On Boys and Girls

Does the hilarious recording below remind you more of this post or this one?

Dimitri the Stud

Is an insecure Dimitri merely trying to throw his target off balance so that she might fall into his arms, or is this a more insidious move to establish permanent dominance?  Is Demitri just a negger* (please!) or is he a sociopath?

Here’s the story:

[A] girl was out with friends having drinks on King St (in Toronto ).  This guy approaches her and won’t leave her alone -saying how cute she is. She finally gives in  and hands the guy her business card to get rid of him. 
The attached  is an MP3 file of not one, but TWO voicemails this guy left. This goes down  in the history books – especially the second voice mail. 
After hearing them you can clearly see why she didn’t call him back – instead she called in to the Z103.5 morning show & had them play this on the air.
Ladies: He is out there… :)

And, as long as we’re back on relationships, here’s the very funny “new iphone commercial.”  Brilliant!

* Negger: n. It’s a way to pick up girls. How it works is you use remarks to tap into female insecurity; Shake their confidence.

Neg is a negative remark wrapped in a back-handed compliment.
So your neg will confuse and intrigue them and maybe even shake their confidence a little bit, but only enough for them to fall from the clouds and be interested in talking to you. Its way to get threw their defenses at bars and such.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Psychology Today lists ten truths the PC set don’t like to discuss:

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

Here they are, the ten politically incorrect truths:

1. Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them).

2. Humans are naturally polygamous.

3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy.

4. Most suicide bombers are Muslim.

5. Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce.

6. Beautiful people have more daughters.

7. What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals (PT cites a shared sweet spot on the “age-crime curve” associated w/ risk-taking behavior).

8. The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of.

9. It’s natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they’re male).

10. Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist.

Tthe point of reading articles like these is to assume that what PT says is true. What’s interesting isn’t so much which “truths” PT chose, but rather the explanations.

Defending the first argument (gentlemen prefer blondes), PT says in about five different ways that men prefer some biological empiricism. It’s not about blonde or not blonde, but the argument centers around the idea that men want to be able to find some objective benchmark and then check future data against that benchmark to keep track of their mate (breast height, hair color).

Again, in the argument for which genders benefit from which relationship plurality (women from polygyny, men from monogamy), PT suggests that people have some instinct as to their competitiveness (the rule varies for “extremely desirable women”). Societal norms may follow tradition or some basic presumed benefit for the species, but PT is saying that inasmuch as things like divorce rates change the relationship ratio (1:1 or 1:2, over a lifetime), it’s because we figure out how we can best benefit from our competitiveness, desirability, attention span, etc.

The “truths” themselves weren’t that provocative or, arguably, logically sound.  But some of the explanations offer interesting observations (or at least theories) about human behavior.

Single Women Find “Taken” Men More Attractive

It’s True: We want what we can’t have:

Burkley and Parker speculate that single women may be more drawn to attached men because they’ve already been ‘pre-screened’ by other women and found to be satisfactory as a mate, whereas single men are more of an unknown quantity. Burkely said that similar mate-poaching strategies have been reported in birds and fish. But previous studies of people had only asked whether participants found other potential partners attractive, so she designed hers to specifically probe whether participants would pursue a relationship.

The reasons for this seem obvious, on three counts.  First, women are inherently competitive, so it makes sense that they’d be more attracted to a situation whose prize includes victory as well as coupledom.  Men hate couture; better men hate oodles of makeup.  Women don’t dress up for men, but for one another.  That women are statistically more attracted to “taken” men suggests that we find some distinct pleasure in . . . converting them to even-fairer sex.

Second, the “traditional” male/female relationship involves a noncommittal man and a white-picket-fence-eager female who desperately wants him to settle down.  The article suggests that women “pre-screen” men.  While some women prefer drama, most seek stable, supportive partnerships.  It only makes sense to find men with a history of  such partnerships, and avoid men with sketchy dating histories.  Jonesing after a “taken” man is as good a strategy as any.  The hitch, of course, is that a taken man who jumps ship for greener pastures is not the drama-free family man our hopeful partner thought she’d found.

Finally, “taken” men pose no threat.  Women pursuing a “taken” man know that their interactions will take place on her terms.  It sounds perverse, but women worth dating need our space.  We lose interest when clingy men apparently forget whatever they once had going on outside of the relationship.  Dating an attached man precludes that lingering pre-teen fear that we’ll be pressured into committing—or acting—before we’re ready.  For a gender accustomed to being jilted from our comfort zone, there’s something desireable about restoring our social order by pursuing someone not eminently (or immediately) available.

Of course, there is always the culture-leaping explanation Gabriel García Márquez offers in Love in the Time of Cholera: Florentino vows to wait for his first love (Fermina, meaning “constant”) for his entire life, until her husband dies, and bides his time seducing hundreds–six hundred!–women.  When a friend asks the very-0ld and very-taken Florentino: Why are you so successful with women?  Florentino replies: Because they see me as someone empty.  Someone in need of love.  Someone who cannot harm them.  Are women doomed to be so eternally damaged from their first love that they forever search for someone who cannot inflict similar harm?

I’ve never been one to poach attached men.  But then, my pre-screening works in mysterious ways: My child-bearing hips (“CBH’s”) seem to elicit quicker commitment than I’d like.  I’m typically trying to avoid fast-monogamy, so inasmuch as I pursue “taken” guys, I’m probably attracted most to how non-threatening they are.

Which leaves only one two big questions remaining: Are women more attracted to taken men aware of this tendency?   And: Are men similarly more attracted to taken women?

Thanks JB, via Instapundit.

“Mancession” far fetched?

I’m a big Christina Hoff Sommers fan, but this article reek of stretching a topic too far to find some tenuous articulation to “women’s issues.”  Even if the “burly” sectors are hardest hit, that translates seamlessly to the softer side.

What do you think?

“No Country for Burly Men“