February 26, 2006

Blonde Ambition: Cavewomen Evolved Light Hair To Attract Mates 10,000 Years Ago
— Ace

Science:

THE modern gentleman may prefer blondes. But new research has found that it was cavemen who were the first to be lured by flaxen locks.
According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.

The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men.

Lighter hair colours, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St Andrews.

“Human hair and eye colour are unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe (and their) origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicates some kind of selection,” says the study by Peter Frost, a Canadian anthropologist. Frost adds that the high death rate among male hunters “increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of colour traits.”

Meanwhile... Blondes Dying Out In Japan: Or at least bottle-blondes:

Ten years ago, a stroll through central Tokyo could leave travelers wondering what country they were in as they watched a parade of tanned, fair-haired women walking tall in precarious platform shoes.

Now fashion has moved on and hairdressers say bleached blonde tresses are going the way of fake tans, although a dark brown tint still seems more popular than natural black.

10,000 years later, and women are still fretting about how to attract men. I likes it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (195)
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Blonde is way overrated. It's all about dark hair!

Posted by: Greg at February 26, 2006 12:47 PM (epuFH)

2 I thought the pigment thing in skin and hair and eyes had to do with sun issues.

Although there are no blond Inuit... maybe they've just lacked some more hundreds of thousands of years...

Posted by: alessandra at February 26, 2006 12:56 PM (n/PLG)

3 I think God made blondes. He does have a sense of humor after all.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 01:10 PM (0AD+O)

4 How does one "evolve" blonde hair and blue eyes may I ask? It's not you can will those things to be.


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 26, 2006 01:11 PM (t/SB8)

5 This seems curious to me. Fewer men survived, but the ones who did let all those dark haired hottie cave women go to waste? I would think those environmental conditions would lead to polygamy, before leading to the partial extinction of brunettes.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at February 26, 2006 01:15 PM (4gjAs)

6 Eye color, skin tone, and even nose size is related to climate, at least in terms of anthropology. More sun = darker skin and eyes. Drier climate = bigger nose. Just look at Arabs and Saharan Africans.

RWS, if you are naturally blond and blue-eyed, your people are probably northern European or Scandinavian.

My eyes are green--some grotesque mutation I'm sure. My skin is also very pale--Irish roots.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 01:19 PM (M8lyz)

7 "A study by the World Health Organisation found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years" UK Times

Environmental groups need to get behind this one and put blondes on the endangered species list. US Fish & Wildlife Service needs to start a blonde breeding program NOW!

Posted by: Save the blondes at February 26, 2006 01:21 PM (w3i1F)

8 RWS:

Evolution is not "directed" in the sense that there is some desired end-state. Evolution is a process. Blonde hair might have come about strictly by accident -- a genetic hiccup, a bit too much radiation, a fortuitious mixing of parental chromosomes -- but it persisted because it granted a benefit on the bearer of this trait. Which is to say, men found this trait to be attractive, and thus wanted to mate with the bear, which passed the gene on, etc.

It turns out that in northern climes, the "fitness" of the blonde/blue-eyed trait was that it set a female apart from her cohorts and drew the attention of the male. This female was then more likely to reproduce and pass on her genes to her children. Many secondary sexual characteristics probably evolved in just this way. For example, why do women have substantially less body hair in general than men? The most probable answer is sexual selection: men found smooth-skinned women to be more attractive.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 01:23 PM (djE5R)

9 RWS-It notes in the clip that the hair color was introduced as a mutation and selected for by males afterword, creating a significant population.

As for the relationship of pigmentation and the sun, it is not considered causal. A low pigment population is simply better able to survive in the north because there is less risk of pathology related to sun exposure.

Posted by: TheDude at February 26, 2006 01:24 PM (3Xhl6)

10 mate with the bear

Sigh. Make that bearer. Mating with a bear would confer no genetic benefit I'm aware of -- in fact it probably would have rendered the person in question quite dead and unrecognizable to his peers.

Posted by: monty at February 26, 2006 01:25 PM (djE5R)

11 Mating with a bear would confer no genetic benefit I'm aware of

Don't be dissin' my genes.

Posted by: The Bear at February 26, 2006 01:32 PM (vpYuK)

12 Science:

New reseach has found that it was cavemen who were the first to adjust their balls. According to the study, north European men would adjust their balls prior to sitting down, standing up or any activity at all. This would allow them to have maximum comfort without hurting themselves. The study argues that adjusting balls originated because sometimes balls stick to your leg.

Do you think I can get a grant to study this phenomena?

Posted by: chickpea at February 26, 2006 01:33 PM (4sO2H)

13 I, for one, am glad that the Japanese girls are over the blonde hair phase. I like blonde hair and I like black hair. I get Japanese fashion mags and all the Japanese girls have this orangey hair. It's ugly!!! It's conformity disguised as non-conformity. They have pretty, shiny, black as a raven's wing hair, naturally, and they should leave it that way. I hate it when blondes dye their hair black too.

Posted by: Michelle at February 26, 2006 01:45 PM (WbeUp)

14 The study argues that adjusting balls originated because sometimes balls stick to your leg.

Uh huh. I "adjust" my dick for the same reason.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at February 26, 2006 01:53 PM (pRtzm)

15 I'm not sure who/why/where said the blondes in Japan are fading into the sunset, but I'll be glad when it's so. The majority of those who go blonde look like Chemotherapy victims. The face takes on that translucent pale yellow. For my money, if you're going through the chemo, my hat's off to you, but if not, put the bottle down! Walk away and keep yer hands where I can see'em! Red heads or purple or blue or combi's are rearing their ugly heads now. Some of the purple/reds are uh, interesting.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 26, 2006 01:57 PM (Fq6zR)

16 Yeah, what's with all the package adjustment anyway? Can ya leave those things alone for a second? Ya gotta check on 'em all the time. What gives? Not like they're going anywhere.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 01:59 PM (M8lyz)

17 An interesting side-note on the whole "ball adjusting" thing -- during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines in the late 1890's, the Moro insurgents would bind their testicles with a wet leather thong. As the day wore on and the thong dried out, it would shrink and cause the Moro warrior great pain. But it was thought that this would impel the warrior to great feats of bravery, and inure him to the pain of wounds.

So, you know, a little "ballsack sticking to the leg" isn't really such a big thing in the wider scheme of things.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 02:01 PM (djE5R)

18 What a bunch of bullpoop.

I can't wait for the day when the leaders of the black community finally stands up and do what they do best -- scream "racism!"

All these evolutionary theories of why we have this and why we have that point to blatant bigotry.

Why don't the scientists just come out and say it?
Humans with light skin and light eyes and small noses and thin lips are more evolved and therefore more advanced.

I said it before, but it bears repeating. The search for the so-called missing link has been put on the back-burner because all those sketches of the early man moving through different stages of evolution showed a human with "Afro" features. When I was a kid in the '70's, I remember many news specials on the "missing link." Not anymore, though. Gee, I wonder why?

And I'm sure the Asians won't be too pleased to find out that they are thousands of years behind the white folk in the evolutionary calendar. Or did the scientists figure out why the Chinese needed narrow eye-opening? Was it to prevent bamboo shoots from poking their eyes out? Or perhaps rice farming was a hazard to their eyes, at some point.

So now we know why we have blonde hair. Wonderful. Maybe someone smart can tell me why I have nipples.


(Please don't tell me.)


Posted by: Bart at February 26, 2006 02:01 PM (YwaqZ)

19 Yeah, what's with all the package adjustment anyway?

Inventory?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 02:05 PM (D2pBz)

20 a little "ballsack sticking to the leg" isn't really such a big thing

Speak for yourself. If your ballsack is little thing, then fine. No one was really asking, and no one will think the poorer of you. Really.

Also ... boxer briefs keep adjustments to a minimum.

Posted by: DDG at February 26, 2006 02:06 PM (U3U0J)

21 This study is all wrong. Predators prefer to honor brunettes.

Posted by: The Bear at February 26, 2006 02:08 PM (Qki3V)

22 This thread has been hijacked by males who can't leave their bullocks alone. Shocking, I say.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 02:10 PM (M8lyz)

23 Bart, I've been to a rodeo, a carnival, and a presidential stump speech, and that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. With respect.

There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". An organism is as "evolved" as it needs to be to survive and reproduce. That's it. The old "ladder" model always was a misstatement of Darwinian principles, but unfortunately too many people think of that when they think of evolution.

All modern human beings -- Homo Sapiens Sapiens -- are about 99.9997% the same, speaking from a DNA standpoint. From a pygmy bushman to a Wall Street CEO, there just ain't much difference. You could probably take a specimen of Cro Magnon and give him a shave, and he'd fit right in at the junior faculty at a regional college. There are genetic differences between racial groups and subgroups, of course, but they are vanishingly small in the aggregate.

The problem with the so-called "missing link" is that there isn't one. We have a pretty good idea of the human lineage all the way back to the time when we diverged from the treedwelling arboreals (the ape/monkey split, in other words).

Yeesh. Read a modern biology book.

Unless you were just trying to be funny, in which case I apologize for the snark.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 02:10 PM (djE5R)

Posted by: Freaky Nippled Man at February 26, 2006 02:10 PM (D2pBz)

25 I am not missing! If you would pull your heads out of Bush's ass, you'd see that I've been right here the whole time.

Posted by: The Link at February 26, 2006 02:12 PM (D2pBz)

26 why I have nipples.

It's a thing from the phone companies. They put them there years ago for "send" and "receive."

Posted by: Abnuvoodtimevishnuverhere at February 26, 2006 02:13 PM (U3U0J)

27 So now we know why we have blonde hair. Wonderful. Maybe someone smart can tell me why I have nipples.
(Please don't tell me.)


Too late. I believe it is because for your first few weeks of gestation in your mother's womb, you were a girl, Bart. All you men started out as little girls. lol!

Posted by: shawn at February 26, 2006 02:15 PM (B8ta7)

28 Bart,

I shouldn't write this kind of stuff when I'm already in a cranky mood. I apologize for the tone of the post, if not the substance. I re-read it, and it seemed unnecessarily rude. Especially if you were just cracking a joke.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 02:16 PM (djE5R)

29 Predators prefer to honor brunettes.

I prefer to honor that little blue mutherfucker across the fishbowl!

Posted by: Red Fightling Fish at February 26, 2006 02:16 PM (D2pBz)

30 I came to "comments" all ready to rant about the stunningly dumb wording in the article with respect to women evolving blnd hair - the articles' implication being that they "chose" this as a defense from competition.

I note that the idiocy was dispatched quite well by earlier (and more elloquent) posters.

Thank goodness.

To reiterate: Evolution is a dumb blind process acting on living DNA, and NEVER looks ahead. Processes don't "plan" or "anticipate".

Posted by: Cheese_Tensor at February 26, 2006 02:17 PM (41Dd+)

31 KevlarChick - keep your heinous humming wand away from my bullocks! Wait... I take that back....

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 02:18 PM (D2pBz)

32 Madfish, nevermind the bullocks!! Remember--you started out as a GIRL. You're all girls.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 02:21 PM (M8lyz)

33 "missing link" is that there isn't one.

We know that. That's why we're not buying this evolution thing as it stands today. Ask any mathematician, they'll tell you.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 02:22 PM (0AD+O)

34 hehe... Grizzly Man is being honored on The Discovery Channel tonight!!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 02:22 PM (D2pBz)

35 Processes don't "plan" or "anticipate".

Now that's interesting. Are you sure?

There is the Gaia theory. And there is the smart gene theory, that was humorously sent up by George Carlin ("The earth needed a way to make plastic ... that's us.")

What bothers me about genetics is that it is a complex system that is routinely treated like it's a done deal. The PR is that when we map the genome, we're done. I suspect strongly that complexity will creep in there (soon) and we will start to find that sequences of genes are more telling than particular sequences of proteins.

Posted by: DDG at February 26, 2006 02:24 PM (U3U0J)

36 Cheese_Tensor:

I have the same problem when I hear people talk about how a homeobox (HOX) gene "codes for" some trait or other. As if it were a lego block to be snapped into place or something. Even scientists are guilty of this, which is unfortunate. Evolution is probably the most misused, misunderstood, and mistaught scientific principle I know of. It's absolutely criminal, and both the Left and Right own part of the blame.

Gah. It angries up my blood thinking about it. I must think of comely blonde cavewomen to cool myself off.

Atook aloonda Lana!

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 02:25 PM (djE5R)

37 blockquote>You're all girls
Does that make you a male-lesbian?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 02:25 PM (D2pBz)

38 Remember--you started out as a GIRL. You're all girls.

This must be true because I know I have lesbian tendencies.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 02:25 PM (0AD+O)

39 Grizzly Man is being honored

Don't f*ck with my boy MW.

Posted by: The Bear at February 26, 2006 02:25 PM (M8lyz)

40 Don't f*ck

Hey bear, I know it's tough to type with the paw, but it's not like we didn't know that f*ck meant "fuck." If you really want to obfuscate, you might want to try the Snuffy Smith symbols: @$&^!$$*

You don't need to hit the shift key with the "u", unless you type like Larry, in which case, you'd type "fUck."

Either way, I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: DDG at February 26, 2006 02:31 PM (U3U0J)

41 Well, Monty, to tell you the truth, I was a little taken aback from the tone of your post. It hurt "extra" since it came from you. I appreciate your apology. It was very big of you, thank you.

At the risk of further irritating you, no, it wasn't entirely a joke. Some of the remarks were meant for humor, but my overall point that scientists find reasons for everything under the sun was serious.

Okay, so the package has evolved, so to speak, over the years of how scienctists present their evolutionary theories. I wasn't aware that they have abandoned the "more evolved" attitude. What about brain-size development? And linguistics capability? Surely these are signs of a more advanced species, no?

Posted by: Bart, who's not a talking chimp. at February 26, 2006 02:39 PM (h+Gzu)

42 A few months ago, Megan had me a bit confused. And now shawn has me befuddled, as well. So I ask, is shawn a boyo or goyl?

Posted by: Bart at February 26, 2006 02:44 PM (h+Gzu)

43 So I ask, is shawn a boyo or goyl?

Yes.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 02:49 PM (0AD+O)

44 Don't f*ck with my boy MW.

That's right! Eating him would be okay, though.

If this science had any basis in fact, the vast majority of us would be redheads.

And Bart, it's not "more evolved;" the sanitized PC term science uses now is "more complex" or some such.

Posted by: bbeck at February 26, 2006 02:49 PM (qF8q3)

45 Blondes taste like french vanilla ice cream.
Brunettes taste like red fighting fish.

The bear can honor my bollocks.

Posted by: Saber Tooth Tiger at February 26, 2006 02:51 PM (Qki3V)

46 Confound you, Brewww!

Posted by: Bart at February 26, 2006 02:52 PM (h+Gzu)

47 Um, I have a very pressing question about evolution, human species, and skeletal evolution, but I dare not ask it publicly. Is there someone I can email to ask this?

Posted by: Muslihoon at February 26, 2006 02:53 PM (Q8UK2)

48 So I ask, is shawn a boyo or goyl?

A goy.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 02:53 PM (M8lyz)

49 Bart,

Once the problems with having a fast mouth is that it sometimes runs away before I get a hand on its shirt.

Evolutionary theory never was about being "more" or "less" evolved -- Darwin himself was careful to point out that "fitness" did not imply any moral dimension. Flatworms and sponges are about as simple as animals can be and still be "alive", and yet they've persisted relatively unchanged for millions of years. They evolved to the point they needed to to survive and thrive in their ecosystem; this was not out of any desire or aim of flatworms to "advance", but was simply a function of time, ecological pressure, and long cycles of death and birth.

Now, if the whole idea was to become "more evolved", why do flatworms not turn into fish? Why do sharks not turn into proper fish? And why would a land mammal return to the sea and turn into the whale we know today?

I might accept the general hypothesis that over time evolution generates more complex organisms, but even here it's debatable: by far the most populous organisms on earth are viruses and bacteria. They get along fine without complexity. Extend things up a bit and you get trillions of insects, who while complex are nowhere near as complex as a human being. A human being is not more evolved than a beetle; he is simply differently evolved. Both organisms do quite well in their own ecological niches.

The jury is still out, in fact, on how successful the human species really is. We're johnny-come-latelies to the biosphere, and we give every indication of being a flash in the pan in evolutionary terms -- we arrived on stage about a million years ago (give or take), and we'll probably shuffle back off in another million years or so -- although in our case we'll probably modify ourselves long before evolution gets to it.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 02:55 PM (djE5R)

50 Brunettes taste like red fighting fish.

Hey... I don't eat anything that smells like fish!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 02:58 PM (D2pBz)

51 Oh, and muslihoon, feel free to contact me. I might not be able to answer exactly, but I have a good friend who's an evolutionary biologist with a PhD and everything. (A lovely lady, too, though alas married and thus immune to my blandishments.)

Posted by: monty at February 26, 2006 02:58 PM (djE5R)

52 "Either way, I'm just sayin'"

So you're saying you are a $%#@* &#!$*% &%@!& who likes %#@!$ &$!#* right?

Posted by: $#@*& at February 26, 2006 03:01 PM (bVKzV)

53 blandishments

Blandishments! Even I haven't evolved to that level. I'll take leftovers.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 03:03 PM (M8lyz)

54 Yeah, what's with all the package adjustment anyway? Can ya leave those things alone for a second? Ya gotta check on 'em all the time. What gives? Not like they're going anywhere.

Well, to update a 30-year-old Richard Pryor joke: "Your divorce attorney took everything else."

"Mate with the bear"

It's like the man said: "Sometimes you mate with the bar; sometimes, the bar mates with you."

Posted by: Alex at February 26, 2006 03:05 PM (fgyj8)

55 The blond as evolutionary by attraction seems like bs on stilts. As a man, I can state with confidence, that no willing woman goes unmated, at least, not since the invention of beer googles.

Tob

Posted by: Toby928 at February 26, 2006 03:08 PM (PD1tk)

56 goggles not googles, cursed keyboard!

Posted by: Toby928 at February 26, 2006 03:10 PM (PD1tk)

57 You know you want me.

Posted by: Blonde Cave Women at February 26, 2006 03:11 PM (Qki3V)

58 For what it's worth, I've always sorta wondered bout the guys who go crazy over blondes or brunettes but not the other.

Me, I likes em both. Beauty is beauty. That said, there's something about brunettes that strikes me as more substantial, as if a beautiful brunette is the steak while the beautiful blonde is the is the hot fudge sundae dessert.

Not sure who which should be insulted by that (both?), just the way it works for me.

Posted by: Guy Dupree at February 26, 2006 03:12 PM (rH3Ei)

59 Me remember hitting blonde bimbo over head and drag back to cave to see if wall matches dirt. boy was my face red.

Posted by: Juka the hunter at February 26, 2006 03:12 PM (bVKzV)

60 If you had to pick either the steak or the sundae, which would it be?

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 03:15 PM (M8lyz)

61 The blond as evolutionary by attraction seems like bs on stilts.

Oh, I don't know. Sexual selection has been practiced by humans in animal husbandry for years. It's selection, just not natural selection, and it works a treat. You want a cow that gives lots of milk? You breed heifers who already give an abnormally large amount of milk, and you do it again with the next generation, and again, and again, and finally you have a Jersey with a freakishly outsized udder that gives probably four times the milk of any wild bovine species.

Dog breeders have produced a wild galaxy of dog breeds, from teacup poodle to mastiff. And every dog in the world is ultimately descended from the wolf -- all the variation you see was induced by humans, for human purposes.

So I don't see the blonde-hair thing as being all that unlikely at all. It turns out that gentlemen have always preferred blondes.

Well, some of us. I prefer redheads, myself, hailing from bonny auld Scotland as my ancestors did.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 03:17 PM (djE5R)

62 I am a natural blue eyed blonde, but my blonde has need some help of late. Aging sucks. And I am Scott-Irish.

I don't know about actual cave men (although modern man is not much different) but I took notice in college of how men did flock towards the blondes first. I never really understood why.

I did read somewhere recently that true blondes are on the way out in this country. I wonder what that says about us.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 26, 2006 03:21 PM (t/SB8)

63 "Sexual selection has been practiced by humans in animal husbandry for years."

Ah, but why assume that its blond women? Maybe the mutant blond men hunters survived the frozen blond-back hunting trips better. That actually seems more believable to me since the reverse would just lead to multiple wives, maybe a blond favorite but a dark spare would be okay.

Tob

Posted by: Toby928 at February 26, 2006 03:24 PM (PD1tk)

64 If you had to pick either the steak or the sundae, which would it be?

I don't think man can do without either. And I certainly don't find myself thinking 'Wouldn't it be better if she had hair color X'. Doesn't work like that inside my head. It's the face, the beauty and symmetry there. That's what lift's the heart, that 'ooof" you feel in the gut.

That said, when I analyze the women I think of as all time beauties, the transcendants, they're all brunette's: Monica Bellucci, Christy Turlington, Audrey Hepburn, Sophia Loren...

Still though, I feel "It" when I see a hot blonde.

One other thing I notice in myself, I'm harder on the average blonde than I am the average brunette - that somehow to pull off blonde requires uberhotness and less is sort of misplaced.

I dunno, maybe I'm saying I like brunette's more, but that isn't what I set out to say and it really doesn't fell like that.

Posted by: Guy Dupree at February 26, 2006 03:25 PM (rH3Ei)

65 I did read somewhere recently that true blondes are on the way out in this country. I wonder what that says about us.

Um, nothing?

Posted by: Hubris at February 26, 2006 03:25 PM (wZLWV)

66 " I prefer redheads"

Redheads came into being when fallen angels cohabitated with the daughters of men.
There were giants in those days you know.


Posted by: Cheetah at February 26, 2006 03:26 PM (bVKzV)

67 Don't you know it!

Posted by: Nimrod at February 26, 2006 03:37 PM (PD1tk)

68 Red hair came from humans screwing around with neanderthals.

Posted by: If it's on the internet it must be true at February 26, 2006 03:40 PM (jnu9s)

69 Aging sucks.

I must disagree, Sparkle. I find aging to be quite wonderful. I find that being older is very liberating in many ways: I care more about important things and less about small things. I value good company and good conversation more than I used to. My health is still good (knock wood), and I have the financial wherewithal to do what I want. I have good friends, a good job, and a fine house.

It's a good life, and I find I enjoy it more as I get older. A friend once asked me if I was happy. I told him that happy was kind of beside the point; but I was satisfied. Happy or sad depends on the situation; satisfied is something I can control, and do.

Posted by: Monty at February 26, 2006 03:41 PM (djE5R)

70 Given my lack of charm and good looks I've always preferred women who are alive. Beyond that I have no preference.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 03:42 PM (0AD+O)

71 Red hair came from humans screwing around with neanderthals.

That slope-headed, no-chin siren was asking for it!

Posted by: Og at February 26, 2006 03:45 PM (djE5R)

72 Brewfie, awww. Chicks dig self-depreciating men like you. You're so grateful.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 26, 2006 03:49 PM (M8lyz)

73 Hubris,

well thanks for that serious and detailed answer, but I meant that if blondes evolved because they wanted to stand out from their rivals, then what does it say from an evolutionary standpoint if blondes are becoming extinct?

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 26, 2006 03:56 PM (t/SB8)

74 Thanks, Monty!

Posted by: Muslihoon at February 26, 2006 03:56 PM (Q8UK2)

75 Brewfan said "I have always preferred women who are alive." What happens when you get hammered and settle for less than preferable?

Posted by: Mike Superior at February 26, 2006 03:57 PM (Zr5Yj)

76 Why limit your options to the living? I find the bloodsucking undead to be quite hot.

Posted by: Jonathon Sharkey at February 26, 2006 04:01 PM (PD1tk)

77 ...but I meant that if blondes evolved because they wanted to stand out from their rivals, then what does it say from an evolutionary standpoint if blondes are becoming extinct?

See comments from Monty and others above. It isn't that "blondes evolved because they wanted to stand out from their rivals" [emphasis mine]; rather, there was a selection process whereby blondes were more likely to reproduce in a particular environment.

It's just that we're not in the same environment anymore.

Posted by: Hubris at February 26, 2006 04:04 PM (y6n8O)

78 I've gotta go with Brew on this issue. I've always had a thing for women with a pulse.

Posted by: Michael at February 26, 2006 04:09 PM (pRtzm)

79 I believe it is because for your first few weeks of gestation in your mother's womb, you were a girl, Bart. All you men started out as little girls. lol!

And then some of us evolved.

Oh come on you know you were all thinking it. It had to be said.

Of course this also explains why my seed will not be spreading any time soon. Over evolved mouth.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 26, 2006 04:12 PM (rnOZq)

80 Chicks dig self-depreciating men like you.

From your lips to God's ear!

What happens when you get hammered and settle for less than preferable?

I've never gone to bed with a dead woman, but I've woken up with a few! [rim shot] Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your host.

Posted by: BrewFan at February 26, 2006 04:13 PM (0AD+O)

81 Blondes and redheads didn't evolve - they are just another proof of intelligent design.

Posted by: max at February 26, 2006 04:14 PM (AHrOs)

82 I've gotta go with Brew on this issue. I've always had a thing for women with a pulse.

Or at least still warm . . .

Posted by: geoff at February 26, 2006 04:19 PM (vpYuK)

83 I love the dead before they're cold.

Posted by: alice cooper at February 26, 2006 04:21 PM (PD1tk)

84 Their blueing flesh for me to hold

Posted by: geoff at February 26, 2006 04:24 PM (vpYuK)

85 Cadaver eyes upon me see nothing.

Posted by: alice cooper at February 26, 2006 04:26 PM (PD1tk)

86 That's all I could remember - sorry Alice.

Posted by: geoff at February 26, 2006 04:29 PM (vpYuK)

87 There was a huge genetic bottleneck in Europe during the Ice Age as well. I'm not an anthropologist or an evolutionary biologist, but I do know that bottlenecks lead to greater genetic variance within the gene pool.

Personally, I like girls with long dark hair and big boobs. Seeing as I live in Central America, that's probably a good thing.

Posted by: David Gillies at February 26, 2006 04:41 PM (x502S)

88 "Whle friends and lovers mourn your silly grave-I have other uses for you darling."

Just to wrap that up.

Is the whole blond as attraction meme connected in any way to what RWS was refering to with 'helping' heself with the blond maintanance program? Many blonds I know lost much of their "blondness" after they had kids.

Posted by: Tom M at February 26, 2006 04:50 PM (+c6fd)

89 You why the cavemen dragged their women around by the hair?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 04:50 PM (D2pBz)

90 Because if they dragged them around by the ankles, they'd fill up with dirt!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 26, 2006 04:51 PM (D2pBz)

91 "Because if they dragged them around by the ankles, they'd fill up with dirt"

That is hate speech Mr. Willie, and promotes dragging women around.
I will sue you for what I don't know.

Posted by: Gloria the Allred Gatherer at February 26, 2006 05:08 PM (6FWCY)

92 Catherine Zeta Jones could have blond hair, black hair, red hair, or no hair, and I'd still do her.

Posted by: Bigfoot at February 26, 2006 05:53 PM (6FWCY)

93 Monty wrote:

Darwin himself was careful to point out that "fitness" did not imply any moral dimension.

Monty, you know I admire you and your towering intellect here (and I write that with all sincerity possible,) but I can never envision Darwin as a saint after reading a large portion of The Descent of Man

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated.The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the
life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of
astonished dogs- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

Darwin never rebuked his cousin Galton or anyone else for the racist and eugenic interpretations of his work. I personally feel that it was because Darwin himself came up with his theory to reinforce racism and justify British imperialism.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at February 26, 2006 05:55 PM (tnsUn)

94 Sue, this is a very important point you have made.

In real science, the scientist is nothing. He does not matter. Radioactivity is radioactivity whether or not it was Curie who discovered it. Stars collapse into black holes unheeding of the existence of Chandrasekhar or Hawking. Hero-worship of Darwin, Einstein, or even Newton isn't science.

On the other hand...

Even if Einstein had also been a serial killer, he would have been right about his science. In similar vein, we can't let Darwin's philosophy or even purposes occlude our view of his science. It stands on its own or not at all. And the core parts of Darwin's theory stand very firmly.

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 26, 2006 06:08 PM (rFLG5)

95 9000BC-Theory #1: Many men were killed while hunting.

Present Fact #1: Men are still killed, or at least mained, by hunting with Dick Cheney.

9000BC-Theory #2: A huge imbalance between males and females was created.

Present Fact #2: I don't hunt, therefore I have a better than average chance of not being shot by Dick Cheney.

Conclusion: There could be a wave of bonus female companionship in the near future.

Aw hell!! I forgot about the vasectomy.

Posted by: Ready, Willing, and Able at February 26, 2006 06:21 PM (EJgMZ)

96 Hey,...girl hair...it perfect. It so....girl.

Me wrote poem about girl hair. Girl like to hear?

No, Me embarrassed.

No.

No.

'Kay. Girl hair like angel's
Turning head of strangers
Falling like river on cheek

Me don't have last line yet, but girl can see where me going with this.

Posted by: The Neanderthal Brawny Guy at February 26, 2006 06:24 PM (56ssE)

97 "we can't let Darwin's philosophy or even purposes occlude our view of his science. It stands on its own or not at all. And the core parts of Darwin's theory stand very firmly."

Darwins philosophical rants aside, the belief in the theory of evolution is not based upon science, but upon faith. There is no scientific evidence to prove the theory.

And, c'mon, comparing Darwin to Einstein is like comparing monkeys to men.

Posted by: Jiva Man at February 26, 2006 07:08 PM (6FWCY)

98 And I am Scott-Irish.

Bless you, RWS. Congratulations with being one of the chosen.

Have you read any of the books coming out in the last few years about the Scots Irish? I would highly recommend "Born Fighting" by Webb.

Posted by: DDG at February 26, 2006 08:06 PM (/3kwi)

99 I like tanned caucasian guys with dark hair and blue or green eyes.

Although, if they are intelligent, sweet, charming, sucessful, responsible, good parent, good husband, thoughtful, funny, athletic, dynamic, supportive, sincere, clean-cut... dark-eyes or blond hair could do ;-)

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 03:06 AM (n/PLG)

100 For what it's worth, I've always sorta wondered bout the guys who go crazy over blondes or brunettes but not the other.

Humans are genetically heterosexual. Aside from that, if they become dysfunctional along the way, they start desiring children, homo sex, animals, watermelons, cadavers, whatever.

The color complexion preference is not genetic, it's a result of culture conditioning and personality development. Which also explains why you find so many extreme differences regarding attraction to different body weights, heights.

Why do the men in some Polyneasian islands have a sexual orientation towards 300lb women? And in our culture, it's usually the opposite? It's not in the genes.

Unless you are a stupid homo, like Sullivan, who has not yet evolved to study orientation differences in history and anthropology, you know better than to blame non-existent genes for personal dysfunctions.

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 03:19 AM (n/PLG)

101 Sue wrote:

Monty, you know I admire you and your towering intellect here (and I write that with all sincerity possible,) but I can never envision Darwin as a saint after reading a large portion of The Descent of Man

"Towering intellect"? Sheesh. If my head puffs up any more I won't be able to put my hat on it!

But Darwin, although a brilliant (and very kindly) man, was also a Victorian gentleman with fairly conventional views for his day. I often think that we ask too much of our heroes in former ages: that they be modern paragons, according to modern ethical precepts.

Robert E. Lee was a brilliant general and a very gallant man personally, a man filled with love for his men and filled with a profound faith in God; and yet he fought for a very wicked cause (slavery), and institution he did not care for but did not wholly renounce either. Much the same can be said of Abraham Lincoln. We ask these men to be moral paragons not of their own time, but of our time, and I think that's just unreasonable.

Charles Darwin was as good and gentle a man as you'd ever be likely to find, a good father and husband, and a scientist whose brilliance is still -- after all these years -- underestimated and misunderstood. If he had faults...well, who among us does not? When his life is weighed in the balance, the good he did far outweighs the bad.

Posted by: Monty at February 27, 2006 04:00 AM (/V4PN)

102 Although, if they are intelligent, sweet, charming, sucessful, responsible, good parent, good husband, thoughtful, funny, athletic, dynamic, supportive, sincere, clean-cut... dark-eyes or blond hair could do ;-)


Gee alessandra, you don't ask for much, do ya? I almost feel sorry for you in your naivety.

If you find one of those, alert the media. It will be a first!

Posted by: at February 27, 2006 04:41 AM (t/SB8)

103 that was me, but I probably shouldn't admit to it! Heh.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 04:42 AM (t/SB8)

104 So how can they tel their were blonde cavewomen when they cant at all prove this evolution nonsense ever happened? and then there was the question of did cavemen find blondes more easier to wack on the head and drag home to their cave?

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 27, 2006 04:46 AM (AlCYT)

105 RWS,

Hey - your naiveté conclusion was a bit precipitated! If I ever find one of those guys, the last thing I would do is alert the media, because all those un-evolved blond (and red and dark) haired women would be jumping on my man!!!!

However, since we know, that, ahem our opposite sex fellas have not evolved much in the last tens of thousands of years, I guess my chances of finding such an evolved specimen is not that good. But yes, I pray for evolution mutations everyday. Is that being naive??? :-) Do not undersestimate the power of prayer ;-)

You didn't mention the worse though, what makes the odds really impossible is that he needs to be all that AND available. And not interested in anyone else. that's more than enough to drive anyone to take Prozac...

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 05:18 AM (n/PLG)

106 Jiva man:

he belief in the theory of evolution is not based upon science, but upon faith. There is no scientific evidence to prove the theory.

Please. You're just parroting talking points. You're also misusing the words "prove" and "theory". There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting evolution. If you are really interested in examining evidence, go here.


I will agree that some people regard Darwin too "religiously". So I will reiterate. Just because some people take evolution on faith does not change the fact that evolution is real on its own scientific merits.

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 27, 2006 05:40 AM (uHh8R)

107 Well alessandra, you're going to have to find a man who is not only "intelligent, sweet, charming, sucessful, responsible, good parent, good husband, thoughtful, funny, athletic, dynamic, supportive, sincere, clean-cut," but who also enjoys your use of "homo" as an epithet. That's going to narrow your field somewhat. Good luck!

Posted by: Hubris at February 27, 2006 05:49 AM (PwC+V)

108 Y'all think alessandra is picky? You should hear what I'm looking for.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2006 05:52 AM (l+FwE)

109 Just because some people take evolution on faith does not change the fact that evolution is real on its own scientific merits.

Correction: It is a fact that evolution is NOT "REAL" based on its own scientific merits. It's a THEORY based on its own scientific merits. To assert that it's real is to make a claim that science does not.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 05:59 AM (qF8q3)

110 Mrs. Peel,

I thought you were Mrs.?

All I can say is both of you are going to have lower your expectations. My advice? Let your number one standard be kindness. Everything else can be compromised.

Good luck with the kindness thing too.

*note: Although this may seem like man bashing, it isn't. It's reality.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 06:09 AM (t/SB8)

111 You guys are kinda bashing men.

If you reread the last ten posts, you'll read statements that men are still basically cavemen, mostly unkind, and good ones are rare.

We're used to getting bashed, women can be kind of mean that way, but it's extra annoying when you claim you aren't bashing us, it's just 'reality'.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 27, 2006 06:15 AM (ZKZSx)

112 I think the Number One Trait to look for in a man is Responsibility. That encompasses every other aspect, from work ethic to personality.

And y'all can't find the perfect man 'cause I've had him for over 21 years now. He also happens to be a blue-eyed blond, so it all fits in with this thread.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:17 AM (qF8q3)

113 RWS, Emma Peel is a Mrs., but I am a Miss (no Ms. for me). I was supposed to become a Mrs. this May, but broke that off a couple months ago. Best decision I ever made in my life.

Anyway, I don't placate. It's the right Mr. Peel or none at all. I'd rather be single for the rest of my life than trapped in a loveless marriage.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at February 27, 2006 06:22 AM (l+FwE)

114 It's a thing from the phone companies. They put them there years ago for "send" and "receive."

Technically, it was for signal ACK and NACK, but you're close enough to get credit for a right answer.

I always heard what women really want from a man is romance and Tupperware. Am I wrong?

And be gentle, don't shatter my love-belief system in one fell post.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 06:23 AM (pzen5)

115 adolfo,

I'm sure ALL the men here are exceptions to the rule with all the traits alessandra is looking for. She just needs to ignore the lusting porn watching perversion, that's all.

;-)

I kid. I kid.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 06:23 AM (t/SB8)

116 but who also enjoys your use of "homo" as an epithet. That's going to narrow your field somewhat.

Well, if the package came with everything else, I could negotiate ;-)

Actually, if he could understand the reason for the vocab choice, that's the most important. (I've blogged about it, so I won't repeat it here, even if it means some people might continue not to understand). Afterall, I have to put with "gay," and is there anything more doublespeak and insulting to one's knowledge?

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 06:24 AM (n/PLG)

117 And to clarify the meaning of "theory," that term means an explanation that is on pretty solid ground, scientifically, and has held up in the face of lots of research that has been designed such that it would undermine the explanation if the explanation was incorrect. Relativity is a theory. Continental drift and plate tectonics are theories.

A good explanation of the "Top Ten Myths about Evolution," including the "just a theory" canard, can be found here. Another good article from that same site is here. I actually like this professor's entire site, with articles on science, pseudoscience, and irrationalism.

Posted by: Alex at February 27, 2006 06:27 AM (AEPM5)

118 Adolpho, good men ARE rare...and so are good women.

And a good man nowadays is getting harder and harder to find, thanks primarily to the feminist movement which has de-valued the advantages/wonderfully male traits men naturally have: physical strength, natural aggression, the desire to protect, etc. While women complain about how hard a good man is to find, it's their own dang fault that Good Men are a dying breed. (Not the women HERE, of course; I'm referring to the "Sex in the City" types who want their men who be masculine yet SO sensitive, a contradictory position.)

The "caveman" concept isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd take a caveman to a metrosexual ANY day, because between me and my partner I'd rather be the only one with a vagina.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:28 AM (qF8q3)

119 Diligence in your personal affairs, taking responsibility for your actions and deeds, and an attitude of kindness and affection, will most assuredly get you laid and that quite well.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at February 27, 2006 06:32 AM (pzen5)

120 I always heard what women really want from a man is romance and Tupperware. Am I wrong?

You're wrong, Dave, but don't feel bad.

Romance is for saps. l prefer substance over flash myself.

And Tupperware is overpriced.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:34 AM (qF8q3)

121 Well, I heard the Tupperware thing from Les Nessman so I didn't take it to the bank.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 06:36 AM (pzen5)

122 If you reread the last ten posts, you'll read statements that men are still basically cavemen, mostly unkind, and good ones are rare.

We're used to getting bashed, women can be kind of mean that way, but it's extra annoying when you claim you aren't bashing us, it's just 'reality'.


Yes, and you notice that it came from the female side of commenters, who know what it's like out there for a gal looking for a guy.

Cavewomen had it easy, adolfo.

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 06:39 AM (n/PLG)

123 Well, I heard the Tupperware thing from Les Nessman so I didn't take it to the bank.

Yeah, he wouldn't be your most reliable source on the Wooing Arts.

And, ANOTHER correction:

A good explanation of the "Top Ten Myths about Evolution," including the "just a theory" canard, can be found here.


Once again, Evolution is a THEORY. It's not a "canard" to call evolution what it IS. It's not a Guess, it's not a Hypothesis...and it's not a LAW.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:42 AM (qF8q3)

124 I always heard what women really want from a man is romance and Tupperware. Am I wrong?

I am willing to put that in the contract as long as it can be completed between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 am on every third Sunday of the month.

Posted by: caveman lawyer at February 27, 2006 06:44 AM (m2CN7)

125 Yeah, he wouldn't be your most reliable source on the Wooing Arts

You mean he wasn't doing Bailey?

He lied to us.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 06:50 AM (pzen5)

126 Perhaps good men are hard to find, but I know plenty of kind men - they're the ones that women usually don't give a second glance at.

I have a good friend who's kind, hard working, not bad looking, but lonely. Meanwhile, although I'm a good guy now, I had a little bit of a Chris Klein past, and I've dated three times more than my friend.

Sure, men are still cavemen, but women aren't so evolved either. Otherwise, my friend would be married and I'd be lonely.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 27, 2006 06:51 AM (ZKZSx)

127 Just to lower the tone again,

Why do women rub their eyes in the morning?

Because they don't have any balls to scratch.

Yeah, what's with all the package adjustment anyway? Can ya leave those things alone for a second? Ya gotta check on 'em all the time
Yes

Posted by: Kevin B at February 27, 2006 07:01 AM (M7kMn)

128 AV is correct here and Tom Jefferson wrong this time. I tried that being nice and responsible for about 12 minutes as a young man and quit that shit 11 minutes too late. Then I turned evil and couldn't find time for all the women I was pulling. Placating's for dopes.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 27, 2006 07:03 AM (uSomN)

129 adolfo,

No doubt. Most women are pretty stupid when it comes to men.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 07:04 AM (t/SB8)

130 Oh shutup spongeworthy, you are as nice as the day is long.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 07:05 AM (t/SB8)

131 Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting nice guys down. I try every day to be a good man because my wife is worth it.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 27, 2006 07:12 AM (ZKZSx)

132 AV is correct here and Tom Jefferson wrong this time. I tried that being nice and responsible for about 12 minutes as a young man and quit that shit 11 minutes too late. Then I turned evil and couldn't find time for all the women I was pulling. Placating's for dopes.

Well shoot, there's a BIG difference between being a good man and being a man who gets laid all the time. It's not tremendously difficult for a Worthless Man to find a Stupid Woman.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 07:17 AM (qF8q3)

133 It's not tremendously difficult for a Worthless Man to find a Stupid Woman.

You're damn right!

Posted by: Bill Clinton at February 27, 2006 07:20 AM (R8+nJ)

134 Sparkle, I have to be nice now since I got all ugly. Not all of us have aged as well as you have.

Bbeck, guys act as women teach us to act. It's a lucky guy that can drop the pretense and play it straight--he's found a woman with respect for herself. And even then you have to play a little rough just to keep them interested.

But a guy convinced the right way to find him some lovin' is playing all nice guy and shit is in for some bleak days and cold nights.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 27, 2006 07:46 AM (uSomN)

135 "Sex in the City" types who want their men who be masculine yet SO sensitive, a contradictory position.

So right bbeck. This culture is trying to emasculate men--with some success--look at the level of pathetic wussiness in thedia, for example.

Fortunately, I hang out here with the thugs and don't have to worry about it.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 07:59 AM (9k/ul)

136 Bbeck, guys act as women teach us to act.

That's only true for precisely the wrong kind of man. Real men act like themselves...just like real women do. The ones who act the way they think other people want them to act are the ones you want to avoid like the plague because they're fake.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 08:02 AM (qF8q3)

137 It's not tremendously difficult for a Worthless Man to find a Stupid Woman.
bbeck at February 27, 2006 12:17 PM
Wow... that would make a great t-shirt.

A. Weasel

Posted by: A. Weasel at February 27, 2006 08:02 AM (12gN8)

138 Bbeck, the emphasis was on the word "just," not on the word "theory."

Posted by: Alex at February 27, 2006 08:03 AM (fgyj8)

139 Fortunately, I hang out here with the thugs and don't have to worry about it.

lol. That's why I like being around military men: most of them still have their 'nads.

The SCA is good for chivalrous behavior, too, even though it's just for fun.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 08:06 AM (qF8q3)

140 You have the right plan, bbeck, and obviously it's worked out well for you and many others. But you can't expect a young kid with perpetual wood to go around worrying he's betraying his true self by doing what works.

Unfortunately, young women train young men to act in a way that's self-defeating for everybody.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 27, 2006 08:08 AM (uSomN)

141 I'm older and still have perpetual wood.


Something in the water maybe?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 08:11 AM (RY183)

142 Femisnism has created a large group of American women who fail in their relationships.
They don't appreciate what men bring to their lives, and they don't know how to say 'thank you' or 'I'm sorry.'

Posted by: lauraw at February 27, 2006 08:16 AM (P9dgA)

143 Bbeck, the emphasis was on the word "just," not on the word "theory."

And evolution is just a theory, so to call it such is not a canard, either.

Not all theories are equal in the identification, observation, etc. Different theories have different amounts of evidence to back them up. Comparing theories to each other in order to strengthen or emphasize the validity of any given theory is Apples and Oranges time. Hence, the validity of evolutionary theory should be based upon empirical evidence pertaining to it, not based upon the evidence for continental drift. To do so does not strengthen the stance of evolution; rather, it weakens the stance of other more profound theories.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 08:17 AM (qF8q3)

144 for example, my "something in the water?" was just a theory

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 08:19 AM (RY183)

145 Something in the water maybe?

Absolutely not. You still have 'nads--even if they're older. Old 'nads count.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 08:19 AM (9k/ul)

146 But you can't expect a young kid with perpetual wood to go around worrying he's betraying his true self by doing what works.

Oh yes I can! I was a young kid once myself, and guys were horny back then, too. The Goal In Dating is not just to get laid...or at least it shouldn't be. If it is, then save some money and effort and buy the occasional hooker.

Unfortunately, young women train young men to act in a way that's self-defeating for everybody.


You know, Sponge, that's a cop-out. ANY guy who won't take responsibility for his own behavior is a weenie...and blaming the GIRL when a guy is dumb enough to jump through hoops for her affection is looking for excuses that don't exist. If a girl won't pay attention to you because you're not doing what she wants, then she's not worth having...except for perhaps those 15 minutes, which may be all the guy is looking for.

If a guy puts on an act, yeah, he can get laid, no doubt. He can also maybe sleep at night. But he's not going to get any respect or real affection from a woman until he can drop the act and be who he IS instead of who he thinks someone wants.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 08:34 AM (qF8q3)

147 So, let's see. The THEORY is that men are perverts and women are stupid.

A grand world we got, ain't it?

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 08:36 AM (t/SB8)

148 Just so ya know, I'm in a much better mood than my comments indicate.

;-)

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 27, 2006 08:37 AM (t/SB8)

149 So, let's see. The THEORY is that men are perverts and women are stupid.

I think based upon the evidence, we can elevate that to the status of Law.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 08:38 AM (qF8q3)

150 Is perverted always...bad?

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 08:55 AM (9k/ul)

151 The Goal In Dating is not just to get laid...or at least it shouldn't be.

I see your point, bbeck, however, you just perfectly illustrated the difference between boys and girls.

Boys are all about getting the sex. Girls are all about the relationship. Girls make boys feel bad about being all about the sex by telling them they "shouldn't be that way!"

That's how we're wired. We are goal oriented. We need to get things done. We need to conquer. We need to spread our seed.

Girls came along and put us on a leash. You have to behave yourself if you want to get in my underwear. Now sit down and let's have tea and a nice conversation.

Posted by: Bart at February 27, 2006 08:56 AM (V9p4X)

152 ...You still have 'nads--even if they're older. Old 'nads count.

But they are all shrivelly and raisin looking!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at February 27, 2006 08:56 AM (D2pBz)

153 Madfish, I was wondering when you would put your two...cents in the mix.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 09:00 AM (9k/ul)

154 "I was supposed to become a Mrs. this May, but broke that off a couple months ago. Best decision I ever made in my life."

Congratulations, Mrs. Peel! I've been down the "almost" road before (twice!) and the third time was a charm!

My husband is a great man, with many faults, but he's all mine and I wouldn't have it any other way!

I wish you much happiness in being, and enjoying, yourself!

Posted by: Ruth at February 27, 2006 09:02 AM (DTwYZ)

155 I think based upon the evidence, we can elevate that to the status of Law.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 09:13 AM (pzen5)

156 What men want:
1. Show up naked
2. Bring pizza

What women want:
1. A guy with a job
2. Attention that isn't related to sex

Posted by: tina at February 27, 2006 10:19 AM (A9Ntl)

157 bbeck

By your definition, nothing in science is a Law. Newton's Laws are not even Laws. They are close approximations which only hold true at low energies and velocities. But as theories, they make useful predictions and are borne out by repeated observation. Just like Evolution.

Consider why you have such a disregard for the theory of evolution when you do not hold the same contempt for newton's laws of motion or for the theory of contintal drift. Neither one of those theories is "proven". In fact, Newton's Laws have been disproven for high energies! Yet they are still real and useful theories. Do you have the same feeling for those theories that you do for evolution? If not, why not? Why do you feel differently about that particular theory?

mark

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 27, 2006 10:42 AM (uHh8R)

158 "Do you have the same feeling for those theories that you do for evolution? If not, why not? Why do you feel differently about that particular theory?"

Oh, I don't know, maybe because Newtonian Law and Tectonic Plate movement never gave us A-hole evangelists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett? For starters.

Posted by: rhodeymark at February 27, 2006 11:04 AM (JSetw)

159 tina:

Attention that isn't related to sex

See, that's just crazy talk right there.

To a male, there is no such thing as "attention that isn't related to sex". If we say there is, it's only to placate you so you'll give us some sex in recognition of our sensitive yet masculine understanding of your female needs.

I've become convinced over the years that civilization only arose at all because men were trying to impress the chicks so they could get some sex. The pyramids, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Great Wall of China -- all so guys could impress women and thereby get laid.

Posted by: Monty at February 27, 2006 11:23 AM (/V4PN)

160 Boys are all about getting the sex. Girls are all about the relationship.

That's partially correct, Bart. BOYS are all about getting the sex. MEN are all about finding a partner.

GIRLS are all about the relationship. WOMEN are all about finding a partner.

That's how we're wired. We are goal oriented. We need to get things done. We need to conquer. We need to spread our seed.

Girls came along and put us on a leash. You have to behave yourself if you want to get in my underwear. Now sit down and let's have tea and a nice conversation.

Hmmm...and RWS is the one accused of bashing...

I take it you guys are not being serious on this subject when you say such silly things.

*****

And uh, Mark, I don't waste my time with ANYONE who can't read my freakin' posts. For example...

By your definition, nothing in science is a Law. Newton's Laws are not even Laws.

...where did I define a LAW, you IDIOT?

Let me save you a few seconds' attempted (and failed) cognition.

I DID NOT DEFINE A LAW.

Correct that li'l tidbit and then maybe I'll pay attention to you.

And uh, before you continue to make a complete azz out of yourself, I'm an atheist...and I'm one who doesn't like to see people allegedly on my side of the scientific argument not having Clue One about what they are saying.

Evolution IS JUST A THEORY.

Now, YOU go figure out why YOU have such disregard for evolution being CALLED WHAT IT IS. And then, you can go figure out why you have such a disregard for the statements I made concerning evolution standing on its own instead of bringing in other unrelated theories to shore it up.

I also don't like jerks who pick up on my posts and distort them into something they're not just do they can wow us all with what they want to talk about. You probably think you're some kind of expert on evolution, but considering what you're already resorted to you're nothing of the kind.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 11:26 AM (qF8q3)

161 The pyramids, the Colossus of Rhodes, the Great Wall of China

All gigantic phallic symbols. It's all they think about and I loves 'em for it.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 11:27 AM (M8lyz)

162 The pyramids are a phallic symbol? They look more like boobs to me.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 27, 2006 11:38 AM (+ZPYO)

163 They look more like boobs to me.

Typical!

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 11:40 AM (M8lyz)

164 You know, Sponge, that's a cop-out. ANY guy who won't take responsibility for his own behavior is a weenie...

Speaking of which, it's all Hillary's fault.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at February 27, 2006 11:42 AM (n/PLG)

165 kevlarchick - The men you've been with must have been deformed.

adolfo - The women you've been with must have been deformed.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at February 27, 2006 11:47 AM (spTw1)

166 Steve_in_hb, you're all about impressing the chicks, aren't you? BTW, you're all different there, which could very possibly mean deformed. Yes, you're all deformed.

Posted by: kevlarchick at February 27, 2006 11:53 AM (M8lyz)

167 BTW, you're all different there,

It's true. It's science.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 12:04 PM (pzen5)

168 "Sex in the City" types who want their men who be masculine yet SO sensitive, a contradictory position.

My criticism to the Sex and the City ditz of women is that they are nothing but the female version of 'Boys are all about getting the sex. '

In order words, stupid liberals who have promiscous sex but can't relate.

Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 12:37 PM (n/PLG)

169 Steve_in_hb, you're all about impressing the chicks, aren't you?

I hope not, because I've been consistently unsuccessful at that.

Posted by: steve_in_hb at February 27, 2006 12:43 PM (spTw1)

170 Correction: It is a fact that evolution is NOT "REAL" based on its own scientific merits. It's a THEORY based on its own scientific merits. To assert that it's real is to make a claim that science does not.

Posted by bbeck

So we all know where bbeck will be this Sunday

;-)



Posted by: alessandra at February 27, 2006 01:28 PM (n/PLG)

171 LOL. That's freaky, Alessandra.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 01:35 PM (qF8q3)

172 bbeck, I was trying to have a reasonable discussion. I didn't call you any names, for example. I was actually trying to understand your point of view. I have a good understanding of the science behind evolution and of the theory of science in general. What I struggle with is not the science, it's people's viewpoints. I can understand (but not agree with) people having religious objections to the theory of evolution. I was asking you what your particular objection was, and how that objection might apply to other theories in science. In my opinion you did seem to have an objection to evolution itself, and not merely its status as a "theory". Maybe this opinion is wrong? That is why I asked the question.

Your response called me an idiot, an 'azz', a jerk, and accused me of 'failed cognition' in addition to other baseless assumptions about my motivations. I'm not sure what made the discussion go that way, to be honest.

You also said:

Evolution IS JUST A THEORY.

Now, YOU go figure out why YOU have such disregard for evolution being CALLED WHAT IT IS.

bbeck, you may have misread my post or confused me with another poster. I did not call evolution anything but a theory. In fact, in the last sentence of my post I called evolution a theory!

Do you have the same feeling for those theories that you do for evolution? If not, why not? Why do you feel differently about that particular theory? [emphasis added]


Maybe my use of the word "real" in an earlier post was confusing. I chose that word instead of "fact" quite deliberately. Evolution is a theory which so far has been shown to accurately correspond to observed reality. This is the hallmark of a good theory. A good theory conforms with reality; when it no longer does, you need to re-examine the theory, refine it, or throw it out. What are you disagreeing with me about exactly?

I'm going to stop here and assume from the name calling that unfortunately we are not going to be able to continue this discussion reasonably. Too bad; it's a topic I enjoy. Sorry for making you angry, it was never my intent. For the rest of you and Ace, sorry for taking up your virtual space with my long comment to bbeck.

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 27, 2006 04:38 PM (rFLG5)

173 Mark, Good GRIEF, stop whining about the name calling. You deserve it when you claimed I defined a law when I never did, and now you're obfuscating with a bunch of "I'd love to have an intellectual conversation as long as I get to put words in your mouth and then squeal when you don't put up with it" crap.

Once again, WHERE did I EVER define a LAW?

I didn't.

You said I did.

You deserve what you got.

Deal, hopefully with a shorter and more to the point post next time.

Sorry for making you angry, it was never my intent.

Eye roll. Why do Stupid People assume someone is angry when they're just being treated with the lack of respect they've earned?

I don't waste my time trying to explain simple concepts to simpler people. That doesn't take anger, just the experience to recognize futility.

For the rest of you and Ace, sorry for taking up your virtual space with my long comment to bbeck.

...when I could have easily have responded with with, "You're right, bbeck, you never did define what a law is and I shouldn't have said that."

But that would have taken a little more integrity than you could have mustered.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 05:45 PM (qF8q3)

174 Fun quote from one of the commentors in the link provided by Alessandra:

I have a science background and can't bring myself to beleive that the world was created in six 24 hr days. On the other hand, the idea that life is a chance happening and the result of millions of years of mutations is impossible for me to swallow as well.

My guess is that most of the people in our congregations think those are the only two options. Intelligent Design provides an answer that doesn't require one to check their brain at the door or surrender to an atheistic worldview. I wonder how many people sitting in the pews know the thinking behind ID? - John Batten (emphasis added)


Posted by: max at February 27, 2006 05:47 PM (INrY9)

175 wow.

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 27, 2006 06:09 PM (rFLG5)

176 I enjoy irrelevance and brevity rolled into one. It beats the crap out of irrelevance and self-serving rants.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:28 PM (qF8q3)

177 "wow"

Adam's first word when he met Eve...........

Posted by: Cheetah at February 27, 2006 06:34 PM (KbSA4)

178 I enjoy irrelevance and brevity rolled into one.

Mike.

Posted by: DDG at February 27, 2006 06:38 PM (/3kwi)

179 Eye roll. Why do Stupid People assume someone is angry when they're just being treated with the lack of respect they've earned?

I don't know, BBeck. It might have something to do with the fact that you sound all pissed off? But, you know, that's just a theory.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2006 06:44 PM (NA4RK)

180 lol. Everybody's a comedian.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:45 PM (qF8q3)

181 I don't know, BBeck. It might have something to do with the fact that you sound all pissed off?

It has more to do with the fact that some people believe they deserve to be handled more gently when they're acting like dinks. I save my patience for those more worthy of it.

But, you know, that's just a theory.

Technically, that's more of an hypothesis.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 06:51 PM (qF8q3)

182 Technically, that's more of an hypothesis.

Damn. I'd give my Geoff's left nut to have a lemma to my name. Even a corollary.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 27, 2006 06:59 PM (NA4RK)

183 Damn. I'd give my Geoff's left nut to have a lemma to my name. Even a corollary.

Whoa, for THAT treasure you could probably get an entire postulate.

Posted by: bbeck at February 27, 2006 07:04 PM (qF8q3)

184 Damn. I'd give my Geoff's left nut to have a lemma to my name. Even a corollary.

Too late - already sold it for beer. And some silly paper on something called unified field theory. Well, at least it makes a good coaster for the beer.

Posted by: geoff at February 27, 2006 07:09 PM (vpYuK)

185 LOL. That's freaky, Alessandra.

Posted by bb*ck
=============
LOLOLOL - I tell you, bb*ck, I could not b*li*ve this was for real when I first read it!!! but it does not seem like an Onion creative post.

I mean, even Mark Twain and Gulliver's Travels can't compete with this kind of stuff.

I wish I were that creative.

(got all kind of weird messages about "questionable content" in the post above - including bb*ck!! had to change everything)

Posted by: alessandra at February 28, 2006 04:53 AM (n/PLG)

186 Robo-censor is on the warpath.

So many evolutionists are hypocrites; they treat this theory as if it was a religion while they mock theists for behaving in a similar fashion. I've been howled at for not adopting the "atheist world view" before -- whatever that means -- which sounds a LOT like a cult. Unfortunately, most evolutionists invest in the theory NOT because they understand and/or respect the science, but because they hate religion so much they want something to denigrate it with.

Posted by: bbeck at February 28, 2006 05:08 AM (qF8q3)

187 I've been howled at for not adopting the "atheist world view" before

funny. I'm a Christian who accepts the possibility of evolution cause I don't get terribly hung up on how God chose to implement His creation. I get similar howls from my camp.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2006 05:26 AM (pzen5)

188 I believe it, Dave. I think the difference here, tho, is that these wacko evolutionists tout themselves as all rational and scientific...but when you point out their flaws -- like someone who downplays the significant and distinct difference between a theory and a law just to make evolution look better, Cough cough, I wonder who I'm talking about -- all rationale goes out the window and they turn into a secular Pat Robertson. OTOH, I can understand religious people getting vehement when science brushes up against their beliefs, because their POV is based upon faith. Course, they shouldn't be giving you a hard time for acknowledging the fossil record because ultimately you agree on the IMPORTANT parts.

Posted by: bbeck at February 28, 2006 05:47 AM (qF8q3)

189 bbeck, you have completely misinterpreted me somehow.

For what it's worth: I am a pro-life vehemently NON-evangelical atheist who is married to a Catholic; I attend Mass every Sunday and have baptized all three of my children in the Catholic faith. I think that Richard Dawkins is the biggest asshole in the world and is currently doing more harm than good to science. I have read his work extensively enough to know where he is onto something, and where he is just plain nuts.

For a good idea of where I stand on this, on my own blog I have written about, quote "notorious and obnoxious atheists" as creatures worthy of contempt. For another example, I extensively took Dr Doug Melton of Harvard to task for his similar "evangelical atheist" viewpoints. Etc., etc. My views on evangelical atheism are no secret.

A "secular Pat Robertson" I most emphatically am not.

Now go back and read what I wrote in the first place. Nowhere did I say you had 'written a definition' of Law. I pointed out that you indeed do have a definition of Law which was apparent to me -- obviously you must at least have an operational definition, since you do use the word. Now, if you think I mischaracterized your implicit definition, wonderful. Please correct me.

You and I seem to be in violent agreement on the subject at hand, and merely disagree about each other's terminology and argumentation styles.

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 28, 2006 06:31 AM (uHh8R)

190 By the way, may I quote you for my new .sig?

bbeck says: [Mark is an] IDIOT [with] … attempted (and failed) cognition. [N]ot having Clue One ... a jerk.. [who] thinks [he’s] some kind of expert on evolution. It's got a certain je ne sais quoi

Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 28, 2006 06:46 AM (uHh8R)

191 A great deal of confusion, and pointless debate, arises from the fact that the word "theory" has a different meaning in science from it's popular usage. From Wikipedia, with emphasis added:

theory

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)

Thus, dismissing evolution on the basis that it "only" purports to be a "theory" entirely misses the point. The fact that evolution is recognized as a theory, in science, is intended to convey it's status as a model that demonstrably can be relied upon to make correct predictions.

I'm a creationist, by the way.

Posted by: Michael at February 28, 2006 06:55 AM (ycKg/)

192 For what it's worth: I am a pro-life vehemently NON-evangelical atheist who is married to a Catholic; I attend Mass every Sunday and have baptized all three of my children in the Catholic faith.

It's not worth anything, and I have no interest in your blog. Do you really think you could say something I haven't heard from your type before? You can't.

A "secular Pat Robertson" I most emphatically am not.


Pfft, yes you are, you were even the inspiration for the title.

You and I seem to be in violent agreement on the subject at hand, and merely disagree about each other's terminology and argumentation styles.


If you mean, I think you're an idiot and you disagree, then you're right. Finally.

By the way, may I quote you for my new .sig?

Only if you promise to grow up sometime afterwards and admit it's all true.

*****

Thus, dismissing evolution on the basis that it "only" purports to be a "theory" entirely misses the point.

Good thing nobody was doing that, huh, Michael? It would have been much more helpful to define what a Law is, since it's just a li'l tweak away from a theory. Aheh.

Posted by: bbeck at February 28, 2006 08:11 AM (qF8q3)

193 bbeck

you appear to have problems with symantics...or you might just be a titch arrogant. at least, you come off that way.

now learn to play nice.

Posted by: monica at February 28, 2006 02:14 PM (rFLG5)

194 she don't have no problem spelling semantics

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2006 02:34 PM (9j0MA)

195 bbeck & mark:

The fact that you are avowed atheists speaks volumes about your intellect; that is, you're a couple of dim bulbs.

Only a fool declares there is no God.

But look on the bright side, you two will have all of eternity to debate evolution from your custom-made caves in hell.

Posted by: utopian at February 28, 2006 03:34 PM (h6GvW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
189kb generated in CPU 0.22, elapsed 1.6128 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4572 seconds, 431 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.