234
235
236

ScienceThe Sexy Son Hypothesis, Or Why Women Want to Give Birth to an Alpha Male (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by theLesserOf2Weedles

Summary: Women are more likely to perceive a man with physical traits which they are genetically lacking in as desirable.


I. A Thank You to the Community

My journey started at the beginning of the summer. It is never a comfortable process, being red pilled, but reading the community's posts gave me a voice of sanity and wisdom when I was in desperate need of it.

I've been lurking for a while (so I suppose I am late to the party), but I hate showing up empty handed. I wanted to bring an interesting gift at my arrival as a display of appreciation and also to stimulate some interesting discussion.


II. Introducing the Hypothesis

After starting the red pill conversion over summer from reading B.F. Skinner's experiments on pidgeons while talking with a girl, I researched more thoroughly the evolutionary underpinnings for attraction and reproduction and stumbled upon the Sexy Son Hypothesis. From the wiki page:

The sexy son hypothesis in evolutionary biology and sexual selection—proposed by Ronald Fisher in 1930—states that a female's ideal mate choice among potential mates is one whose genes will produce male offspring with the best chance of reproductive success. This also implies that a potential mate's capacity as a parental caregiver or any other direct benefits the father can offer the mother, such as nuptial gifts or good territory, are irrelevant to his value as the potential father of the female's offspring.

At first glance this may not seem like much but after dissection, this says volumes.

I easily forget that gene replication is at the heart of the evolutionary process: a gene's success depends on its ability to replicate and often out-compete other genes in a population. For the males of a species this leads to the sexual strategy of quantity over quality; males do not bear the costs of pregnancy and are free to fertilize many females. To connect back to the SSH, females choose mates with genes they believe will produce attractive sons because this is the best strategy of replication for the gene due to the promiscuous (quantity over quality) sons' reproductive success (because they are attractive to other females).

To clarify more fully (from The Selfish Gene):

In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren. The result of this is that one of the most desirable qualities a male can have in the eyes of a female is, quite simply, sexual attractiveness itself.


III. A Marginal Revolution?

A point of discussion for the sub is what may be drawn as a potential corollary from the SSH. If a key feature of female attraction is the predicted attractiveness of male offspring then women are faced with a particular set of trade-offs.

Imagine a woman has Trait A that is both very desirable for a male and guaranteed to be passed down to her future son when she reproduces. However, she is greatly lacking in Trait B which is also very desirable for a male and guaranteed to be passed down to a future son. Pivoting off the SSH, when faced with a trade-off in mates, wouldn't the woman prefer to mate with a man that was clearly abundant in Trait B but average in Trait A over the reverse? The logic is that the woman's son will already have Trait A so a mate with this trait has nothing to offer that she does not already have in abundance while the exact opposite is true for the other potential mate. In other words, the marginal value of Trait A is less than that of Trait B.


IV. My Anecdotal "Evidence"

A more concrete example from my life which beget my theorizing: I (26) am extremely short, standing at exactly 5'1". According to any survey, poll, or study my appearance should be almost vomit inducing. Bitches should be waking up in a cold sweat hoarsely protesting a disturbance in the Force from a man under 5'5" being within a 5 mile radius. However, this does not seem to happen. In fact, consistently in my past, tall women have almost always been the ones to approach me. I naturally had just written off tall girls because I figured the situation would be beyond hopeless, but all my past relationships and hook-ups have been with girls 5'8"-5'10". Now I am by no means saying that I'm some playboy master of seduction (far from it), just that my life experience has been the complete opposite of what I hear it should be. This leads me to believe that women do not know what they actually want.

This is an anonymous account so I'm gonna say fuck it and be blunt; I've been told that I have exceptionally attractive features (excluding my height of course). Normally I brush it off as friendly people just being nice and not wanting to tell me otherwise, however, especially when I'm watching my weight and staying fit, I get way more positive attention than what I should. So my contention is this: the marginal value of height for the women is sometimes less than that of the traits that I bring to the table; Trait A = height and Trait B = everything else.

To expand further, height is known to be normally distributed as a result of a fuckton of genes having an additive effect (Central Limit Theorem) thus a tall woman can be super fucking confident that she will have at least average to above average height sons resulting in a slight preference for traits which she may have a deficiency in because they will result in the greatest improvement in potential sons' attractiveness. I need to say that this does not mean that height is not valued though. A taller version of me would sling exponentially more wood than I do.


V. Fireside Chat

I hope at least one person has found this interesting. I think, if true, this can ever so slightly change how we view females' attraction and what they perceive to be as alpha: instead of it being a concrete and more objective phenomenon it will be colored by the woman's genetic weak links. A woman desires an alpha or a man making up for her weaknesses so to produce an alpha.

What are your thoughts?


[–]Nocryingok 113 points114 points  (10 children)

Fucking amazing, man. Empirical evidence has shown me men have different taste in women (ofc it's in the details. nobody likes fatties). The opposite is probably true.

This means my perfect soulmate is out there, somewhere!!!!!!
Just kidding. My takeaway is: some girls won't find you attractive for many complex reasons. Screw them... go find the ones who DO find you attractive and screw them too, but in bed.

[–]Nocryingok 11 points12 points  (3 children)

I'm also watching "The brain with David Eagleman", from your post history. Really cool. Do you got more of this? Really changes my perspective in some things.

Cheers

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's an awesome series! Here's part 5. I'm having a hard time tracking down the other parts. I watched it a while back on a youtube playlist but it looks like they've been taken down pretty quickly.

[–]jethreezy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you feel no compunction for piracy, the entire series can be found on TPB.

[–]AssumeFormlessness 15 points16 points  (4 children)

I actually really like fucking fat chicks

[–]tb87670 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here here, a chubster every now and then never hurts as long as she's clean.

[–]Andgelyo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you, i like your thinking man, you're a bro

[–]General_Queipo 36 points37 points  (10 children)

Non-genetic features such as land or wealth or being a caregiver will increase the son's chances of reproductive success though - for one, the child of a wealthy man will be better nourished and so potentially stronger. For another, the son of a wealthy man might inherit some status which makes him more attractive to women. So many women would have loved to marry either Prince William or Prince Harry, for example.

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 9 points10 points  (5 children)

True. I think the key to the SSH is in a situation where all else is equal (female choice between genetic traits is isolated): a choice between two potential mates who have equal wealth/resources but differing genetic make-up.

[–]antariusz 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Women: why not fuck both, get the sexy son and get the inherited land. Win/win. Af/BB

[–]General_Queipo 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yes, but that's obvious. And the bit you quoted at the start from the wiki states that land, being a caregiver etc. are all irrelevant

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You're right. I suppose my explanation was more designed to highlight the logic behind the genetic preferences. However, I think this might be where the BB/AF comes in to play: mate with alpha for attractive sons and acquire beta for resources. In that case, resources would be irrelevant, but I think I agree with you that it is not always so black & white. Good point though.

[–]OutlandishMink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s really important to mention that the current state of the dating economy creates far more of an alpha/beta situation than would otherwise happen. Women are biologically programmed to seek out mates that have 2.2 times more value than them. This is the difference between the size of the sexual reward center for the male vs female brain.

In the wild men are 2 times stronger than women on average and can gather an equivalently larger amount of resources. Our ancestors realized this and structured all successful civilized societies to achieve roughly the same difference, as in a civilized economy the difference between men and women’s ability to gather resources converges to being equal with skilled labor being more important than physical labor. The civilizations which didn’t structure society to mimic the ratios of the wild had no survivable outcomes, as birth rates would guarantee extinction in just a single lifetime.

If you’re familiar with the biology of apes the whole alpha beta thing does not really exist to the degree it does in other animals. Chimpanzees favor selecting for the best males for example, but bonobos favor selecting the best females. Either way it’s not an overwhelming trend. Humans have by far the most insane examples of hypergamy and selection in the entire Primate order.

With the collapse of traditional western civilization we’re seeing hypergamy levels that are 11 TIMES higher than was typical throughout history or in nature though. Only civilizations that broke down and were about to be wiped out saw numbers like we do. So while the genetic record shows that there was some significant male selection over female selection going on throughout our history, the selection today is off the charts by comparison. So be careful when looking at animal or historic examples for male selection. Those are heavily distorted due to the fact that survival was also a requirement.

[–]ideserveall 7 points8 points  (0 children)

A woman would marry a wealthy men to feed her kids, but that doesn't mean she will get impregnated by him. Women seek the best from both worlds.

[–]Dravous 5 points6 points  (2 children)

but those are genetic. ever met a salesman's son? guess what he's good at. or a numbers guy, or any other businessman. the traits that allowed such wealth to be acquired in the first place are in the blood.

[–]plenty_of_eesh 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Dunno why the downvotes. This is importantly related to ASL and shit tests...

When a woman puts up barriers of any kind, she is seeing if you can get over them. If you can, then she gets a deep subconscious notion that by fucking you, her male offspring might be good at getting over the barriers that will be put up by the next generation of women...

This notion causes tingles.

[–]lifestuff69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a very good explanation.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

[–]plenty_of_eesh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

dominance is the most attractive and desired trait to females (because dominant males tend to have better chance of surviving)

Just don't forget that having sons who dominate for better survival is one thing, but women are attracted to dominance also (and very importantly) because their dominant sons will then be attractive to their generation of potential mates.

This is kind of circular logic but it's real and factors into physical and behavioural attraction, and they are called "secondary sexual characteristics". It was Darwin's other piece of genius.

[–]vazqdavid98 20 points21 points  (4 children)

Liking this idea. I myself have consciously and unconsciously liked women who have traits that I lack. For example, I have a wider than average nose so I tend to be very unattractive s to girls with bigger noses. Maybe it’s because I’ve been focused on that specific feature all my life so I’m a bit more aware and critical when selecting from the pool of potential girls.

[–]hb8only 4 points5 points  (1 child)

maybe that is also the reason why pigs are approaching skinny guys...

[–]KevuElRevu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Being a landwhale isn’t genetic. The reason fatties approach skinny guys is because they’re desperate and they know that if they persist they’ll get a lay and they won’t get it otherwise

[–]bad_cole 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Nobody like a chick wit a fat nose bro

[–]volvostupidshit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why did you tell him our secret?

[–]HonestyOverCivility 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Historically daughters are evolutionarily a low risk in the sense that they’re almost guaranteed to reproduce regardless of how exceptional or unexceptional they are. Accordingly it would make to capitalize on traits that would lead to sexy sons considering that male reproductive success tended to be feast or famine, especially in the days before the relational socialism that we call monogamy.

[–]CosmicSpiral 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is only true up until mammals. Investment in pregnancy and child development becomes so steep that many females never pass on their genes.

[–]yammyha 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Interesting post great theory of give and take but to me it seems too "inward-looking" rather on the bigger picture of TRP. The whole genetic, darwinism, reproduction, alpha, beta ,etc seems to be in a lot of people's head including mine and instead should look at trp as tools to build the right growing mindset.

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm definitely sympathetic. I would love to see more Nietzche on the sub.

[–]Pestilence1911 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Very interesting.

Although Darwin might be a bit too old, you might want to read up about sexual selection, and natural selection,

[–]1Ill_Will7 5 points6 points  (3 children)

very intelligent post. makes perfect sense to me.

The truth of her wanting alpha genes and keeping a beta man is to ensure the best possible outcome for her offspring.

She needs a strong not give a fuck mans genes because they are opposite to her own (women dont want to fight to the death). Thus why women hate men who dont display traits that are opposite to her own aka being a beta pussy (displaying feminine traits she already has).

Also thus why men dont find it attractive when women go for them because it does not create an offspring with a large spectrum of desirable traits, subconsciously.

[–]petallotus 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Men don’t find it attractive when women go for them?

[–]1Ill_Will7 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Personally i love it because it proves my smv and is flattering but at the same time it makes me feel awkward.

As a beta trying to be more alpha it proves to me that im subconsciously not doing something correct.

The horny girl is doing the work i should have already done. I should be capturing her, not the other way around.

Up until i found redpill, this is the only way i have fucked girls. Them pursuing me..

[–]petallotus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not just for sex but if woman finds a guy attractive and is emotionally attached to him, most men repel maybe this has something to do with it as opposed to a guy chasing a girl even if the girl shows no interest.

[–]CosmicSpiral 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Remember that like most narrow hypotheses of sexual selection, SSH has limitations in its ability to describe and predict behavior across multiple species. Its scope is restrained to a few groups like peacocks.

  • The SSH hypothesis best applies to species that practice polgyny or have minimum male investment in nurturing and raising offspring. While it is practical for male members to mate as often as possible, this scales with the commitment it takes to raise progeny to adulthood. The basic tenets of r-selection vs K-selection (technically the life-history paradigm in modern evo science) demand that males ensure their genes are passed on. Therefore self-interest will battle SSH in coevolution by producing secondary behaviors aimed at verifying the offsprings' paternity.
  • SSH backfires in species that rely on complicated social hierarchies i.e. humans. An arms race focused on sexual attractiveness and widespread propagation will destabilize social bonds and cooperation within the group, putting all members at greater risk.
  • What constitutes "attractive" qualities in a possible mate is exclusively a function of phenotype expression in SSH. Behavioral characteristics, physical appearance and the like are readily observable to the opposite sex, unlike traits such as resistance to disease and cognitive ability. This means that any sexual strategy in line with SSH selects for reproductive success first and foremost.
  • This leads to a corollary. Any species whose sexual selection falls in line with SSH has a prohibitive disadvantage: it rigidly favors lateral expansion over horizontal expansion. The species may spread into other ecological niches and triumph over antagonistic species, but its mechanism is antithetical to the species improving in an appreciable way over time. To use an example, if humanity adhered to SSH we would still be throwing stones at each other from huts.

The alpha/beta distinction is a layman's way of discussing strategic pluralism, which does a better job of explaining why allele diversity exists and why women often act against their self-interests in terms of sexual dynamics (e.g. why do single mothers naturally beta-ize their sons instead of raising their sons to be sexy?)

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

First I just want to say that I really appreciate the detailed response. It's quite easy to let interaction remain surface level but I love getting into the gritty details of things and your effort has been noted.

The SSH hypothesis best applies to species that practice polgyny or have minimum male investment in nurturing and raising offspring. While it is practical for male members to mate as often as possible, this scales with the commitment it takes to raise progeny to adulthood.

It seems like this would still remain quite relevant within the AF/BB framework where 'higher valued' men are polygynous and their offspring can be raised, unknowingly, by others. I think you raise a nuanced point that there are more subtleties to the issue.

SSH backfires in species that rely on complicated social hierarchies i.e. humans. An arms race focused on sexual attractiveness and widespread propagation will destabilize social bonds and cooperation within the group, putting all members at greater risk.

This could be true but it does not imply that the SSH is not accurate/relevant/at play. You could make the same case for hypergamy yet it is still a powerful dynamic in modern society.

What constitutes "attractive" qualities in a possible mate is exclusively a function of phenotype expression in SSH. Behavioral characteristics, physical appearance and the like are readily observable to the opposite sex, unlike traits such as resistance to disease and cognitive ability. This means that any sexual strategy in line with SSH selects for reproductive success first and foremost.

Not necessarily. I am trying to find the study, but a group of men were asked to wear identical t-shirts for a certain number of days without bathing, deodorant, etc. and a group of randomly selected women were asked to choose which man they thought was most attractive based solely off of the scent of their respective t-shirts (never saw them) and the shirts they chose corresponded with the men that had the most symmetrical faces.

There is a link between pheromones and other physical characteristics (I believe immune system health was another, if I remember correctly).

This leads to a corollary. Any species whose sexual selection falls in line with SSH has a prohibitive disadvantage: it rigidly favors lateral expansion over horizontal expansion. The species may spread into other ecological niches and triumph over antagonistic species, but its mechanism is antithetical to the species improving in an appreciable way over time. To use an example, if humanity adhered to SSH we would still be throwing stones at each other from huts.

I can agree with the idea that SSH is not the only influence but you seem to go way too far in the other direction by suggesting, unless I'm understanding you wrong, that SSH is not applicable at all.

[–]CosmicSpiral 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It seems like this would still remain quite relevant within the AF/BB framework where 'higher valued' men are polygynous and their offspring can be raised, unknowingly, by others. I think you raise a nuanced point that there are more subtleties to the issue.

The difference is that within the AF/BB framework, a woman's priorities change during her life-history depending on her ability to adequately harness sexual attraction. The Wall, the Epiphany Phase, etc. all spring around this gradual senescence. There are also severe trade-offs involved that aren't covered by SSH. She is vulnerable during pregnancy, more so than a sea turtle or a mollusk or many mammals. She runs the risk of losing all provisioning and protection if the suitor neglects parental duties, not to mention social ostracization due to the other males jealously guarding their own mates. She can produce sexually attractive offspring that are critically deficient in other areas.

This could be true but it does not imply that the SSH is not accurate/relevant/at play. You could make the same case for hypergamy yet it is still a powerful dynamic in modern society.

See above. Hypergamy, as fettered out by TRP mainstays, is also a far more complex dynamic than SSH. It accounts for most observable phenomena in this department, including surface exceptions.

There is a link between pheromones and other physical characteristics (I believe immune system health was another, if I remember correctly).

You're just claiming different phenotypes are clustered together. That has nothing to do with my overall claim.

I can agree with the idea that SSH is not the only influence but you seem to go way too far in the other direction by suggesting, unless I'm understanding you wrong, that SSH is not applicable at all.

SSH may be at best a necessary but insufficient description of sexual dynamics. Elements of it have been incorporated into more sophisticated theories like strategic pluralism. In short, it has some true principles but they don't add up to a coherent or highly explanatory theory.

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I agree that other factors definitely play a part so I don't agree with a 'strong SSH' where resources are irrelevant but, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem inconsistent with TRP Hypergamy. In fact, it seems to supplement it. When women are in search of a higher value mate that is as 'alpha' as possible they are likely looking for traits that will produce an attractive son because it facilitates the replication of their genes more when there is a trade-off involved in the possible genetics of the potential mates.

You're just claiming different phenotypes are clustered together. That has nothing to do with my overall claim.

You wrote previously:

What constitutes "attractive" qualities in a possible mate is exclusively a function of phenotype expression in SSH. Behavioral characteristics, physical appearance and the like are readily observable to the opposite sex, unlike traits such as resistance to disease and cognitive ability. This means that any sexual strategy in line with SSH selects for reproductive success first and foremost.

My example was showing that phenotypic traits can be linked (therefore selected for) to things not specifically facilitating reproductive success (immune system health/fighting diseases).

SSH may be at best a necessary but insufficient description of sexual dynamics. Elements of it have been incorporated into more sophisticated theories like strategic pluralism. In short, it has some true principles but they don't add up to a coherent or highly explanatory theory.

I'm with you that it isn't highly explanatory on its own, but that does not seem to be its intention. I think it is too harsh to say it is incoherent.

I find the hypothesis has value to the sub because it addresses certain nuances that are not normally taken in describing what is attractive or 'alpha'. Using my life experiences as an example (which is anecdotal, admittedly) I should not be attractive to anyone if I'm going to be completely honest; I do not have the necessary physical traits that would ever classify me as an alpha to anyone yet I cannot reconcile the current theory with my own empirical evidence.

[–]CosmicSpiral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that other factors definitely play a part so I don't agree with a 'strong SSH' where resources are irrelevant but, correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem inconsistent with TRP Hypergamy. In fact, it seems to supplement it. When women are in search of a higher value mate that is as 'alpha' as possible they are likely looking for traits that will produce an attractive son because it facilitates the replication of their genes more when there is a trade-off involved in the possible genetics of the potential mates.

Beyond the tautological implications in how SSH defines "desirable traits", which is the basis of my first objection, a TRP-defined "alpha" confers substantial benefits to the other mate. There's social proof, increase in status via association, general protection, physical and emotional pleasure, etc. These are not exclusively phenotypic traits either, but reinforced by upbringing and environmental feedback.

My example was showing that phenotypic traits can be linked (therefore selected for) to things not specifically facilitating reproductive success (immune system health/fighting diseases).

Resistance to disease, as a subset of general health, is a very specific fitness trait that is incidental to reproductive success. After all, a species' ability to successfully fight off illness is limited by its immune system's complexity.

To use other examples, SSH fails to address how traits like cognitive ability or paternal investment towards offspring can be selected as improving fitness. In fact, studies show that intelligence negatively correlates with sexual activity. They aren't signaled through phenotype expression but they absolutely contribute towards reproductive success.

I'm with you that it isn't highly explanatory on its own, but that does not seem to be its intention. I think it is too harsh to say it is incoherent.

SSH depends on circular logic by defining fitness selection in a tautological manner. Female members want male mates with "attractive phenotypic traits" because their sons will have X traits that will further attract mates in a positive feedback loop...but these traits are purely reflexive. They only signal reproductive fitness in the sense of propagating reproduction. Why these traits are "attractive" is still left undefined.

And why, in this sexually dimorphic scenario, don't mothers want their daughters to have such traits too? Why does beauty exist or is selected at all? In this model it has no incentive to be passed on as male phenotypic traits take center stage. Why should men be attracted to beauty if propagating one's genes is the overriding motivation? A girl can have children regardless of whether she's ugly or pretty. You could recite the previous rationale but that explanation only matters to her.

I find the hypothesis has value to the sub because it addresses certain nuances that are not normally taken in describing what is attractive or 'alpha'. Using my life experiences as an example (which is anecdotal, admittedly) I should not be attractive to anyone if I'm going to be completely honest; I do not have the necessary physical traits that would ever classify me as an alpha to anyone yet I cannot reconcile the current theory with my own empirical evidence.

Because you're short?

[–]Hjalmbere 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is r-selection in practice. Human males display both the r-selection strategy(quantity) and k-selection(quality and investment in offspring). If you're a high SMV male, r-selection makes sense, if you are an average slob, k-selection makes sense from a reproductive perspective. From a woman's standpoint, a high SMV man who has no intention of investing in his offspring might still make sense, since she instinctively hopes an offspring from the high SMV man will inherit his attractiveness and thus produce attractive offspring which in turn will have a good chance of reproducing.

[–]zyqkvx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Women talk about height, build, biceps, chest, etc just like men talk about blonde, big tits, long sexy legs, etc. Of course each want those things. But, hot girls come in call kinds of configurations we would like. The same is true for men.

The worst thing you can do is if you have a trait that is opposite of what's hyped (example you are a short man, or brown haired woman) is act like it's a deficiency. The best thing you can do is act like it's awesome yet also bring other traits to focus, not because being short or brown haired sucks, but because you can't fight against self-prophasizing buzz words. You ignore them, don't argue against buzz words (example, blonde) because we live in clown world and the game theory of people introactions makes you always look like a fool if you go against galvanized clown wisdom.

I brown haired girl can rock the world by never comparing herself to blonde hair, and being gorgeous with other traits, secure attitude and no mental signs of feeling deficient.

Seen some of the brown haired girls out there? I think I could settle for some of them, heh.

It's always being the holistic package you got to focus on.

I think OP has enough going for him that women like it, and tall women seemed to figure out that since he's got it going, his shortness only emphasizes her tallness, and she wants to 'feel' that out.

[–]hb8only 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In fact, consistently in my past, tall women have almost always been the ones to approach me.

I've been told that I have exceptionally attractive features

they think like this: lets fuck this handsome manlet - maybe our son will be tall after me and pretty after him...

[–]BoilingBleach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look up the origin of blue eyes, seems to be all back to a single ancestor, male.

About 1/3 of Asia is descendent of Genghis Khan.

Having a true alpha male son is the true evolutionary jackpot for a woman.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I'd recheck my theory. There's newer replications done that really disproved this. If i recall the findings, 75% of cheating women are branch swinging, and fall in love with their new chad.

I can't be arsed to check my laved items that had the paper

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Yes, this is not saying anything about them being dedicated to one particular mate, just that the mates they choose will tend to have traits that will produce an attractive son. If the papers you read showed that the chads that they branch swung to tended to not have genetic traits that would result in attractive sons, then that would disprove the SSH.

[–]Wilhelm2nd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thank thee darwin for gifting me as an apex

[–]dumbkidaccount 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just be genetically superior theory

[–]DeBrawnMD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting theory. It'd be solid if we could find empirical data and evidence that supports this notion.

[–]randomTATRP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Central Limit Theorem. You da man.

BTW,

To connect back to the SSH

I had to reread that. Professional deformation I guess. :D

On topic, the theory itself is interesting.

[–]Humbabanana 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder if environmental stability shifts the focus between males and females being the preferred offspring. In a stable environment, with ample access to resources, I would expect a conservative strategy to be the most optimal: a daughter is a sure way to have your genes appear in the next generation in the form of several children. Meanwhile, an unpredictable and resource poor environment should favor a more virulent strategy, low investment in a wide range of possibilities: a male is not a sure bet, but is durable, doesn't consume as many of your own resources and may have a greater payoff if successful.

It is my personal sense that the United States is entering a period of instability and unpredictability with respect to cultural norms, composition of the gene pool (immigration) and economic future.

It would be interesting to look at societies' preferences throughout time and how stable they were culturally.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are your thoughts?

Regarding your luck despite your height (or lackthereof): niche appeal.

The women who approached you apparently didn't care (that much) about height, so your other qualities factored disproportionally strongly into their decision to make a move. Fortunately for you, they took a proactive approach which absolved you of the burden to do it yourself.

Regarding the SSH in general: the hypothesis as such makes sense. It would also explain why women (or at the very least a certain type of woman) consistently choose guys who are indifferent and unreliable over guys who are the opposite: they can't really help it. Because while in the short term (from an evolutionary perspective), she is suffering additional misfortune (single motherhood or at the very least consistenly being cheated on and all that), in the long run she can potentially vicariously reproduce that strategy through the son she has by a guy like that, which is an evolutionary advantage for her. Ideally, she finds a schlub who is willing to provide for the both of them.

Did I mention that you shouldn't touch single moms with a 10' pole?

[–]omargrunt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im good looking 5'8. Tall 6' Iowa corn fed gals love me. Guess the want to undue the freak tall gene. Maybe they had a bad time growing up. Also dark girls love me. Guess the want to mix in the vanilla creme. Skinny girls want me. Guess they want some meat on their childrens bones. Ugly girls love me. Guess they want to undue that ugly gene. I could go on but I got bored....

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

[–]starkfuture 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me guess, they think his SMV indirectly affect their own SMV?!

Now let me read...

[–]grunge022 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's way too many variables in mate selection to say it comes down to females not having a certain amount of trait A or B. And these selection variables can easily change depending on the time of day, month, season, environment etc.

[–]1dongpal 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ha, this would mean that you get the opposite of what you are. So do I only get fat stupid bitches?

[–]Field_Of_View 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exaggerating the importance of the effect. But if a woman with attributes very contrary to your own likes you and you're wondering why, now you have a starting point for wondering about why.

[–]MrSaiyan_333_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Interesting, I'm 6'4 and I've never had any success with tall girls. But short girls seem to like me much more.

[–]theLesserOf2Weedles[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I've seen, short girls have the most strict height standards. My older sister, who's shorter than I am, had to marry someone over 6'.

[–]RobbieBee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Coming up a little 'short' on this one.

[–]Revolution885 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Find it hard to believe a clinical midget liek yourself was able to bed a woman 5'10. fuckin LOL at this e-statting

[–]Chitlinsandgravy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been approached by women taller than me. Being taller isn't necessarily an awalt trait in terms of attraction.