Could feminism prolong average human life expectancy?

Here's an interesting argument I came across in my reading about evolutionary theory. It might be usable as a powerful new argument in favour of the social changes engendered by the rise of feminism since the 1970s.

So, I'm sure you all know this already, but since feminism began to really gather steam in the 1970s, the average age for men and women to get married and have children has been steadily climbing. I don't have the exact figures, but it's rather significant. People think that's significant because the chances of genetic deformity or other forms of gene-based deficiency rises precipitously as the mother AND father get older. Basically, older ova and sperm are more likely to yield offspring with gene-based adverse conditions such as down's syndrome.

But that's a good thing, actually, although on the face of it, that state of affairs sounds terrible.

Basically, the evolutionary argument is that humans have, on the genetic level, developed immunities to a vast array of illnesses and other environmental pathogens or genetic maladaptions that will lead to an early death. Natural selection ensures this, because a person who lacks the genetic defences against illness or maladaption will not live to produce offspring, and thus those genes will be removed from the gene-pool upon the person's death. What we have not developed genetic defences against, however, are those illnesses that kill us after we tend to have children. That's why hereditary illnesses like heart disease and cancer still exist: because we tend to get killed by those illnesses after we pass on the genes that do not defend against them to the next generation.

So, the argument goes, if humans were to collectively push back the age at which we produce offspring, gradually over time those individuals who do not carry genes that will promote those kinds of disease will come to dominate the gene pool, in which case humans will, on average, come to live longer, since fewer of us will be killed off earlier by things like cancer.

To bring things back to feminism, humans are, partially because of feminism, presently engaged in a process of pushing back the average age at which we produce offspring. In theory, then, this could set in motion the process of natural selection of those offspring from parents who do not carry genes for diseases like cancer.

An additional factor that we must acknowledge is the effect of eugenics. Like it or not, in the near future, doctors will be able to give expecting couples a full genetic read-out of their unborn foetus, including genetic pre-dispositions to certain diseases and/or disorders. I think it's inevitable that, given such information, a large number of couples will choose to eugenically abort pregnancies where the foetus shows such signs of genetic pre-dispositions to such maladaptions. This, too, will tend to increase the average human life expectancy.

When is it okay to date a known cheater?

Perhaps you're already going to take issue with this post, based solely on the headline, because my use of the word "when" already implies that it is okay to date a known cheater.

I think the conventional wisdom here is that if you know somebody is a cheater, that means they've demonstrated a propensity to indulge in that behaviour, which means that you can't rule out the possibility that said person will likely indulge in that behaviour again. The lesson of the parable of the farmer and the viper, it seems, is the prevailing view: s/he's damaged goods, and if you trust him or her to act differently, you have only yourself to blame when you get bitten.

But allow me to throw a monkey-wrench into that theory: lots of people actually do cheat. The last time I saw the stats on this, it was somewhere around 30-50 per cent of marriages that had experienced some kind of adultery. The numbers are staggering, and that's just self-reported adultery. Additionally, we have the sobering statistic that 10-15% of all human beings are sired by a man other than whom they believe their biological father to be. That figure, of course, is skewed to the low end by the number of abortions that terminate pregnancies that are (potentially) the product of adulterous relationships, which is one of the most oft-cited reasons women report for getting an abortion: to prevent their partners from finding out about the affair.

Basically, lots of us are adulterers. And more importantly, we ALL have the same propensity to cheat in the right circumstances. That's because our bodies are genetically hard-wired to exploit opportunities for reproduction with those that our pre-conscious brain finds reproductively fit. Monogamy, on the other hand, is not hard wired. That's something that we discovered to be a viable reproductive strategy UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.But if circumstances change (say, the ubiquitous road-trip, alcohol-fueled fling that the partner will never find out about), that natural propensity to exploit the reproductive opportunity will ignite. And often, in such circumstances, cheating happens even by those who would before and after describe cheating as something they'd NEVER do. Why? Well, because in many ways and in many circumstances, our pre-conscious brain is exercising its decision-making power before the conscious brain is even aware of what's going on. I think we've all been in this circumstance, viz. doing something you know is probably a bad idea, your conscious decision-making power coming in and out in its losing battle against the overwhelming emotions and sensory bliss that you're experiencing.

So, I think what this all means is that for you to hold another person's demonstrated propensity to cuckold against him or her is to ignore your own latent, as-yet-undemonstrated propensity for same. The difference is that you've never been tested. And obviously, there seems to be some room for conscious choice. Sometimes in flagrante delicto, you'll suddenly come to your senses and put on the brakes. But just up the pressure to a sufficient degree and the problem arises yet again.

Bottom Line: Cheating of this kind always remains a possible pattern of behaviour that ANYBODY, under the right circumstances, will indulge in.

Of course, I'm talking here about single instances of adultery, not about protracted affairs. With protracted affairs, the cuckolder cannot claim that his or her conscious decision-making power is hijacked by desire and emotion. Here, the person is making the conscious decision to carry on a pattern of deceptive behaviour. Of course, the same reproductive drives are promoting the behaviour, but in this case, the person is ratifying this unconscious drive with a conscious decision (1) to indulge, and (2) to indulge for a extended period of time.

Here, my advice is that it's okay to date somebody who you know to have carried on an adulterous affair only if you know that s/he has turned a corner. Meaning that s/he regrets the adultery, not just getting caught.

For my money, what this (hypothetically) means is that she understands that adultery is a losing reproductive strategy for her. But not all of you, I suppose, are inclined to choose your partners based on their understanding (or lack thereof) of the evolutionary, genetic basis for their reproductive actions.

How Much Does Age Matter? (Part 2)

I've been putting off this entry for a while, as I mulled it over. In Part 1, I considered my experience of men's and women's age preferences on dating sites.

But of course, most people use online dating to do just that, casual "dating", so what about in real life, when people get into LTRs, as we humans tend overwhelmingly to do? In those circumstances, how much does age really matter?

Speaking from personal experience, I've dated someone who was 8 years older than I, and 5 years younger. That's my gamut. Personally, I tend to date women slightly older than myself (viz. 3-4 years), just because I've found that 30+ women generally tend to have their shit together more than younger women. Obviously, some younger women are better put together than others, and some older women are still frickin' basket cases, but you know that thing you girls go on about how all 20something men are immature? Well, it's generally true of women too, surprise surprise.

Here's my opinion: age discrepancies matter more when you're younger. So, whereas a 45 y/o and a 35 y/o can probably go together just fine, it's more difficult for a 25 y/o and a 35 y/o to jive. A fortiori as the ages get younger, to the point where it seems pretty ridiculous to date somebody ten years younger. For me, I'm 27, so that'd be illegal, but even though next year dating a decade younger would be legal, it's not something I'll be chomping at the bit to do, because, well, it'd be absurd to date somebody who's still in high school.

Generally, though, it seems to me that age difference can present difficulties for a relationship, especially a serious one. I used to always say that age didn't matter one iota to me; it still isn't a big deal at all. However, my experience has taught me that with somebody significantly (5+ years older/younger), your priorities and/or motivations might not be co-extensive.

When I was 23, I didn't understand that. Consequently, when a girl who was 31 decided not to escalate our (fucking incredible) sexual relationship into something more serious (and in fact broke off even the sexual aspect) because she was looking only for something serious, I was completely vexed and exasperated. What an absurd reason to end a relationship, I thought. Why not just go with the flow? Well, I see now that she had the 'know thyself' adage down pat, because she's now married and I'm single without any intention of changing that anytime soon. And we're both happy. And we didn't have to go through the friendship-ruining process of a breakup. Everybody wins!

I hope it's clear that I'm not promoting any mating strategy over another. As I've said before, there's nothing inherently "mature" about wanting to settle down and get monogamous. Moreover, this whole "men mature slower than women" thing, as I've said, has nothing to do with the fact that men are commitment-phobes. That's down to our genes, and so is the fact that you women want monogamy from your man. It's called the battle of the sexes for a reason, and it shouldn't surprise you that sometimes a man's reproductive goals diverge from the woman's. (E.g., You know, girls, how sometimes your guy wants to get straight to intercourse, whereas you prefer more foreplay; well, that's down to unconscious processes in your brain based on your and his best reproductive strategies at that present moment, not to some kind of inability of men to take things slowly.) So, when women who want commitment conflict with their men who want to leave their options open, there's nothing normatively "better" about either person's telos.

I think it's important to be up front about what one is open to in a relationship, although it's not really something I think you should be talking about on your first Nerve dates. (E.g., if you've read Drea June's blog lately, you will have noticed that the issue of relationships and monogamy often comes up WAY too early, to the point that the discussion is inappropriate, presumptuous, and awkward.) I think this advice applies doubly if there's a great age disparity. Date somebody older/younger, then, just do so with full disclosure, with eyes wide open.

Some "Activities" That Do Not Get the Blam-Blam Seal of Approval (C)

So, since I'm the dating guru who everybody looks to for their dating advice, does it surprise you that I'm not into rimming?

So sue me. I'm just not into having my tongue that close to poo, and I should just come out and admit that the high possibility of contracting a fecal-bound disease is intimidating enough to keep me away from your butthole. Moreover, it doesn't feel sufficiently incredible to encourage another person to put their tongue on my rectum. Diminishing returns, you follow?

For the big board: Rimming - Does not get the Blam-Blam Seal of Approval (C) .

Here are a few more things that do not get the Blam-Blam Seal of Approval (C)Necrophilia, Bestiality, Apotemnophilia, Fisting, Asphyxiophilia, Phalloorchoalgolagnia, Biastophilia, coprophilia/Fecophilia, Paedophilia, Fire Play, Emetophilia, Somnophilia, Erotophonophilia, Urolagnia, Genitorture, Vorarephilia, Frotteurism, Haematophilia

But just to leave you a FEW options, the following activities DO carry the Blam-Blam Seal of Approval (C)

Acarophilia, Parthenophilia, Amaurophilia, Group \bsexo?\b/swapping, Autagonistophilia, Heteroflexibility/Pansexuality, Endytophilia, Katoptronophilia, Maiesiophilia, Zelophilia, Narratophilia, Vincilagnia

Enjoy yourselves!

How Much Does Age Matter? (Part 1)

I'm sure all of you have noticed the following, but perhaps the significance has escaped you. Sometimes the greatest profundities are those things that are sitting right in front of our faces but which we never noticed before.

Having gone through loads of profiles of both men and women, an interesting trend has emerged.

Men: Overwhelmingly, men limit their search parameters to women who are their age or younger. Perhaps slightly older, but very few, I've found, list themselves as being interested in women who are more than, say, 3-5 years older than themselves. As the men get older, their parameters shift slightly upwards, but still a large portion of men above, say, 40 are still looking for 25 y/o women.

I'll set aside the issue of whether compatibility issues will arise in relationships of such a great age disparity until my Part 2 post. What I'd like to query presently is whether the viagra sexual-revolution has increased this trend. To wit, are 40+ men even MORE appealing to young women now that there's a virtual guarantee of sexual proficiency?

Women: Overwhelmingly, women limit their search parameters to men who are their age or older. Perhaps one or two years younger AT THE MOST. Most interestingly, as they get well into their thirties, however, this trend shifts dramatically and they begin to search for men significantly younger than themselves. So whereas the 27 y/o looks for 27-35, the 36 y/o tends to look for 30-40.

I find that very interesting, as if to imply that a person's fear of the big four-oh overrides their typical desire to date older men, which women, as a matter of statistics, cross-culturally tend to do. A friend of mine was discussing with me the apocryphal theory that women reach their "sexual peak" around 35, whereas men do so around "18". Why, she asked, don't more 35 y/o women go after 18 y/o boys?

I'd guess that that happens sometimes, although perhaps not as young as 18. It seems to me that the less important having a serious relationship is to the woman, the more likely she'll be willing to date young when she's in the sexual prime of her late 30s. Women, any input?

Sex and Neotony: The Dos and Don'ts of Shaving Your Nether Regions

My friend who inspired this post wanted me to call it "Are you a 70s wo/man?" as a reference to the instantaneous and highly accurate dating of a porno movie that can be achieved just by looking at the amount of pubic hair that the stars and starlets are sporting.

So is it just me, or is nether shaving turning into a national craze? Is anybody NOT doing it these days? If you watch any porn, you know that not only do 99% of the girls shave off the bush, but also most of the GUYS are doing it too.

This I find very interesting, because porn is made for male consumption, meaning most of the audience are male, and the males that these guys are watching are doing something that I think most straight guys would consider to be somewhat emasculating, viz. shaving off their pubic hair.

With guys, I think the explanation is usually pretty simple (and very shallow): it makes your cocks look bigger. So sue us; we're guys, and part of our sexual self-esteem is tied up in how desirable we perceive our junk to be.

With girls, however, the whole pubic shaving trend probably seems much more worrisome to some people. The hand-waving, scoffing dismissal of the nascent male preference for girls to shave their pussies that I've heard is just that guys who like that are sick and secretly want to fuck 12 year olds. And although I think that kind of petulant response comes from the wrong place, it's not too far from the truth, I think.

Neotony, in evolutionary biology, is the retention by adults of youth-indicating features, particularly features associated with children. And like it or not, girls, a preference for neotony in potential partners is a fundamental part of male sexuality. This is because youth is the most reliable indicator of fertility, and it explains why men statistically prefer to couple with women who are younger than themselves. It also explains why NO HUMAN CULTURE IN HISTORY has ever sexually favoured older women to younger women. Of course, some individuals might prefer older women, but their genes should in theory be eliminated from the gene pool, because their partners would probably have been less fertile than a younger potential mate.

So that means that when you're in the gym killing yourself on the elliptical to work off those Cadbury bunnies you ate over Easter week-end and you see JoJo shaking her tits at the screen on the televisions, you should resist the urge to dismiss this phaenomenon as purely cultural. Although MTV and Maxim do affect the specifics of how male preferences for neotony play out, the male desire for Lolitas is hard-wired in us.

This might explain why men like shaved pussies, and in turn why women shave themselves. But perhaps there are other factors. Perhaps this should be filed under "TMI", but I'm of the opinion that everybody should be at least trimming their unruly body hair just as a matter of cleanliness.

Any input? Am I missing something critical here?

Tip #46: Lost E-mails and Non-responses

This is going to be very brief, because I'm cooking up a much juicier, interesting post for later. Or maybe to-morrow.

I think all the regular bloggers are pretty familiar with how glitchy the FC servers can be. It's actually somewhat surprising sometimes how technologically rubbish this site can be, what with all the crazy/impressive things being done out there on the web.

Anyway, just in 2007 I have had a minimum of 3 instances on which e-mails I sent or that others sent to me just didn't arrive at their intended destination. I can only guess how many other times that's happened.

My advice is that you should always send a follow-up e-mail in the event of a putative blow-off. Sure, there's always the risk that THAT e-mail won't go through. Plus, there's the potential that you're sending something to somebody who decided they weren't interested, in which case you might come across as too persistent. (But if that's the case, s/he's not worth your time anyway, so I think it's worth it.) On the up side, however, if an e-mail was lost, then this is potentially your only way to re-connect, or to connect in the first place, however the case may be.

Obviously, I'm not going to tell you what exactly to write, but you should be sending follow up e-mails, just in case FC's e-mail servers have been possessed by daemons and/or are hell-bent on ruining your love/sex life.

For the record, therefore, if there's anybody out there that I wrote to, and who wrote me back something impossibly clever and flirty to which I never in turn responded: send me a note! Seriously, I practise what I preach (Cf. Tip for Men and Women #43: How to Not Be a Deadbeat Dater), so no message goes unresponded to. If I'm not interested, I'll tell you; I don't just skulk off to avoid having to actually tell you that I'm not interested. I mean, come on! We're adults here, right? Not children who solve our social problems by hanging out on the other side of the playground.

Why do men mature slower than women?

Are you already questioning the premiss of this post? Yeah, well, that makes two of us, actually. Just a warning up front: this post is going to be full of my unresolved ruminations.

So, I'm sure you've all heard that familiar commentary that men mature slower than women do. Basically, this is meant to explain man-child syndrome, viz. the 30 year old guy who can still commiserate with 12 year olds, since they both play the same video games.

One question: is this man-child thing meant to be limited to Western Society men, or does it apply also to guys in Japan and Morocco too?

Okay, so here's my up front objection to the commentary: it seems to me that the unspoken premiss of the idea that men mature slower than women is a completely normative, value-laden judgement call about what men and women SHOULD be doing at certain ages.* What I think this judgement call amounts to is some kind of condensed version of the same formulaic, teleological notion of romantic love that gets shoved down our throats in countless, myriad ways every day.

Am I even approximately right here? It just seems to me that maturation in this context is equated with things like "not philandering", "settling down", "getting serious", etc. Generally, not acting like a boy who has his whole life ahead of him, but rather like a man who's knee-deep in life, and needs to start making serious decisions about where to go from here.

But if that's true, then what "men mature slower than women do" comes down to is just a failure to recognise the fact that men and women have divergent reproductive goals. As I've discussed before, monogamy is a reproductive STRATEGY that originates from the phaenomenon of female sexual choice; men participate in it because in certain circumstances it can also be our best reproductive strategy. But sometimes, it's not our best reproductive strategy, in which case, "don't philander" or "settle down" is, from the perspective of evolution, actually bad advice.

Anyway, that "men mature slower" is just a pro-monogamy value judgement is just my suspicion. It does not, however, explain some man-child behaviour, such as indecisiveness, weakness/convictionlessness, and incomprehension of terms like "attraction" and "chemistry". You all know this guy: he's maybe in his thirties, very flaky and equivocal when it comes to his commitments, passive-aggressive, probably plays video games, has no direction in his life, hasn't had much success with women, and always says things like "I don't care what we do; what do YOU want to do".

Here's a theory I've been playing with in my head. So, imagine the polar opposite of this guy is the ultra-alpha male type. His outward displays of genetic fitness are so blatant that they're basically nauseating. He drives a benz, wears flashy clothing, talks louder than anybody else, fights or threatens other men often, and basically takes what he wants when it comes to women, whatever way he can get it. Now imagine if EVERY guy were like this. That's a very ugly picture, replete with misogyny and sexual objectification of women, rape and sexual exploitation of women, jealousy killings of rivals and mates, brutal male infighting, etc. This means that society has a great interest in discouraging those rough edges of male sexuality by promoting opposite social values, such as humility, self-restraint, and chivalry.

But what if society went too far, to the point that male characteristics were too often and too consistently discouraged? If that happened, would men grow up unequipped to enter the adult world as a full-grown adult in body body and mind?

Moreover, if this is not a problem limited to my generation, then the male figures in my life as a child probably weren't able to teach me how to grow up into a mature man, since they didn't ever lean that themselves? And even further, if there were no strong male figures in my life, how could my mother really be expected to teach me how to grow up into a mature man?

Like I said, these are just ruminations. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

*As a parenthetical side-note, I should point out that I'm an emotivist on questions of normativity, which means that I believe all "should" statements are just expressions of a point of view. So, "you should refrain from killing babies for fun" really just expresses the idea that society has an interest in curtailing that behaviour, not some kind of objective morality that transcends human activity.

Tip #45: Taking Control of Your Love/Sex Life

Admittedly, this tip is going to sound a bit vague, and probably not helpful to some of you. But I'm going to say it anyway.

So, having been reading people's blogs and profiles lately, plus talking to some of my single friends, a similar theme has come up over and over: there just aren't that many "good ones" out there. More particular to the on-line set, I've seen said a bunch of times lately how "nobody ever writes to me", both from guys and girls.

To my way of thinking, that kind of victim's mentality is sure to lead to nothing but failure in your love/sex life. Seriously, if things aren't working for you, then maybe it's time to think about doing something different. Here are some suggestions:

(1) If people don't respond to your profile, then spend an hour reading other guys' profiles and try to avoid all the lame, repetitive, boring bits that everybody says (e.g., "should be as comfortable in jeans as s/he is in formal wear", etc.).

(2) If people aren't attracted to you, then maybe get in touch with some of the psychological literature out there on sexual attraction. I'm thinking especially here of guys who don't think of themselves as physically attractive; what you guys need to realise and come to understand that attractiveness and attraction are not the same thing.

(3) If people aren't writing to you, then WRITE TO THEM. As I've said before, if you're a guy, then you really have no excuse not to be a paying member who can send out messages, because winking and hotlisting isn't very effective as a way to get somebody's attention. If you're a girl, you should be paying too, but even if you're not, get out there and start winking! More so than girls do, guys actually respond to winks. I'm no more in support of the exorbitant rates of these dating sites, but if you are seriously trying to meet people, then you should approach it somewhat seriously, which may entail coughing up some cash.

(4) If the dates you do get turn out to be boring, don't just gripe to your friends the next day about how s/he was a bad date. Maybe think how YOU could have made the date better. The tricky thing about a on-line-dating first date is that most people go into it very nervously. If you are nervous going into it, overly shy, then that's something that you need to work on. That way, if your date turns out to be nervous, you can compensate with enthusiasm and interest, which usually helps bring a nervous date out of his or her shell. As for me, I've been on-line dating off and on for a number of years, and I've been out with lots of people; after all this, I can honestly say that I've never had a "bad date". At the very least, I'll have had a pleasant conversation with somebody, learnt something that I can use in my love/sex life, and met somebody that could be my new friend.

These are just some examples. The bottom line, I think, is that blaming others for your dating/sexual failures is a losing strategy. If you're not having the kind of love/sex life that you want, then I believe that the only way (barring luck) to improve things is to take responsibility for your own failures, and examine how you can improve yourself vis-a-vis your prospective dating pool; THEN (and only then) will you be able to move forward.

WHAT'S THE DEAL with all this butt sex?

So, when my female friends ask me sex questions a la: "Why do guys ALWAYS like/want to such-and-such?", often my answer comes back to porn. Meme theory gives us a great way to think about how ideas and thoughts transmit from person to person through society over time. So take that as the starting point for what I'm about to say. If you're unfamiliar with meme theory, then get on wikipedia already. Jeez.

So, let me just make a full disclosure up front: I used to be REALLY INTO Catherine MacKinnon. What she said just made a lot of sense to me. Minus her claim that p0rn is (literally) rape, which I don't think anybody takes seriously. Anyway, I'm mostly over her now (thankfully), but some of what she said still resonates with me. Namely, the idea of porn as an instrument of speech makes a lot of sense to me.

So, my basic thought is that since guys use p0rn as their wanking fantasies, what they see on the screen will come to influence the sorts of things they will want to do in their actual life, since the point of fantasies is that you want to act them out. MacKinnon actually cites a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting this is true; her point is to claim that it's a dangerous trend for women, who are often injured attempting to replicate the exotic sex acts their husbands see professionals enact on film.

(Remember, meme theory!)

Now, my only evidence that more (straight) people to-day are going for drives on the Hershey Highway than in days gone by is anecdotal. And of course anecdotal evidence means nothing; however, I'm pretty confident that if there is some kind of survey out there on this topic, it would show a difference in anal sex habits between people to-day and people, say, in Kinsey's surveys.

If this is true, then my theory is that porn is at least partially responsible for causing this trend. I think that's also true for lots of other kinds of sexual behaviour, such as the so-called "money $hot", tit fucking, group sex, etc.

What do you think? Are more people buttfucking these days? And why?

If Women are the Selectors, Why Is Mabeline Still In Business?

Here's something I've been puzzling over to-day:

So, you know that conventional wisdom that people like to dispense about how women are ALWAYS the one who choose the guy? You know: EVEN when it seems like you're the chooser, they say, she was the one who chose you. EVEN when you pursued her out of the other 3.3 billion other females, SHE chose YOU.

Or so they say.

Well, it's true. 100%. But why?

Now, I know you girls would love to think that it's something YOU'RE doing to maintain this position as the sexual selectors, but really it's just nature at work. It's called Bateman's Principle, which states that whichever gender must expend the most resources in reproducing, that gender will become a limiting resource over which the other gender will compete.

So, imagine I'm a savage in the African jungle 10,000 years ago. If I needed to reproduce as quickly as possible, it would take me about 2 minutes, 20 calories, and however much else it takes to replenish the lost seminal fluid. But my putative partner, on the other hand, must take 2 minutes + 9 months (assuming my super sperms are capable of INSTANTANEOUS fertilisation-ha!), plus the massive energy and resources to carry the child to term. Then assume I'm a deadbeat dad, as men are biologically programmed to be (when it's reproductively viable), and that's an additional time and effort expenditure that she is left with, whereas I'm off breaking hearts in some other part of the jungle.

Hence, women are the limiting resource over which men will compete, according to Bateman's Principle. It's called sexual selection, and that's the reason why the males of most species are ornamented, like peacocks: because women CHOOSE those mates who are competing against rivals. And they choose based on the traits they find most appealing, which is explained by two competing theories: sexy sons theory and good genes theory.

Darwin's theory was that one example of human ornamentation are our beards and other body hair, but modern evolutionary biologists have begun to get more creative. One currently influential theory is that male ornamentation went internal, and that our brains and the products thereof (viz. art, literature, culture, etc.) became male sexual ornaments. (Which could explain why those fields have always been dominated by men, even after the rise of feminism.)

So that's all very interesting, and that's the subject of the book I'm presently reading: The Mating Mind. But what I'm puzzling over now is why, if Bateman's Principle applies to humans, are WOMEN the ones who most visibly ornament themselves. On a deeper level, I agree with the biologists that Bateman's is working on humans, but the striking reality that I see in the streets is that women spend hours on their hair, nails, shoes, clothes, demeanour, etc. And men spend a fraction of that time on those accoutrements. Guys, just go out in the streets and notice the women who are walking around in that familiar way that just screams "I'm a 10--look at me!". See how put-together they are. See how they carry themselves. And for a much more interesting experience, try to notice what happens when you DON'T look.

So why, I'm wondering, are women the ones who are doing the most manifest ornamentation if you're the ones who are the sexual selectors. If getting guys to hook up with really was as easy as showing up at a bar and being willing (as many smug women on-line are wont to report), then why aren't you showing up draped in velvet, wearing flip-flops with unwashed hair? Because guys would STILL compete, according to Bateman's. Yet guys are the ones who turn up unshaven, wearing dirty t-shirts and jeans, and yet manage to pull the girl who spent 2 hours primping before going out. What's going on??

Any suggestions?

Tip for Men and Women #44: The Best Way to KILL an Online Interaction

By all means, if you want to NEVER meet a person that you've been interacting with on line, exchange IM names and start chatting on line.

Obviously, that's not a hard-and-fast rule; I've met people in the flesh after we did the IM thing; however, the vast majority of people who asked for my IM name I never ended up meeting. Funny how that works, right?

Incidentally, I'll never ask for your IM name, ever. That's because I really don't care for the medium, since people tend to forget that they're having an IM conversation and wander off. But also, I understand that the longer you spend interacting in cyberspace, the less likely it is that we'll actually meet in real life, which is really the rule to be learnt in this post. It seems to me that drawing out on line conversations only reflects inertia or hesitance to actually meet, which doesn't portend a successful coupling, obviously.

So, really this advice applies not only to IMs, but also to long, drawn-out e-mail conversations. Which are great, say, if you don't live within a subway ride of each other. But if you do, why not just get together and have that conversation in real life? Or even if you do live in different towns, why not talk on the phone?

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that you have NO on line interaction. I also find it somewhat strange if a person wants to meet straightaway, with minimal interaction, based only on what we read in each other's profiles. Myself, I've got a great "crazy or incompatible filter", but it takes a couple e-mails for it to do its job. So interact on line only as much as is necessary for your own filters to work. Then, as soon as you're comfortable, get together.

Tip for Men and Women #43: How to Not Be a Deadbeat Dater

It's been discussed in countless blog entries that I've seen, but yet the non-committal, often callous flakiness with which people generally seem to approach online dating persists.

Okay, here's the thing: online dating, as I've discussed before, is really OKAY. It's not weird or creepy anymore. And no, you're not too good for it or "above it". There's therefore no reason to approach it with the kind of off-handed pre-emptive defeatism that I see so often in people's profiles. See Tip for Men and Women #27: Online Dating is Humbling? for more information.

Why do I care? Well, your defeatist approach engenders what I like to call Deadbeat Dater Behaviour ( DDB ). And I very seriously doubt that anybody exhibiting DDB will have much success online, in which case your failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some symptoms of DDB that you should avoid:

1. The Rebound: Don't hop online straightaway after a bad breakup, unless you're just looking for a no-strings fuck. It's a drag when you take the time/effort to get to know somebody, and just when you're starting to like them, they make vague excuses about "not being ready to date" or whatever.

2. The Flake-Out: If you make plans to meet somebody, you should in no event cancel the plans. You shouldn't make plans to meet anybody you're not sure you would want to spend some time with. Making plans and then vacillating as to whether you actually want to meet only shows that you're immature and indecisive. And if you cancel the plans, add flaky to that glowing list of personality traits.

3. The Cut-and-Paste: This is mostly for guys. Read profiles, don't just send out form e-mails based on seeing the person's photo and thinking they're hot. E-mails can have a formula, but should not be cut-and-pasted. See Tip for Men #6: Cutting and Pasting for more information.

4. The Blow-Off: This is mostly for girls because statistically on online dating sites (not any one in particular), guys are the ones who make the first move. Okay, so if you get a message from a guy who has obviously taken the time to write something personal to you, you have to respond, every time. Full stop. Even if just to say thanks but no thanks. This applies a fortiori if you're one of those people who badmouths winks/hotlistings in your profile.

5. The Conversation Trail-Off: Don't just stop writing somebody because your interest has waned. Take 10 seconds and say "it's been nice talking to you, but I'm not interested in going further."

6. The Unfriendly Friend-Seeker: Seriously, the "looking for friends" box should be removed, because everybody ticks it, and nobody (except for the blogosphere, apparently) is actually interested in making friends. This is relevant to 4-5: if you're not romantically interested, but looking for friends, why not strike up a conversation and/or steer it in the direction of platonic friendship? See Tip for Men and Women #20: Really Looking for a Friend? for more information.

7. The Liar: Don't misrepresent yourself, especially in the areas of height, weight, and marital status. Be up-front about who you are and what you want. Maybe your "goods" aren't the most saleable, but if you misrepresent yourself, the "foot in the door" tactic really will backfire every time. See Tip for Women #17: Don't Misrepresent Your Weight and Tip for Men #17: Don't Lie About Your Height, plus all my myriad posts about lying.I'm sure I can think of more, and I hope you'll help me with your suggestions.

Tip for Men and Women #42: You know it's cliche when they name a techno song after it

Sorry, everybody, to rain on your parade, but I'm officially showing the red card to the phrase "walking contradiction" in your profiles. For quite a while now, it's been hovering at the level of something self-important and/or somewhat cheesy that people who harbour delusions about the extent of their individuality* say. Now, however, it's become so hackneyed that you'd really be better off removing it altogether.

You should also think about removing similar phrases evoking concepts such as "dichotomy" or "duality". These more highfalutin phrases, which only exacerbate the self-importance problem, are already starting to appear; plus, it's only a matter of time before the flood of people following this advice retreat into these alternative phraseologies, which really just convey the same connotation.

Right. Get to work, people, both with your profiles and with getting realistic about your "mind viruses".


*Not to be a killjoy, but no matter how individualistic any of us are, we ALWAYS get it from somebody else. Please see Richard Dawkins, et al. for more on meme theory.

Sex, Emotions, & Infidelity Part 2: Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe

Well, to my chagrin, yet again a low response rate to my poll about sex and emotions has divested it of the ability to ground any interesting conclusions. That's partly the reason why I've decided to go global with this blog.

Anyway, perhaps you already guessed the impetus for Part 1 of my Sophie's Choice blog entry. Namely, study after study has demonstrated cross-cultural tendencies for men to feel more jealous and/or threatened/betrayed by his partner's sexual infidelity, whereas women tend to feel more jealous and/or threatened/betrayed by her partner's emotional infidelity.
The six women who took this survey didn't really bear that out, but it is interesting that no men indicated that they'd feel more threatened by their partner falling in love with somebody they weren't bonking.

So, why does the discrepancy obtain? If you've been reading my blog, I think you already know where this is going.

Women and Jealousy: Evolutionarily, women are wired to respond to indicators of strength, ability to provide, ability to protect, sexual acumen. Youthful appearance, physical bulk/strength, 1-1 hip-to-waist ratio, etc. are all important, but critically, the indicators to which women respond with feelings of sexual attraction are more often non-physical than they are in men. Men, on the other hand, tend to respond to indicators that the woman will be able to bear children, which usually tend to be physical indicators such as youth, smooth skin, .7 hip-to-waist ratio, etc. For this reason, although height and weight preferences differ across cultures, no human culture has ever sexually preferred old or very young females to females in their sexual prime (say, 16-35).

Anecdotal evidence means nothing, but try to think of couples (in which there was a noticeable disparity in physical attractiveness) you know. Which is more common: (1) couples where an average or below-average looking guy was with an above-average or beautiful looking woman, or (2) couples where an above-average or handsome looking man was with an average or below-average looking woman? Probably the former, if your experience is like mine. By the same token, how many couples do you know where the female is significantly older than the male? And the converse, where the male is significantly older than the female? That happens all the time! If you want some sociological data on this point, just browse profiles and see what age ranges people select.

So, in theory, the things women find attractive in men tend to be indicators of the ability to protect, support, and provide access to high-quality sperm. And which sort of infidelity is more of a threat to these things that women seek their men to provide? You guessed it: emotional. That's because if a man falls in love with another woman, the chances are much higher that he'll abandon his partner in favour of his lover, in which case the woman will lose his protection, his support, and access to his sperm.

A purely sexual fling, on the other hand, although there is a risk that an illegitimate child will result (which could, especially in the modern world of child-support etc., force the man to divert certain resources to the lover to help raise the illegitimate child), the likelihood that the man will abandon the partner for the lover is extremely small. Hence, the theory goes, women are more jealous of emotional infidelity, less so of sexual infidelity.

Men and Jealousy: There's a saying in Africa that goes "Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe". This just reflects the platitude that when a woman gives birth, she KNOWS beyond all possible doubt that she's the mother. The father, however, does not have the same level of beyond-all-possible-doubt knowledge that he is the father. Sociologists have commented again and again that observations of new parents interacting with people being introduced to the newborn child have suggested that people are much more likely to comment that the baby looks like the father than they are to say that it looks like the mother. I find this fascinating, although nobody really seems to know what conclusions this tendency to re-assure fathers about their paternity means.
A problem with the male jealousy response is that falling in love tends to lead to sex much more often than sex leads to falling in love. So, men are right to be jealous of their partner falling in love with another man, because that is likely to lead to sex with the other man. Importantly, however, in the event that both sorts of infidelity obtain, men seem cross-culturally to be much more threatened and/or jealous by the sex side of being cuckolded, rather than the emotional side.

Why? Well, because evolutionarily, the cost to a man of being cuckolded is potentially extremely high, since if one's partner is adept at concealing her sexual infidelity, her partner can be tricked into spending his life (i.e., foregoing reproductive opportunities with other women) and expending his effort/resources raising another man's children. In fact, a widely accepted theory in evolutionary biology is that this is a reproductive strategy that the female body is actually biologically programmed to be competent at undertaking.

And in case you're wondering, this isn't an isolated incident; world-wide, roughly 8-10% of people in the world are estimated to have been raised by men who mistakenly believed themselves to be the biological father of the child(ren) they helped to raise. This statistic obtains even in western society and across socio-economic lines; in fact, this statistic does not even take into consideration children who are aborted, something that would certainly increase the percentage had those children been carried to term, since the desire to avoid one's partner discovering sexual infidelity is a leading motive for women procuring abortions.

In sum, a man's partner's sexual infidelity can be a great threat to the man, genetically speaking, because it could potentially result in him not passing on his genes to the next generation, since he harbours throughout his life the mistaken belief that he has already passed on his genes in the form of "his" children. Hence, men are more jealous and/or sexually threatened by their partner's sexual infidelity than are women, and are less jealous and/or sexually threatened by their partner's emotional infidelity than are women.

Tip for Men and Women #42: You're Not Gettin' Laid 'Cause You Read Too Much Descartes!

Here's a mystery I've been grappling with lately, both with other bloggers and with people in my actual life: why is it that people who are resistant to the evolutionary biological approach that I take to love, dating, and sex seem never to be able to base their Resistance on anything more robust or evidential than their own phaenomenal experience? Case in point, see blogalina's responses to my comments in ***DATE (S) EXPECTATIONS***; no offence intended to her, but this exemplifies the kind of uninformed and uninquisitive Resistance I've been encountering.

I think what is going on is nothing more remarkable than an unwillingness to give up or to otherwise question one's own folk psychological/biological understanding of the world. So, in the area of love/sex, you're resistant to embrace the idea that your genes have programmed you to act in certain ways because the idea that you CHOOSE to do these things is very closely held.

That's your folk psychology at work: when you see somebody that you like, you choose to pursue them or not. You choose when and why to date or kiss or fuck them, to (or not to) cheat on them, to forgive (or not to forgive) their cheating, to marry (or not marry) them, to have (or not have) kids (and when, why, how many), and so on.

Why? Well, because who would have better access to your emotions, desires, motivations, etc. than you, viz. the person who actually experiences them. You experience love/sex, and that's all the data you need; so, why would you need to listen to these biologists who couldn't score in a million years because they're cooped up in the lab studying monkeys and sperm all day long? You don't need to, so you don't listen.

Sound about right?

That's essentially an expression of the Cartesian Principle, which, roughly speaking, states that a thinking being can, via introspection, gain direct access to her mental states. Basically, introspection is the best (and only) way to access one's thoughts without the indirect, mediated, data-tainting intervention of outside observation. This perhaps seems a very intuitive way of thinking; unfortunately, it's a way of thinking that has been THOROUGHLY and univocally discredited throughout both the sciences and the humanities.*

Here's my point: you can disagree with the conclusions (though not the data) of the science, because like all science, it's just theory. However, disagreement should be principled, which means based on more than just your bare intuitions. Otherwise it's just not interesting. But that's just me...

-----
*Quoting from Wikipedia's Entry on the Mind-Body Problem (emphasis mine):

Interactionist dualism, or simply interactionism, is the particular form of dualism first espoused by Descartes in the Meditations. . . . It is the view that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, causally interact with physical states.

Descartes' famous argument for this position can be summarized as follows: Seth has a clear and distinct idea of his mind as a thinking thing which has no spatial extension . . . . He also has a clear and distinct idea of his body as something that is spatially extended, subject to quantification and not able to think. It follows that mind and body are not identical because they have radically different properties.

At the same time, however, it is clear that Seth's mental states (desires, beliefs, etc.) have causal effects on his body and vice-versa: A child touches a hot stove (physical event) which causes pain (mental event) and makes him yell (physical event), this in turn provokes a sense of fear and protectiveness in the mother (mental event), and so on.

Descartes' argument crucially depends on the premise that what Seth believes to be "clear and distinct" ideas in his mind are necessarily true. Many contemporary philosophers doubt this. For example, Joseph Agassi believes that several scientific discoveries made since the early 20th century have undermined the idea of privileged access to one's own ideas. Freud has shown that a psychologically-trained observer can understand a person's unconscious motivations better than she does. Duhem has shown that a philosopher of science can know a person's methods of discovery better than he does, while Malinowski has shown that an anthropologist can know a person's customs and habits better than he does. He also asserts that modern psychological experiments that cause people to see things that are not there provide grounds for rejecting Descartes' argument, because scientists can describe a person's perceptions better than he can.

Common Sins of Online Daters Goes "Online"

Hello to any and all new readers. Below you'll find the entirety of my blog, which I've been posting on another site, entries on the topic of love, dating, and sex, specifically as it relates to online dating. If you want to see the comments and discussion, look up the respective post in its original form:

http://personals.theonion.com/blog/Total_Blam_Blam

Enjoy! And tell all your friends!

Sophie's Choice: S e x, emotions, and infidelity

As a follow-up to The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship, I'd like to bring some statistics to your attention. A study conducted by J.M. Townsend reached the following results.

When asked "Have you ever continued to have s e x on a regular basis with someone you did not want to get emotionally involved with?", 37% of women answered yes, whereas 76% of men answered yes. The yays were then asked a follow-up question: "if so, did you find it difficult to keep from getting emotionally involved with the person?", to which 22% of women and 74% of men answered no. Cf. David Buss, The Dangerous Passion for more info.

Not enough of you took my survey to make it interesting, but I do find it somewhat interesting that NO men said that they wouldn't have s e x without a committment.Here's a follow-up survey, related both to The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship and to atypical grrl's (In)fidelity:

If you were in a serious, committed, and monogamous, long-term relationship, which of the following would distress and upset you more:

(a) Discovering that your partner has formed a strong emotional, but non-sexual, relationship with a member of the opposite s e x
(b) Discovering that your partner has begun a sexual, but non-emotional, relationship with a member of the opposite s e x?

(1) I'm a man: Discovering the non-sexual emotional relationship would be more upsetting.
(2) I'm a man: Discovering the non-emotional sexual relationship would be more upsetting.
(3) I'm a woman: Discovering the non-sexual emotional relationship would be more upsetting.
(4) I'm a woman: Discovering the non-emotional sexual relationship would be more upsetting.

Tip for Men and Women #41: Your Best Lies Are the Ones You Tell Yourself

I know I've been harping on about lying lately, probably to the point that I'm sounding like a broken record. Sorry if that's getting old, but it just seems like you people are harbouring lots of misconceptions in this area, and it's my duty as officious blog commentator to disabuse you of those.

Now, however, I'll just gripe about bad profile writing...

So, you all hopefully have at least taken my advice and filled out a complete profile questionnaire, in which case you would have answered the "Best (or worst) lie you've ever told" question. Good for you, but it's only a start; more work remains to be done.

In case you missed it the point of that question is for you to demonstrate that you're not perfect, viz. that you're perfectly willing to admit that you too, like everybody else, lies from time to time. Maybe your lies are of the little, white variety. Maybe your lies are unskillfully crafted or told. But that you do lie and have lied EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE is beyond question. If anybody is unclear or in self-denial about that, please see Tip For Men and Women #33: I LOVE His Gigantic Head! and Tip for Men and Women #37: The Machiavelli in all of us.

That being said, "I don't lie", "I never lie", "I can't stand lying", and other similar responses need to go. For one thing, it comes across as annoying and self-righteous, smacking of "I'm better than you" overtones. For another, as those of you who followed those links to my earlier posts on the evolutionary psychology behind lying now know, it's an exercise in self-delusion to claim that you don't lie. In essence, it's a self-refuting claim, since by making it, you're only lying to yourself (and, I might add, only fooling yourself), the very act of doing which invalidates your claim to exceptionless truth.

An unfortunate side effect is that tongue-in-cheek attempts to be ironic with the statement "I never lie" come across as just another exercise in unctuous, self-laudatory back-patting. Very clever, people, but regrettably, it's lost on us.

A few loose-ends to tie up:

(1) "I'm a terrible liar" isn't really helpful.

(2) Try not to be too much of a killjoy here, just like with the "most humbling moment" box. Be playful and keep it light. In other words, "no, I'm not sleeping with your wife" isn't your best bet here.

(3) Ladies, your dismissive sexual innuendos (e.g., "It's SO big" or "Yes, I need it") make you come across as a bit petulant, which isn't exactly a turn-on. Just saying.

Tip for Men and Women #40: Why is he STILL a Committment-Phobe?

Have any of you women experienced this kind of guy: he's been in a serious relationship for a LONG time (say, over 2 years). Things are going swimmingly; he loves you, you love him, and you're starting to wonder whether this one is "the one".

Say some time passes, things are still happy and loving, but now you're REALLY starting to wonder where this relationship is going, because although you're thinking about long-term plans all the time, it seems like he isn't doing.

We're all mature adults, and sometimes we have to have state-of-the-union type talks with our serious partners. So you decide to have "the talk". You pour out your heart about your desires and expectations and hopes, and are shattered to discover him being evasive and equivocal. He claims that he's "not ready to settle down" or "needs more time". But why? He's never been a player, or the kind of guy who seemed to have that uncanny ability to attract lots of women. Basically, you're his best option, but still he wants to "keep his options open". How exasperating!

The conventional thinking on this issue that's presently extant is, of course, that "he's just not that into you", but as readers of Tip for Men and Women # 32: S/he's just not that into you. (Part 1) already know, I'm not satisfied with that advice. I think that may be helpful in the short term and for more surface-level issues in the relationship, but in order to come to terms with this male response, I think it's important to go deeper.

So, let's consider monogamy and maleness. Evolutionary biologists believe monogamy to be a mating behaviour that developed via the mechanism of female sexual choice. Of course, human sexual behaviour is not as simple as, say, peacock-peahen sexual behaviour, but that rough pattern where the male courts and the female chooses basically obtains. But rather than fancy plumage, what female humans look for are signs of strength and stability, viz. indicators that the male will be able to help care for and support children. (This is important to the female because the physical limitations of only being able to sire one child per annum means that having more sexual partners might lead to her finding a genetically better mate via sperm competition, it will not lead to a greater number of children.) And the strongest indicator of this is the propensity to be monogamous, because a lack of wandering eyes and hands suggests that the likelihood that the male will abandon the mother to care for the children alone is low.

Males, on the other hand, pursue monogamy only because females prefer monogamous males over polyamorous/adulterous males. For men, having more sexual partners is extremely profitable from a genetic standpoint, because theoretically each new mate can yield a new offspring. However, the less genetically viable the man, the less likely that he'll be able to mate with a large number of women. Roughly speaking, the more viable he is, the more partners he can have, because his patent viability will increase the likelihood that women will copulate with him without requiring monogamy (either casually, through polyamory, or through adultery). Seen this way, monogamy and polyamory are just two mating strategies of men, each of which will be more successful for a given man based on whether he is, respectively, more or less genetically viable.

Which brings us back to your commitment-phobic LTR boyfriend. Why won't he settle down with you, even though his outside prospects are limited if not nil? My theory on this is that he's unrealistic about or has simply overestimated his genetic viability. Basically, although his best reproductive option lies in staying with you and being monogamous, his biological wiring to act like a sperm and maximise his number of partners is telling him that he shouldn't settle down. And for whatever reason, he's not a good judge of his own genetic viability, so rather than recognising that his best option is to stay with you and be monogamous, he orients himself as a man who wants to have other sexual partners would do.

This of course just begs the question: why is he a bad judge of his own genetic viability? Probably because he doesn't have strong male figures in his life who educated him in the ways of masculinity, in how to be a mature man. As the line in Fight Club goes: "we're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really what we need."

Now don't get me wrong, mature masculinity and monogamy/settling down do not necessarily go hand in hand. But mature masculinity and, say, self-knowledge and decisiveness do. A man who knows himself well enough to accurate gauge his best reproductive option to lie in eschewing monogamy for polyamory and decisively communicates this to his partners is as mature as a man who recognises his best reproductive option to lie in a monogamous relationship with one woman.

The real problem, then, lies in this commitment-phobic boyfriend of yours, whose immaturity, indecisiveness, and self-unawareness paralyse him with only one in your door and one foot out. My suggestion: it's time to either (1) try to educate this guy, or (2) try to weed him out of the gene pool.

The Ultimate Casual Dating Quandary: S e x or Relationship?

I've been talking with people at work to-day about dating, relationships, and s e x, and although I feel like I've got a pretty good grasp on things (well, better than most my age), my world-view has been a bit thrown by some very unexpected things that I heard.

In order not to taint this survey, I'll hold off on the details and go straight to the question:

When thinking about somebody you really like romantically, which of the following describes your attitude towards the sequencing of s e x and serious relationship, by which I just mean a relationship characterised by "seriousness" and monogamy?

(1) Male: I wouldn't want to have s e x until we start a serious relationship.
(2) Male: I wouldn't want to start a serious relationship with somebody before we have s e x.
(3) Male: Either one happening first is fine with me
(4) Female: I wouldn't want to have s e x until we start a serious relationship.
(5) Female: I wouldn't want to start a serious relationship with somebody before we have s e x.
(6) Female: Either one happening first is fine with me

Tip for Men and Women #39: In the event of an online-dating emergency, show 'em your t i t s!

Let me just say this up front: this is a tip for men and women because it has relevance to both genders. However, can I just suggest again to the men out there that you NOT show 'em your t i t s. With your bare-chested photos, you might as well be short, because you're not going to get any love.
So, I know what you're already saying: "doesn't this post contravene the advice dispensed way back in the early days when you advised against wearing swimsuits etc. in profile photos?" Not really. That advice still stands. I'm just qualifying it.

Basically, here's the score: there are some worthwhile people out there, and there are some worthless people out there. For whatever reason, most of the people I know who do online dating are women, so what I have to go on RE the male experience is my own, which has been that notwithstanding a few deadbeat daters, most people are actually pretty cool. (If you're reading this and we've dated, "deadbeat dater" does not refer to you. Really, you were different.) However, I have been talking with a number of women lately about the demographics of the NYC under-40 dating scene, and again-and-again the claim has been made that the quality of the female demographic is much greater than that of the male demographic. In essence, the claim goes that the manipulative *sshole scale is tipped radically to the side of men.

Now, to be honest, I'm sceptical of that claim, largely because it sounds like a mere expression of a passive, victim mentality, a la "I'm unsuccessful with men, but there's nothing I'm doing that is producing this result". But, for the sake of argument, I'll assume that this claim is true.

If that's true, then, it would behove you to to do whatever you can to discourage responses from the "wrong" guys, whilst encouraging responses from the "right" guys. My thought is that the way to do this is to put together a profile that creates non-physical sexual attraction (in addition to physical sexual attraction) in men. Basically, if you're concerned about manipulative *sshole men, you'd be advised to make him want you for more than the contents of your knickers.

For that reason, I stand by my former advice against posting provocative photos, viz. swimsuit or underwear shots. Online dating sites are like a guy/girl smorgasbord, and so much of our assessment of others is superficial (i.e., based on photos), which is why men and women without photos receive 1/4 and 1/6, respectively, the number of responses as men and women with photos. So, when you post your steamy pics, sure you might get more responses, but most of those will be from the "wrong" guys, viz. guys who do (or would) post topless photos and who will turn out to be manipulative *ssholes.

This all brings me to the reason why I'm writing. Having stated these provisos, I find it very interesting how EFFECTIVE putting up risque photos can be at garnering responses. It's probably no secret that changing up your main photo periodically can increase your number of views. But if you want to try something cool, especially if you're a young woman who has a tame photo of yourself and don't get too many views, try putting up something a bit steamier and see how quickly your number of views goes up.

Case in point. In the past few weeks this has happened to me several times actually. Take your basic female profile with a so-so photo. Since I don't spend too much time looking at profiles anymore, an unremarkable photo often means the difference between whether I look at your profile and whether I go on to the next one. Over time, you come to recognise the "usual suspects", i.e. the people who are always online, browsing, writing, whatever. And once you start passing somebody over, this behaviour becomes self-reinforcing, habitual.

But say all of a sudden, this person replaces her passable photo with something much more provocative, such as a indecorous pose, an a s s pic, a photo of you in a low-cut dress with your t i t s hanging out , or a swimsuit/underwear shot. Instant click! I'm sure any guys reading this can relate. Is it true, are men nothing more than s e x-obsessed disgustoids disguised in human form?

Well, sort of, yes. Here's something that might help you girls who go for more effete, emo-esque guys: if he puts on the affectation of being "above" the physical sexual attraction that motivates the sexual behaviour of more, say, alpha guys, then he's lying. Men, for better or for worse, are biologically wired to respond when we see something our brain finds genetically viable as a potential reproductive mate. Research suggests that this response is actually PRE-CONSCIOUS even, which means that the stimulus produces the attraction response a few nanoseconds before the consciousness is even aware of what's going on.

What's the advice here?

Men: Don't be a manipulative *sshole. But at the same time, don't apologise for being a man. You can pretend not to look, but you'll only be fooling yourself.

Women: If you're a junky for profile views, try putting up a steamy photo. But beware, because you'll get more hits from "bad" guys as well as from the less-common "good" ones.

Tip for Men and Women #38: You need to fire the story-boarder for your Video Intro

One of my regular readers just pointed out to me that my thinky-pieces may be a bit too heavy for people who are inclined to read a piss-take blog like this. So, here's a throw back to the halcyon antagonise-other-online-daters days of my blog.

Okay, people, as far as I can tell, this is pretty much a verbatim transcript of every video introduction out there:

*Camera Image comes up. Person is standing in front of their webcam pressing the record button on their computer. They hurriedly sit on their bed/chair. They nervously brush a hand through their hair and cross their legs.*

Ummmmmmmmmmm, so hi. My name is so-and-so. Ummmm, this is my video introduction, so I hope you like it, ha ha. Ummmmm, I guess you're here, ummmmm, because you liked my profile. Ummmmm, so yeah, I like this and that, and, ummmmmmmm, I'm looking for qualities x and y in a man/woman. Ummm, well, I like doing la-dee-da and whoopy-woo and, ummmmmm, you know, other stuff like that. So, ummmmm, I guess if you like what you see well, umm, send me a message and maybe we'll meet up sometime.

Get the message? You maybe don't need to story-board your video intro, but maybe a rough script of what you want to say wouldn't hurt. Or at least saying SOMETHING substantive would be helpful. The video intro is supposed to be an ultra-personalised way to "show your goods", so since you can't take off your clothes :), you'd better show off your personality, or else all you'll show is your inarticulateness.

Tip for Men and Women #37: The Machiavelli in all of us

A long overdue part two to my post RE: lying. My survey questions apparently didn't pique anybody's interest, but they're still up, so if it's not too much trouble...

So, anyway, where were we? Oh yes: we've got such large heads/brains because we need them to be better liars. This is called the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, as expounded by Byrne and Whiten in the late 1980s.

**Oh, maybe I ought to have said this at the start: in this blog, we take evolution for granted as "the only theory in town". If you have any sympathy to creationism or intelligent design, feel free to not comment, because I just can't engage uncritical viewpoints in serious debate. Sorry.**

I'm saying this because it's important to remember that no matter how sophisticated we've become, we are, at bottom, animate reproduction machines. Our purpose is not to get a good job or help Katrina victims or have a closely-knit home life etc. Our purposes are to (1) survive and (2) replicate our genes. Everything else follows from this. So, from this perspective, it becomes perfectly clear that there is nothing different in kind between a flower's "deception" of a bee and a human's deception of her neighbour or spouse.

So, here are the broad strokes of the theory: pre-human creatures evolved into beings that found, due to certain physical frailties, that living in a society was the only way to survive. So, although any given being's biological priority is to ensure her own survival and replication, she discovered that helping guarantee others' survival and replication helped to guarantee her own. Yet, importantly, the inherent biological selfishness to value her own survival and replication over that of her neighbours remained intact. This is painfully illustrated in the hypothetical "tragedy of the commons".

So, evolving humans began to learn two things: (1) if I can deceive my neighbours into getting more of the goods that increase the chances of my survival and replication, I can sire more descendants. However, (2), if I get caught in my deception, my neighbours will either ostracise me or kill me. Thus, lying works only if one is a GOOD liar; otherwise, it's better to just be truthful.

As between good liars, bad liars, and truthful people, who will survive and replicate better? You guessed it: good liars, so their genes were passed on, whereas the other ones were systematically weeded out of existence.

Flash forward many generations, and the competition to be the best liar is merciless. Adaptation led to smarter humans who were more adept at deceiving their neighbours, which led to more complex deceptions, which led to further adaptation, and so on. And what physiological change enables this process of adaptation and increased complexity: the brains of humans are getting bigger, more complex, and thus more able to deceive better.

So, how's this for a sun-shiny Monday thought: everything around you: civilisation, technology, rule of law, politics, government, medicine, art, architecture, culture, food, music, sport, cinema, philosophy, literature, etc. are all made possible because our ancestors became very good at lying and deceiving others.

Have a nice day! :)

Tip for Men and Women #36: Yet Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Last Question. See Tips #34-35 for the context.

What percentage of people online that you have encountered personally would you estimate lied and/or materially misrepresented themselves in their profiles or interactions with other online daters?

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%?

Tip for Men and Women #36: Yet Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Last Question. See Tips #34-35 for the context.

What percentage of people online that you have encountered personally would you estimate lied and/or materially misrepresented themselves in their profiles or interactions with other online daters?

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%?

Tip for Men and Women #35: Another Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

Question Two. See Tip #34 for the context.

Have you ever met somebody else who lied and/or materially misrepresented herself in her profile or interactions with other online daters?

(1) Yes

(2) No

Tip for Men and Women #34: A Brief Digression/Survey RE: Lying

So, I’m sure all of you out there subscribe to Scientific American Mind. Well, I was reading the latest issue to-day, and I came upon an article purporting to blow the lid on the Truth of Online Dating.

Basically, it’s about how widespread lying and misrepresentation are in the online dating world. Self-reporting liars and/or misrepresenters amount for, in one study, 20% of the online population. However, when people are asked what percentage of other people they have found to be liars and/or misrepresenters, the figure jumps precipitously to 90%.

That’s a huge disconnect, obviously. Now, a clear flaw in the article is that the authors never really drive home the impact of the simple fact that misrepresentation and deception is also reflexive, i.e. people have a very distorted self-image. Basically, statistically speaking, if you’re reading this post right now you’re more likely to be of average intelligence or worse, average physical attractiveness or worse, make an average salary or worse, etc. But, for example, the percentage of people who rate themselves as being of below average physical attractiveness is appallingly low. And as those of you taking the NYC subway everyday know, that number should, if we were all more honest with ourselves and others, be MUCH higher.

So here’s my survey:

Have you ever lied and/or materially misrepresented yourself in your profile or interactions with other online daters?

(1) Yes

(2) No

Tip For Men and Women #33: I LOVE His Gigantic Head!

“His MAIN head”, for those of you whose minds are in the gutter. Hopefully any fans of Coupling will appreciate that line.

So, we’ve been on the topic of lying recently. A while back I posted about the sperm-war theory that humans are biologically programmed to cheat on each other. Perhaps you’ve also heard about the theory of why humans have such big craniums.

You know how when you see shows on the discovery channel, and the baby horse or lion pops out of the womb and immediately starts walking around, albeit somewhat tentatively and groggily? And you know how when humans give birth, the baby basically lays around uselessly for months and months, doing little more than reacting to the environment and being waited on hand-and-foot? Well, there’s a reason for that. And the reason is that humans cease gestating in the womb too early, at a point in our pre-natal development at which we’re really not ready to come out yet. So, in a perfect world, we’d be in the womb much longer than we are.

Why?

Well, if we developed to the point at which we could pop out and start walking around and reading Plato, well our giant skulls would rip apart the mother’s birth canal, thus rendering the fertilization of the ovum by the man’s sperm a death sentence for the woman, setting aside the possibility of miscarriage and abortion. It’s very interesting to remember that not so very long ago in western societies (and still to-day in others), birth was still a very dangerous process. So now people don’t want to have kids until they’re 40 or so because they don’t want to be tied down or whatever. But imagine if having a kid carried with it a very real risk that you’d DIE IN THE PROCESS. That’s how strong the biological urge to procreate it. Fascinating!

So, evolution, clever as ever, saw fit to make sure that babies came out earlier, thus decreasing the mortality rate of women giving birth. It also saw fit to ensure that the gestation period balanced perfectly the risk of killing the mother against the vulnerability of a defenceless child, which is why we’re born after 9 months and not, say, 7.

But why, you might be asking, do humans need such large heads?

Well, one very, VERY widely accepted theory of why humans have such big heads is because they aided in our survival. That’s how we rose to the top of the food web, where we presently reside in our predator-free state of bliss. That’s not controversial at all, though, since the operating assumption of evolutionary biology is that EVERYTHING happens for a reason, viz. to aid in our survival.

So, for example, “what about variable testicle size?” I know you’re all saying. Well, that aids survival (both small ones and large ones, for all you size queens out there who are really hoping that the more, ahem, puny men out there will soon be weeded out of the gene pool).

But I digress. The real question here is why having larger heads aids our survival. Well, they house larger brains, but that only begs the question of why bigger brains help us survive?

Here’s the crazy thing: larger brains help us survive by making us better, more successful liars, cheaters, and cuckolders.

More on this to-morrow...

Tip for Men and Women # 32: S/he's just not that into you. (Part 1)

It's been a month. As in every month of my life thus far, I've learnt a lot, so I'm happy to be back to pass this new knowledge on to you people.

So, recently an object of my affection who knows me to be interested in (read: obsessed with) human sexuality, evolutionary biology/psychology, etc. recommended the ostensibly ubiquitous male-female relationships book: "He's Just Not That Into You". Perhaps as those of you who've got to know my personality through the medium of my writing will have predicted, my reaction to this book was somewhat critical. Or actually, very critical.

Let me just say this up front: I'm 100% sold on the idea that a person's attitude vis-a-vis me can be read off from her actions much more accurately than it can from her words. Even I, your friendly neighbourhood paragon of online dating success, have found myself on the receiving end of cold silence after snogging somebody at the end of a great first date punctuated by assertions of how "great" it's been, and how "we should do this again". Yes, even I.

So, now you know that I don't disagree with the premise of the book. With that, I actually agree. However, just about everything else in the book is highly misleading, to the point that I think following Greg Behrendt's advice will actually hinder you in your dating life. Briefly, I'll just point out some obvious flaws. Firstly, the author is a D-List Comedian who helped write a couple \bsexo?\b & the City Episodes. His daytime talk show where he discusses relationships? Cancelled after 3 months. An utter jackass, just check out his interview on Colbert to clear up any doubts. Oh, and his marriage made in heaven? Well, he's only been married for something like 5 years. Basically, he's got zero credibility for writing his novel. Same as I have, essentially. Secondly, there's no empirical data to back up anything he says about what women or men actually think. His "letters" from women are obviously fabricated to prove his points, and his "responses from men" are no different.

Now to it. Perhaps in the spirit of laziness, I'll just proffer some talking points, rather than coming up with a coherent discourse.

(1) Games Games Games. Whilst the book seemingly purports to outline a dating M.O. that dispenses with game-playing, importantly, it itself is nothing but a strategy for playing a dating GAME on your own terms: the way you should act towards men is to sit back and let men do all the pursuing. The book actually suggests doing that. And whilst it is true that the male-approaching system typically yields better results than the opposite approach, I think women are probably applying this rule in a very overbroad manner, to the point that this advice turns out to be no different from that dispensed in "The Rules", which by the way is another ESSENTIAL read for all men.

(2) Hoop-Jumping. Unfortunately for men everywhere, there are clueless guys all over the place who are totally willing to try to win a woman's approval by jumping through any hoops that women set up for them, which only reinforces the mentality that what women should do vis-a-vis men is set up hoops to jump through. And "He's Just Not That Into You" takes the hoop-jumping expectation to an unprecedented level. The truth is, however, that the most sexually successful guys are those who refuse to jump through a woman's hoops. We'll come back to this later.

(3) Teleology. A big problem with the book stems from what the author takes "being THAT into you" should entail. Here's the unwritten subtext: if he's THAT into you, he wants to be around you 24/7, pursue a monogamous relationship with you asap, get married, have kids, live a storybook romance life, be totally attentive all the time, cover puddles with his coat for you, etc. The problem is, not all people want such a formulaic love-life. Say you're like me and you have a "no consideration of getting married until I'm 40, noway nohow" sort of rule. Well, then apparently you're just not that into her, because all proper men want to get married. (Forget the scientific evidence that suggests that men are biologically wired to be reluctant to settle down into a long-term monogamous relationship. That's just not the sort of thing that can be condensed into a pithy catch-phrase.) The book very briefly addresses the possibility that your beau might not be teleologically-minded by suggesting that you ascertain whether his reluctance to commit is really just fear that he's masking with spurious ideology. But it never bites the bullet to admit that if he really doesn't believe in marriage, well then the advice in the book might just be completely INAPPLICABLE. I'd suggest this is not mentioned because it would hurt book sales, but who wants to be cynical?

(4) The Ditch-Him vs. Dearth Disconnect. Here's a weird thing: one of the premises of the book is that men are basically rubbish, for the most part. We're all useless man-children who do nothing but manipulate and malign women for our own personal pleasure. The "good" ones are really hard to find because they're so rare. Yet, if he's not calling you 12 times a day when he had to run out of town suddenly for a family funeral (e.g.), he's just not that into you, so ditch him for somebody better. See the problem? Finding somebody great is like finding the holy grail, but you should still ditch somebody good to try to find grail-man because you you're worth it and shouldn't "waste the pretty". Is this actually a recipe for life-long spinsterhood, because that's what it seems like to me!

(5) Change Him, Not Yourself. Here's a big news flash: you can't change people. If you try, you're setting yourself up for failure. So, if you want to take the advice of this book without ditching your boyfriend who only calls you once hourly, you've got to change him. But how about this instead? Understand him. And tailor your actions towards him accordingly. (And men should do the same towards women.)

(6) Complexity. Maybe it's too obvious to need mentioning, but people and their motives are really just too complex to be summed up in one dating maxim: he's just not that into you.

(7) An Attractive Man. Here's the big problem with the book. The kind of guy that exhibits "that into you" behaviour is not the kind of guy that most of you actually are attracted to. Think of it like this: that guy is Richard Gere in "Unfaithful". Attentive, loving, wonderful, and utterly predictable. And NICE, so very nice. The premise of the book is that men are biologically wired to pursue (which we are) because we get great pleasure out of the challenge of doing the work necessary to get what we want. But that sort of advice also applies to women too, to a degree. The platitude goes: nothing worth having ever came easy. Think of somebody you were with who came easy: he was totally emotionally available, showered you with praise, always wanted to be around you, called you 20 times a day when he wasn't fawning over your every move, etc. What do you call that? NEEDY. Too available. And nobody likes that. What do we like? Well you women seem to like Oliver Martinez in "Unfaithful": powerful, charismatic, highly sexual, dominant. And most importantly: operating independently and without consideration of the woman's approval.

( 8 ) Men are S e x-Obsessed. Here's another weird disconnect. That men are s e x-obsessed is a big premise of the book. Basically everything we do is motivated by wanting to get s e x with women. By logical extension, I think, we can conclude that men want as much s e x as they can get with as many people as possible. So to my way of thinking, "he's just not that into you" doesn't really explain why the guy doesn't come upstairs for s e x. I don't feel like I'm particularly sexually prolific, but I've slept with people I wasn't really into, even with people I actually didn't like. Haven't we all? So even if he's not that into you, if you're offering \bsexo?\b on a first date, and he's a \bsexo?\b-obsessed male, he's coming upstairs! So we clearly need a better explanation for why he isn't.

I think there's more to say. But I'll stop for now and think some more.

Tip for Men and Women #31: How not to be Innocuous

I'd be interested to find out the average amount of time that the average online dater spends looking at a person's profile. Browsing profiles takes time, and everybody is too busy already.

Here's my guess: 20 seconds or less. Average. In any case, here's what I do: look at the photo(s), skip down to the "who am I" section and skim, skip down to the "who am I looking for" section and skim, and if my interest is piqued, I go back through it more carefully. If not, it's on to the next profile.

If I'm right, then the time that you have to catch somebody's attention is very limited. This is the reason why I never respond to unfilled-out profiles such as those that say "write me to find out more" or "I'll know it when I see it".

It's also important to not come off as innocuous, by which I mean perfectly nice, but featuring nothing that would make somebody want to write to you. In other words, you shouldn't come off as romantically boring. I think there are certain words and phrases that are pretty strong indicators that a person is innocuous. Here are some that you should remove from your profile forthwith:

Has integrity, compassionate, polite, good manners, nice/kind, caring, sensitive, loyal, close with family, loves his mom/her dad, traditional values, chivalrous, gentlemanly/ladylike, silly/goofy, courageous, passionate about something, zest for life, loves his/her life, soulful, curious, adventurous, loves animals, loves the outdoors, has a passport/enjoys travel/will travel with me, honest, interested in the world, has ideals, a good listener, comfortable in one's own skin, someone who can hold their own, someone who gets me, someone to surprise me, someone to challenge me, someone to inspire me, someone I can be proud of, someone I can admire/respect, someone I can learn from, someone who will make me a better person, a good person, a good soul, a risk-taker, someone to cook me dinner, someone for whom I can cook dinner, someone to explore with, someone who likes to snuggle, someone to read the NYTs with on a lazy Saturday/Sunday . . .

And so on. I've already discussed the issue of "chemistry" elsewhere, so cf. that post if you're interested. I'll update this as new ones come to me.

Tip for Men and Women #30: Why Adultery is Good and Everybody is Doing it

Ha, made you look! But I actually am going to talk about adultery.*

So, I've been reading a book called "The Red Queen" lately; it's an utterly fascinating book about evolutionary biology and human sexuality. At one point in the book, the author discusses what is the "natural" sexual arrangement for humans, considering why some human cultures have been monogamous, others polygamous, and very few others polyandrous.

Statistically, our modern culture is one marked by monogamy as the norm, but featuring frequent and widespread adultery by both genders. The question to pose, then, is why this is the way we operate.

For men, it's simple: we act like sperms, and our chances of passing on our genes to the next generation is increased exponentially through sexual promiscuity.

For women, who act like ova, wide sexual promiscuity holds less appeal, because not only is her ability to bear children limited by her birthing cycle, but also sexual promiscuity carries with it the risk that her mate will abandon her and not care for her children.

Therefore, it benefits women to mate with monogamous men, who will stick around to care for the children. This in turn provides a benefit for men to adopt monogamy as their sexual practice, because the most desirable females will require it of their mates. In such circumstances, only the more powerful males will be able to engage in polygamy, since their genetic viability will be manifest.

This would work fine, except for two things.

Firstly, since women require monogamy of their men, they will therefore be forced to compromise genetic viability for willingness to care for children. In other words, women are forced to settle for less genetically viable men. This gives them an incentive to commit adultery with more genetically viable men. And statistically, women who are committing adultery are more likely to have s e x with their paramour during ovulation than any other time of the month. If they become pregnant in this period, they are statistically more likely to be pregnant by the lover rather than the husband. For this reason, upwards of 10% of the human population are fathered by people other than the person they believe their biological father to be.

Secondly, although certain evolutionary benefits are achieved through monogamy, a cost-benefit analysis of adultery for men demonstrates adultery to be extremely genetically profitable to men who are able to increase their number of mates by duplicitously cuckolding their wives. The proviso that more mates = greater chance of genetic survival holds true here as ever, the only restriction being that men must deceive their wives in order not to lose her as a partner.

Naturally, then, whilst it is in the genetic interest of each marital partner to commit adultery, it is also in both their interests to prevent their partner from committing adultery. This explains why women reject adulterous males and compete with and intimidate her husband's paramour(s). It explains male rivalry and/or violence against potential rivals. It also explains why males copulate with their wives frequently and at all periods of the menstrual cycle, since women have concealed estros (i.e., they don't display indicators that they are ovulating). Moreover, evolutionary biology suggests that the shape of the penis developed in order to enable men to physically remove from the woman's vag.na the semen of other men who may have compulated with their wife. Additionally, the vast majority of sperm cells actually do not attempt to fertilise the ovum; their purpose is rather to destroy and/or block competing sperm cells from other mates. And, the amount of sperm ejaculated during intercourse is affected by whether the male has been with the female recently; thus, if the husband has been away from his wife all day, he will ejaculate more sperm than he would if he had been with his wife all day, in an attempt to "flood the market" and thusly to defeat any rivals his wife may have copulated with whilst he was out of her presence.

This is all, of course, post hoc theory, and as such, it suffers from certain philosophical shortcomings related to its potential unfalsifiability. However, assuming arguendo that this theory is potentially correct, its explanatory power is extremely great.

Yesterday I pointed out in another blog's comments that it is interesting that people in the online dating world widely decry adultery and lying, yet seemingly paradoxically indicate pro-adultery propensities, viz. choosing scenes from movies like "Unfaithful", "Closer", or "Last Tango in Paris" as their favourite on-screen s e x scene.

In light of these considerations, I hope it is clear that there really is no paradox here; it actually makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view.

*I'd like to forestall the obvious reactions that I'm anticipating by pointing out that none of these considerations advocates or decries adultery. My "adultery is good" comment was a JOKE. These are simply non-normative statements of fact and theory.

Tip for Men and Women #29: Being Random for the Sake of Randomness

I think it's fair to say that this tactic is pretty much completely played out. I'm sure you've seen it aplenty yourselves, because it's everywhere on people's profiles these days. You know, the profiles where they're looking for somebody to go with to the swap meet or whatever.

A case in point of randomness for its own sake is, I think, Wes Anderson's movies. There's a certain level of creativity to his movies, but at times I get the feeling like he's just being random for no reason. E.g., why does Ben Stiller's character in The Royal Tenenbaums always wear tracksuits? That's not consistent with the character, and it doesn't really add anything; it's just RANDOM. Another example: pretty much every minute of "Amelie".

I guess I can see the point of randomness for the sake of randomness: you're trying to show that you're quirky and maybe creative. But really, that tactic gets boring after a while. Sort of like how Napoleon Dynamite was funny the first time through, but when you see it again, pretty much nobody ever laughs.

If you want to demonstrate that randomness is something you're capable of, that's fine. But use it sparingly. If nothing else, some of us might want to know more about you than just the fact that you're capable of being random, which, as I said, gets boring after a while. I'm sure you're more multifaceted than profiles like that suggest, but then again, you're just pixels to me, right?

Tip for Men and Women #28: Your and You're

So, my guess is that you're probably clicking on this post thinking that I'm going to gripe about all those ignoramuses who say things in their profiles like "your the kind of person who . . .". Sorry to disappoint you, because I'm actually going to gripe about YOU.

What's with everybody saying in their "what am I looking for" box that whomever they meet must be able to differentiate 'you're' and 'your' (and actually deploy the correct forms)?

What I'm curious about is what exactly you think this demonstrates. By way of example, I know some ultra-right-brained artists whom I'd consider smarter than most people on Nerve, but yet who cannot spell to save their lives, and who can't be bothered with 'your' versus 'you're'.

Here's what I think is going on. In essence, it's like you're waving your arms and screaming "Hey, look at me! I'm a grammar Nazi! Isn't it impressive how pedantic I can be!"

You're seizing on what may very well be an arbitrary phaenomenon in order to belittle somebody you don't know, which helps to buttress your arrogant belief that you're actually smarter than God.

Time to rise above, kids. It's petty.