quite interesting . . .

An interesting article.

Don Symons notes that in early humans "nubility cues were fecundity cues" - or in other words, men are most attracted to girls who have just finished puberty (in other words, early-to-mid teens) because they are most likely to conceive and have a baby. Evolution runs smack up against Feminism, or alternately, Feminism is opposed to Evolution more than the Creationists ever were.

However, before a flaw in his argument was brought to his attention, Symons says, he considered that the attraction of males to adolescent girls indicated a psychological interest in a wife rather than a short-term mate. That same argument might apply to some of us in our attraction to girls - a psychological interest in a partner rather than a short-term fling with a sex object.

But, oops! those damned feminists (a misnomer if I've ever heard one - they know nothing about the feminine) insist that women should not be treated as sex objects, but their policies reward those men who do treat women as sex objects, and punish those who treat women as equals. Societally, of course, but more importantly evolutionarily.

It is kind of parallel to another oddity: that societies where homosexuality is reviled will have more homosexuals than societies where homosexuality is accepted, because homosexuals in the former societies will feel pressured to find a wife and have kids - who will carry their genetic traits, some of which predispose children to homosexuality - whereas homosexuals in the latter societies will not feel this pressure and will be less likely to have children.

In fact, the feminist agenda of accepting homosexuals and vilifying girl lovers seems optimally designed to remove both groups from the gene pool, in favor of those men who care not at all about women.

Fortunately, in practice things don't work out quite that bad, but I wonder about their real motives, especially considering the malthusian beliefs that are common within that set.