In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« McCain's Prediction | Main | De facto if not de jure »

May 15, 2008

Patty's Website

Michael Blowhards writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Star YouTube webcam dancer Patty Mayo now has her own website. (On the tab in my browser it reads "Patty Mayo -- Official Fan Site.") A cute bit from Patty's self-description:

Ima small girl barely standin at 5 ft but i love it, im fun sized.
Im single and crushin.
Just give me a guy who likes me for me..and i'll stop wit this myspace bullshit and just be with him <3

Here's some footage of Patty in action:

I don't know about you, but I'm guessing that the level of teenaged booty-shaking virtuosity in the U.S. has skyrocketed since the birth of YouTube. Talk about having a stage. Talk about competitive pressures. Talk about feedback.

I ran across Patty thanks to Agnostic, who writes that he can smell the difference between "older" (30ish) women and younger ones; and who -- speaking of "game" -- has come up with some "Facebook game."



UPDATE: In the Comments, DOBA recalls a simpler time, or at least a time when he didn't feel quite so horrified by popular culture. It was the era of Cheryl Tiegs:

posted by Michael at May 15, 2008


Dear Michael,

I love your site and think you're a great guy, but please don't inflict anything like this on me again. Amongst many other things, the tramp stamp was too much to take. This comes off more as unintentional satire of white trash culture than sexy. If this is what passes for sexy these days, then I give up! To a (male version of ) a nunnery for me!

As I've said before, this whole society has degenerated into Sam's Club trash-people. This video proves it.

Someone give me back the Cheryl Tiegs poster I had at 13. Now that was sexy.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on May 15, 2008 10:38 PM

Cheryl Tiegs, now there's a name ... That pic of her in the see-thru mesh bathing suit is seared deep within me. Did you catch her in "Brown Bunny"?

Funny how we're all inhabiting a Jerry Springer universe now, isn't it? How did it happen? Where did it come from? Time to run and take cover.

Have you caught a minute or two of the reality show "Cheerleader U"? The most amazing combo of lewdness and naivete, sweetness and appallingness, that I've seen recently.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 15, 2008 10:51 PM

How can that be called "music?" It's the soundtrack to a modern day, degrading minstrel show. A parody of itself.

And as for the "dancer" - I understand the attraction from a male perspective, but it's more crass than anything. No skill, no sexiness, just unthinking back and forth. There is no way my daughter would get away with such a trashy display in my house.

Posted by: jonathanjones02 on May 15, 2008 10:56 PM

Another great Cheryl Tiegs moment.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 15, 2008 11:07 PM

Patty doesn't believe in apostrophes, spacing, or proper spelling; all she has to offer a potential mate (for whom she is obviously trolling) is her tramp stamp, and her "booty-shakin'" ways.

That's isn't music, and it isn't Caucasian, either; those two things, and the "booty-shakin'", are related. Oswald Spengler once said something apropos about jazz music being the death march of a great civilization.

Posted by: anon on May 15, 2008 11:53 PM

Re: Patty...I did enjoy the ass shaking...I've got a bit of an ass fetish, but I'm not a fan of tramp stamps...

Posted by: Siv on May 16, 2008 12:02 AM

Watching that didn't do anything erotic, but the folowing thoughts arose. You could strap a container full of milk and ice cream to her ass and get a great milk shake. Likewise, a martinin tumbler or a small can of paint you wanted to mix.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on May 16, 2008 6:47 AM

Funny comments.

But ... No reflections on, reactions to, memories of Cheryl Tiegs? She was a major pop-culture figure for a couple of decades. And those bikinis ... That tummy ... I wonder how she'd fare today. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single Cheryl photo that foregrounded her ass. It was all boobs, face, tummy, legs ... A different era, clearly.

I do love Patty's writing. Does anyone have any bets about how long it will be before Text Messaging has completely replaced English? These computer-savvy/otherwise-illiterate kids today ... They'll be taking over the world very soon.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 16, 2008 8:57 AM

Incidentally, and FWIW, what I found funny wasn't Patty, who's probably a sweet and cute kid. She certainly has some talents, and, who knows, she probably does well in Social Studies and loves animals. It's the whole new-media thing: 1) YouTube webcam stardom 2) Setting up your own fansite to yourself. After all, now you're a star, the fansite has to follow.

We aren't in Kansas anymore. No wonder the old-media businesses are terrified.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 16, 2008 9:13 AM

Wait, I didn't realize she was 17. How can a 17-year-old legally get a tramp stamp?

Also, maybe it's not today's culture I mind -- it's this girl and her trashy dancing. A few years back, a high schooler named Amanda Wenk put up some sexy photos on Flicker and they spread around the net. Now those photos were great because the girl was actually attractive and the poses were sexy and cute -- be it 1958 or 2008.

This video proves the urban part of out culture is devolving into mental retardation. Probably too much inbreeding amongst people who don't realize their screwing their half-sister.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on May 16, 2008 12:54 PM

[Sound of MBlowhard Google Image-ing "Amanda Wenk."]

Good golly!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 16, 2008 1:22 PM

Oh give me a break. You get the slightest enjoyment from a tight-skinned 17 year-old shakin' her money-maker, and suddenly you don't appreciate anything else, are ushering in the fall of civilization, etc. There are times and places for grace -- you can watch ballet -- but sometimes you want to see some good booty-shakin'.

There is definitely a strong anti-assman bias among the complainers here (and that includes all women, since no woman appreciates a good ass). It's like the idealist vs. realist split that underlies all political and economic debate: you can always rely on the head-in-the-clouds boobmen to cluck their tongues at the let's-get-things-done assmen.

The most recent entry at Stuff White People Like is about grammar and spelling Nazis. Really, who cares if she doesn't capitalize or use proper punctuation? These things don't correlate with intelligence, which is why they don't show up on any IQ test.

I'm pretty sure under 1% of guys would list "knows the rules of punctuation" under desirable qualities in a girl. Maybe some sexless comp lit grad student who still isn't sure whether or not he's a fag.

Posted by: agnostic on May 16, 2008 1:48 PM

Western civ, esp. Germanic, Protestant, northwestern European civ, emphasizes boobs. Other, southern European, Catholic, and Third-World and Third-World-descendent cultures emphasize booty. It may seem trivial, but it's symptomatic of the larger trend; see Camille Paglia on the matter. (She, naturally, as a sexual deviant of southern European descent likes it; I abhor it.) It is no surprise to me, that emphasis on booty correlates with unchecked illegal immigration, and calls for amnesty of the same, and a nice black man with no platform other than "we are the ones we've been waiting for" seriously having a shot at the presidency, for no reason other than that an intoxicated America likes the symbolism, wants to feel good about itself by showing what it can do.

Posted by: anon on May 16, 2008 10:10 PM

emphasis on booty correlates with unchecked illegal immigration

Makes me think of that song back in the '70s: Backfield in Motion.

Seems to me that Patty and her ilk are pioneering a western form of bellydancing. Those are some mighty liquid hips she's got. Call it bootydancing.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 16, 2008 10:41 PM

Further: the boob represents motherhood, and wifehood, the highest callings of women; our civilization has profited, historically, from emphasizing male/female differences, in their respective roles. By contrast, booty represents the woman as pure sexual being, regardless of roles or callings. Such is ultimately demeaning to women, and is found in cultures that value women largely for such, and not as much for their roles and callings as mothers and wives. It is precisely because of their high status, as mothers and wives, in Western civilization, esp. NW European, Germanic Protestant civilization, that egalitarianism has proceeded further socially here than anywhere else; ironically, such is becoming said civilization's greatest liability.

Posted by: anon on May 16, 2008 11:00 PM

Anon -- You make it sound so plausible I'm almost buying it!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 17, 2008 10:36 AM

Motherhood and wifehood are the highest callings of women? Give me a break! Don't get me wrong, I highly value motherhood and wifehood, but saying its the "highest calling" is demeaning and insulting to those women who are not mothers and wives, through chance or choice.
Men on this blog - Fatherhood and husbandhood are the highest callings of men. Debate.

Posted by: Julie Brook on May 17, 2008 11:23 AM

The Northern Protestant/Southern Catholic "binary" preference for bosom vs booty leaves out pesky northern Catholics like those of Belgium, Northern France, Germany, eastern Europe, and so forth. They don't share the fixation on female hindquarters, yet they are all traditionally Catholic.

It surprises me that people so obsessed, as Blowhard readers often are, with evo-psych, cannot see any explanation beyond a socio-cultural one for this taste. Is it not possible that women in northern countries might, for instance, have needed to nurse their babies longer, and so have come to develop larger breasts? And even if breast-size has nothing to do with nursing capacity, as I have read, it is possible that people in these regions came to believe that it did, and so were more concerned with larger breasts. At any rate, women of Northern European stock do tend to have larger breasts than those of the South, for whatever reason (Sophia Loren being an obvious exception).

Anyway, until very recently (like since the dawn of the 20th century), women's clothes in both northern and southern Europe tended to hide the posterior so completely that it can have had little impact on assortative mating or fashion. The small waist, symbolic of youth and virginity, was traditionally an unmarried woman's greatest fashion and sexual asset.

Posted by: alias clio on May 17, 2008 11:28 AM

"Men on this blog - Fatherhood and husbandhood are the highest callings of men. "

I'm a man and I agree with that. Same goes for women/motherhood. Those roles demand the most from a person and are the most critical roles for our species. It's simply a biological fact.

I don't think that demeans people who, by circumstance or choice, are not in those roles. I don't feel, as a father and husband, and better than anyone else.

But this is for another thread. Michael?

Posted by: JV on May 17, 2008 11:53 AM

The protection and care of women and children is the highest calling of men. Also known as: building and defending civilization, since civilized societies are those in which women and children most prosper. The very freedom for women to pursue callings other than wifehood and motherhood is precisely one of the benefits of modern civilization, the civilization built by white men and for which white men have yet to receive even a single "Thank you".'re welcome!

Posted by: PatrickH on May 17, 2008 2:25 PM

All right, time to step in with some data on what boobmen vs. legmen vs. assmen are like:

Review of data

Boobmen are gregarious guy's guys, while assmen are Type A businessmen. Guys who prefer long legs, large boobs, and large buttocks are ambitious achievement-oriented guys.

In fact, boobmen are more likely to be attention-seekers in social situations, while assmen are more self-abasing. As for their roles in civilization, assmen are more focused on order and structure than are boobmen.

The study was conducted on mostly WASPy male college students, so we see that even within Western or Northern Europeans, it's the assmen who are more likely to build, maintain, and propel civilization forward -- unlike the boobmen who are more focused on working on their cars, being the life of the party, and watching sports.

Group differences don't always boil down to individual differences. For example, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are shorter on average than many sub-Saharan African groups. Do we conclude that being short helps build civilization? Maybe the more civilized people have a higher disease burden or poorer variety of diet, which stunts their growth.

And when you look within China, Korea, or Japan, do you think that being short helps rather than hinders a man from ascending the social hierarchy? We know that the average CEO in the US is 6'1, and elite CEOs average 6'2.

Individual differences are always what we want to focus on -- they may percolate up into group differences, but they may not.

Posted by: agnostic on May 17, 2008 3:04 PM

OK, here's the real deal. If a society consists only of assmen, you get a society like sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East, while if it consists only of boobmen, you don't get civilization at all.

What happened in Europe was a diversification of types -- just like there are a variety of hair, skin, and eye color types there, rather than only one type found elsewhere.

The builders and propellers of civilization in Europe are, as elsewhere, assmen. They have a tendency toward polygyny and having illegitimate kids. The boobmen are the domesticated majority who need to be kept in order, not stir up trouble, and pursue monogamy.

There's a balance struck in Europe between elite assmen and common boobmen. Too many assmen, and fighting over the women wastes too much energy that could be spent building civilization. Too few assmen, and no one has the balls to get shit done.

Posted by: agnostic on May 17, 2008 3:21 PM

Motherhood and wifehood are more central to women than fatherhood and husbandhood are to men. That may make you angry, Julie, but it remains a post feminist fact. Women invest far more of themselves in reproduction than do hit and run men. Everything follows from that biological fact. Tuff titty.

Posted by: ricpic on May 17, 2008 4:17 PM

Note to Julie:

All species are here to reproduce. And while I detest the phrase "highest calling," if humans do not reproduce there will be no human race, therefore the most important thing one can do is have kids, therefore momhood and dadhood are, in fact, important.

What's more significant, I think, is that fact that women somehow believe whatever the hell they do is actually more important than the purpose of life itself. Maybe you don't want to be a mother. Fine. I don't want bio kids either.

But to say that being a billing clerk or museum docent or whatever-the-frig you do is more important than life itself is moronic. How doped up on feminism can someone get? I'll make an exception for doctors, though. But definitely not lawyers.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on May 17, 2008 6:00 PM

Agnostic, as always, you show a tendency to take data about human preferences that may be representative for a particular time and place, and assume that it can be projected backwards into other societies at other periods of history for which we can have little but anecdotal evidence regarding those preferences.

Even if we restrict ourselves to recent history, it's difficult for me to understand either why or how men's personality traits could come to be closely associated with their preference for a particular female body type. If it's an evolutionary/hereditary tendency, what purpose could it possible have served? I mean, I get it that men select mates for youth and beauty, when they get the chance, because these qualities are indicative of health and fertility (though I don't understand why other male animals don't show this trait, according to anything I ever read). But how does having a preference for T over A, or vice versa, serve this goal? And how could this taste determine, or be determined by, men's personality traits?

The only thing I've ever heard about the breasts/buttocks debate that makes any sense from the perspective of purely evolutionary speculation, is that human females began to be "selected" for permanently engorged breasts (something unknown in other mammals) at about the time when they began to have intercourse face to face.


Posted by: alias clio on May 17, 2008 10:02 PM

To throw a few spanners in the works ...

1) There's such a thing as one "highest calling"? And it holds for everyone? News to me.

2) I'm a big evo-bio fan myself, but I feel like I'm seein' something here that I often see in evo-bio-tinted discussions: all kinds of wild attributions of purpose and meaning. An example: Men don't pursue youth and beauty because they suggest health and fertility. Men pursue youth and beauty because youth and beauty in a female get a man hot, and hot feels good. It's just highly convenient to the species that sex often follows, and that procreation often follows sex.

Evolution and biology are shrewd that way. You don't have to know what they're up to in order to serve the general flow of things.

Quick reminder: There have been populations that didn't know that sex is what causes babies. (Presumably it took the human race generally a while to figure this one out.) Yet they have managed to procreate anyway. In other words, no guy in those societies could possibly have looked at a cute young female and thought, "Health and fertility," because they hadn't yet hooked the "fertility" thing up to the "cute and gets me hot" thing. He just looked at her, got hot, and survival of the species followed.

Anyway, it often seems to me that we need to slow down a bit where deriving purposes, let alone self-help tips, from evo-bio goes. Evolution doesn't care about you or me. It doesn't even care about humanity. If humanity comes to an end, other species will take over our niches. What should evolution care one way or the other?

Evo-bio is great in many ways: It can really help a person get oriented , and god knows it has been a great corrective to PC and the excesses of feminism and such. It can be a great general framework. But even I start to wince a bit when too much that's too particular starts being derived from it. I'd hate to see it start to turn into its own kooky church ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 17, 2008 10:56 PM

As for boobs and butts ... The cultural changeover from boob-centeredness to butt-centeredness has been one of the most striking developments in culture in my lifetime, that's for sure. I think these things account for it:

1) black culture becoming more mainstream.
2) more openness about homosexuality
3) AIDS, sadly. All of a sudden people who'd never acknowledeged the existence of butts at all were talking earnestly about anal sex.
4) The immense Latin-ification of the U.S.

And a general hedonistic decadence too. Butts are more raw, more nasty, and more purely sensation-oriented. They got nothing to do with nursing babies, that's for sure.

FWIW, Swedish girls, for all their glories, beauties, and often-fabulous chests, seldom have decent cans.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 17, 2008 10:58 PM

That's what I was getting at, MB; that it's the racial/ethnic/cultural power shifts you just cited, as well as others (who also loves big 'tookas'). I wasn't invoking evo-bio arguments. (And my use of 'higher calling' is from other grounds, because I believe in moral absolutes.)

Basically, we've seen a shift, in terms of who has power and influence, in the U.S., over the culture. And the culture has indeed become more decadent and hedonistic. (Hence my comment about the difference between the purely sexual nature of booty, and the maternal characteristics of breasts.)

I'm sure similar arguments can also be made for why young women of today have come to embrace tramp stamps, thongs, piercings everywhere, and shaved vulvas. To my mind, the tats and piercings mean we're basically returning to paganism (body modification, like primitive tribes used to do; esp. tribes that were in the same regions of the world that tend to focus on booty more, I might add; and this all correlates with pagan hedonistic decadence, too), and certainly, the tramp stamps and whale tails correlate with the greater focus on booty and the rear in general (maybe the shaving does, too, since it isn't as visible from behind; OTOH, maybe the shaving is just a desire to retain more youthful characteristics).

I think they whole thing can be explained purely in terms of culture - who has greater clout, whose influence is on the wane? Who has the momentum; who runs the entertainment industry? How is the U.S. being changed, demographically, due to immigration, legal and otherwise? How do the birthrates of old-stock Americans today compare with those of new arrivals? Which religious groups are culturally waning in influence; what worldviews are growing?

When you look at these questions, taken all together, I think the reasons for the shift in focus, from boob to booty, become clearer.

Posted by: anon on May 18, 2008 12:06 AM

Michael, I at any rate didn't mean to suggest that men consciously choose youth and prettiness because these suggest health and fertility. I only meant that this was the evolutionary purpose of men's preference for youth and prettiness.

I still think it's strange that this behaviour doesn't appear to exist in males in other animal species. Perhaps it's because females in other species don't outlive their fertility? Even that wouldn't explain, though, why plain young women, who are (except in unusual circumstances) as fertile as their prettiest rivals, are so much less attractive to men. But then, historically we are probably living in a time when beauty counts more for women than it ever did before in the past, when parents chose mates for the young, or (in pre-historic times especially) men simply selected whatever women were available to them.

I mean, no male zebra appears to give any consideration to what a female zebra looks like. She's a zebra, she's in estrus, he's "good to go". Among most animal species, where there's any sexual choice involved, it's females who do the selecting, not males. We're an odd species.

In other words, there are so many scientific mysteries surrounding the sexual differences between humans and other animal species that it's difficult to take rules that apply to the animal world and extrapolate them to ourselves.

p.s. I stand by my point that I don't see how the taste for T over A could have "evolved" among men - i.e. how certain cultures could select for it. My first comment jokingly suggested that we ought to consider this as a possibility - but really, it doesn't appear to have much evolutionary logic to it. Nor do I see how the preference could have evolved in such a way that men of certain personality types could come to prefer one over the other.

Posted by: alias clio on May 18, 2008 9:34 AM

Anon -- Nicely put!

A. Clio -- I'm just being nitpicky, but talking about purpose where evolution is concerned ("this was the evolutionary purpose of men's preference for youth and prettiness") is misleading. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, it just is. "Health and fertility" isn't a purpose, it's just the evo-bio crowd's way of explaining why so many men hanker for young 'n' pretty. (Seems to me like a good explanation -- but it's nothing but an attempt at explaining.) As soon as purpose starts to enter the discussion, we're back in the realm of teleology. Which is a fun discussion in its own right, just nothing to do with evolution. I'm being nitpicky only because I see so many young guys trying to derive purpose and guidance from evo-bio. I mean, there are systems that are worse guides to day-to-day life, god knows. But it's still an odd development. But maybe it's none of my biz and I'm just reading Roissy too regularly.

I'm with you where the mystery of taste and beauty are concerned, btw. Animals just present butts and give each other a sniff and if the moment's right they're at it. We're much more picky and flukey. Whassat about? Seems to me, fwiw, that human-style consciousness has a lot to do with it. We're animals, but we also have this big elaborate thinking apparatus sitting on top of the beast. It's nice and fun and offers neato opportunities; but it's also a burden, as well as something we can screw things up royally with. Maybe "beauty" and a taste for it evolved out of that complex of givens. What's your theory?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 18, 2008 10:17 AM


BTW, those of us who believe in the transcendent, cannot believe that evolution is purposeless, because we believe in ultimate purpose. This means we either don't believe in evolution (as I don't), or if we do, we cannot ascribe purposelessness to it, but see it as part of the plan, even if it works in an apparently purposeless direction (as I used to hold, but now reject; that strikes me as untenable, wanting to have it both ways, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too).

I laugh at those who reject, with distaste, the very possibility of there being such things as "higher callings" whilst nevertheless seeing order and some apparent purpose in evo-bio; they remind me very much of the likes of Desmond Morris, and B.F. Skinner, et al, decades back, thinking everything can be explained by evolution (a grand, unified theory of everything; no wonder bright young imaginative scientific male minds like the GNXP crowd swallow it whole, hook, line and sinker). But, to their credit, at least they do perceive order, even if they see it as effect, rather than cause.

Posted by: anon on May 18, 2008 1:32 PM

Clio -- I began writing a detailed response, but it started to drag on, so I'll edit it and make it a post at my blog sometime today.

Posted by: agnostic on May 18, 2008 3:49 PM

Note to Patrick H:

"Backfield in Motion," by Mel and Tim, was a 1969 hit about a woman cheating, not women's behinds. Black music didn't get obsessed with booty until a decade later.

Mel and Tim's follow-up hit, appropriately, was called "Good Guys only Win in the Movies." Perhaps the duo were Beta Males. Anyway, in the 1960s and early 1970s, black music seemed more concerned with personal and national politics, not ass-shaking.

Here are the lyrics to "Backfiend":

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on May 18, 2008 4:04 PM

Hey DoBA, thanks for the info. But...I do think there was some sly double-entendre stuff going on there. At least that's how I took the song back in my pimply teenybopper days when I first heard it.

I mean, who says black guys weren't into the booty back in '69? Just because most musicians didn't get around to obsessing about it till later? Mel and Tim were pioneers, Days, they were ahead of their time.

In any case, I'm still reeling over the brilliantly bizarre observation from anon that prompted my comment. Made my weekend, to tell the truth.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 18, 2008 10:59 PM

Human males are much more picky than males of other species because human males bring more than just sperm to the table; they bring resources and are consequently choosy about who they spend those resources on.

There are some indications that, in African societies, since women do almost all the work, men don't bother to use resources as a bargaining chip and are therefore considerably less choosy. The degree to which this all reflects possible genetic differences among human groups I cannot say. I would reluctantly have to say that women of African descent seem to be somewhat less attractive on average than most other groups, while African men are somewhat more attractive on average, so there may be some evidence of female choosiness being the stronger element in Africa.

Posted by: Thursday on May 19, 2008 12:25 AM

Hmmm, I like both breasts and arse; a lot. Where does that put me? Am I a Catholic or Protestant? Party boy or achiever? I'm so confused.

Perhaps one of the reasons why booty is more appreciated these days is not due to the influence of black culture, blah blah blah..... but merely due to the fact that fashion has changed and that women wear pants more now than they did in the past. Good cleavage was always available for view but bums really get appreciated if you're not wearing a dress. Ah, the glories of denim!

Posted by: slumlord on May 19, 2008 1:12 AM

Why, thank you, Patrick! Glad to be of service.

In insane times, it takes a madman to see things clearly. :)

Posted by: anon on May 19, 2008 1:32 AM

Human males are much more picky than males of other species because human males bring more than just sperm to the table; they bring resources and are consequently choosy about who they spend those resources on.

Thursday, there are males in other animal groups who do bring resources "to the table". What of the various bird species in which male birds do their share of nest-building, egg-sitting, and food-fetching?

I am not a biologist and can only speak on the basis of casual information, but I believe that even in those species like wolves or gorillas, in which a dominant male and female preside over lesser members of the group, the dominant female attains her position not because she is the male's favourite for her looks or sexual appeal, but because she is, you know, dominant: she bullies the other females into submission.

As for black African women being less attractive than women of other races, I keep seeing this belief here and there on the internet, and I find it a very odd one. Sub-Saharan Africans are divided into so many ethnic groups of varied and distinctive appearance that saying "African women are unattractive because they are masculine-looking" (which is the essence of the argument, I believe) is like saying that all northern Europeans are beautiful because they are blonde and blue-eyed: the first part of the statement is subjective, and the second part is false.

Here in Ottawa, I see many young black women of recent Haitian, French West African, or Somali origin, with exquisite faces even by European notions of facial delicacy (but not of mixed race, to judge by the darkness of their complexions), and beautiful bodies that are beautiful in an especially black African way: slimmer wrists, ankles, and waists than are common in Euro-descended girls of the same age; noticeably longer legs; and higher, firmer posteriors. Of course there are many more who are not especially pretty - but then, that's true among white folks too.

The bit about thin wrists and ankles is not fanciful, BTW: some years ago one company began marketing a line of hose especially for African women because the stuff designed for whites didn't fit their longer legs and thinner ankles. I don't know what became of the line, but the theory, as I recall, was based on a large number of measurements of black and white women in the US.

Posted by: alias clio on May 19, 2008 9:50 AM

Whoever said Northern European women have larger breasts than Southern European women got it ass-backwards! As a long-time expatriate and observer of such phenomena, I know whereof I speak.

Posted by: g-man on May 19, 2008 10:17 AM

I suppose it depends on the specific ethnic groups to which you refer, g-man, and the specific geographic location. I knew my comment was too general. But German and Scandinavian women are buxom, and in fact tall and big-boned in general. (I'm surprised more men don't appear to find them rather "masculine".)


Posted by: alias clio on May 19, 2008 11:35 AM

Perhaps not very relevant, but in Victorian England, weren't bustles very popular? Doesn't this sort of dress emphasize a woman's bottom?

Also, if you remember the Disney movie Cinderalla, the women wear bustles.

Posted by: blue on May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

No one else was struck by Agnostic's claim to be able to smell the diff between a young gal (I'd guess he means late teens) and an older one (30ish)?

As for black gals ... Back when I was taking drawing classes I always loved it when our model was a black woman. For one thing the black skin makes getting tones and shadows and reflections a refreshingly different ballgame than it is when you're drawing white people. For another, black bodies really are (often) dramatically different than white ones, and that's a lot of fun to take in and try to describe in drawing terms. I don't think we were ever given a black guy to draw, come to think of it. I wonder why. Anyway, I regularly thrill to the looks of black women. A sweet beauty rang us up at the grocery store today, for example -- The Wife was as struck by her as I was. I'm not trying to be self-righteous here, but it seems to me that the aesthetics of black beauty are somewhat different than the aesthetics of white beauty. The values are simply different. (Albert Murray is good on this, btw.) My drawing class experience often left me wondering how much of our aesthetic sense generally might be based in the body, in body types, and in our experiences of our own bodies. Our bodies condition our experience, after all -- and it must be somewhat different to live in a, for example, Asian body than it is to live in an African one, or a northern-Euro one. Which in turn would likely ricochet right down through one's assumptions, tastes, preferences, and pleasures. No?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 19, 2008 10:39 PM

Our bodies condition our experience, after all -- and it must be somewhat different to live in a, for example, Asian body than it is to live in an African one, or a northern-Euro one. Which in turn would likely ricochet right down through one's assumptions, tastes, preferences, and pleasures. No?

I do think, though, that black bodies are more different from white and Asian (east asian, I mean) bodies than white and Asian bodies are from one another. Indeed, racist that I am, I am convinced that there is something genuinely different about black people in general, some (dare I say it?) specific black soul that animates black culture, and that is lost when black people assimilate to white culture. I believe, again racist that I am, that the average black IQ is lower than the average white IQ. But I hope and believe that if black people were offered some kind of Matrix pill that would boost their IQs by 15 points but otherwise make them think and feel just like white people, that most blacks would reject the offer, knowing that taking the pill would cost them their souls. The disappearance of the particularly black genius from the world would be an enormous loss, somehow.

But then again, I'm a racist.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 20, 2008 9:57 AM

PatrickH: you're obviously an ungleichgeschaltling, and you've got to be gleichgeschaltet! ;)

Posted by: anon on May 20, 2008 1:52 PM


I am an unlike switchedling? alien changeling! (Clio says I'm polymorphous...I wonder if that's what she meant.)

So, anon. Spill...what's it mean? I get the irony in the moniker (I think) ...but online translations aren't helping me out here.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 20, 2008 4:23 PM

"Gleichgeschaltet" means "co-ordinated; brought into tune with"; the Nazis' program of trying to make all Germans think the same way as them was entitled "gleichschaltung".

I was actually quoting a line from a sci-fi / alternate history story, 'Two Dooms', by C.M. Kornbluth; it was spoken by a character who was, in fact, a Nazi, addressing coming upon a time-traveller who had just arrived in Nazi-controlled 21st-century America.

Anyway, I just like that line; seems to me today the pressure is at an all-time high on people like you (you evil racist ;) ) and me to be conformed, to fall in line. Well, for my part, the PC liberal left totalitarians and the managerial state can do their best, but I'll never be gleichgeschaltet (or as they'd say in Dixie, 'reconstructed': ), and they'll probably have to kill me, eventually. ;)

Posted by: anon on May 21, 2008 12:32 AM

PatrickH: Perhaps my response was too-longwinded, as the Blowhards didn't publish it, so I'll be brief - "Gleichschaltung" is German for "co-ordinated, brought into tune with", and was the name of the Nazis' program to attempt to make all Germans think the same way, to be good little National Socialists. I was quoting a Nazi character in a sci-fi story; basically, pointing out that with your self-described 'racist' views, you need to be brainwashed by political correctness, if you're gonna fit in with the rest of the sheeple. ;)

Posted by: anon on May 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?