"if I gave you a nice house and a Lamborghini, put a million dollars in your bank account, and provided you with a social network, then, a few months later, took everything away, you would be much worse off than if nothing had happened in the first place" amzn.to/2KxvZZR
Replying to
"Men do not live in a world where people are supporting them even when nobody seems to want them. Men are lonelier and have fewer options of healing that loneliness." Echoes Orwell's observation that male tramps are more common than female ones...
Overall, a man who possesses marginal physical or intellectual charm is unlikely to be successful with women if he also lacks power and money. George Orwell wrote perceptively about this in a discussion of the plight of the English hobo, or "tramp":
The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy (Our Lady Of Perpetual Help!). For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above - even a very little above - are as far out of his reach as the moon...there is no doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves. A tramp, therefore, is a celibate from the moment when he takes to the road. He is absolutely without hope of getting a wife, a mistress, or any kind of woman except - very rarely, when he can raise a few shillings - a prostitute.
(Making Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence our Relationships)
TRAMP 5'7"! SHOOT THE MOON PIMP!
❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️ ❤️️
Conversely, poor sons can expect to be completely excluded from the reproductive game, because no women would marry them.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/07/cads-dads-doms.html
Those low in prestige, resources, or dominance must accept no mates.
UNACCEPTABLE!
OK, NATIVES, YOU'RE STILL NOT GETTING IT. I MAY LOOK* LIKE YOU PEOPLE AND OCCASIONALLY TRY TO COME OFF LIKE YOU PEOPLE TO BLEND IN WITH YOU PEOPLE, BUT IF YOU KNEW MY PERSONALITY TRAITS AND BACKGROUND YOU'D REALIZE THAT I'M NOTHING LIKE YOU PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU SEE ME OR INTERACT WITH ME PLEASE REALIZE THAT YOU AND I ARE NOT THE SAME. (LOW IQ, LOWER CLASS, SMOKING, DRINKING, TATTOOED, MONGRELS, PLEASE READ ABOUT YOURSELVES IN THE LINK ABOVE!)
*My Physiognomy Belies My Personality Traits And Disposition. I'm A Nice Guy. Why Do You Think Girls Reject ME?
The Girl I'm Occasionally Seen With Is Giving You People The WRONG IDEA And Making ME Look Bad By Association. I Have A Reputation To Maintain. (Looks are so important to men that...the physical attractiveness of a wife is a better indicator of a man's occupational status than any of her other qualities: better than her intelligence, her socioeconomic status, or her education. (Decoding Love) I Ain't Gotta Penny To My Name!)
Listen. This Is Rite On Target.
"Females were four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women," http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381730315X …
"Females were 1000 times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women"
In an ideal world, every child is equally loved. However, one of the tragedies of existence is that not all of them are. Under some conditions, males are valued more; under others, females. Again, there are no hard and fast rules, but it seems that evolution has had a strong hand in influencing whether parents prefer to have offspring of one sex or the other.
Some twenty years ago, Robert Trivers and his associate Dan Willard theorized that among polygynous species -those in which successful males receive a large evolutionary payoff and unsuccessful males end up with nothing - healthy successful parents should be inclined to invest preferentially in sons. Because those sons would be genetically well endowed (coming from strong, healthy parents) and nutritionally as well as socially advantaged, they, like their fathers, would be likely to acquire a harem and thus to repay their parents' investment in them. (Note: "Repayment," in such cases, occurs via enhanced reproductive success of the offspring and, therefore, of their parents.) Trivers and Willard then reasoned that parents who are somewhat less healthy than most or less successful socially should invest preferentially in females. The evolutionary rationale is that in a polygynous society, daughters are the more conservative option, likely to reproduce even if they are not especially healthy or attractive, whereas low-ranking sons are liable to be reproductive failures, outcompeted by other males. The prediction since has been validated many times over. Biologists, for example, have documented that among several species of polygynous seals, healthy females produce more male offspring; those that are less healthy produce more females.
Human beings, with their polygynous tendencies, invest differentially in their offspring, although their preferences are mediated by cultural tradition rather than reproductive physiology. When Sonoma State University anthropologist Mildred Dickemann examined traditional societies in India and China, as well as historical records from medieval Europe, her findings were striking; in all these cases, upperclass families invested more in their sons and discriminated against their daughters; in fact, female infanticide was distressingly common.
Moreover, this behavior was consistent with each family's biological interest. Because upper-class sons in polygynous societies can expect to have many wives and therefore produce many grandchildren for their parents, they are favored over daughters. Although the daughters of upper-class couples also produce grandchildren, each daughter, having a limited reproductive capacity, produces fewer grandchildren on average than does each son. Thus, wealthy parents prefer to rear sons.
The opposite pattern holds true for lower-class families, whose sons have relatively bleak reproductive prospects as a result of their inability to compete with more prosperous males. But lower-class daughters are potentially able to "marry up" and thus have better reproductive prospects. True to evolutionary prediction, Dickemann found that lower-class families were more likely to expend their resources on daughters.
Although infanticide is not frequent in the United States, there is little doubt that parents often discriminate between their children depending on whether they are boys or girls. We would also guess that there is a biological pattern discernible in the amount families pay for weddings, athletic activities, and education for girls versus boys. In other words, we predict that wealthy families spend more money on their sons (for school, travel, automobiles, and the like), whereas poor families spend somewhat more money on their daughters (for clothing and other items to make them more attractive).
In her clinical practice, Judith commonly hears the laments of women who had to put themselves through college or graduate school while educational expenses for their brothers were paid in full. Although this pattern may be changing, it remains widespread. Judith's patient Elizabeth, for example, vacillated between outrage and depression when describing the inequities she faced while growing up. She was expected to help around the house, whereas her older brother Frank got special favors and expensive presents, such as a surfboard, simply because he was the oldest male. When her brother Jerry got into trouble at school and stole a car, the parents paid his bail, his attorney's fees, and his therapist bills without complaint, dismissing his behavior as high-spirited. But Elizabeth received few such favors. Even though she was an honor student, elected Phi Beta Kappa in college, she had to work her way through law school with no family support. Even now, family members don't seem as proud of Elizabeth, a prosperous attorney, as they are of Frank, who is a produce manager in the local supermarket.
(Making Sense of Sex)
