In FB’s latest linkage round-up (Warning: NSFW–topless totty at the top of the page), there’s a link to the following article:Why Don’t Teenage Girls Swoon for Middle-Aged Billionaires?, by Satoshi Kanazawa.
Kanazawa raises a good point when he states:
Throughout human evolutionary history, and in contemporary tribal societies today, girls get married soon after reaching puberty and thus at the peak of their reproductive value. They typically marry much older men of high status, great political power, and ample resources. A typical marriage, both throughout human evolutionary history and in contemporary tribal societies, is between a newly pubescent teenage girl and a middle-aged or elderly tribal chief, who marries her as his third or fourth or eleventh wife. Young boys in their adolescence and early adulthood are almost never able to marry, until they are much older and have acquired the means and status to do so.
So why do today’s teenage girls find teenage boys, like Bieber and Lautner, sexually attractive, but not much older men of greater status and means, like Gates and Branson, who are exactly the type of men that the teenage girls would have married had they lived 10,000 years ago or today in tribal societies in Africa? Teenage girls today could not possibly have evolved psychological mechanisms to find teenage boys sexually attractive, because such an evolved psychological mechanism would have been highly maladaptive in the ancestral environment. Any teenage girl who was foolish enough to have fallen in love with and married a teenage boy, without the status and means to protect her and her children, was not likely to have left many surviving offspring.
In essence, the author acknowledges the Roissy Truism “The Gina Tingle conquers all”, and wants to know why?
My immediate, gut-level response would be, “Because they can.”
We live in what is, arguably, the wealthiest civilization in all of recorded history. Even the general “poor” in the West have access to material goods that would have staggered the imagination of our ancestors–even those at the beginning of the 20th Century would be amazed at what we have today. Historically, most people have lived at subsistence level; if you lost your livelihood, you didn’t go on unemployment–you starved. And, I don’t mean you go hungry–you starved:
There’s a reason the Gods of the Copybook Headings say: If you don’t work, you die! And, if Vox Day is right in his analysis of the economy of the West (The Return of the Great Depression), those gods may very well be limping their way up to the podium to explain that to us again.
Under such conditions, what Satoshi Kanazawa states is true: women wouldn’t settle for the prettyboys–they would grab up a proven provider with gusto. But we don’t live in historically usual circumstances–the imminent pressure of death doesn’t press down on the female side of the sexual marketplace as it usually does, so women are free to waste their time sexually pursuing whom they please, and the criteria for a mate becomes one primarily of aesthetics, instead of economics.
The irony is palpable: just as men build empires to defend the nations they love, so too, men build civilizations to protect the children they love; and the consequences of a poorly-built (or, as I suspect is the truth in the West, poorly-defended) civilization are as tragic as those of a poorly-built empire.
Edit: Dennis Mangan has his own take on Kanazawa’s question (tip o’ the hat to Alkibiades for the link).