What is love? Love is what a woman feels for you that allows you to make rude body noises, and just say “Excuse me,” without having her drop you like the skunk you are. Take it from me. Even my sons get away with it.

What is the evolutionary function of rude body noises?

Allah has his usual beta-male-bashing going on at Hot Air. My favorite part about his ranting is that, having met Allah, I don’t think he’s a beta at all. But, whatever, try convincing him…….

got special permission for the book; you’re right, it’s stupid long :)

about getting some soon: you’ll get no argument.

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.

So, at it:

Take these together:

“This is likely part of the reason why love evolved: … to assist us in choosing, so that we don’t waste time and energy falling for someone who is unattainable.”

“… Sexual desire takes care of reproduction, so what could be the purpose of love[?] … feelings of love act as a “stop rule” that terminates our search for a mate, even if only temporarily, so we commit to one person and get on with the business of mating.”

Those are fair cuts, and to the point.

The “unattainable” idea doesn’t make any sense, even on the surface. The author uses the term “falling for” and the circle is complete. Read that quote again, and look at “falling for;” you’ll get it.

In this context, “falling for” can only mean (1) loving, or (2) lusting. We’re either talking about “being committed to” or “wanting to have sex with.” I think it’s honest to see “love” as “committed focus” within the author’s context, and lust (my word for the author’s “sexual attraction”) as “wanting to have sex with.”

So it’s either:

“This is likely part of the reason why love evolved: … to assist us in choosing, so that we don’t waste time and energy loving someone who is unattainable.”

(which I think the author is actually doing, and it’s why this makes as little sense as it actually does–romantic, politically correct, pop-science tripe. I think she explains herself with this)

or, to grant the benefit of the doubt, it’s:

“This is likely part of the reason why love evolved: … to assist us in choosing, so that we don’t waste time and energy lusting over someone who is unattainable.”

Much better. But what about that?

In a system without love, my sexual desire is directed toward Angelina Jolie (i.e. I’m horny, and I want to have sex with Angelina Jolie)–which keeps my sexual desire from being directed at anyone else?

Has the author ever been outside?

I need to have love added to the system to help me want to have sex with another woman besides Angelina Jolie, even though I don’t love Angelina Jolie because love doesn’t exist yet?

Without love, there’s no commitment of any kind to anyone–there is no problem for Nature to solve. I sleep with whoever turns me on. But the author is arguing that it’s necessary for me to have the loyalty, obsessiveness, and fixation of love to keep from having an undefined mystery feeling of loyalty, obsessiveness and fixation on an “unattainable” “supermate.”

This chick really needs to work things out with her father. Seriously. It’s totally time.

Reality check:

All these pictures of Angelina Jolie made me horny. If I have no love, and I’m engaging in sex purely as a matter of sexual attraction, then forget Angelina Jolie: I’m horny now, and you can’t f*** a picture. I’m going to Easy Wendi’s house down the street–I’ll see you in 20 minutes. (I hope she still has that Tomb Raider gun-belt I bought her when this happened last time.) But wait! There’s Top-Heavy Mandy! And she’s closer! brb!

Sorry :) Got into it. Just wanting to make the point.

Keep it up, Bush. When your rating drops to 25%, the next one to have a baby could be Whoopi Goldberg or Barbara Striesand.