The Mathematics of Love Are Mysterious

About these ads

11 Comments

Filed under science+technology, this is just funny

11 responses to “The Mathematics of Love Are Mysterious

  1. Anacaona

    Awww funny and cute…fute? Cunny?

  2. Soooo cute. Nice way to start the day.

  3. I miss Calvin and Hobbes!

  4. Arch

    Whatever the mathematics of love, no doubt it is expressed in terms of irrational numbers

  5. Wudang

    THis is entirely unrelated but I have a request for a future post. More and more I encounter the argument from feminists that the world used to be matriarchal and that used to be much better. I think countering this myth will be very important in the fight for mens rights but don`t have the time to dig deeply into this myself so I am hoping someone else might. MAybe you!

    To give you an overview the myth goes something like this: Everyone, even the men were better of blah, blah blah. There were no sexual shame and people would have tons of sex partners, have group sex and share partners without jelousy etc. Certain tribal cultures today are pointed to as examples of this structure or of something similar or related. Tahiti was suposedly such a free love paradise. THe trobiander islands is mentioned. Less sex craszy but still suposedly matriarchal are the naxi people in china were the women work and the men care for the children and women can choose which men can come see them at night. THere is also an erea in mexico that has a fairly female dominant structure that is suposedly great acording to these feminists.

    From reading just a little bit it seems like few if any of these examples are actualy matriarchal but just matrilinear with more female power than normal but still actually more male dominated than the other way arround such as I read in an analysis of the Trobiander Islands. From a newspaper article I read about the village in mexico it seemed like most of the women there thought their men were just pathetic so there seems to be good reason to question how happy the women are with these structures. A key point I think in examining these things is to look at how well children actually do is these societies. Since the father is usually unknown it is normally either to brothers of the mother, some sort of stepdad figure or all the men in the tribe or all the men that slept with the women in the begining who takes the fathers role. I am sceptical of how well that actually works out. Roissy qouted a study that found that children in monogmous families did better than children in ploygamous families in areas were both were normal as the competition in polygamous families damaged the children and their access to resources. Everything I have read in evoloutinary theory and all studies I ahve seen on how stepfamilies and extended families work etc. indicate that the key to how well children are cared for will always be how closely related they are to the caretakers. So a brother will probably care less for his sisters children than a father would even if the brother has no known children of his own. “Stepdads” even less and when all the men in the tribe are fathers probably much, much less although there would be more of them. HTere is also the question of incest whcih would be rempant in small societies with no knowledge of paternity and because sex often starts arround age 11-13 there should be very high number of deaths of mothers and children during birth as the number of deaths of mothers and children during births are way, way higher when the girl is under 15. My guess is there are a ton of other issues with these sorts of structures that are glossed over in these accounts of suposed matriarchal paradises. I am also wondering why on earth to women would sleep with ALL of the men. Hypergamy makes this seem unlikely. If they do not then how is jealousy solved? An in depth analysis that uncovers such flaws will be key in preventing the spread of a damaging myth of a suposed matriarchal paradise. Studies that dispute wether such societies are realy matriarchies or are more balanced or male controlled but sexually very polyamorous societies would also be important. Studies and facts that dispute wether there were really a golden age of matriarchies in which everyone worhsipped goddeses and everyone was peacefull is also key. Some counters are that it seems unlikely men would have evolved to desire what we desire in women had they for most of our history been in charge and the other way arround. Another is that since scientists have calculated through DNA studies that in each generation on average 80% of females and only 40% of males had children who in turn had children it seems implausible that there have been many matriarchies as that would mean the man that did have wifes often had two or more which would give the men the power in the relationships, it also seems implausible that 60% of men would accept this without a fight so there were matriarchies they were probably highly violent. Studies I have read show that skeletons from prehistoric times show signs of death from violence in 20-40% of the cases which would indicate extreme amounts of violence so this indicates either that there were no matriarchies or that they were violent. Studies of tribes in teh amazon today indicate similar levels of violence. If any of them are actually matriarchal or close to it that would be key info. So if anyone is willing to look into this and write about it on their blog I think you will do an important job. The book sex at dawn will be a key read I think as it outlines a lot of these arguments.

    Related to this myth is the talk about the Bonobo monkey. Suposedly the females have more power amongst the bonobos and they are very peaceful and have sex all the time. Resolve conflict with having sex instead of fighting etc. THis is frequently used as an argument that a female controlled human society and female controlled relationship would be better. After googling it just a little bit I found out that the scientist who had spread these ideas of the bonobos have only studied them in captivity in the US and never been to were they live in Africa. Captivity is known to change behavior radically. Those who now study them in their natural habitat have found that they do not have more heterosexual sex than certain other types of monkeys they just have homosexual sex in addition to that so if you add up all the sex they do have more but really their just more bisexual. THeir low level of violence is also in question as they have now been observed hunting an killing monkeys from other species. Still there are some possible interesting things about what is said about these monkeys that might have a grain of truth to them. Anyhow it seems a lot is myth and figuring that out I think is an important task for the manosphere as this argument is all over the web now. As part of this work I think it is a good idea to look into other matriarchal animals. From what I have read before most matriarchal animals are charactherized bu low paternal investment. The females raise the children toghether with zero or only little help from males and then the males rund of when they grow up and just roam arround on tehir own or in bands of males. This mirrors what happens with singlemomhood in the western world today and how black america largely functions. So it seems what happens when you have female dominated societies and relationships what you have is exactly what you have amongst most of the matriarchal animals which is low paternal investment. Amongst humans that means disaster as we all know. Having animal studies to back this and to counter the bonobo argument will be very important in the future. Whenever feminists bring this argument up in debates online I see a lot of people falling for it. We nned quality info and thorough debate about this to counter it as strongly as possible. THis is also a way to counter some of the general “women are always best, men and fathers are unimportant” feelings people have.

  6. i wasn’t going to reply on this, but after seeing the girls reactions:

    i just laughed. they’re such guuuuurls. lol.

  7. Michael

    A bushel is a unit of volume, not of weight. A measure of capacity equal to 64 pints (equivalent to 35.2 liters), used for dry goods. Therefore, the weight of a bushel of any given commodity will depend upon the standardized weight of that commodity.

  8. Anacaona

    @Michael
    Wow that was so sexy! I mean it I love my logical men. Very Data of you *kissonthecheek*

  9. Pingback: Happy Birthday to the Badger Hut, Part 2: Best Posts | The Badger Hut

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s