Saturday, February 19, 2022

51 Bitches Will Be Bitches...Bitch...Treva (Travieso)...Vanessa...Tanisha...Patricia, Patricia...Tami...Brandi...Brandi...Little Girls...Bottom Bitch...Breakin' Bitches...She Jamaican...Moe Bitches...Her Sister...Clarissa...Another Bitch...The President...A Bitch...First Lady...Daughters...Yung Ho...Ho In Check...Lile Ho...Y Vette...Charles...Sister...Inna Ho...New Hose...New Bitch...Black...She's A 12th Grader...Dame...Bitch...Girl...Ho...


https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx/reel/CwXXjtyO2Wt/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/slightly-blighty/201508/the-sexy-sons-theory-what-women-are-attracted-in-men

  • The "sexy sons" theory claims that women find some men more physically desirable because they have good genes that will pass on to their sons.
  • Evolutionary psychology argues that the female orgasm may have evolved as a response designed to retain sperm from desirable partners.
  • One study found women who perceive that other women find their partner to be attractive are more likely to report orgasm during sex.

It is theoretically possible through casual sex for women to gain superior genes which are passed on to their children. Given men's proclivities with regard to a temporary sex partner, the economics of the mating marketplace render it far easier for a woman to get a man from a higher stratum or with better genes to have sex with her than it is for her to get him to marry her.  A woman might try to secure the investment of a lower-ranking man by marrying him, for example, while simultaneously securing the genes of a higher-ranking man by cuckolding her husband. This dual strategy exists in Great Britain, where the biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis have discovered that women typically have affairs with men who are higher in status than their husbands.

One version of the better genes theory has been labeled the "sexy son hypothesis." According to this theory, women prefer to have casual sex with men who are attractive to other women because they will have sons who possess the same charming characteristics. Women in the next generation will therefore find these sons attractive, and the sons will enjoy greater mating success than the sons of women who mate with men who are not regarded as attractive by most women. 

Evidence for this theory comes from the temporary and permanent mating study, which identified a key exception to women's more stringent selection criteria for permanent partners. Women are more exacting with regard to physical attractiveness in a casual encounter than they are in a permanent mate. This preference for physically attractive casual sex partners may be a psychological clue to a human evolutionary history in which women benefited through the success of their sexy sons.

Although we can never know for sure, anthropologists believe that many women during evolutionary history did not contract their own marriages; the evidence is that marriages arranged by fathers and other kin are common in today's tribal cultures, which are assumed to resemble the conditions under which humans evolved. The practice of arranged marriage is still common in many parts of the world as well, such as India, Kenya, and the Middle East. Arranged marriages restrict the opportunities for women to reap the benefits of short-term mating. Even where matings are arranged by parents and kin, however, women often exert considerable influence over their sexual and marital decisions by manipulating their parents, carrying on clandestine affairs, defying their parents' wishes, and sometimes eloping. These forms of personal choice open the window to the benefits for women of short-term mating, even when marriage is arranged by others.  (The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating)

The logic of the mating market dictates that women will generally be able to get a more attractive partner for a casual sexual encounter than for a permanent husband. Attractive men are often willing to have sex with less desirable women, as long as they do not become encumbered by entangling commitments. Rock stars and sports stars perfectly illustrate this logic. They often have groupies for causal sex with no hint of commitment. This mating market logic leads to a disturbing consequence. Women married to men matched to their level of desirability will sometimes be tempted to have affairs with men whom they find sexier than their husbands.

Why risk discovery, ruin a good reputation, and chance abandonment by having an affair with a man higher than your partner on the mate value scale? Steve Gangestad and Randy Thornhill proposed one answer: Women can acquire better genes from higher value extrapair matings than from their regular mates. Good genes may bring better resistance to disease, increasing the health and hence survival of their children. Women, of course, don't think about these things consciously. Their passions for other partners are blind to the evolutionary functions that have shaped them. Women just need to find other men sexy; knowing why is unnecessary.

One indicator of good genes has emerged over the past decade; symmetry. Humans, like many organisms, show a physical arrangement characterized by bilateral symmetry. If you draw a line straight down the middle of your body, starting with your face, the two halves are more or less mirror images of each other. The "more or less" qualifier is the key, since no one is perfectly symmetrical. Each of us carries a host of small deviations from perfect symmetry, ranging from Cindy Crawford's small mole to Lyle Lovett's lopsided grin.

Deviations from symmetry have many causes, but they have been most strongly linked with two determinants. First, symmetry signals "developmental stability," a genetic resistance to pathogens and mutations. A person who is genetically susceptible to pathogens and mutations will develop a more lopsided face and body than those who are genetically resistant to pathogens and mutations. Second, symmetry is a sign of a genetic resistance to a host of other "environmental insults," such as extreme temperatures, poor nutrition in childhood, and exposure to toxins. It is, in short, a genetic marker of health.

Symmetry can be measured in practically any organism. With humans, researchers typically take a variety of measurements, such as feet, ankles, hands, wrists, elbows, and ears. By taking multiple measurements, researchers achieve a higher level of reliability in their index of actual symmetry. To study the effects of symmetry on human mating, Gangestad and Thornhill studied 203 heterosexual couples who had been involved in a romantic relationship for at least one month. After assuring participants of confidentiality and anonymity, they questioned each person about whether they had ever had sex with someone else while in their current relationship. They also queried participants about whether they had sex with someone else whom they knew was already married to, or seriously involved with, someone else. They then applied steel calipers to assess participants' degree of symmetry, taking seven measurements from each side of the body.

Gangestad and Thornhill discovered a groundbreaking result. Women preferentially chose symmetrical men as affair partners. Assuming that symmetry is a marker for genes for health, women who have affairs appear to select men who, for genetic reasons, are unusually healthy and whose genes than make children more healthy and resistant to diseases. Men who are rather asymmetrical are especially prone to being cuckolded by their more symmetrical rivals.

How do women "detect" such symmetrical men? The most obvious answer is simply to look. In extreme cases of asymmetry like Lyle Lovett or symmetry like Denzel Washington, women merely need to gaze through their own eyes. But there is a more subtle means by which women can detect symmetry - through their sense of smell. In an innovative study, Gangestad and Thornhill asked men who varied in symmetry to wear the same T-shirt for two days straight without showering or using deodorants. They instructed these men not to eat any spicy food - no peppers, garlic, onions, and so on. After two days, they collected the T-shirts, and then brought women into the laboratory to smell them. The women rated each on how good or bad it smelled. They were of course not aware of the purpose of the study in advance, nor did they know the men who had worn the T-shirts. The fascinating finding was that women judged the T-shirts that had been worn by symmetrical men as more pleasant smelling, but only if they happened to be in the ovulation phase of their menstrual cycle. So one clue to the mystery of how women detect men with good genes lies with the "scent of symmetry."

Some women pursue a "mixed" mating strategy - ensuring devotion and investment from one man while acquiring good genes from another. Women detect the scent of symmetry, prefer that scent when ovulating, and choose more symmetrical men as affair partners.
 This may not be good news for lopsided men. After all, the genes a man is born with are beyond his control, and it may seem a gross injustice that women are more likely to cheat on these men. But women's sexual psychology is designed neither for fairness nor justice. It is designed to help women reproduce more effectively, regardless of the pain inflicted on their partners.

There are two potential criticisms of this reasoning, but they turn out to crumble under close examination. The first is that modern women often don't want to have babies with their lovers, and so one might argue that the quality of their lover's genes is irrelevant. Women's sexual psychology, however, was forged in an evolutionary furnace lacking birth control. Sex led to babies regardless of a woman's conscious desire to reproduce or not. Ancestral women who had affairs with healthier, more symmetrical men tended to bear healthier, more symmetrical babies. Modern women have inherited from their successful ancestors an attraction to these me . The fact that roughly 10 percent of children today have genetic fathers other than their putative fathers suggests that these internal whisperings continue to operate today in the modern world.

A second possible objection is: Why wouldn't women want symmetrical mates as husbands as well as affair partners? The answer of course, is that they should and do. But the economics of the mating market means that most women are able to attract a more symmetrical man as an affair partner than a husband. Some women, in short, are able to get the best of both worlds - attracting investment from one man while obtaining superior genes from another.

Men's obsession with a woman's physical appearance and sexual availability results in what many women experience as objectification, or being treated as "sex objects." But men don't hold the monopoly on sexual objectification. The modern phenomenon of female rock groupies provides a perfect example. Groupies typically get neither investment nor attention nor much time from the rock stars whom they seek for sex. As Pamela des Barres observed in her book I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupiea half-hour "quickie" can make a groupie's day. Most of these women do not delude themselves that the male rock stars will fall in love with them, have a relationship with them, or even remember their names in the morning. And they risk a lot by such brief flings - the loss of their regular boyfriends and the possibility of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Why do they do it?

My studies with Heidi Greiling support an intriguing idea known as the theory of "sexy sons." Women who mate with sexy men tend to bear sexy sons. When these "sexy sonsgrow up, they attract an above average number of women, thereby gaining a genetic edge on the competition. Their mothers gain in ultimate reproductive success through the increased reproduction of their sexy sons.

When evaluating qualities women want in a one-night stand outside of their regular relationship, women topped out in requiring the following attributes (using a 1-9 scale): sexy (8.7), highly desirable to the opposite sex (8.2), desires sex with you a lot (8.2), sensuous (8.2), physically attractive (8.6), good looking (8.3), sought after by members of the opposite sex (8.3), thinks you are sexy (8.3), and greatly desires you (8.3). Contrary to what women want in a regular partner, women seeking brief flings appear to go for the "studly" charmers who have what it takes to bed a variety of women. These are precisely the qualities that would give their sons a mating advantage in the next generation.

These same qualities shine through when women express the minimum percentile they require for various types of relationships. The contrast between the minimums women express for regular mates and for one-night stands is especially striking because women relax their standards for many qualities when seeking brief encounters.  For degree of education, for example, women required husbands to be in the 61st percentile, but for one-night stands they required only the 47th percentile. In sharp contrast, women became more exacting in a one night stand on precisely the qualities one would expect according to the theory of sexy sons. Whereas they wanted their husband to be in the 58th percentile on sexiness, they wanted their brief flings to be in the 76th percentile. On physical attractiveness, they required husbands to be only in the 54th percentile, but demanded the 77th percentile for one-night stands. In brief encounters, it seems, women demand sexy partners who are highly desirable to other women, perhaps because their sons stand a greater chance of being sexy themselves. Women, of course, do not think these thoughts; there is no conscious calculus of genetic effects. They just find some men sexy and that's all they need to produce sons who will be sexually successful.

https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1213357406014586880

swarthy_pariah@kiirukikuyu·Jan 4, 2020

A man’s physical attractiveness will usually outweigh his educational &/ or career attainments. Women’s mate selection criteria is quite primitive. In short, she won’t fuck your paycheque or PhD. 🤷🏿‍♂️

https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/1049714377144840192

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT WHITE FEMALES WHO HAVE CHILDREN WITH NON-WHITES, PARTICULARLY BLACK MALES THAT I DON'T LIKE! I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THEY BEING MORE LIBERAL SEXUALLY AND SOCIALLY, HENCE THEIR MATING OUTSIDE OF THEIR RACE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDmwPqma5Q4

#WHITEBITCHDRIVE!

FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF MY BROTHERS' WHITE GIRLFRIENDS AND WIVES LIKED ME, BUT I NEVER REALLY LIKED THEM (EXCEPT FOR TAMI LACROIX

The White Girl David's Sitting Next To Is Unattractive. He's Had Much More Attractive White Girl's Than She.

Just About All Of Steven's Girlfriends Were White And Much More Attractive Then The UGLY Mexican He's Sitting Next To In This Photo. In Fact, I Think That UGLY Mexican Is The Only Mexican He'd Ever Dated Prior To Regretfully Marrying Her! (Michelle Dalot, Richie's Ex-Wife To The Far Left!)

The Pictures Of Native Hawaiians In Native Garb Hanging From The Wall Are Part Of The Aesthetics Tina Employs To Decorate Her House.

TAMI LACROIX TO THE LEFT! DAVID'S EX-WIFE! DAVID SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD CHILDREN WITH SHE! GERY (NOT PICTURED) HAD MANY, MANY GIRLFRIENDS, BUT A 5'11 IRISH/MEXICAN FORMER COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS THE ONE HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A CHILD WITH! HAD HE HAD A SON WITH HER YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN A BASKETBALL PLAYER MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN LOWCASH!

The Minnesota Twin Study and other research projects have revealed genetic components to social attitudes, even political leanings...Other studies have indicated that genes may influence, not just overall political leanings, but also rigidly held positions on such controversial issues...A 1975 Australian study of 3,810 pairs of twins discovered a genetic component to a broad range of attitudes, everything from a liking for modern art to respect for divine law. Perhaps the most significant finding had to do with racial attitudes. Of three questions relating to this subject - belief in white superiority, acceptance of mixed marriages, and feelings about nonwhite immigration - all had a significant degree of heritability. These findings raise the intriguing possibility that the racists who reveled in The Bell Curve's genetic allegations about I.Q. winners and losers may themselves be in the genetic grip of some unattractive evolutionary residue...Should, for instance, a biochemical basis be clearly established in our attitudes toward such stubborn problems as racial hostilities or capital punishmentit might explain why the endless appeals to reason and fairness, from both sides, have historically had so little effect. Strong environmental influences - whether New York Times editorials, Pat Robertson sermons, or Aryan Nation propaganda - can, I suspect, reinforce the positions of those whose genes make them receptive to the ideology being pitched. I strongly doubt if such appeals can persuade people whose genes point them in a different ideological direction. (Born That Way)

This Is How I Look At White Women! (I Don't Look At Them!)