just hauled back across the savannah, there’s a huge incentive to want to share that first with a child who you KNOW shares a portion of its DNA with you. Now, to the extent that maybe, some of the leftovers *can* go to other beneficiaries that don’t have any of your DNA, then maybe that’s “charity”, but maintaining children that continue your DNA, along with maintaining the woman who has at least in the past been the mechanism for creating that child, is something that is worth fighting and potentially dying for.
Plus, if you can foist your DNA on more women and increase your DNA’s social extent, that’s a good deal, especially if some other guy is going to provide bison for your cuckoo. As long as you don’t get caught and the other women don’t tell.
“As long as you don’t get caught and the other women don’t tell.”
This is key.
Except none of this is how tribal hunter gatherer societies work.
They do have a concept of private property most of the time but overwhelmingly a kill like that is shared with the whole tribe because no one hunter would have been able to bring it down alone and no matter how skilled no hunter could survive without the tribe. Also remember every single one of the children in that tribe is at worst a second cousin of yours.
Tribal sharing like this was not charity, it was a necessity
I don’t know for certain, but I thought Q was speaking more to the beginning of modern civilization among humans- so after the introduction of farming. I don’t know if he was trying to be anthropologically correct more than just being allegorical
“but step out and periodically get some strange has ALWAYS been humans sexual strategy and most cultures even had some level of acknowledgement of this.”
This brings up the question of “adultery”. It’s not really defined well, and from a religious standpoint you have meaning getting lost in translation along with institutional committees having their own goals. But essentially the commandment is “don’t go whoring because you’ll probably get diseased, but you and your wife can have sidepieces if it makes you happier.”
Humans did step out occasionally; secretly if they were smart. Getting caught banging someone else’s mate was a good way to get yourself killed.
An important biological point: Most animals don’t care if they are observed mating. The ones that do are gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and people.
For gorillas, the alpha male chases away other males. If females in his group want to mate, they must sneak off out of his sight.
Many other mammals have dominance rituals (think goats ramming each other) to establish mating rights. That eliminates the need to mate in secret.
Most primates fall into this category as well.
There was a great documentary about monkeys that showed a couple of macaques who were obviously infatuated. He was a junior male and not allowed to get with a girl, obviously, and she was beholden to the alpha male. Straying meant certain death for her and her children. But they kept stealing glances with each other.
They showed them kind of wander off to a semi-secluded area and stand nonchalantly beside one another, looking left, then right, then left….. and suddenly they’d jump into position and hump like crazy for several seconds…. then jump back to their casual pose, look left…. look right….. look left….. OK! Go for it! and hump away for a few more seconds at an amazing pace…. Ok, act casual… look left…. look right…
It was absolutely hilarious. And really, really easy to see what was going through their heads. It was a very familiar circumstance for any human. Even if you haven’t tried to have an affair in the same building with your spouse without getting caught.
Sound mating strategy (don’t put all of your eggs in one basket, so to speak) is in conflict with the best strategy for providing for children that take a long time to rear. The result is inevitable.
No, not occasionally. The evidence says it was all the fucking time.
Also at no point did I say this stepping out was always or even mostly peaceful. I said it was peaceful in enough situations to be measurable
Eh, if cheating was/is so common, it’s puzzling that adultery is a universal taboo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Overview
The reason running red lights is illegal is because it’s dangerous and it goes against what most people do.
People generally don’t outlaw common acts.
***
In some Native American cultures, severe penalties could be imposed on an adulterous wife by her husband. In many instances she was made to endure a bodily mutilation which would, in the mind of the aggrieved husband, prevent her from ever being a temptation to other men again.[98][99] Among the Aztecs, wives caught in adultery were occasionally impaled, although the more usual punishment was to be stoned to death.[100]
The Code of Hammurabi, a well-preserved Babylonian law code of ancient Mesopotamia, dating back to about 1772 BC, provided drowning as punishment for adultery.[101]
Amputation of the nose – rhinotomy – was a punishment for adultery among many civilizations, including ancient India, ancient Egypt, among Greeks and Romans, and in Byzantium and among the Arabs.[102]
***
In the same article, a study by a condom company reports that about 20% of adults have committed adultery.
You somehow are attributing a legal restriction to a cultural taboo.
The State, from the earliest days has had an interest in ensuring inheritance rights. However among pre agricultural tribal peoples, even some still existent on earth, to the extent that jealousy over adultery exists it is considered a problem to be eradicated and not something to celebrate. Hell, there is a Polynesian culture that does not even seem to realize how reproduction works. Like they literally do not understand that babies come from sex.
The ultimate problem here is you are basically saying that
I guess I’m confused what point you’re trying to make here. Above, you seem to be arguing that humans were constantly cheating with tacit, if not active, acknowledgement and approval. I don’t argue that people never cheated or that evidence from our biology supports that it happened, but, given the high (and disparate between male and female) costs associated with sex it behooved all parties to either avoid it, or keep it as hush hush as possible. This became especially true post agriculture. As Derpe points out, adultery is, at minimum, frowned upon and, in many cases, criminalized through the vast majority of cultures for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of history. It’s a rare male indeed that would openly risk raising another man’s offspring with limited resources. All evidence I’ve seen shows is that humans are/were largely monogamous, with a dash of polygyny thrown in. Polyandry is exceedingly rare to the point of being almost unknown. Of course this has all been thrown on its head the past 60-odd years because of the (aforementioned in the article) massive market disruption decoupling sex from reproduction.
My 0.02.
and I am saying that the organization of early humans negated most of the difference in this cost.
You live in a tribal group with around 30 adults and about 20 or so children. Of those 30 adults 18 are female and a dozen male. Of the 18 females 15 of them are of a fertile age.
here is the thing, if ANY of those people dies it represents a significant loss in available manpower to the tribe and harms your childrens ability to survive. If you hook up with Ug and she already has a kid it is little different than if you didn’t hook up with her, the entire tribe pretty much shares everything
I used to work with a researcher at Emory University who worked in this field.
According to her work, this is a biologically driven mating strategy that is common to humans and several primates. Across all human societies she found that women seek out a provider – the “nice guy” who will provide a good home for her children. Then – again, across all human societies – she will find “alpha male” types to have flings with.
When she tested the offspring in strictly monogamous societies that have limited access to birth control, she found that a fairly large percentage were from adulterous relationships. In societies that were much more open about affairs and such…. the percentages were about the same. I want to say it was around 20%, but it has been a long time. This was research conducted in the 80’s and 90’s.
She explained this drive as the source of the well-known “seven year itch”. Those feelings that “he just isn’t romantic any more”, etc. are not really driven by external forces like how the husband behaves. They are driven by a biological imperative to increase the diversity of her offspring.
I guess I take a middle ground view. I think Rasillio’s got a point in that many tribal society’s had non-monogamous sexual norms. It only stands to reason that the brutality of the ancient world probably ensured there was a much greater female to male ratio than there is today (i.e men died fighting, hunting, etc and had a MUCH shorter life expectancy than women.) Polygamy would have been almost necessary for a tribe to flourish as there were not enough mature men at a given time to form pair bonds with the number of available women of reproductive age. Women would have been more likely to accept that arrangement as entering into a polygamous relationship was still preferable in terms of survival and shielded her from the inevitable exploitation that would ensure from not having a male protector. However, I would disagree with Rasilio that “open” arrangements were commonplace (not contesting that they did not exist, just that on the whole they were much more rare) because, as Q said, sexual jealousy is hard wired into our brains and I would dare say especially men’s brains. I think the whole concept of sexual peacemaking in bonobo’s doesn’t apply to humans as Q pointed out. Many times tribal society’s sealed peace accords with marriages (because familial ties were the best way to ensure peaceful relations) but not with orgies that I’m aware of.
today I learned
***
Sex, it turned out, is the key to the social life of the bonobo. The first suggestion that the sexual behavior of bonobos is different had come from observations at European zoos. Wrapping their findings in Latin, primatologists Eduard Tratz and Heinz Heck reported in 1954 that the chimpanzees at Hellabrunn mated more canum (like dogs) and bonobos more hominum (like people). In those days, face-to-face copulation was considered uniquely human, a cultural innovation that needed to be taught to preliterate people (hence the term missionary position). These early studies, written in German, were ignored by the international scientific establishment. The bonobos humanlike sexuality needed to be rediscovered in the 1970s before it became accepted as characteristic of the species.
***
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bonobo-sex-and-society-2006-06/
Bonobos are straight-up pervs. They have all sorts of sex, all the time, with anyone. The have oral sex, homosexual sex, pedo-sex, quickies, longies…. they use sex as a social lubricant. It is kind of like saying hello. If a fight breaks out, once it is resolved the entire troop begins humping like maniacs.
Bonobos get a lot of nookie.
I agree. Serving in a small military combat unit is probably as close to a tribe of hunters as most will experience in this day. We all ended up knowing each other’s girlfriends / wives and if a situation arose, would look out for them. Making a pass at one of them would have been an unthinkable breach of trust and would have shattered the cohesion of the team.
Now use single guys might compete for the same woman at a club, but once it went somewhere, it was hands off.
Nothing in my experience has ever led me to believe that primitives had open marriages. Polygamy maybe – their were probably a lot fewer men around when they hunted mastodons with spears.
Knowingly raising another man’s kid seems unlikely.
The Romans were big on adoption.
***
In ancient Rome, adoption of boys was a fairly common procedure, particularly in the upper senatorial class. The need for a male heir and the expense of raising children and the Roman inheritance rules (Lex Falcidia) strictly demanding legitimes were strong incentives to have at least one son, but not too many children. Adoption, the obvious solution, also served to cement ties between families, thus fostering and reinforcing alliances. Adoption of girls, however, was much less common.
***
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_ancient_Rome
They had good reason to be big on adoption.
The Roman patrician class was pretty much a closed genetic pool, and certainly by the time of the Caesars, there were times – during Augustus’ reign for example – where pigouvian taxes were introduced to punish the so-called ‘traitors to their own posterity’.
Oh, and taking an adoptee is a very different proposition from raising some other man’s spawn, born of one’s legal wife.
There’s very little evidence to suggest that the Roman patrician class were relaxed about being made to wear the horns.
But back then they literally had no way of knowing. Not only whether their “spouses” kids were their biological offspring but whether any of the other children of the tribe were theirs as they certainly had sex with more than a couple of the women in the tribe.
This makes him more likely to look out for all of the kids of the tribe
Not quite:
In some cultures, bedsheets are inspected after a couple’s wedding night to check for bloodstains that supposedly prove the bride’s virginity.
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/relationships/article/2018/01/10/historic-tradition-wedding-night-virginity-testing
Not very scientific, but the point is they were trying to make sure the bride did not sleep with another man before being married.
and from the Good Book: Deuteronomy 22:16-17
***
The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
***
Yes but all of that is far post the development of agriculture we are talking about hunter gatherer tribesmen here
Interesting. I didn’t see anything about divorce. Changing attitudes toward that are at least as important as the pill.
Also, infanticide was much more common in ancient times. I read a story about a Roman brothel that was discovered in Israel. They found a huge heap of skeletons from male babies. When the whores got pregnant, the girls were kept to become whore when they grew up. The boys were killed and dumped in a heap.
https://archive.archaeology.org/9703/newsbriefs/ashkelon.html
I blame the social welfare state in large part for high divorce rates. There is no economic incentive for parents to stay together and work out their problems when the state will take care of you if you dont.
I was thinking more along the lines that high divorce rates, alimony, and child support laws discourage men from marrying. Which is odd because it seems women are more keen on marriage than men are.
The feminists want it both ways- they want to have the same independence as men along with the security of marriage and other traditions. That is like a square circle.
It would be easier to take them seriously if feminists were trying to prove themselves on oil rigs, fishing boats, and in coal mines. But for some reason, their dream job is to get paid to whine about how terrible men are and boss them around.
I could see these all being indirect consequences of the pill.
Yep. I’m actually a lot more selective in the dating scene because I know if I knock up or marry the wrong one, it could be fiscal disaster for me without the benefit of having someone that actually loves and/or is dedicated to me. I watched my dad go through it when I was a kid and I don’t want to go through the same thing. I’ve broken up with a handful of girlfriends because they showed signs that once I was locked down, it would be more like a dictatorship then a partnership. I might be able to take more of a gamble if I didn’t know that the courts will take her side 100% of the time if it ever came to that. No thanks.
That may be part of it. But this chart is interesting. More per-maritial partners = more divorce. Once a lady is used to the excitement of new romantic partnerships, the stability of marriage is more likely to get boring.
I mention divorce briefly, but I didn’t want to make this even longer than it already was. Maybe I’ll take that one on in my next one.
I think what Q is trying to say here is that consequence free sex has consequences.
Which is a controversial statement today
Y’know, my thesis advisor told me way back when that I used 20 words when two would do. I think Lachowsky just proved his point.
could you edit down game of thrones next?
Not Game of Thrones, but it’s already been done for Atlas Shrugged and Starship Troopers among many others.
Heresy.
Yeah, Stoddard and his buddies are a bit lefty, but in general, the reviews are pretty funny.
I am one of the only people in this country who has never seen a single episode of game of thrones.
#metoo
Aside from me, you mean?
I have zero interest in the franchise, despite all the sex and nudity, which would normally garner a soupçon of interest from me.
eh, I’ve watched and I still don’t know who’s who.
So, OT, the Daughter texted me last week.
fricken fantastic!
she should be ok, most people don’t know enough to identify them as bump keys.
#metoo
Have I waited an acceptable amount of time to go off-topic?
Joe Scarborough, as I’m sure you saw, went full retard in support of gun control. This led to Jay Cost treating Joe to a game of Remember When?
“Joe Scarborough […] went full retard”
That’s really all you need to say, it fits any occasion.
This is true.
lol
Nice and brutal.
Favorite part: one of the pictures Cost posts has this entry under career:
Career: Dir., Miss American Co-ed Beauty Schl. 1985-(date obscured)
From the replies:
Boris_Badenoff @Boris_Badenoff
Replying to @morningjoehater @JayCostTWS @JoeNBC
Don’t fret – Joe has enough hypocrisy to go around for everybody, no pushing or shoving needed
7:01 AM – 16 Feb 2018
5 Likes
Eric Doreste
??Alexa??
Solo Sports Brother Big T
Joe Scarborough Hypocrisy Alerts
Miss M
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
New conversation
Gristle McThornbody
@DadLibertarian
5h5 hours ago
Replying to @Boris_Badenoff @morningjoehater and
True, it’s like finding a pet bunny on that Japanese island that’s basically covered in wall-to-wall bunnies.
Music for the article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBgnxDNdNmQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irwrVcDTH54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8kJbW6hsfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO6BtpIzIiM
Or this
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html
Special counsel Mueller: Russians conducted ‘information warfare’ against US during election to help Donald Trump win
The big charge seems to be conspiracy to defraud the USA. So I looked it up.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
Wow that is one Orwellian and broad law that could mean just about anything but still I think it doesn’t cover what the Russians were doing. So lets say the Russians wanted Trump to win, so what? As far as I know ever Russian foriegn agents have the right to free speech in the US. Also if this is really the standard I would love it if Obama was charged with conspiracy to defraud Israel and the UK because of his efforts to interfere with their elections.
I think its clear this is all a political ploy and they have nothing serious.
I watched the press conference on Power Lunch – Rosenstein indicated this started in 2014 (well before Trump candidacy) and that NO AMERICAN was a knowing participant. That POS John Harwood is now on saying for the third time “but we KNOW members of the Trump team met with RUSSIANS” and “KNEW they were meeting with RUSSIANS” to obtain information on Hillary Clinton.
When do members of the Obama administration get indicted for interfering in Israeli elections?
I read the details, and I keep thinking that besides violating user agreements when they made social media accounts, this all sounds like it would be covered under free speech. If a foreign leader went on TV and said they liked or disliked a candidate in the US, it that interfering in our elections? I don’t see it.
I also keep seeing the phrase “hacked the election”. That to me means they broke into computers and manipulated vote counts. Which did not happen.
This whole thing is turning out to be a bunch of “meh”. And I seriously doubt Russia is going to extradite any of those people to the US.
—And I seriously doubt Russia is going to extradite any of those people to the US.—
That sounds like a feature instead of a bug. That allows the Dems to screech ‘ROOOSHIA’ through the midterm election season, but without Mueller actually having to prove anything in court. This sounds like a political document, instead of a legal one.
I think what the case is these people conspired to violate the user agreements to impact a federal election. It arguably falls under the law cited, but it is pretty weak tea. He would have to have documentation the intention was to impact the election.
If this is all Mueller has, then this is nothing.
For the record, I think this kills the whole reason for Mueller’s investigation.
amusing
Russian bots promote pro-gun messages after Florida school shooting
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html
Trying to promote freedom?
Is there no low the RUSSIANS! won’t stoop to?
On a related note, I watched about 5 minutes of CNN last night.
The announcer lady was saying sadly that “something has changed, I’m not sure what, but it feels different this time.” and the on-site reporter was saying how proud he was that the students chanted “no more guns”.
It made my brain hurt.
“It made my brain hurt.”
Keep exposing yourself to derp, and that sensation will slowly fade.
Some ancient warriors would rub sticks on their forearms and shins to increase pain tolerance.
Well done, Q.
Ug…you ARE the father
CNN posted this slam poem about Black Panther:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=Wwu4cNnqRxg
yikes
*Epic Belch* Crushes another can ‘o beer and snaps the pop-top in dismay.
Nice article, well done Q!
Thanks!
“Sexual jealousy functions to defend paternity confidence and is therefore expected to be a ubiquitous aspect of male psychology. Several lines of evidence confirm this expectation. Cross-cultural and historical reviews of adultery law reveal remarkable conceptual consistency: unauthorized sexual contact with a married woman is a crime and the victim is the husband. We find male sexual jealousy to be the leading substantive issue in social conflict homicides in Detroit. A cross-cultural review of homicide indicates the ubiquity of this motive. Social psychological studies of “normal” jealousy and psychiatric studies of “morbid” jealousy both suggest that male and female jealousy are qualitatively different in ways consistent with theoretical predictions. Coercive constraint of female sexuality by the use or threat of male violence appears to be cross-culturally universal. Several authors have suggested that there are societies in which women’s sexual liberty is restricted only by incest prohibitions, but the ethnographies explicitly contradict this claim.”
– “Male sexual jealousy”, Daly M. et. al., Ethology and Sociobiology, 3-1 (1982).
This work argues, based on evidence, that, perhaps counterintuitively, on average people who self-report higher jealousy scores have more stable and successful relationships than those with comparatively less jealousy.
– “Jealousy and Envy”, Dalgleish T. et. al., Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, Chapter 27 (2005)
What kind of jealousy are they scoring?
I would say I have a high degree of sexual jealousy, but none in regards to her going out and spending a Saturday night at her friends or worrying about where she goes while I’m working.
I’ve known people who were the opposite and it usually didn’t end well.
I don’t necessarily think that trust and jealousy are antipodes. I haven’t read the methodology, but my guess is based on discussions on the tolerance of infidelity to a relationship.
Good read, nice job Q. ?
Thanks!
We are much more than our constituent parts. Buddy Q is a fine example and yet another reason that I frequent this site. And titties.
Nice article. There are parts of it that struck me as Just-so stories, but I don’t have any alternative arguments or explanations.
Here’s another wrinkle about the Pill: there is evidence that the Pill changes what women find attractive.
“Birth Control May Alter Physical Attraction: Single Women On The Pill More Likely To Date Unattractive Men”
Another male conspiracy!
Thanks for the link.