“Hey DDD, men will sleep with anything? Right?🐷” Oh boy! That’s a view I’ve heard many times before. Like a lot of folk psychology, there’s a tiny kernel of truth🌽here that's blown way out of proportion. And I think I know what it is… [1/17]

First of all: There's a full spectrum of mating pickiness both sexes. Men so picky they never lose their virginity and women with unusually low standards. There’s a lot of noise and variation. Thus, we should be sceptical about neat black and white🐧claims about the sexes. [2/17]
That being said, there are often patterns to be found in the noise. Enough to draw some conclusions about the *typical* mating behaviour of each sex, but not enough to predict the behaviour of individuals with a high degree of accuracy. [3/17]
One of those patterns appears to be that more men than women “lower their standards” when it comes to sex. But, and here’s the important part, it’s in a particular context: short-term mating. [4/17]
Humans, by and large are pair-bonded mammals. From megacities to small bands of hunter gatherers, humans seek a special partner to fall in love💕and share their life with. And as far as we know, this has been the case thousands (perhaps millions) of years. [5/17]
Because of this, humans are *really* picky about their long-term mates. Both sexes! We’re not like peafowl where one sex makes the effort🦚and the other chooses. If we were, then first dates would look very different… men all dressed up and women in their pyjamas! [6/17]
No, humans are quite picky and for good reason - investing in a relationship (and maybe children) is a big commitment. We want to make sure that we’re committing to the best possible person and that they’re just as devoted to us and not wasting our time🕓. [7/17]
But, here’s the thing… long-term mating, while a popular choice, isn't the only thing on the human mating menu. We’re capable of short-term, casual mating too. A strategy which may have provided its own evolutionary benefits – benefits which differed between the sexes. [8/17]
For women, short-term mating might have served to capture the attention of a particularly desirable man – a gateway to a long-term relationship. It may have also allowed them to benefit from accessing the resources and protection of multiple men rather than just one. [9/17]
But this strategy would have been risky to sexual health and reputation, and would have left some to raise a child with no paternal investment. Thus, women evolved to use this strategy cautiously, maintaining a high level of pickiness as they did so. [10/17]
For men, short-term mating served as a way of having sex without commitment; plain and simple. A no strings attached✂️liaison might have led to him passing on his genes to future generations without the parental responsibility that usually accompanies this. [11/17]

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R

You May Also Like