Anecdotally, I suspect it is. Adjusting for age and weight, there seem to be more pretty girls than ever before. If you opened two high school yearbooks side by side, one from 2007 and one from 1987, and restricted your sample size to those girls who weren’t overweight, I bet you’d come away with the impression that the girls of 2007 look better. And it’s not makeup; it’s a real difference in facial bone structure.
Changes in the culture are happening to shift the beauty spectrum rightward.
-
Birth control, especially condoms since that is the form of contraceptive that can be controlled by men, is putting selection pressure on what kinds of women are winning the genetic sweepstakes. With birth control, men are no longer having kids with the first women who will sleep with them. They are trading up to find that great-looking woman for whom they can finally ditch the condom and seriously entertain the notion of having children. It doesn’t take much of a change in mating patterns — even a slight shift in the numbers of children born to hot chicks versus plain or ugly chicks will make a noticeable impact after a few generations.
-
While dumber women are having more kids than educated smarter women, alpha males — the ones making the beaucoup bucks, slapping backs at parties, and sporting Mitt Romney lantern jaws — are having more kids than the beta males. How does this happen? Answer: Serial monogamy and mistresses. Beauty and IQ correlate to a degree as smart guys tend to marry hot women, so you’ll find proportionately more smart hotties than dumb hotties, but there are still plenty of beautiful women of middling social class that will turn the eye of an alpha male. So when the high IQ wife of 15 years who bore her alpha husband 1.2 children gets old and unattractive, he turns her in for a younger woman, oftentimes a less ambitious woman because he’s learned his lesson, and has children with her. Result: More daughters born to alpha male fathers are beautiful than those born to beta fathers.
-
Women are settling less than they did in the past, at least during their prime years (17 to 26). I’ve gone over the reasons for this before. Their financial independence, higher status relative to men, and entitledness are working in concert to delay marriage and childbirth, lengthening the time they hold out for their ideal Mr. Right. Marriage and two kids with a mediocre provider beta has been swapped for a swingers life of contraceptively insured sex with a small pool of desireable alphas. See: Sex and the City. Result: Women who do have kids during their prime fertile years are likely to have them with the strong seed of an alpha, thus ensuring a higher number of hottie daughters.
-
Obesity. No analysis of continuing human natural selection in the U.S. is complete without a nod to the obesity epidemic. Obesity reduces fertility. And men find it repulsive. The consequence is selection pressure for children born to attractive thin women by quality men, contributing to the increase in beauty among the daughters of those quality fathers.
Beauty is a commodity, like gold or athleticism, and any increase or decrease of it in the general female population will have profound effects on the dating market. More supply means lowered demand and more hot babes giving blowjobs on the first date. Less supply means greater demand and more hot babes thanking guys for expensive dinners with a peck on the cheek.
The trick is to game women as if their beauty was oversupplied.
If you opened two high school yearbooks side by side, one from 2007 and one from 1987, and restricted your sample size to those girls who weren’t overweight, I bet you’d come away with the impression that the girls of 2007 look better … It doesn’t take much of a change in mating patterns — even a slight shift in the numbers of children born to hot chicks versus plain or ugly chicks will make a noticeable impact after a few generations.
Except 1987 to 2007 isn’t a few generations. It’s not even one generation. Most of the hott girls in the 2007 yearbook were born toward the end of the 1980’s. Did the cultural changes you cite – more children fathered by Alpha males, less “settling” by younger women – start that early? My impression is that they’re mostly more recent trends.
LikeLike
Except 1987 to 2007 isn’t a few generations. It’s not even one generation. Most of the hott girls in the 2007 yearbook were born toward the end of the 1980’s.
I suspect the changes have to do with the media’s greater focus on female beauty which has turned women into looking after their appearances to attract men at a younger and younger age. Why? Profit.
There is more at work than just the sexual market. The markets are tied together, surely, but there are different market forces (4 year old girls are not usually fertile).
LikeLike
most of this surplus is just an increase in pretty guys. first the tranny then the fanny incident. maybe try glasses or lasik…
LikeLike
4 year old girls are not usually fertile
To Gannon’s disappointment.
LikeLike
How does the beta-loser extreme right end of the bell curve fit into this?
LikeLike
“The trick is to game women as if their beauty was oversupplied.”
Another simplistic roissy recipe for long term misery. Like the one note samba, roissy’s mantra drones on endlessly–‘game, game, game, game, game’…..’must have GAME’. God, you’re tiresome! 😀
LikeLike
Actually, rich megapowerful alphas have LESS daughters and poor families tend to have more daughters, PLUS they’re more beautiful. There’s a fascinating evolutionary theory as to why. See the book “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.” The authors give a summary of the reasoning in this article:
http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-4359.html:
So yeah, I think it’s more a case of poor men impregnating like crazy in trailer parks and ghettos and middle class guys having big families.
LikeLike
Could this just be a fashion bias? The girls in 2007 yearbook could be appeal to today’s tastes and the girls in 1987 to tastes that are unappealing now.
I remember how during the 80s the good looking women (that I was attracted to as well) in music videos and movies have too much rouge, hairspray, eye makeup, shoulderpads, and high-riding jeans that create a beer-belly effect.
LikeLike
T. – true, the alphas have more sons (because their sons are more likely to be alpha themselves and hence pass on more of daddy’s genes) but what i’m arguing is that of the daughters the alpha males DO have, they are going to be disproportionately more beautiful.
i have read the study you link to. it’s conclusion doesn’t surprise me. it makes sense for attractive couples to have more daughters, evolutionarily speaking.
LikeLike
But Roissy and the rest of you: one thing you don’t ever take into account is how social arrangements and family “strategy” affect basic biology. For much of Western history, and in many places in the world today, having a large number of daughters was likely to have a deleterious effect on a family’s long-term reproductive success, because the more daughters you had, the more money you had to pay out in dowries.
The alternative that many families adopted, in order to save their money for their sons (or for the family’s indirect male line) was not to allow their daughters to marry at all. Even if they had wanted to permit this, most families above the very lowest social level would not have accepted it.
I don’t question your basic theory, but I think this kind of reproductive behaviour must have had some impact on the number of attractive women able to reproduce. As did the fact that after the discovery of the Americas and the expansion of European colonialism, women of marriageable age (15-40) gradually came to outnumber men greatly, especially in Britain – by about 1.2 million in the 2nd half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly.
Perhaps, though, this just meant that only the prettiest women had any chance of marriage, thus confirming your theory after all.
LikeLike
Fun musings — I think there’s a lot to them. Steve Sailer theorized somewhere along similar lines. He was wondering why it is so many college girls behave like pole dancers these days. His idea didn’t have anything to do with evolution, but … It was that girls are offering boys less and less — the new hyper-dynamic, achieveing, get-outta-my-way girl doesn’t offer a guy what gals traditionally did. Not just “I’ll be a breed cow and take care of the home,” but also sympathy, interest, even a sense of shared adventure. They treat guys like items on their checklist. Why would any guy sign up for that kind of relationship? Anyway, it boils down to: The only thing the girls are offering to the boys is sexiness. “You’re a boy, you like sex, so I’ll be your live-action porno figure!” And a kind of arms-race results among the girls, with the outcome being that many wind up presenting themselves as pole dancers.
Hmm, that wasn’t totally a propos. Still.
To complicate your picture a little bit more … I agree that young women are often awesome physical specimens these days. For one thing they’re taller than girls used to be. For another, they take fitness and sports for granted. They carry themselves differently. Fabrics have changed too — a friend in the fashion biz tells me there’s been a revolution in fabrics since the mid-’90s and that that’s made a big diff in how women appear.
But! Aren’t we talking about women of a certain class, or a small number of classes? I live in NYC, where there are tons of immigrant women, for instance. And many of them are short and turn into fat used-up things by about the age of 25. There’s a huge diff between the slim, tall, well-manicured (and exercised and orthodentured) Sex in the City gals and the working-class and immigrant women. They almost seem like different species sometimes. And in NYC the non-Sex-in-the-City women are having tons more kids than the tall slim gals.
LikeLike
If you spent a few days in this slice of Red State America you might change your mind.
LikeLike
I personally do not see this on a day to day basis. I actually remember the 1980s and found girls then a lot more feminine and sexy.
These days, it seems middle class parents are raising bean-pole, dykish basketball player types. The new focus on athletics and extreme thinness means teen girls have lost much of the femininity that made us like…teen girls. And I’m not seeing modelesque-looking faces either.
If anything, I should find teen girls more attractive as I get older. ‘Tis not the case.
LikeLike
I don’t see you in writing from Idaho or anything approaching Appalachia so – a couple of questions..
Isn’t it possible that you’re just hanging around in areas where hot women are increased in density? I mean certainly Washington D. C. equals power and money, so you see the smarter and MORE SYMMETRICAL looking people here as oppossed to say Fargo or Ft. Smith, Arkansas.
Isn’t it also possible that there cannot be an all alpha society – that an all alpha society has never existed and can’t exist and to expect that would probably doom our species in some way or another? *I’m not saying you advocate this – I’m saying the way it is is the way it works for reasons we don’t fully understand.
There may not be a human race left if everyone tries to be an alpha and pushes too many good but beta people out of the minimum existence they already have. Ie: alphas taking over the tax code and underpaying taxes while the real workers drop to a level of depression, and the sustainability of society reaches a low point where there is bad timing with regards to plague or alphastartednuclearwar or some travelingalphaborneAIDStypevirus surprise that overwhelms a drained and complained beta populance.
Too many alphas and especially too many alpha wannabees (like former drunk business failures that are backed by corporate wealth and very very bad people *think Bush) can generally fuck things up for everybody for a long time.
Is it the way of the world that we can evolve to something PAST the alpha / beta – winner / chump – corporate tax cheat scumbag / decent taxpayer contributing citizen who overpays taxes duality? I think not. we are all going to die – hahahahaha!
happy monday – Manning beat the other guy
LikeLike
Roissy – have you considered that the difference between the two yearbooks could be due to more superficial factors, like hairstyle and dress, and yes (you mentioned it), makeup?
I’d venture that, if you’re evaluating these girls’ “hotness” just by looking at small headshots in a yearbook, something like hairstyle would play a disproportionate role in your impression of their attractiveness.
There’s been a big difference in acceptable and “attractive” hairstyles from 1987 to now (this is true for both males and females).
I think we’re culturally programmed to prefer hairstyles which are current. A girl with “Farrah Fawcett”-like hair would be considered goofy-looking today, but hot back in the 80s.
The big open collars and wide shoulderpads many women (and men) wore in the 80s would also show up on a yearbook photo, and you may be subconsciously reacting to them.
Another thing (as someone mentioned) is that the space of time you’re talking about (the 80s to now) isn’t long enough to justify this kind of conjecture about today’s hot girls only reproducing with desirable alphas and producing Venus- and Adonis-like kids.
Maybe if you did a longitudinal study of high-quality photographs spanning several generations, one could prove (or disprove) this theory.
But not in so short a span of time you indicate.
LikeLike
Maybe if you did a longitudinal study of high-quality photographs spanning several generations, one could prove (or disprove) this theory.
Looking at old photgraphs presents another potential problem. As I pointed out recently in a comment at Alias Clio’s blog, many people may (perhaps subconsciously) find it difficult to think of women in old photographs as beautiful because they know that the women today are dead or elderly. There’s something creepy about finding beauty in a picture of a woman who is likely to be dead for the past two decades.
LikeLike
Roissy has another theory (srsly someone needz 2 makez the lolroissy liek nowz).
I would, if I had an appropriate roissy-like picture. Here’s one builder: http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com
It is a fun theory! It makes sense that girls are getting more attractive.
There are a lot more paler, blonder, light-eyed girls finding their way into the Arabic gene pool… the attraction of the West does extend to its women. Having a certain amount of body hair used to be more acceptable in Arabic society as well (it’s fairly unavoidable as far as genes go!).
*sigh*
LikeLike
I think PA’s comment in #8 has a lot of truth to it. I think the fashions help cause a bias. Ever notice when a retro movement is in, suddenly girls from that era start looking hotter again when you see old clips? Hence the occasional resurgence of interest in the occasional old celeb like Audrey Hepburn and Edie Sedgwick.
As far as rich, powerful alphas having better looking daughter, I’m not so sure. I went to high school in Long Island (think Ross and Rachel from Friends) and let me tell you, there is a LOT of plastic surgery and upkeep going on with those girls from a young age. Wasn’t rich myself but a lot of classmates were. Down low nose jobs aplenty. And with our increasingly vain Paris Hilton culture, rich kids are getting plastic surgery makeovers from even younger, like 12 years old. Throw in access to the best salons, grooming, makeup, shopping and it gets even harder to tell who’s good looks come from being genetically superior and who just puts more work into it.
I agree with everything else in the article, but for sheer hotness genetics, I think farm girls, 3rd world countries and working class places got the rich alpha families beat. Look at all the top supermodels and sex symbol actresses and they almost always have a small town, farming town or 3rd world background. Everyone in college always knows the hotter girls are at the community college and not the Ivy League. Producing hotter daughters is an evolutionary strategy that helps poor families more than it helps rich ones.
LikeLike
restricted your sample size to those girls who weren’t overweight, I bet you’d come away with the impression that the girls of 2007 look better
I would also argue that the even the fat and chubby women are better looking than years past. Mind you, I have a soft spot for those femaless…
what i’m arguing is that of the daughters the alpha males DO have, they are going to be disproportionately more beautiful.
So in other words, my kids will be ugly?
LikeLike
Everyone in college always knows the hotter girls are at the community college and not the Ivy League.
You speak the truth. When I finally leave the forsaken community college, I’ll miss the hot white girls that were a double edged sword in my life. It was nice to look at them, but man was it depressing to see them hang around with guidos and get dirty looks if you dared to look at them in any form, especially if you were an ugly Negro prole troll like me…
LikeLike
As far as rich, powerful alphas having better looking daughter, I’m not so sure.
Me neither. Many Alpha men are large-jawed and broad-shouldered, which doesn’t bode well for their daughters. Think Chelsea Clinton.
My impression is that the really good looking girls have hot mothers from whom they’ve gotten their genes rather than from the dad, or girls with small-framed and often Beta fathers.
LikeLike
after a few generations
i’m not sure if this is meant as a sop to gannon, who would surely salivate at the prospect of a ten- to fifteen-year generation and all that it entails, but 20 years != ‘a few generations’.
—
couple things:
* the fallout of feminism has forced the upper echelon of hott chix to go Avis-style and ‘try harder’. without the least bit of cognizance, said chix have internalized the new paradigm, in which ‘sexy’ >> ‘domestic’, more thoroughly than in the eighties; the remainder of the proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
* subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences will unavoidably color your assessment of the 1980’s photos, for the same reason that 1980’s porn will now largely elicit laughter rather than bonerage. the 1980’s chix have that je-ne-sais-quoi that was SO ‘in’ then, but is just SO eighties now.
and by ‘subtle’ i mean things you couldn’t possibly put a conscious finger on. i can tell europeans from americans, and occasionally finns from other europeans (jaakkeli, you too?), just from observing their gait and posture, but there’s no way i could articulate the criteria; it’s certain that similar differences in subconscious perception are skewing your preferences toward the modern pussybuffet.
gedanken experiment: as a control, try asking yourself how many of the 1980’s chicks you’d bang if you saw them tonight at a roller-skating party with bananarama blasting on the p.a. system. you might be surprised at the result.)
* if we also exclude girls who are disgustingly UNDERweight, i’m not so sure the 2007 sample size is bigger. i mean, ‘hourglass’ has begun to have negative connotations, a notion that was unthinkable when i was a bonny lad.
LikeLike
I’m glad to see that so many people are pointing out the importance of fashion in “disguising” beauty. People who aren’t accustomed to seeing through changes in fashion to the beauty (or plainness) underneath, often misjudge past beauties as “ugly”, when what they’re noticing is ugly fashions. Or, as I said on my blog, it’s always possible that our own fashions today are what’s ugly, and we’re blinded by them into being unable to see the underlying beauties of another fashion generation. Oh, and fashion changes a good deal faster than human mating patterns.
LikeLike
#1 Everyone in college always knows the hotter girls are at the community college and not the Ivy League.
#2 Producing hotter daughters is an evolutionary strategy that helps poor families more than it helps rich ones.
#1 is true if you replace juco with large 4-year state school, and #2 is indubitable, but #1 and #2 are not correlated. two of the many reasons why not:
* most college students, even in the lower ranks, are still from families above the median income. the real poor almost never go to college, even juco.
* really hott chix are usually too busy ruling the social roost to develop a level of erudition sufficient to get them into ivies; hence the relative paucity of hotties at ivies.
if you really think poor chix are hotter than rich chix on average, you are either blind or insane.
LikeLike
Median income is still not superperforming alpha superstar family, is it? Middle class is still primarily the breeding ground of beta males and average frustrated chumps.
Take a walk around Harvard or MIT, where a lot of chicks look like Chelsea Clinton or Soon Yi’s wife and you get an occasiona Claire Danes or Natalie Portman. Then walk around Staten Island and Jersey and look at the community college skanks, where almost all the chicks look like Antonella Barba and Megan Fox on the regular. Then get back to me.
LikeLike
having been to parties and social events of both the lower middle class and the upper class, i was struck by how much better looking, and taller, the wealthier men and women were on average. there is no doubt in my mind that looks, height, and class positively correlate to some degree.
that said, i think once you reach the rarefied upper echelons of the ivy educated you begin to find the beauty coefficient dropping, for the reasons explained by johnny five.
alias:
I’m glad to see that so many people are pointing out the importance of fashion in “disguising” beauty.
fashion as a beauty enhancer is overplayed, especially by women wishing they could wave the magic fashion wand and make their plain faces more attractive.
i was able to pick out the hotties in the 1987 lineup despite their dated clothes and hair styles. it’s all about the facial structure.
LikeLike
Take a walk around Harvard or MIT, where a lot of chicks look like Chelsea Clinton or Soon Yi’s wife and you get an occasiona Claire Danes or Natalie Portman.
dude! confounding variables! you completely missed the essence of my last post.
let me make this really simple:
harvard and mit females are not representative of upper class females in general. as i said before, erudition and hotness are negatively correlated.
especially MIT, of all places! talk about cherry-picking the worst of the lot.
is ‘soon yi’s wife’ supposed to be woody allen?
Then walk around Staten Island and Jersey and look at the community college skanks, where almost all the chicks look like Antonella Barba and Megan Fox on the regular.
i’d wager that most of the hotter ones are fuckups from well-off families, stuck in juco because they’ve failed/drugged out of the fast track. and let me repeat: the vast majority of juco students are middle class, not poor.
—
#6 anonymous
Another simplistic roissy recipe for long term misery.
au contraire.
the best reason – indeed the only reason – for average joes to learn game is the benefits that redound to men in long-term relationships. show me a man who’s genuinely happy with his wife/long-term gf, and i’ll show you a man who has game (regardless of whether he’s aware of it).
LikeLike
i meant ‘sometimes the only reason’, not ‘indeed’.
fuck me.
LikeLike
^ aw shux, i meant ‘sometimes the only reason’, not indeed.
LikeLike
Roissy, you seem to have missed my point. I didn’t say that fashion was a beauty enhancer; I said it was a beauty disguiser.
In other words, the comment you just wrote agreed with mine.
If you really are able to see through hideous fashions, BTW, you have sharper eyes than most men do. There’s a great number who can’t. Some women, esp. those in the beauty industry or serious connaisseurs, are a little more alert to this because they know just how far looks can (and cannot) be enhanced with cosmetics, or made hideous by dreadful styles.
I’m more aware of this than many people myself because in my early 20s I found I went from being considered a 6 to a 9, as you might put it, merely by changing my hair style and ditching my glasses for good. My looks hadn’t changed otherwise; I didn’t wear much more makeup and I was thin before and after.
That was then and this is now, sigh.
LikeLike
especially by women wishing they could wave the magic fashion wand and make their plain faces more attractive.
i was able to pick out the hotties in the 1987 lineup despite their dated clothes and hair styles. it’s all about the facial structure.
Ah, makeup and fashion. Laetitia Casta has gorgeous facial structure, but she can still look like this and this as opposed to this and this.
Good lighting and photo retouching help, too. It’s why some women talk about hating fluorescent lights.
Also, I’m curious if you’ve ever seen this photo before?
LikeLike
Hmm, re-reading your comment, Roissy, makes me wonder if you weren’t agreeing with me – I mean on purpose – after all. Should read more carefully but am trying to do three things at once. Oh well.
LikeLike
This perception sounds like a combination of updated fashions, a greater number of female beauty aids than ever before, and confirmation bias; you want to believe it’s true because it would confirm your worldview, so that’s how you see it.
Why? Because it’s just not a long enough time for any significant change to have taken place. If you’re looking at several hundred years and dozens of generations you might have a case, but a twenty-year gap is only one generation. It just isn’t long enough — especially considering that hookup culture didn’t explode until relatively recently. Not that people weren’t having one-night stands in the 80s, but it would be hard to argue that casual sex isn’t more prevalent than it was twenty years ago.
You’re probably right about attractiveness and social class, however, but there’s more at play than simple genetics. Poor people generally eat cheaper food higher in calories and poorer in nutritive value, contributing to obesity, generally poor nutrition, and the concomitant drop in attractiveness due to each. If you stripped those other factors out, I’ll bet you’d see a closer race — the well-off would still be prettier than the poor, but the gulf would be smaller.
LikeLike
Then walk around Staten Island and Jersey and look at the community college skanks, where almost all the chicks look like Antonella Barba and Megan Fox on the regular. Then get back to me.
They’re not necessarily poor, but they’re just not the children of doctors and lawyers in most cases. We’re dealing with what Half Sigma calls proles, and they have enough disposable spending money to look decent when compared to the poor. Attraction to women in this group depends on one’s tastes, and whether if one likes Claire Dames or Antonella Barba. I would prefer the latter, but that’s because I grew up as a prole. Antonella Barba has considerably more sex appeal than Natalie Portman or somebody like Nicole Kidman…
LikeLike
There is what seems like a sort-of-serious theory which claims that World War II is responsible for the famous beauty of Russian women. According to the theory, because such a huge number of Russian men died during the war only the most attractive women could hope to find husbands in the postwar years. Given that beauty is at least partially inherited, the result is a very high level of attractiveness among Russian women born in the last several decades.
LikeLike
Well can we just do something about the increased bitchiness?
LikeLike
27 johnny five: If you tell me Keith Urban has great ‘game’ and that’s why he’s married to Nicole Kidman maybe I’ll rethink my definition of the word. It conjures up all kinds of negative images in my mind. Remember that I actually saw ‘the pickup artist’ and personally think Matador is a disgusting slug. O.K.? So I’m not turned on by ‘pickup artists’ and that doesn’t mean they aren’t attracted to me.
It conjures up images of someone ‘getting over’ on someone else, of someone manipulating someone into giving them something that they know they wouldn’t give if they knew the ‘game’ that was being played. It just sounds very hokey and immature. Game means to me; that in having ‘game’ your odds of anything ‘real’ are remote. I’ve been ‘gamed’ recently, and the ‘gamer’ was exposed for his ‘gaming’ and later had regrets because his chances with me were nil BECAUSE of the game.
LikeLike
oh roissy, your posts are starting to have the depth and appeal of an alabama back swamp. have you completely flat-lined? i’m not hearing any heart…
LikeLike
i read somewhere that alpha males have MORE masculine daughters and hence more ugly…i’ll try to find the link
LikeLike
Comment 25, you’re not implying Antonella Barba is less than perfectly ladylike, are you??
http://13gb.com/pictures/2524/popular/
And now that I googled her, I must poll…real or fake? I’d say fake (the boobs, not the wall marble behind her).
http://13gb.com/pictures/2523/
Mmmmmm…Antonella Barba.
http://tinyurl.com/3cffty
As a service to David Alexander…
http://13gb.com/pictures/3345/
LikeLike
39 Anon – very interesting. I would guess this is because alpha males tend to mate more frequently with so-called “alpha females”. This would make sense, because hard-driving, ambitious, achiever-type females would only feel comfortable with an alpha male.
Think of it. Although alpha males might be attracted to both “alpha” and “beta” females, the conventional wisdom is that “alpha” type females would only really be interested in alpha males, for the purposes of mating.
Unfortunately, this is precisely the group of women who have the highest circulating levels of testosterone. (Although females have, on average, only 1/10th the testosterone males do — most of it coming from their adrenal glands — testosterone levels vary pretty widely among women).
Higher levels of circulating androgens in a mother’s bloodstream would have masculinizing effects on both male and female fetuses. Presumably this would influence not just the brains of the offspring, but also their looks.
Therefore one would expect that alpha males would bear, on average, more daughters with elevated testosterone.
However, there is the countervailing truth that alpha males also tend to have their pick of the best-looking women.
So I think it ends up being a wash. Everything evens out in the end.
It’s amazing how sociobiological and genetic influences almost always end up leading to an equilibrium.
LikeLike
“Well can we just do something about the increased bitchiness?”
Illusion! Only reason I can think of for you thinking that this generation is more bitchy is that they’re more open about it.
LikeLike
C.M.:
Illusion! Only reason I can think of for you thinking that this generation is more bitchy is that they’re more open about it.
Being more open about it is being more bitchy. Quietly thinking something bitchy: not bitchy. Saying something bitchy out loud: bitchy. Simple.
LikeLike
43; Bitchy is not good. If I find a man is bringing out the bitch in me, I find the exit FAST. Don’t like myself as bitch. On the other hand if I’m angry about something specific, I love a man who can stand up to me if need be, face the issue, not back down, and resolve it so we can clear the air and get back to the luv. Sometimes you have to clear the air. Anger is normal, chronic bitchiness is 100% unacceptable.
LikeLike
MOST of your speak is truth worthy. THIS post is complete crap. Dream on. Pretty people are born to dumb people, short people, ugly people, timid people, and whatever else is not alpha. Ego stroke of genius is this.
Are older women getting prettier? The wanted cougars, are just smoke and a lot of mirrors.
LikeLike
“The trick is to game women as if their beauty was oversupplied.”
Well that’s nice and all, and is pretty much a necessity these days, but it can only take you so far. If there’s a true under-supply of beauty–and as this blog pointed out there’s a shit-ton of fatties and more coming every day–then game will only take you so far.
As you yourself said, if there’s only one hot chick and a billion dudes, ain’t no amount of game gonna help.
LikeLike