Scientist: Love means never having to say “you’re a loser”

(cont.)

So basically, here’s the truth:

“Knocking up” the chick I’m attracted to isn’t successful reproduction, requiring some artificial explanation involving unattainable mates and so on. Trying to figure out why the “peripheral” mechanism of love exists–as though it were some sort of emotional appendix–is just an indictment of our civilization’s current search for the “correct” truth. I’m tired of current scientists (which they aren’t) being ignorant of things any 8 year old kid could have told us 500 years ago. This is what’s actually going on:

(1) She has to survive the pregnancy, and the birth. She’s slow and weak and frequently sick–she is in manifold ways vulnerable and in need of literal (sorry womyn) manly protection.

(2) The child has to survive several years of utter dependency, and my chick has to survive the child’s utter dependency too. My chick is still very much bonded to my child, and that bonded union is (sorry womyn) still slow and weak. Running from a sabertooth with a kid on your hip isn’t easy: believe me, I’ve tried. I should think having your dude poking it with a stick is probably a relief when you are making for the cave. And as we’ve said, my child is individually also slow and weak by nature, a situation made worse still by frequent sickness as my child’s immune system gets up to speed, and apparently makes it a point to give ours a boost whenever possible. Stop eating dirt, Ug!

(3) The maturing child has to be socialized and taught. [skipped for brevity; if you've read all this, I don't want to abuse your generosity--besides, you can guess the rest]

And that’s it. At least, that’s all we know. The rest is “I really need this Masters degree, and, as we all know, there is no absolute truth, except that heteronormative phallocentric patriarchies breed violence. Vagina! [applause]”

And the bottom line:

Nature binds me to her for an extended period of time, all of it required for me to do my part in creating a well-formed, successful offspring–to “reproduce” this physically and intellectually complex animal. And that’s probably it.

At the very least, Nature does not bond me to her so I will go ahead and have sex, even though Angelina Jolie won’t have sex with me, which is just knuckle-dragging, wet-chinned, cousin-kissing stupid.

Lab:

Toss a sexually active, 16 year old test-boy (with no religious training) a large poster with the pages of a gentleman’s magazine collaged to it, and inject him with Love Suppressant. (Tie the boys hands to a chair first). Leave him alone, and wait 15 minutes. Then check and have him certify that he would like to have sex with at least 1 of the models (his Angelina Jolie).

Immediately bring the boy into a room with 6 women in it. Be sure 5 of them are women from the gentleman’s magazine, and that 1 is not–be certain she’s not unusually unattractive or anything; we aren’t sadists. Have all 5 models show no sexual interest in him at all. Have the 1 exception explicitly offer to have sex with him. Put all the women in different rooms, with cameras.

And release the boy.

Misc:

—-”The researchers found that the optimum proportion of possible mates to examine before setting your aspirations and making your choice is a mere 9 percent:” You get into this, and I agree it’s interesting, but it’s utterly unsupported. No auto-trust from me for any “scientist” with “psych” prefixed to the title.

—-”supermate” apparently means she giggles over the gay looking guys in TV guide. This has nothing to do with science. Nothing. It’s pop. Going from “measurably biologically attractive” to “supermate” is a trip I’m just not going to take.

—-”Instead, people tend to fall for others who, on attractiveness, intelligence and status, are of a similar “ranking” to themselves.” This is also boot-stick. Try this: “I prefer to date actual people in the actual world, real ones, ones I can actually physically touch–like the people I know, that I go to school with or work with, the ones who coincidentally have strangely similar social status.”

And notice that ‘status’ crap on the heals of salivating over Clooney–I know I said this before, but this chick has issues. I think some Cool Guy may have been mean to her once or something, and she’s spent a lifetime trying to figure out why (or how to correct the problem; at least I could respect that).

Ok, Ok. Thanks for the time Allah,

David

PS: I realize hitting “send” on this uses up all my “Annoy Allah and Hot Air’s Crew” cards at once, so I’ll consider myself on probation for a good bit.

Axe on June 5, 2006 at 9:24 AM