A ridiculous study out of Emory University today suggests that men with large testicles are worse at being fathers and men with smaller testicles by comparison, were more involved with child rearing and parenting in general. The obvious evolutionary corollary, for you readers who aren't bright enough to understand the implications of this study, is that men who are more physically capable of killing predators and bringing home food are seen as more attractive and therefor better suited to compete for the right to breed the females, but are unconcerned with the offspring after breeding.
That may have been true when we lived in caves, but is physical bruteness really that much of an attractant to women when looking for a mate today? More of an attractant than brains, earning potential, and being a general provider? How many women today when given the choice between a hunky career bartender with big biceps and a college educated geek with a good job, who would they pick for husband/father?
Given a side-by-side choice, I'd think all but the stupidest females would think long-term and pick the smart provider. Brains and earning potential ARE how modern men compete for the right to breed modern females. This observational truth would therefor lead to an obvious, but indelicate conclusion..... that men today with less evident intelligence, but greater physical competitiveness and breeding prowess, are less evolved than their less brawny but smart, employed counterparts.....no?
9 comments:
"Brains and earning potential ARE how modern men compete for the right to breed modern females."
Citations, please.
The evidence is empirical, Isaac. Women want men with money, not who can beat up other men. You really need published literature to validate that sociological truth?
"Women want men with money...."
All women? There are no women who value other qualities in a man higher than his earning capacity? Did your wife value that about you above all other considerations? I'm just asking.
I didn't say all women. You know I meant women in general. How many homeless, jobless dudes do you know who get married while homeless and jobless? I'll bet there's never been one.
And no, Dianne didn't marry me for money, she married me for my exceptional good looks and sexual skill.
But I'll guarantee you I wouldn't have gotten past the second date without a job, nor should I have. Contrary to what you've been learning from watching Lifetime movies, Isaac, there are more important considerations than love when it comes to picking a mate.
"I meant women in general."
I know. That is why I asked for citations. I think you are wrong...in general.
A prequalification that suitors have a job is not the same thing as your original postulate, that women, in general, only procreate with high earners.
That is patent nonsense. Different women value different things: looks, wit, charm, conversational ability, shared interests, gentleness, manliness, style, sex appeal, courage, etc.
And, yes, sometimes earning capacity. (The latter kind, however, often bringing pain, suffering and disappointment in their wake.)
Isaac, it is axiomatic that, all other things being equal, a woman will always choose the man with the most money.
An excellent demonstration of the strategy: "When challenged on what you said, pretend you said something else."
Bravo!
How did my last comment contradict or differ from what I stated before. At most it was an addendum, not a different statement altogether.
supreme clothing
bape
golden goose
off white x nike
kobe 11
supreme
ggdb
yeezy 500
bape outlet
bape clothing outlet
Post a Comment