Defining Slut. 2

Several commentators have raised objections to the study mentioned in the previous post claiming that it was methodologically flawed due to the inability to control for confounding variables, bias and so on. I will admit that the study does have some flaws but basically the conclusions are valid.

Firstly, the study involved 10,000 women and the data was collected by the CDC, good sample size and a non-partisan credible collection agency. Tick.

Secondly, the study didn't control for socio-economic and demographic variables. This would be a legitimate criticism is a particular community chosen for study was non representative of the group. However the sample group was meant to be representative of the entire U.S. age cohort. Therefore, many of the biases, would in reality cancel each other out to produce a picture of the "average". Whilst this does not give us an absolute guide to a particular persons behaviour it give us practical rules of thumb by which we understand the real world and navigate society and base our expectations. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the brave but its the way to bet. The "pure" risk of promiscuity is of academic interest only. We marry real people.

What we have here is statistical purists objecting to the application of the average to the particular. A complaint of limited relevance.

Thirdly, objections centered around the definition of stable marriage:
A stable marriage was defined as a woman over 30, who had been married for five or more years at the time of marriage. Basically who was excluded from the study was any woman less than 30 and any woman over 30 with less than 5 years of marriage. As their marriages were of indeterminate stability. Their data was excluded from the statistical analysis. This definition is reasonable as:

1) Most women want to be in a stable marriage by their 30's. The mean age of marriage in the U.S. when the study was done was 25, so this seems a reasonable end point.
2) A woman divorced before 30 was by this definition not in a stable marriage, I agree.
3) A 5 year definition of stability seems pretty lax, but I'd hate to see the figures if the standards were raised. Even with these lax standards the promiscuous can't make the grade.

However the study has a systemic bias. If a woman had multiple short flings in her youth but then entered a stable marriage she was included in the study. It's important to realise just how important this definition is. By keeping the age of stable marriage above thirty, the study gave the woman a chance to be wild whilst young and then monogamous. Example: A woman who had 12 partners prior to 24 and then found the "one" would still be considered as being in a stable relationship when she was thirty. It appears that there was systemic bias to minimise the effect of youth promiscuity in this study. The systemic bias of the study would have supported the common trope of the promiscuous college student settling down to be a good mother, yet even in a study that is designed in their favour they fail.

It appears that the Heritage Foundation wanted to give the promiscuous every chance to succeed in their relationships.

Also keep in mind that there are two aspects to being in a stable marriage, they are forming a stable marriage and then keeping a marriage. This is why the "sexually active but in not in a relationship" group were included. The presumption here being that women between 30-45 wants to enter a stable relationship. It appears a common sense assumption and it appears from the study that the promiscuous have problems with both. Whilst the relatively chaste seem to have better prospects.

Of course there are some women who don't want to get married and who are sexually active and these are likely to skew the stats. However, despite the "Girrrl Power" idolisation of Kim Catrall, nearly all women want a "Mr Big". The number wanting otherwise is likely to be small and insignificant. The methodology of the study is sound.

Finally, on speculative note, these two graphs raise important questions:

1) Whats going on in young girls between 12 and 18?


It appears that the turnover rate seems to stabilise 19-20 age group. Does pre-marital sex before 18 cause some problem with bonding? I'm not saying it does but it would be something worth further investigating. Does a permissive adolescence impair their ability to form long term mates? I'm not making a statement here, just wondering.

Defining Slut.

The other day I was perusing the internet and ran across a post at Hooking Up Smart called, The Essential Truth of Female Promiscuity. In the post Susan Walsh quotes a study linking promiscuity with marital instability. The article she links to is actually another article quoting the study in question. After a bit of hunting around I was able to locate the actual study. The study itself called, The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women by R Rector et al, 2003, and it's a real eye opener. I'm surprised more mention of it has not been made amongst the right/conserve-o-sphere. The study is based on a survey of 10,000 women done in 1995 by the Center for Diseases Control.

Men have generally viewed female promiscuity in a negative light. Admittedly whilst some men don't care, the majority view a woman's promiscuity negatively in proportion to her partner count. It's fascinating if one "Googles" the subject, just how many men--both Conservative and Liberal--can't "get over " a woman's partner count. Liberal men indoctrinated in "Girrl power" seem to be perplexed as to why these negative emotions are aroused in them despite their own beliefs.

The Evo-bio crowd will probably argue that the aversion has been developed by evolution as a mechanism to avoid cuckoldry, unfaithfulness etc. I've always had the intuition that promiscuity seemed to injure "Love" in some way, furthermore the type of men a woman slept with revealed in many ways the type of woman she is. The woman who chose patently bad suitors was a woman lacking in good judgment and refinement; the essential qualities of femininity. Lacking femininity, a woman is a turn-off.

Slut, of course, is the term applied to a promiscuous women and debates rage as to what number of partners earns the title. I think this is the wrong way of looking at the problem. The real danger of a promiscuous woman is that she will be unfaithful, so the definition should be really centered around that concept. i.e How many sexual partners does a woman need to have before she becomes high risk marriage material? The study quoted above asked the question.























Now, Stable Marriage was defined as being currently married for greater than 5 years. It's a pretty non-demanding definition of stable. Now I thought that I was quite a cynical and judgmental bastard but I never expected these figures.

The virgin bride has an 80+ percent chance of having a stable marriage. Once a woman has had more than one non-marital sexual partner the probability of her having a stable marriage drops to 54%, that's almost a 50-50 chance of divorce. The statistical threshold is crossed--in other words, your betting on failure--once a woman has had two non-marital partners. Given that the aim of the game is to avoid divorce, from a marital stability point of view, a woman becomes a slut once she has had more than two non-marital partners. It's not my opinion, it's probability.

Any man, entering marriage, has a responsibility to his children to try to attempt to ensure the woman he marries is stable marriage material. The fact is that once a woman has had two or more extra-marital partners she become statistically a bad potential mother.

Given that the average female partner count has now crept up to four, we are facing a social apocalypse.

Organic Truth.

One of the ideas that Jim Kalb puts forward to justify the epistemological validity of tradition, is because traditions are the "organic" products of society, the ideas and habits being shaped over time and modified towards a certain veracity. Ideas, practices and relationships which have stood the test of time must have something going for them if human beings have adopted them for prolonged periods. There must be some truth to them which we shouldn't ignore because these traditions aren't just "ingrained habits" rather practices which are symbiotic with the human condition and therefore true.

I think Mr Kalb is onto something here but where I think he errs is taking the existence of tradition as proof of some kind of truth.

If we take three societies, Pre-Modern Christianity, Islam, and Judaism we find that whilst all three are traditional societies, all three have different ideas on Marriage. The Christian(Catholic) tradition permits marriage but bans divorce. The Judaic, permits marriage but permits divorce and the Islamic permits multiple wives and permits divorce All three traditions have stood the test of time so I suppose that all three conceptions of marriage must be right. Or not.

Tradition here gives us no guide at all as to how to view marriage since the traditional views are competing and mutually exclusive, their only commonality being that marriage is an relationship between husband and wife. And then this comes along.

It seems tradition can't even agree to that simple proposition. Tradition then, as a sort of knowledge which is organically intertwined with the human condition seems to give conflicting views on even some of the most basic human institutions. Tradition seems to provide for multiple "truths".

One thing I do agree with Mr Kalb is that many of the traditions that have developed across the world are indeed more "human" than the modernist ideologies that wish to replace them. The fact that Islam or Hinduism have produced stable cultures that have lasted over a thousand years means that there must be something in them that doesn't rub up against human nature in such a way to assure the self destruction of these societies.

Jim Kalb got unfairly argued with in this exchange over at What's Wrong With the World. I don't think that Mr Kalb was in any way trying to defend or excuse the evils of Islam what he was trying to say that human beings have had a successful and working relationship with Islam for over a 1000 years and therefore the tradition of Islam must, at least, not be against human nature completely. I agree with Mr Kalb.

The problem is though, from a Christian perspective though, is Islam has many faults which are incompatible with Christian truth. And these faults have--like the good traditions--persisted for thousands of years. The fact that limited polygamy has existed in Islam for over a thousand years mean that polygamy is right? Or Sati?

The sad fact is that human beings can at times be a barbarous lot, barbarous for a long period of time and bad customs can become ingrained into a society. The fact that a society is able to function and thrive for a long periods of time with bad traditions does not confer onto the traditions legitimacy rather the fact is that functional societies can operate quite successfully with a certain amount of "non self-destructive evil". The fact that an evil becomes custom or tradition does not make it right. Society's do not self purify over time ,rather what seems to happen is that tend to rot in their own corruption.

Rather, what the "organic truth" model of conservatism confers is not an objecetive knowledge of right or wrong but rather a sort of moral relativism, in which right or wrong is determined relative to the customs of society: It's self-referential.

Tradition, in the end, is not about what is right or wrong, it's about what people are happy to adopt and become accustomed to, so in a sense tradition is naturally co- dependent upon a human dimension, but that human dimension is flawed in its capacity for evil. The result being that the veneration of tradition leads to the same place as modernism-- the measure is man, not right or wrong.

Thoughts on the Conservatism of Jim Kalb.

I have great respect for commentator Thursday and he has recommended that I have read of Jim Kalb's works. I'm pressed for time and have other reading to catch up with, but I've had a browse of Mr Kalb's web presence and thought I would jot down a few of my thoughts.

If I had to distill Mr Kalb's thoughts into a phrase it would have to be the "authority of tradition". Whilst Mr Kalb does seem to acknowledge that reason and "truth" have some authority, tradition should be given the greatest weighting. The reason for this (as far as I can see) is that tradition contains the accumulated wisdom of a working society, and since societies are complex, veering far from the accumulated wisdom will cause societal dysfunction. This of course assumes that the society you already have is the society you want to keep.

The other factor present in Kalb's thought(similar to Oakeshott's)is that change should be incremental. Oakeshott justifies this on the basis of the Conservative temperament, Kalb on what essentially appears to be prudential criteria.

The other idea I sense in his thoughts is that individual insights into the nature of "truth" have less a claim that of a society's pre-existing opinions: The groupthink of tradition has a greater claim that the insight of one.

Finally, while Kalb acknowledges the existence of a truth, and recognises that its universal accessibility is difficult, its claims--as a practical measure--are subordinated to the authority of tradition. In the end, an unjust working society has greater claim to legitimacy and hence obedience than a potentially just one. (which is likely to end up dysfunctional) This appears to be a pragmatic measure.

It would appear that Kalb views society almost as an organism undergoing evolution. The organism itself an evolving product of its interaction with the environment and culture in which it finds itself. Societal stability is ensured by the insistence of gradual change, the assumption being that gradual change--as opposed to rapid--ensures the survival of the societal organism. Societies which are the result of such a process can be considered traditional. Islamic, Chinese and pre-Englightment Christian could certainly be considered as such.

Kalb's rationale for his support of traditional societies seems to be explained in the following reply to a commentator over at 2Blowhards(Reply to Mr. Kinahan) :

I suppose what I'm trying to work toward, to speak very grandly, is an inclusive understanding of human reason -- the constellation of things by which we understand the world and make sensible decisions -- that takes our limitations seriously and so recognizes that there are basic truths we need but can't fully grasp and must therefore be approached from the standpoint of tradition. So my argument is not with reason in all its aspects but with the modernist project of hyperrationality. Since I reject that project I view tradition as authoritative -- as something that knows more than I do, especially about things like the nature of the good life -- and not as an interesting array of possibilities that I can choose from as I please or experts advise. That makes me a conservative.

I don't deny that one aspect of tradition can come in conflict with others and force us to choose or that there are important aspects of human reason that have considerable autonomy with respect to tradition and can lead us to modify or break with some aspects of it. The ultimate concern after all is with the good, beautiful and true rather than tradition itself. There's no formula for recognizing and dealing with such cases though and they shouldn't be taken as the models on which we form our idea of how we normally should act.

(My bolding)

Executive summary:

The traditionalist man viewed the world differently than the modern man and was able to produce stable functioning societies. Stable societies are in themselves a good and complex things in themsevles reflecting a positive intermeshing between man and the environment. Because the principles that they are run on are proven to work, they have more authority than innovations.

Tradition "works" and therefore is good, innovation is liable to be bad. Tradition therefore takes precedence. Old is most probably right, new is most probably wrong. Conservatism is then in essence a pragmatic bias for the old, tried and tested.

OK, now an intellectual experiment. Suppose liberalism is able to produce a functional society. For example, there appears to be no let up of the North Korean regime and its quite possible that that with time, Communism could become the "traditional" culture of North Korea. Would Kalb's successors in the future be arguing that North Korean society should not be changed by virtue of the argument of tradition?

Indeed conflating the old with the good is profoundly anti-Christian. The Bible is full of stories of men who attempted to change society (prophets) even in the presence of long established custom. Jesus himself came to tear down the temple and rebuild it in three days: Hardly the attitude of a man who reverenced the old.

Indeed the Christian tradition has a quite simple method of societal change. When society is wrong, it is meant to change. That of course assumes a right and wrong and Christianity has handled that as well. It is true that the truth's of Christianity have sometimes been obscure, slavery for instance was seen as acceptable for quite a long time. But the emphasis on rationality bought on by the Enlightenment, the recognition of human rights, etc lead to a cultural re-examination of the question and the traditional understanding of society was found to be wrong. Slavery was banned.

Kalb's fundamental intellectual error is in conflating the old with the good. Just because the old was better does not mean that the old is good. It would appear that Kalb spends a lot of time explaining why the old is good. I will concede to Kalb however, that the older society seemed better at producing human happiness than the modern, still there were many people in traditional society that lived miserable and diseased lives simply by virtue of the way that the society was traditionally ordered.

Modernism, like Socialism, did not arise ex niliho, it was a faulty solution to the real problems of the times. Indeed, Tradition can be rightly considered the midwife of these intellectual beasts. The traditional fixation of pre-enlightenment society gave no means for the dissipation of rapidly building societal pressures. Indeed Kalb's "gradual change" became a like a sticky pressure cooker valve, unable to dissipate the forces building within it, the pressure building up faster than it could be relived until the structure was destroyed.

As any evolutionary biologist will tell you, a creature in order to survive needs to adapt to change, if that change is rapid, a creature has to change quickly to survive. Unable to do so, it is dead.

The printing press, Protestantism, increasing wealth, the beginnings of scientific knowledge and population expansion made a relatively rapid appearance(from a cultural perspective) and unleashed forces which required societal reorganization. The Traditionalist response: That's not the way we do things, we'll get back to you. Society moved on.

Kalb however is fundamentally right in that the difference between Moderns and Conservatives is in their epistemology. Kalb likes to call the moderns hyper-rational, where as I prefer to call them "empirically limited". The conservatives felt that valid knowledge could be garnered from faith and intuition;stuff that couldn't be empirically verified. The Moderns rejected this and thus the discontinuity with the old. The Moderns adopted a different epistemology and in many instances a different metaphysic.

In my opinion Kalb is not a Conservative he is a Traditionalist. Though I think he is a better man than his reasoning( a lot of his reasoning is good). The Conservative values the Good and True above all else, the Traditionalist the old. I've endeavored not to deliberately misstate his arguments. If I have I have my apologies and am quite willing to modify my views. Thursday is right, Kalb is the modern Burke, warts and all.

You Need to be Good Looking to Attract Hot Chicks.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail. Check out the Pictures.


BTW, when choosing a wife it's important to choose carefully.

What Conservatism Is.

From "What's Wrong With the World" by G.K. Chesterton:

Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girl's hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict's; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.

G.K. Chesterton was the perhaps the greatest modern apologist for Christianity. The levity of his writing frequently disguised the profundity of his thought. Chesterton realised that at the 19th Century that there were many social ills. Society at that time had serious problems which needed to be solved and traditional solutions did not work. He recognised that the "progressives" were willing to change society, but in the wrong direction, whilst the traditionalists at the time did not want to change society at all.

Chesterton recognised that before any social change should take place an understanding of life and things in general needed to be made:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

Chesterton realised we needed to understand the "truth" of the matter before we proceeded with societal change. While Chesterton respected tradition (the democracy of the dead) he respected truth more. The aim of man and society was to live "rightly" and with that implied the concept of right and wrong.

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

Therefore Conservatism is therefore the desire to live rightly, from which politics proceeds.
As "ought" can't be derived from is ultimately questions of right or wrong are religious questions. Therefore the Conservative view is premised on three things.

1) The belief in religion
2) The belief in right and wrong.
3) The desire to live according to those beliefs.

Over at James Kalb's there is an interesting paper up for discussion, Traditionalism and the American Order, which asserts that the American Revolution was the first Liberal Revolution and from a traditionalist view point it is. The thing about traditionalism is, that a thing is liberal relative to the traditions you want to preserve. And if you're a European Monarchist, then the revolution was decidedly liberal, on the other hand if you're a traditionalist Marxist, it was a manifestation of bourgeoisie conservatism.

Chesterton would have had none of this rubbish. For Him, the founding fathers were convinced that they were doing God's work:

The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just. It certainly does condemn anarchism. and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived. Nobody expects a modern political system to proceed logically in the application of such dogmas, and in the matter of God and Government it is naturally God whose claim is taken more lightly. The point is that there is a creed, if not about divine, at least about human things.

It satisfies the test of Conservatism. It changed the world, but it changed it rightly.

What Conservatism Isn't.

2Blowhards is shutting up shop. Which is a shame since it was one of the best culture blogs out there. I must of been one of the last to know but Michael Blowhard's real name is Ray Sawhill. I think he has a great blog and recommend that you visit it. I don't agree with all of his views but his opinions are intelligent and informed unlike 99% of the blogosphere.

Whilst browsing his blog I stumbled upon a piece by Michael Oakeshott entitled, "On Being Conservative". I had briefly skimmed upon some of Oakeshott's writings in the past but they failed to capture my imagination, but I put in the effort on this piece and sadly, it was wanting.

Oakeshott's contention is that Conservatism is a disposition, a resistance to change. Valuing things for the way things are and and as such not wanting to meddle with them. Basically Oakeshott's reiterates the view of the Progressives, that conservatives are people who unthinkingly resist change by virtue of their temperament. They are the treacle in societies progress; the dead weight inhibiting change. Timidity and anxiety their virtues.

Bullshit.

And this is all the more depressing that this opinion comes from a man who was professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics. If conservatism is "Intellectually light" its because of rubbish such as this.

Oakeshott's conservatism is by nature "value light", in that man can have a conservative disposition in all sorts of social political circumstances and by his definition called a conservative. According to Oakeshott's view, an elderly British colonel tending his roses and Russian bureaucrat in the Brezhnev Soviet union (a time when the communists were loathe to change anything) could both be considered " Conservative". Nazi's who resisted policy changes by the party could also be considered " Conservative". What matters is not what you believe in, but on how prepared you are to change. Stupid people, who take a long while grasping new Ideas could then be considered de-facto conservatives.

Who's side is he on?

Firstly and foremostly, Conservatism is not a disposition: it is a weltanschauung, a world view, a metaphysical system. Conservatism is not a resistive disposition, rather it is a metaphysical system which believes that there is a reality, truth or good which man bases his life on. Be that Shiva, Jesus, Allah, Science etc.

Conservatives of all stripes have ideas on what constitutes the good. And in the words of an Australian commercial, "When your on a good thing, stick to it". We don't resist change for the sake of it, rather change is resisted when thing are changed for the worse. And frankly over the last 100 years or so a lot of the social changes have not been for the best.

Conservative are right to resist change when it is from good to bad, but they're moronic if they resist change which is an improvement on the bad, something people disposed to reject change are liable to do. In a sick or corrupt society, it's the Conservatives which are the radicals agitating for change, wanting to change the way things are to the way things should be.

Sometimes I really despair.

Two Good Posts by Fred Reed.

I like Fred, I like him a lot. He's put up two posts which echo my thoughts.

Killing Feels So Good.

Hooking Up.

Enjoy.

Thoughts on the Attractiveness of European Women.

After several visits to Europe I thought I would offer my rating of the attractiveness of women (18-35) from the various countries that I have visited. Firstly, every country has its fair share of attractive women but it would appear to me that there is quite a variance in the "mean" of each country.

With regard to my scale, My tastes unfortunately tend to align with Roissy's with the exception that I prefer slightly older women. With that in mind:

Northern Italy:
Mean of 7 with standard deviation of 0.9.
I was pleasantly surprised. Not only were most of the younger women of normal to low BMI but they dressed in a way that was both feminine and not slutty.

Germany:
Mean of 5 with standard deviation of 1.2
The Aryan race needs some work. An abundance of fatties and no dress sense. Zero style but all in all a cheery bunch. Most are unfeminine.

Switzerland:
Mean of 6 with standard deviation of 1
Home of the mountain trekkers and it shows. Pleasant enough variety and no real fatties. Women are feminine in a school mistress type of sense. Appear boring. Dress expensively but clothes are unfeminine.

France:
Mean of 5.5 standard deviation 1.5
Quite a disappointment. Natual French beauty was pretty much rare. But to give the French girls their due, they did the best with what they had. Fashion generally good (though not as good as in Italy and Croatia) and quite feminine.

England:
Mean of 4 standard deviation 1.2. (Obviously the distribution didn't follow a typical bell curve, the mean was far more heavily slanted towards the bottom end.)

The glory has departed. Really, English women can be divided into two groups. The prole class which are by and large overweight and dress trashily. The middle and upper classes dress in manner that could best be called vicar's wife style. Frumpy. Most also appear to be chronically unhappy. Still, one of the most beautiful women that I have ever seen on my travels was English.

Croatia:
Northern Croatia, 6 with standard deviation of 1.
Typical Central European/Slavic stock with the exception that they dress well. Bit dour.

Southern Croatia (Dalmatia)
8 standard deviation 0.4.
I had independent verification on this one as I thought I may have been biased. Virtually no fatties. Less feminine than the French or the Italians. Italian inspired dress sense. Summer is glorious.

American female tourists.
Hey you see a lot of them. Mean 6 standard deviation 1.2. Better than the English but loud. American women are in many ways similar to the English. An overweight loud prole class which is totally declasse and an upper middle class that that seem to have a formulaic approach to beauty that makes it appear artificial. Tense.

I spoke to some of the local players as well. The consensus was that the more Northern a woman the easier she is to get to bed. Italian, Croatian and Spanish women tended to be the hardest to seduce. Though some of the older players stated that things were changing. Czech girls are reputed to be the easiest.

The Dream is Always the Same.

I first saw Risky Business (NSFW)when it came out in 1983. It affected me deeply and in many ways the film has haunted me throughout my life.

I've often wondered why the movie has affected me so much and I still can't provide an explanation. But it appears to have affected other people the same way.

"The score for this movie was a stroke of genius. Captures perfectly the mystery surrounding women and sex during adolescence."

"why does this song take all the bad things in your life away for the time that it's on? It's like everything is perfect."

"Love on a real train reminds me of times when i was growing up, its a great tune, but it sometimes makes me a bit sad that those days are gone. I want to listen to it while I'm driving back from the beach, the suns setting, and i going to go out for the night. its a very bittersweet tune for me. Life was a lot simpler back then."

"If ever a film was made that captured the epitome of being a high schooler during the early 80s, this is it. Tangerine Dream's music is entrancing and in my opinion, is what made this film a classic."

Close your eyes and listen to the music and tell me you are not transported to someplace far away.

I still get the same feeling watching this now 20 years on as i did when i was 14

The soundtrack by Tangerine Dream still affects me deeply. Lana's theme and Love On a Real train transport me somewhere else. If I'm on the road, on summer evenings, whenever "In the Air tonight" comes on the radio , I start driving like a mad man, possessed by something wells up in me from where I don't know.

Enjoy (NSFW) This is still one of the best sex scenes ever. Porn looks so amateurish and cheap.


I won't be posting for the next four weeks as I'm off on holidays.

M.O.R.O.N.S.

Recklessness was seen as a vice by the ancients and with good reason; It frequently got you killed. But it was also seen as a deficiency of judgment and discernment; a failure in the proper application of courage and a sign of mental weakness. No good having all the bravery in the world if it all it did was shorten you life or put the lives of your colleagues at risk.

If we asked your average Thomist the question, should we go walking through minefields to prove our courage? I imagine the answer he would give would be no. He would probably say that we have a duty of care to ourselves and that exposing ourselves to risk without a good reason would be rash. (Stupid in less polite company). On the other hand, if we asked him should walk through a minefield in order to reach a fortune or to save someone who had wandered into the minefield by accident, I suppose the answer would be, it depends. The calculation would be based on a the benefits of risk vs the probability of loss. If there is a good reason for doing something dangerous, he would certainly see grounds for the positive admiration of a man who undertook a risky endeavor. Rescuing people in need, courage in war and the advancement of science were all seen as noble endeavors where the benefits gained at great risk to the participant were praised. But to willingly exposing yourself to danger for the "thrill of it" or to prove to yourself that you can would have been seen as idiotic.

Now Abbey Sunderland's parents were like the parents who let their kid play in a minefield. When they asked the American Sailing Association if they would sponsor young Abbeys trip, the American Sailing association declined, as they said the trip was too dangerous. Jessicas parents (who have a duty of care to look after their daughter) willfully put her into harm's way. Now exposing your child to harm may not necessarily be a bad thing for a good reason, but the only reason here was self aggrandizement. The girl's parents let her risk her life for fame. It's the cult of celebrity gone mad.

Whilst stupidity is endemic to the human condition, what surprised me was the support she got from "conservative" commentators across the internet, people who should clearly know better. The same commentators who would without hesitation in a moment say "serves you right" to a provocatively dressed woman who placed herself in harm's way and who managed to get herself sexually assaulted were here heaping praise on girl displaying a greater idiocy.

Any person who supports the actions of this girl, fails the most basic precepts of conservative prudence and has displayed to the world self-evident proof of their utter stupidity. The fact that these conservative individuals have so thoroughly failed such an elementary test of good sense, raises the question of just how valid are their judgments on other matters? Is such a man capable of determining the complexities of a mortgage? Or what about the legitimacy of foreign wars? Or questions of economics? He that displays no sense in the little things is likely not to display any in the big ones.

It sad to say, but the liberals do not hold a monopoly on stupidity. The conservatives are doing their best to outdo them. If you ever wonder why the liberal project never gets turned back, perhaps it's because large numbers of Abbey Sunderland's supporters are in the conservative ranks.

Part of the problem with political theory is while great tomes have been written on human rights, separation of powers and the distribution of wealth, very little has been written on the role of stupidity in public life. Many commentators have worried about the quality of government when the the demos becomes demonic, but what happens when the demos becomes moronic?

As I become older, I have become more and more convinced that the right to vote should be limited to people who have practically demonstrated their ability to manage their affairs. People who cannot manage their own affairs have no right to a say in the management of mine. The test of citizenship should not be the presence of a pulse.

How it Works: The Social Processor. Examples.

I hadn't planned to put this post up until I ran into an interesting post by bloggist Remasculation. The post, titled ""Am I allowed to think that?" Asks Wannabe Bisexual" is a delivered on cue example of the importance of "group opinion" in female cognition.

The straight girl who asked the question is in a relationship with a man who is unhappy with his gender and wants to "transition". She explains her dilemma to her peer superior:

Transitioning aside, PIV (penis in vagina) sex (which I really like) probably isn't going to happen, which for the moment I'm totally fine with. Question 4: how do I make sure I'm still ok with that, as things continue? Am I allowed to think like that?

This innocuous comment opens up a window into the cognitive mechanism of the female mind. Here is a woman in a complex social situation for which there is no apparently obvious Party approved precedent. Her social processor is flummoxed and she has lost her social bearings, effective placing her at risk of being outside the group which she dreads. The important thing is to discern the group norm and conform to it, hence the appeal to her social superior.

Never mind the fact that she enjoys the heterosexual relationship and would appear to miss it if it were taken away from her. The important thing that this girl is trying to achieve is alignment of feelings with group norms. Primitive processing is at war with social processing and her cognitive state resembles thus:

Firstly her primitive processor is definitely repelled by her partners proposed actions, but a cognitive crisis occours, since the rational processor is not receiving any stimuli from the social processor since it is unable to determine the situation. The rational processor initiates rational actions to ascertain a solution to the social question. Once the appropriate social bearings have been made, cognition returns to normal. However in the above situation social approval is combined with primitive repulsion and then it's the role of the cognitive processor to rationalise justification for the situation.

" I shouldn't be judgmental"
" I've gotta consider his feelings and be supportive"
" I'll learn to live with it"

......and so on.

The point here is that ambiguous social standing is profoundly unsettling for most women she will endeavor to drift towards the peer group norm. Women seek safety in numbers.

This sort of stuff happens all the time even amongst women who have boyfriends with ambiguous sexuality.

Many women who are determined to breast feed feed and fail, despite painful bleeding nipples, feel failures for not conforming to the group ideal. Many women who are having a torrid time with children feel failures for not feeling the apporpirate way towards the children during childhood; our culture has effectively portrayed childhood as one endlessly Hallmark moment.
One of my left wing colleagues confessed to me that she was ashamed that she enjoyed Euro-Disney so much, given that the official left wing position is that all things American are declasse. Religious women who were taught that sex is dirty, often felt ashamed after the fact for enjoying it. Women everywhere police and judge their feelings by group norms.

Our bisexual girl will try to rationalise away her misgivings with her relationship but there will always remain a tension between her primitive nature and social expectations and should her social circumstances change, she will drop her ambiguous boyfriend like a hot potato as there is no alpha stimulation present.

I think its this phenomena which explained the great surge in divorces once divorce became liberalised. Many women were married to beta husbands but stuck with them because of social expectations, the social expectations helped rationalise away their misgivings with the relationships. With the social changes that came about post war, the social pressure to stay married evaporated and the tsunami of divorce ensured.

How it Works: The Social Processor. Part 2.

As mentioned in the previous post,there are three important factors with regard to the social processing of the female mind. They are:

1) A greater weighting of social factors in female cognition.
2) A sense of unease is self-generated when a woman falls outside perceived group norms.
3) This sense of unease motivates her towards behaviours and actions which effectively integrate her into the group.

Now group norms are derived either from direct experience of a group or through second degree knowledge such as that derived from the mainstream media and given the ubiquity of the media it now forms the predominant source of information with regard to group norms. The media determines "what's in" and "whats out". In practical terms, what this means is that women are susceptible to media manipulation to a greater degree than men. Editors and television producers exert far more influence on female behaviour than logic or religion. Should the editors or producers choose to make religion acceptable it will very rapidly become so amongst women.

A classic example of this mechanism in operation concerns the delicate subject of the Brazillian. (Readers who have been with me for a while will know my thoughts on this matter.) As a doctor, I get to do quite a few gynaecological examination and am old enough to have commenced my career in the middle of the video cassette revolution. With the increasing consumption of porn, women were presenting with "more grooming" than before until Sex and City came along. That show's promotion of the "Brazillian" correlated in my experience with a disappearance of all hair down there, especially amongst younger women. Now this may be just an innocent example of women following fashion but on more sober reflection it's profoundly disturbing.

It's no secret that the mainstream media is profoundly liberal, and liberal ideas are always presented positively, whilst conservative ideas are always presented negatively. The effect on women will be to abandon traditional in favour of the liberal. As Roger Scruton put it:

Women have been shamed into being shameful.

On a more primitive level exposure to non-peer approved stimuli will cause negative emotion: Non-liberal ideas and positions simply won't "feel" right. It also shows why arguing with women who have strong socially weighted cognition is pointless. You're logic may be watertight, but the argument does not "feel" right.

If that were only it.

Over the last 60 years or so, the western cultural ideal of the ideal man has shifted from the religious sober bourgeoisie to the playboy rake, the rebel , the man with issues. It's shifted from the good man to the emotionally unstable man. Our media is conditioning women to find good men objectionable and psychologically unstable or bad men desirable. The cognitive model is as follows:

In the presence of an boring white collar worker (say decent low level government employee):

In the absence of any positive or negative stimulation to the primitive processing centres, social negativity outweighs rational benefit. The woman can see that the man is a good man but given the greater weighting to social factors the woman overall will view the interaction negatively. "He's a good man but somethings missing". On the other hand this same man would have been viewed like this 60 years ago:

The relationship would have been viewed positively. However, sixty years of liberalisation of the arts, media and culture

On the other hand, after sixty years of the media pushing liberal ideas, some no hoper wannabe artist who refuses to work out of "rebellion against the system" starts a conversation with a girl in the bar and is viewed as follows:


Note, her brain can rationalise that the man is a poor long term bet but given the greater social weighting in female cognition, " I know he's bad for me but we have a chemistry" logic ensures. The relationship is viewed positively. (What were are talking about here is two alpha neutral (beta) males, men who neither repel or stimulate the primitive centers).

Perhaps one of the reasons women, especially professionally educated women, cannot find "decent men" is because they have been socially conditioned to be repelled by normal men. The inabilitiy to find Mr. Right may rest more on a habituated feeling of repulsion to those who are not the ideal. Hypergamy is innate in women, every woman wants to pair up with the best suitor available to her, but what she thinks is best is socially conditioned.

How it works: The Social Processor. Part 1.

As mentioned before, the social considerations of a woman's thinking are weighted to a far greater degree in her overall cognitive processing than in a man. Woman are genetically wired to be "other focused" and constantly evaluate their actions with the consideration of others and exeternalities in mind. They do this in a way that men just don't. It needs to be understood that this is not a choice a woman makes rather it happens naturally. This does not mean however that women are incapable of being self absorbed, rather female selfishness is the selfishness of competition; male selfishness, the selfishness of neglect.

The effect of this greater weighting of externalities on woman thinking is that externalities exert a powerful effect on a woman's mood. Now, it's a well known fact that women suffer from higher degrees of anxiety than men, and in her natural resting state, the average woman is intrinsically more anxious than a man. Women, just like men, wish to avoid the unpleasant sensation of anxiety and will try to engage in behaviours which limit it. One of the strategies employed is seeking safety in numbers: women endeavor to be part of the group. This does not mean that a woman can't think logically, it's just that an independent logical conclusion won't "feel" as right as group consensus. Women seek consensus out of a desire to avoid internal stress and being out on limb is more stressful for a woman than for a man. (Some women can handle greater degrees of stress than others, but given that the "anxiety mean" is greater in women than men, these women will be few). It's also why shaming is a more powerful behavioural modificant in women than logical argument. Shaming exerts a powerful capacity to generate anxiety than argument.

A classic example of this thinking in operation is with regard to fashion. Women are far more fashionable than men, the question is why? The greater "other focus" in female minds and inherent anxiety makes a woman both aware of outside customs and her conformity to them. When the mass of women take on a "style" the women feels "pressured" to adopt out of fear from being outside the group norm.

In fact, one of the common complaints many women make is with regard to social pressures to conform. However, what they mistake is the locus of this pressure. The pressure to conform is not from without, from the patriarchy or from the media, the pressure to conform is from within the woman herself. Women intrinsically feel more uncomfortable going alone, they are "wired", so to speak, to want to belong to the group.

This involuntary susceptibility to perceived group norms raises profound implications sociologically.

1) Women are far more more influenced by by perceived group norms than men. Therefore the way to convince women to change their behaviour is to give the perception that other people are doing it. (Whether or not it's true is totally irrelevant)

2)Appeals to a female's reason will be less successful than shaming or peer adulation.

3) In modern urban societies, where people live relatively isolated lives with small groups of friends, percieved group norms are going to be provided by the media.

4) He who controls the media controls female behaviour.

Here's an interesting article from the BBC

Here's how it works.

1)Firstly provide a TV show that's enjoyable and get everyone to watch it.

2)Make all your lead female characters genetic freaks with toned BMI's of 18.

3)Constantly portray the said freaks positively.

4)Girl compares herself against beautiful and positively presented freaks.

5) Internal anxiety is generated---> over a long term,constant anxiety generates depression.

6)Woman engages in behaviour to make her fit the perceived group norm.

7) Anorexia or bulimia, since calorie restriction is unrealistically portrayed as a fail safe method to achieve beauty( Outcome dependent on character traits). Never mind the woman's genetics.

How it Works: Alpha Male, Gamma Male.

As mentioned previously, a man who has the ability to stimulate a woman's alpha receptor will elicit both attraction a positive sexual response. The fact that such a man will frequently have a wide variety of suitors from a population of women with wildly disparate upbringings and social environments would seem to suggest that there is a common genetically predetermined neurobiological pathway for this phenomena. A woman's response to alpha behaviour, just like a woman's maternal response to the presence of little babies, is hard wired.

Also as mentioned previously, is the fact that social and rational factors also play an important role in mate selection. The Gamma male literally ticks all the boxes, being both socially, rationally and primitively agreeable to the woman.. An example of such a man would be a good looking and successful executive of a non-profit NGO. Here the cognitive state resembles this illustration.

In this situation, no stress is generated as all the cognitive processes are operating in unison re-enforcing each other. A woman cannot hope for better relational state than this as this is optimal state. Unfortunately in the real world, a woman's mate options are in many ways as limited as a man's: Optimal men are scarce.

As mentioned previously, alpha receptor activation is necessary for sexual attraction and many men who possess the ability to do so are flawed in other ways. Indeed the the typical cognitive pattern of the alpha male is as follows.
What's happening here is that whilst primitive and social processing are providing strong feelings of approval, rational processing is detecting serious flaws in the prospective mate and sending inhibitory signals to the other cognitive functions: Stress ensures potentially corrupting the mating process.

In the presence of primitive attraction( hard wired) and rational repulsion(soft wired) a woman will not mate with the male. On the other hand, in the present of strong attraction and rational repulsion, primitive processing will influence rational processing in such a way as bias the rational processing as to rationalise away objections to the mating process. The more sexually attracted she is to her otherwise unsuitable partner the more likely she is to engage in this form or rationalisation.

The aim of the mind is to recreate the state as exemplified in the Gamma Male illustration.

In low investment choices, i.e one night stands and short term flings, this cognitive inhibition may be of minimal importance as the woman can rationalise away the inhibition by recognising the relationship as strictly short term and of minimal importance. In longer relationships of potentially higher investment value, a woman will engage in all sorts of self-justification and illusory ideation in order to justify the relationship.

"He's damaged and I can fix him"
"His friends influence him too much"
"We're so good for each other"
"He'll change"
"He promises he won't do it again (fifth iteration of this idea)"
" A baby will strengthen our relationship"
"I don't deserve anyone better"

and so on.

This last one is particularly jarring and perplexing, especially to the laying in the wings beta male, who idolises and worships the affected woman(and who provides the shoulder for her to cry on) but who chafes at his spurned affections. The spurned beta wonders, Why does she reject me and stick with him especially when he treats her so badly? The reality is that she wants to stay with him for his alpha qualities and is trying to find an excuse to do so. It needs to be noted that the woman is not "lying" when she is doing this, rather their is a "hard wired" cognitive bias towards rationalising away the stress present in the relationship.

This last justification is particularly powerful deceiving rationalisation to outside observers as well; eliciting both sympathy towards the woman and paradoxically socially justifying her relationship with the man who obviously inappropriate. "She has low self esteem, don't be too hard on her" . The whole "I don't deserve anything better" rationalisation provides a powerful motive not to leave the relationship whilst at the same time gaining social sympathy as an "abused victim". It surprising how many women discover the self-esteem and leave the relationship when a greater alpha suitor presents himself.

Note, the same process can occur when there is low sexual attraction but high social justification for the relationship. When the social justification ceases, the woman "suddenly" finds out that she is "living a lie" and initiates divorce proceedings. The genetic meta imperative of the female mind is to eventually align thought with emotional state.

How it Works: Beta Male, Omega Male.

As mentioned in previous posts, the ability to elicit mating behaviour in a woman requires the stimulation of her cognitive alpha receptor. Niceness or agreeableness, whilst not off putting, are not characteristics which stimulate the alpha receptor. The neurophysiological processing which generates the sensation of "niceness" is seperate form the mating neuro-circuitry. This is easily verified in real life by the phenomena of the "friend zone". Women can and do have agreeable relationships with males such as brothers, fathers and workers without feeling the slightest sexual desire. Partner "agreeableness" may be a pre-requisite(though not necessarily so) to sexual attraction but it on its own is not enough to stimulate the alpha response.

Figuratively we can picture the mental processes as such.

Note, in this cognitive model, the beta male may appeal on both socially and rationally but he fails to elicit any response in the primitive area. The woman finds the man agreeable(even strongly so)and may in fact place high value on the friendship but does not feel sexual attraction to the male. It's also the cognitive mechanism at play when a woman speaks those dreaded words "lets just be friends". Hence a beta male can be defined as a male who fails to stimulate the alpha receptor but retains enough positive attributes so that a woman wants to form a non sexual relationship with him.

Now a woman may still be able to engage in erotic behaviour whilst in this zone, but the behaviour is not instinctive or desired. Such a mechanism operates when a woman is "doing her duty" or having sex with someone out of guilt or pity, however what are driving her behavior are social expectations or rational judgment, not instinct.

(It needs to be remembered that just as mothers can experience difficulty in bonding with their child when exhausted, ill or under other external stresses, the sensitivity to the alpha receptor can be diminished in similar states.)

Contrast the Beta cognitive model with the Omega. The Omega male actually stimulates feelings of repulsion in the woman,

Here, not only is the primitive processing not stimulated but the primitive area sends inhibitory signals to the rational and social areas of the mind to try and break off contact. Unlike the beta male where there is no desire to break off the non-sexual relationship, the woman deliberately tries to avoid the Omega man. This in some way is a small mercy for the Omega male, for he is left in no doubt about the woman's desire not to have a relationship with him. This small mercy is not extended to the beta male. Here the woman is still quite happy to keep his company and her friendly engagement and proximity with the beta male may be misinterpreted by him as being the very beginnings of a potential sexual interest. Inevitable frustration and bitterness ensures.

How it Works: Alcohol, the Sleaze Propellant.

Alcohol has many physiological effects on the human system, but it's well acknowledged that with higher doses of alcohol, the higher cognitive functions tend to be more susceptible to its affects. If we take our cognitive model of the female brain, we can see that under the influence of alcohol the weighting that the rational mind has in decision making becomes reduced.

Initial State:

After a few drinks:

What we see here is that primitive and social process gains greater weight in decision making even though overall cognitive function has reduced. It also needs to be noted that social functioning, whilst it assumes a greater weight in the decision making, is actually diminished and hence concern with regard to the social consequences of our actions becomes diminished.

As alcohol is further consumed, the mind resembles this state:

Here, mental processing is diminished overall but primitive processing completely overrides rational thought and social processing has only a small amount to play. After seeing far too many drunks than I care to remember, it's interesting to note that women will still try to preserve some modicum of decency even at very high levels of alcohol consumption. Unless absolutely intoxicated, women will still keep their legs together and make an effort at preserving some semblance of modesty commensurate to the degree of their intoxication. It's interesting to note just how this differs when compared to men. As in women, the higher level functions deteriorate with increasing alcohol cosumption, but given that the "cognitive hard wiring" in men places less weighting on social issues , they are more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour at lower levels of inebriation than women.

Now there are a couple of take home messages here:

Firstly, it's important to the recognise the importance of social factors in female decision making and of its relative resistance to alcoholic effects. This would seem to indicate that the weighting is "hard wired" and innate to female nature. Men and women process information differently.

Secondly, under the influence of alcohol the weighting given to primitive processing increases while the weighting given to rational and social processing decreases. The net affect is that a woman is more likely to make decisions based on her feelings rather than on rational calculation. In terms of mating, the man that can elicit a sexual/mating response whilst the woman is in this state is going to get the goods. But since the mating response is contingent on activation of the alpha receptor(and this to a certain degree is hard wired) it follows that alpha traits will elicit this response. Traits which elicit a feeling comfort ( Nice Guy traits) are not going to elicit a sexual response. This is why the Nice Guy gets to take the drunk girl home with a peck on the cheek(no sexual response elicited), whilst the dominant jock gets to engage in unnatural perversions(High sexual response). It's also why the "nice girl" under the influence, is prepared to engage in depraved acts since her brain is totally being driven by "basic instincts", the inhibitory cognitive pathways have been neutralised by alcohol.

Tirdly, the choice of mate that a woman makes whilst inebriated is not the choice that she would make whilst sober, as in sober states rational and social factors influence mate selection. This is why the sober woman frequently regrets the drunken one night stand.

Alcohol is a "sleaze propellant" because it neutralises our higher cognitive functions, letting our 'baser instincts" take control. As more alcohol is consumed we in fact become more like animals; and like the animals, mating preference is genetically geared towards alpha males.

Alpha Receptor.

In our previous conceptual model of the female mind we introduced the concept of the primitive mind. (I really should have called it the instinctive mind but the thought didn't come to me at the time) Now in some cases of Post Natal Depression it would appear the source of stress that leads to depression arises from the Primitive Mind. Now the Primitive Mind is primarily concerned with the direct mother child relationship and stress arises when their is an absence of positive feelings towards the baby. Now in some instances, it would appear that the bonding difficulty is due to factors concerned with the child, i.e. the child is difficult, sick etc. so that the interactions with the mother generate negative feelings. On the other hand, the child may be perfectly fine but the mother remains indifferent to the interaction.

As mentioned previously, insights into the mechanism of Post Natal Depression may lead us to a better understanding of adult relationships.

If we assume that there is such a thing as a maternal instinct, then its activation is contingent on the presence of a baby. The neuro-sensory experience of a child must in some way stimulate the activation of this instnict. Conceptually, we can then posit the existence of a "maternal instinct" receptor which activates baby friendly and bonding behaviours when stimulated, and inhibits them when not. It would appear then that in some cases of Post Natal Depression, the baby fails to activate this receptor and bonding behaviour fails. In some instances the baby's behaviour may actually repel the mother and in other instances, the mother may have a less sensitive or absent receptor so the presence of a baby fails to elicit the response.

Just as we can posit the existence of a maternal receptor with respect to a baby, we can also posit the existence of a receptor which activates the mating instinct in adults. In females that receptor is the Alpha Receptor: Stimulation of this receptor leads to mating behaviours. And just as babies can elicit behaviours which repel the mother, likewise adults can display behaviours which positively inhibit the mating response. Conceptually, this would be akin to stimulating an Omega Receptor.

Like the maternal instinct, a lot of the sexual instinct is "hard wired" and has a genetic basis to it. Evolutionists would probably put forward the theory that this hard wiring is the result of genetic selection to ensure survival of the species, as a Catholic, I think it's God's way of putting limits on human stupidity. The bottom line is that the behavioural stimuli that elicit the sexual response are pre-determined.

It's important to note that there may be a significant degree of variation in the sensitivity of this receptor. Some women may be more sensitive than others and subtle displays of masculinity may be enough for some whilst other women probably need much more aggressive displays of male behaviour. ( I think that this is linked to a woman's temperament/personality)

That's not to say that culture can't influence it. As mentioned previously, women's thinking tends to be more intergrative than men's, social and learned(rational) expectations also have a influence on her state of mind, but if her alpha receptor is not stimulated sexual desire will be absent. Behaviour's that stimulate the receptor are behaviours possessed by Alpha males such as dominance, social confidence, muscularity, appearance and strong central locus of control. On the other hand, Omega stimulants are poor physical health and appearance, indecisiveness, submissiveness and poor self confidence.

I inadvertently tend to do a lot of marriage counseling and am privy to the failings of many marriages. I most fear for a marriage not when the husband cheats on or beats his wife, but when the wife begins to view her relationship with her husband as that of a brother i.e the sexual dimension of the relationship is extinguished. The men in these relationships frequently display behaviours which are ideal from a feminist point of view and in fact, the lack of sexual attraction that many of these women feel towards their men is as much a mystery to them as it is to their spouses.

Due to the pervasive influence of Feminism, Romantic Traditionalism and a watered down Christianity on culture, many men have conditioned themselves to behave in a way towards women that fails to stimulate their alpha receptors, the net result being that many of these women feel no or little sexual desire towards their husbands.

A note on the Beta Male. Beta Males neither stimulate alpha or omega receptors. Their affect on libido in neutral and that's why women view relationships with such men positively as platonic friendships. However, since romantic relationships are ultimately sexual, Beta males are not seen as sexual mates.

Blogging note.

Just a brief note to my readers. I've had a rather busy few weeks and have not been able to post as much. Hopefully I'll be up to steam in the next week or so.

So much to do, so little time to do it.

Mental Models

I suppose the main reason why I put up the posts on post natal depression was to illustrate that the assumption, that the natural role of a woman is motherhood, is false. The fact is that some women suffer in assuming a a motherhood role, and forcing them into that role is detrimental to themselves and most probably to their children. However, what's interesting when one tries to dissect the causes of the depression, is the insights it gives into the operation of the female mind.

What becomes apparent when you talk to women is that there seem to be a variety of factors which contribute to the condition, but when you distill them they boil down to three factors: Instinctive, social and cognitive. Now if we assume that there may be cognitive process which correspond to these factors, much like Freudian theory (which I despise by the way) we can divide the female cognitive process into three sub entities which I will call Rational, Primitive and Social cognitive processes And by using this,try and construct a model of post-natal depression.

The Primal processes concerns itself with the operation of the primal functions, sex , eating mothering etc. The instincts.

The Rational processes concerns itself with day to day though processes and facts which we have been taught. (This bit of the brain is most influenced by education)

The Social processes concerns itself with the social dimension of our actions. (This bit of the brain is mostly influenced by perceived social convention and habit)

Now it's my belief that these cognitive process are probably "hardish" wired (i.e mostly genetically based and environmentally modified). But more importantly, the "weighting" that each of these is assigned by cognitive process is different in the sexes and this difference is by and large genetically determined, and it's this weighting which distinguishes the difference between male and female cognitive processes. Now if we attempt to illustrate this we get the following.

Girl Brain:
Boy Brain:


What we see here is that in a woman, her primitive and social processing seem to carry a greater weighting in her global cognitive processing. She is more likely to be influenced by feelings and social consequences and less influenced by rationality. Now I'm not saying that women are irrational, what I'm saying is that social and emotional factors have a much greater weighting in her cognitive functioning than in a man; an important distinction. ( With willed concentration i.e such as when performing a maths test, the weightings can change but this seems to be a task orientated phenomena and the system reverts to its default state once the task is finished)

Now post-natal depression can basically be thought of as an end result of the conflict between the three thought processes. This conflict gives rise to perceptible stress which over time leads to depression and feelings of detachment from the child.

Now the primal processes are what we commonly think as the "animal instincts" and are the ones seem most likely to be influenced by hormones, and it does seem to explain why some women are affected by hormonal issues when it comes to bonding with the baby. But what I postulate is just as some women are more "sexed" than others, it also appears that some women are more "motherly" than others. (perhaps there is a genetic basis to this) These "motherly" women derive pleasure from the mother baby interaction and the interaction is calming, not stressful. On the other hand, there are women who lack this "motherly" instinct or pleasure from bonding with their child, and it's these women who find mothering stressful and who probably form the group of women who want to work and not stay at home. These women may want to be good mothers but the mother baby thing just doesn't a happen. The cognitive processes are "expecting" the bond and joy of motherhood but its not there, stress ensures.

On the other hand, a woman who has a good mothering instinct but has been taught bad mothering skills, usually due to a desire to conform to social normal, will also experience stress in motherhood because of her inability to settle the child, breastfeed, etc. In this instance the source of stress comes from the conflict between the cognitive process and the mothering instinct. And while Mother wants to bond with the baby, the constant crying, feeding and sleep difficulties are source of stress which poison the relationship and her belief in herself.

Finally a mother who has good parenting skills and bonds well with the baby might also feel stressed and unhappy if she is placed in an environment which is hostile to motherhood. Such a woman may enjoy her child but become depressed due to the social opprobrium generated by other women.

The point here to realise is that there are several pathways which can lead to post natal depression and that trying to find that one size fits all cure, is likely to help only a small proportion of the women with the condition. Hormonal aberrations have been postulated as causes for PND, however many women with the condition don't have perceptible hormonal abnormalities, nor has hormonal therapy been accepted as a conventional therapy for this condition.

For motherhood to really work three things have to come together in synch. The mother must have a maternal instinct, she must be taught how to mother properly, society must view her role positively. Variations from this ideal will stress the mother in some way. In most women the stress generated is mild, but in those with cultural or genetic predispositions it's enough to lead to depression.

So what's all this got to do with Conservatism?

Firstly, the reality is that a significant portion of women are not born with a maternal instinct and the concept that a woman's natural place is in the home would seem to be at odds with the scientific evidence. It's an observed fact that some women, who are otherwise normal, find caring for children stressful to the point that it objectively injures their health. This is not my opinion, it's a fact.

Secondly, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that whilst the maternal-child care arrangement is probably the best arrangement for looking after children, it's not necessarily so if the mother is having difficulties with the child. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest the good child care is better than dysfunctional mothering.

Thirdly,given the given the differences in cognitive process between men and women, especially the fact that women give greater weighting to social and cultural factors, means that women are far more influenced by culture and opinion than men are. This fact has profound societal implications. The type of culture we expose our women to is the type of women they become. Men on the other hand tend to be culture resistant. Trying to indoctrinate men to like fat women is just not going to work since their cognitive processes are less influenced by culture.

Finally the mechanics of mother-child bonding parallels the mechanics of male-female bonding, as well as their pathologies. The insights gained from looking at the mechanisms of post natal depression lead directly to the insights of Game. The successful baby like like the successful male, pushes all the right buttons.