On that escalator, stood a woman. One of the—what I like to call “penguins,” the people that waddle everywhere. As opposed to “obese,” let’s just say she was “thinly-challenged,” the type of person escalator manufacturers salivate over, knowing the trend of escalator-widening is on the horizon. Barring, of course, a huge growth-spurt in height across the human species.

This might be a national epidemic, but it provides opportunity to the optimistic dater—especially divorcees.

So Damn Fat

Personally, I don’t relate to the fat problem. I’m not bragging here. And I’m certainly not claiming to be the greatest health-nut in the world. I eat as unhealthy as the next guy – I try to down greens and avoid sugary substances, but occasionally I slip and eat late-night Whataburger (usually slightly intoxicated).

For me, a naturally high metabolism exists, so I can’t experience the pandemic per-se. That being said, I try to walk a line when judging fat people, especially when making the assumption for how much is their fault (diet and laziness) vs. genetics. Right now, my thinking hovers around 75% diet, 25% natural. 60/40 at best.

Here’s a few stats about the climbing rates of obesity:

Roughly 1 in 3 are obese. My state—Texas—is among the top offenders. Everything’s bigger in Texas.

“Better than 1 in 2,” you’re saying? Yeah, you could say that. But knowing that the late 80’s and early 90’s consisted of an approximately 1 in 10 obesity rate tells wonders.

Want to see an awesome video from the CDC (who I notice play centerstage in lots of germ movies lately): Click Here

More on Fatness Later, Back to the Booty

In case you’re in denial, let’s get one thing straight. Looks matter.

Ignore it.

Hate it.

Throw rocks at puppies.

But at the end of the day, looks matter. Now, it’s not all that matters. But, it does.

Study after study confirms it: Good-looking people are friendlier, more capable, intelligent, and ahead in just about every positive category you can think of—at least from yours and everyone else’s perspective.

Are these innate conceptions we possess about the lookers, true? Mostly, no.

Why say “mostly” here? Because better looking people are indeed, healthier. Body symmetry is one of the markers of a healthy immune system in men and fertility in women. I’m simplifying here, but you get the picture. Those are, in fact, the leading reasons today, for why we are thought to have evolved attraction to certain symmetrical sizes and shapes in the first place! We don’t go around trying to mate with just anybody of the opposite sex, right? If you’re in college, you don’t want to score with grandma (nothing against grandmas). You want the 18 year old with the hot body.

For ugly people with open jaws,  yes, personality matters (just kidding about the ugly people remark). For some odd reason, society trains people to feel that this is okay, but judging by looks is a negative. Personality is also a relatively static feature of a person, one that is certainly as static as looks are (*cough* people with makeup, shaved faces, and $50 haircuts)—our perspectives are so odd, to say the least.

Mathematics of Looks

In case you’re not updated on your scientific literature, let me fill you in. Not only do looks matter, which is relatively common sense, but we can narrow it down to the mathematical equation.

We’ll leave symmetry in the face for another blog post and focus upon the symmetry of the body.

Determining Your Body’s Hotness (Mathematically)

For Women:

1. Measure your waist (in inches)
2. Measure your hips
3. Divide the waist into the hips (don’t get these backwards or you might start crying)

What’s the measurement?

How far is it from .70? +/-.1 (meaning a .6 – .8 range and you’re doing pretty damn good).

For Men:

1. Measure your shoulders.
2. Measure your hips.
3. Divide the hip measurement into the shoulders.

Your optimal ratio is .60. Once again: .1+/- and you’re doing excellent.

A study on Playboy Centerfolds (funding must have been tough to come by for this one) showed that on average, the models’ WHR was exactly .70.

What’s the Hell am I Talking About – Going from Obesity to Symmetry?

Much of dating success walks a fine line. You want to be like other people, but only to an extent—mostly that extent encompasses letting people know you’re not a crazy bastard.

More importantly, success is dictated on how you stand out from the crowd. No one wants someone regular—even people who say “I just want a normal guy/girl,” don’t mean that. They have an idealistic image they’re seeking and this person is almost certainly not average.

As people become more obese, the landscape—specific to physical body shapes—gets skewed.

This in no way affects our current attraction to the opposite sex.

This is opportunity in the making. You couldn’t dream of a better way to stand out from the crowd. This means that the “thin” minority will be the selectors and that even if you’re currently “average,” you can quickly become “above average” merely by fitting into the “thin” category.

That is AMAZING news. You don’t even have to do anything. It’s like the opposing team all taking a seat on the bench (because they’re fat), leaving the basket wide-open. Your only responsibility is to walk up and make a simple layup.

Think of it this way: the standout players on the court will be the healthier ones. Unhealthy players can, at best, only cover other unhealthy players; where-as the healthier ones can cover anyone they want. Any player can, at any given time, switch to the other side (with a bit or hard-work or laziness).

And why did I emphasize that divorcees (or let’s just say, “older daters” in general) are at such an advantage? Because with age, the problem becomes exponential. Biology slows down our metabolism as we age. Sad, but true.

So go out there and make the easy lay-up, the playing field is shifting in your favor. Create a schedule, stick to it for a month, and the next month, it will be habit.

Download apps to help you retain habits and measure your progress; set a reminder on your phone each day; and most importantly—DON’T try to rely on yourself, because even if you’re motivated now, you might not be when the moment comes. That’s why it’s critical for at least one month to rely on your favorite electronic device to remind you. Don’t break the cycle. Pick 4 or 5 days per week and treat your sessions like you’re taking birth control—don’t skip (for those consistently pregnant due to failure of properly taking birth control—please disregard statement).

Because I Promised You a Section on Fatness

1. Eating = energy. Down the food-chain we go. Animals synthesize plants. Plants synthesize sunlight. Thank you plants. Thank you sunlight.
2. We evolved fat storage for later consumption (once upon a time, “real” men had no idea when their next meal was coming).

Sugar tastes fantastic to us. There’s a reason for that: it’s packed with energy. Something so good—yet so bad. If sugar were more expensive, the average household debt would be driven skyward. If it were cheaper, people wouldn’t fit through their doorways—there would be an entire sugar-delivery transit system set up.

We feel hungry. We feel a positive response to certain foods. This drive to eat was critical to survive—if you didn’t eat, you died; if you didn’t have a desire to eat, you didn’t eat, you died.

Modern Life

And here’s the catch —starting with agriculture, an invention several thousand years ago that’s allowed the drastic expanse of populations, food scarcity has become less of an issue in much of the developed world. Sugar’s fantastic taste has likely been one of the leading causes of its evolution (plus the powerful political backing to boot, at least in America).  

People’s over-consumption consists of two things:

1. Overabundance & people’s lack of control over biological drives.
2. People thinking they have control.

Why is number 2 a problem (sounds like a constipation ad)? Because people thinking they have control means exposure and exposure leads to failure.

AA meetings don’t have a keg with the refreshments to test people’s will (although, if they did, I would certainly be more enticed to go).

Although a “Love Potion” is complete B.S., we can recreate some of the after-effects. Now, full disclaimer beforehand, the effects won’t be as drastic as in the movies. Think of it as more of a “nudge” potion.

Hollywood – even with their reputation for historically-accurate films…has it all wrong. Potions in the movies are always some chemical concoction sporting a red, blue or green color. Strangly, they’re also carbonated to top it off.

Another intellectually-challenged creation and one that actually exists (for sale!) are love pheromones (here’s an example). If you’re a supporter of today’s love pheromones, please stop reading now, unplug your computer cord, and strangle yourself with it.

Guys, today’s pheromone companies are synonyms for “snake oil.”

But, this isn’t to say that women and men aren’t attracted to natural pheromones in the opposite sex, which does play at least a small role in attraction (interestingly, at least in the case of women-to-men, it allows detection of a strong immune system) from time to time. But the pheromone guys certainly aren’t selling that.

Remember: you and I are visual animals (My girlfriend’s pet-name from me is “animal.” Clearly – she loves me.) – 33% of our brain is devoted to vision in some format. So surprise! much of human attraction is based off of visual context clues. So, if we’re going to create a “nudge-potion,” let’s target the visual system.

Let us begin…

First off, we need sex differentiation (not as much fun as it sounds). Decide whether you’re a man or woman. Decided yet? Good. Y Chromosomes make a hell of a difference. That being said, this is probably the time to say that the Y chromosome makes a person smarter, more logical, and generally right in an argument (surveys show 100% agreement because only men were surveyed).

Back to the science stuff…

Women, since I’ve been heckling you, we’ll start with you.

Goal: Participants in the study were asked to evaluate the “dateability” of 3 guys, of whom they were provided upper-body photos. The guys were controlled for attractiveness (using facial symmetry mapping).

• Guy 1 was the least symmetric (the ugly spud)
• Guy 2 was moderately symmetric (the Average Joe)
• Guy 3 was the most symmetric (Mr. Hollywood).

Each gent was also controlled for variables such as age. The experiment required each guy to wear a specific outfit.

• Gentleman 1, the ugly spud, wore a top-notch suit and tie, as well as a Rolex watch.
• Gentleman 2, the Average Joe, wore a pair of slacks and a button-up shirt.
• Gentleman 3, Hollywood, wore a basic t-shirt and a fast-food restaurant cap.

The Results:

Okay ladies, now, whom did your sex choose as the rational and wise choice for a dating partner? Unless you’re 16 (and pregnant), you’re probably not surprised that even with Gentleman 3’s Hollywood looks, he wasn’t chosen as the most dateable; in fact, the poor bastard was chosen as the least dateable. You might be thinking Gentleman 2 was the right answer, well, good guess, but you’d be wrong. Remember, the study didn’t describe Gentleman 1 as “the ugly spud,” that was merely my own naming of him for your amusement. The participants made their initial judgments of the fellows all at once – meaning they judged his facial looks combined with his outfit to determine his overall attractiveness. To the women judging, the ugly spud wasn’t quite so ugly (even though his facial symmetry said he was).

We’ll return to this in a minute…

Guys, you’re turn:

Just like the females, participants in the study were asked to evaluate the “dateability” of 3 girls, of whom they were provided upper-body photos. The girls were pre-determined for attractiveness (using facial symmetry mapping).

• Female 1 was the least symmetric (wildebeest)
• Female 2 was moderately symmetric (the Average Jane)
• Female 3 was the most symmetric (Angelina).

Each person was controlled for variables such as age. The experiment also had each gal wear a specific outfit.

• Lady 1, wildebeest, was wearing a top-notch business jacket, as well as dress; she was also adorned with a pricey necklace.
• Lady 2, the Average Jane, wore a business-casual skirt and a button-up shirt. (Reading this experiment was the first time it registered that there is indeed a difference between a skirt and dress.)
• Lady 3, Angelina, wore a basic t-shirt and a fast-food restaurant cap.

Guys, want to take a stab at it? Think those diamonds worn by the rich-lady impressed us? Nope. We’re too pure for that. How about Lady 2? Think she seduced us with her moderate symmetry? Nope. Being the fast-food lovers that we are, we chose Lady 3 unanimously as the most dateable person. 

So what’s going on here? Women can like ugly guys with a homosexual male’s fashion sense, while men can like women that could probably wear garbage, as long as they’re hot?

The Science Behind Attraction

Let’s start with women’s attraction to the first male. Although it might sound like a bit of folklore perpetrated by ugly people, the study penetrates deep into our biological core (not the core you’re thinking of). Women share with men the need to survive, as well as reproduce; however, the perspectives are slightly skewed from one another.

Women, being slightly smaller, more vulnerable, and choosier, opt for a male partner that fills these voids. In the animal kingdom, it’s extremely common that males will provide food, shelter and protection for females in an effort to entice them into the mating game. Now, the nature of natural selection (specifically sexual selection) provides pressure for male-male competition to develop, which means that the desire for males to accumulate more “resources” will grow. Subsequently, the ability for females to differentiate between a males’ ability to provide resources will likewise become more and more sensitive (in our case, making them sensitive to clothing as it can serve as a signal for resources).

“BUT,” you say, “sensitive to clothing? We didn’t evolve with clothing. My ancestors were naked and damn proud of it!” You’re correct, but the plasticity of the brain allows for “representation.” Take money for instance, people didn’t evolve with it, but it represents resources and therefore a tremendous source of attraction (although not the physical kind of attraction for most people, Wall Street employees excluded). Show me the green baby.

Regarding genetics, it isn’t to say that women are numb to males’ cues about genetic health, which also contribute to successful offspring. They are. Attraction (in terms of mating) is merely a counterbalance of the two and – so it seems – resources appear to hold the power. (On an interesting side-note, when women are most fertile during the month, they become slightly more attracted to more masculine traits. If you’re a feminine male, don’t leave the house two weeks post-menstration. You’ll thank me later.)

For males…it’s a slightly more basic story (surprise). Men, in our Rainman-like simplicity, desire looks primarily. And why did this develop? Looks mirror fertility – at least to some degree. If a woman isn’t fertile, we don’t spread our seed and propagate our genetic legacy into the future. The very features we’re attracted to are attractive because they signify fertility. Next time you’re caught staring, just try the line: “Hey baby, just thought you were looking fertile.” She’ll profusely apologize and will give you her number as well as heart.

Indeed, whether a man or woman, better looking people are healthier over a lifetime. Men are attracted to women with youthful looks merely because they are far more fertile and successful mating and healthy offspring are by-far two of the most important factors the genes cause the mind to want. If looks didn’t dictate fertility, it would be just as likely that men would be running around chasing grandma (non-related) to mate with. Bars would be filled with 18 year-olds walking hand-in-hand with 74 year-olds, whom at the very least are experienced and have a wealth of knowledge to spread. It would also lessen divorce, but raise the number of widows. Fascinating.

The Secret Love-Potion Formula

We should be able to get at least some form of takeaway from this.

Men: Dress to impress – it’s that simple. Sure, go with what you’re comfortable in, but make sure that what you’re comfortable in doesn’t signify your aversion to money.

Women: The key takeaway is that your outfit only matters to the degree that it signifies your beauty. Believe me, men can be fooled with makeup. Although you might take make-up for granted, it should come as no surprise that makeup most emphasizes the youth-features that men find most attractive; namely, the lips, eyes, and high cheekbones.
Alternatively, as men’s attraction to a woman’s body can be measured mathematically (the closer a Waist-Hip Ratio of 0.7, the more attractive the body), you can pick and choose outfits that emphasize this hourglass figure.

Final Words

Now, I don’t want this article to sound superficial (ie, women are gold-diggers and men are shallow). Should men and women even be judged by these things? Our intuition says no. But let’s not be overly-sensitive. Assessing someone by their personality is, after all, a fallacy as well.

We tend to think people operate on free will; however, the further neuroscientists dive into the concept of “free will,” the more they find that people’s consciousness plays only a minor role in decision-making. You control your decisions about as well as you control your looks – shower and shave, yes, but you’re not changing your bone structure (at least not without some plastic surgery). Personality operates on a relatively static basis, so don’t get too judgmental about our biological mechanism of attraction.*

And judging by resources? Does this not reflect a portion of our personality as well(which as we already discussed is primarily static)?

Primarily, the people that desire resources and money will achieve them. In today’s day and age, in most westernized sections of the world, resources might not dictate survival, but, to some extent, it will dictate quality of life. Can you really fault someone for judging someone’s aptitude for success (monetarily) as an attractive quality?

Whether a man or woman, our desires are in a constant state of flux using various qualities; however, the scales on which they sit are skewed to one degree or the other, depending on the sex.

So, as a wise man once said…”the only fool is the fool that doesn’t try to fool the opposite sex before their first meeting.”

*It’s not to say that we can’t alter our personalities in certain ways, such as breaking bad habits or becoming a more outgoing person. The brain is incredibly plastic and capable of absorbing nearly any new skill and even causes changes in behavior via hormone alterations or through these learned skills. My central point is that people overestimate the concept of free will and the conscious mind.

This

What’s so different about him?

A slight genetic modification that has produced monstrous effects.

Just looking at him I feel the necessity to be armed, should the occasion arise that I run into this beast.

What’s his secret to abnormal muscle growth?

Working out? No. Steroids? No. Disabled myostatin gene? Check.

Now you’re asking yourself, “What is this myostatin and why does it have such unusual effects?” Myostatin is a regulation gene; in this case, it regulates muscle growth, causing it to cease after a certain point. This gene is not only present in cows, but also in other mammals, including humans.

What’s Stopping Humans from Utilizing Artificial Gene Disabling?

Belgian blues are bred to maintain their disabled gene and it’s obvious that if humans were able to genetically modify the myostatin gene that many males would be lined up for days just to receive the procedure.

So, what’s the holdup?

Although the Belgian Blue might be getting laid on a continuous basis, humans are not likely to benefit from this genetic shortcut anytime in the near future. First off, eugenics is a hot topic prone to controversy. Testing and research on humans is strictly prohibited.  And, even if humans could be guinea pigs, chances are, there would be many trials gone terribly wrong. To top it off, maintaining excessive muscle growth is extremely costly.

Large amounts of muscle means excess testosterone production and although testosterone might make you reek of manliness, you’d be better off without significant amounts. Although moderate amounts of testosterone are extremely valuable as it produces your sex drive as well as the genetic soldiers who ensure your future legacy, it’s also an incredibly destructive hormone within the body, eerily similar to cortisol, the “stress” hormone.

Testosterone in reasonable quantities = good

Testosterone in abnormally high quantities = kiss your ass goodbye sooner than expected

Why Women Love Your Testosterone

Beneficial on one hand and destructive on the other, there is one common theme surrounding testosterone—women love its effects, to an extent.

Ask a male what he loves about a woman and he’ll be pretty straight-forward: a nice curvy figure, plump (expletive), and a pretty face to match. If you’re an active reader of the blog, you’ll understand that attractiveness is mathematically measureable as well. Men’s ideal waist-to-hip ratio for women stands at a consistent .7 across the boards.

Women love testosterone’s effects because it signifies that you’re a baby-making machine (just kidding).  In reality, natural selection causes humans to utilize their senses to detect subtle clues in the opposite sex that might signify genetic health. Testosterone causes distinct alterations in male physical appearance. It plays a role in muscle development as mentioned previously, but it can also alter your bone structure, vocal chords, and even your aggressiveness.

The current theory with steam behind why high-testosterone is a beneficial attribute, revolves around the costliness of maintaining high quantities of testosterone. Since testosterone is destructive in high quantities, scientists believe that males able to withstand the excess “manliness” have stronger immune systems, something absolutely critical to survival—especially in our ancestors who were under more stringent evolutionary pressures. Natural selection over time selected people with any type of sensitivity to immune system cues (something also thought to be detectable through smells via the MHC).

With women’s continuously altering cycle—where only a few days are considered “fertile days”—there is even significant evidence that women are more attracted to males displaying high testosterone levels during her fertile days than throughout the rest of her cycle.

The only way to develop artificial muscle growth—a good, old-fashioned workout; however, don’t feel obligated to take it to extremes…unless of course you find women around you disappearing towards the middle of their cycle. 

But in truth, you’re lucky to be alive now, something most people almost certainly don’t appreciate fully – at least the majority of the time.

If you’re reading this, then chances are you’re in a fortunate situation in today’s world. You’re likely not living in an impoverished region that still lacks proper medical care, clean running water, and electricity. Even more-so, being alive at this point in time in history means you’re likely going to live longer due to advanced health care (although ironically, you’re probably going to live fatter); you’re going to have a greater access to knowledge than any single person a century ago; and you’re going to generally have freedom to perform an avalanche of jobs, depending on your preference. Dating-wise, in today’s secular society (at least as compared to societies of the past), you’ll also have more freedom on the date-and-mate game.

Choice Strain Stems from Evolution

The irony of being human is that we’re a jumbled circuitry of conflicting ideas. Blame evolution. When your consciousness evolved, which Daniel Kahneman – author of the excellent psychology book Thinking Fast and Slow – would have called “System 2,” it began to override your subconscious (System 1) in many circumstances, or at the very least, conflict with it through moderation. People feel like their system 2 is in control, when in reality, you’re subconscious system – the system that controls breathing, the majority of your moods, and what psychologist are coming to find out, much of your decision making – still controls the majority of your life.

Am I losing you in this consciousness mumbo-jumbo yet? The point to express in the consciousness discussion is that subconsciousness is the powerhouse in our brains, the main decision-maker (although our consciousness often takes credit for it, something eloquently written about in David Eagleman’s book Incognito). Subconsciousness also lives and expresses itself in heuristics – it’s what causes you to cast immediate judgment on people, make snap decisions, and gives you an overall feeling of whether you like someone or not. It also doesn’t deal well with large numbers. Now, that’s not to say that heuristics don’t have their place, we’d never have the energy storage to fund a system that didn’t use an energy-efficient subconscious.

Marketers long ago realized this conundrum: give someone a couple of choices and they’re far happier than if they have no choices, which would otherwise limit the choice to one product. Common logic (System 2) dictates that naturally, the more choices you give, the happier the customer will be.  However, something very odd happens here. Instead of buyers swarming due to the increase in variety, more choices instead causes a drop in sales.

The reason?

Strain and stress from the mental exertion culminating in a more negative mood. System 1 isn’t designed to produce a “gut” feeling for more than a couple of objects. This means that System 2 automatically kicks into gear to solve the problem. System 2 requires energy and creates conscious attention, something also associated with more stress and a higher likelihood for a negative mood. Goodbye sales.

Is This Applicable to My Dating Life?

Daters can take several lessons from this seemingly trivial process.

Most obvious: never make your date choose anything! – especially in regards to situations that might bombard the person with choices.

On top of this reasoning, here’s another backup stipulation – women desire men to be “choosers.” This doesn’t mean they want you blurting out their order for dinner to the waiter (although that’s a fantastic way to measure your date’s sense of humor), nor that they necessarily want you to make the majority of the decisions. It merely means that they want a man that has the ability to make decisions.

Indecision relates to weakness (as judged by System 1!) and weakness is an unattractive trait; after all, how can a weak male survive in the wild filled with testosterone galore created by male-male competition?

But, you say, we don’t live on the Savannah plains anymore, nor in the forests and jungles. Correct, but our brains are still hard-wired to believe we are – at least in terms of your System 1.

Perhaps someday, several generations from now, the minimal constraints involved in natural selection in today’s relatively safe world will create fewer requirements from the opposite sex, but until then – pretend you’re a warrior in the jungle.

Men constantly talk about the “idea” of being a man – ranging from discussions with friends to upholding the views commonly found in media outlets, such as songs, movies and TV shows.

Why is this critical? Perhaps it’s because one of the main “attractants” to women is a man that acts like a “manly” man (at least when it comes to certain situations) or even that men needed to understand their ranking in a hierarchy when it comes to other men.

The Evolution of the “Manly” Man

Something unique to men as compared to women is aggression. A lot of being a man revolves around aggression.

• As a polygamous species, male-male competition over females developed through millions of years of evolution and has remained steady in humans, up until recent centuries, at least.

The more polygamous the species, generally the more aggression that can be found (as well as size difference between males and females).

Today, humans are relatively tame compared to many animal species, where males will often kill other males, not only over females, but also over things such as territory and resources (perhaps we’re still not so tame on the latter).

When it comes to male-female interaction, males – for the most part – choose females based on looks. Women, on the other hand, have a more complicated choice-making system. Looks – referring to the “good gene” theory – do play a role; however, extremely critical, especially in ancestral populations was the ability for a female to choose males with resources who would also protect the mother and any children they had together (at least to an extent).

Over millions of years, this high selective pressure led to women’s ability to pay close attention to the subtle clues signifying a man’s “manliness,” aka his ability to protect her. Too much aggression and he might be a danger to her; too little aggression and others might be a danger to her.

Although that takes a relatively simplistic view at a complicated subject (and men are rarely accused of being complicated), men might even be more sensitive to other men’s manliness. The majority of animals roam around in groups or tribes, much like humans originally did. The hierarchy of males within the group often dictates mating success.

For that reason, men’s attention to other men would have also likely developed.

Are Less Manly Men Evolving?

In Richard Dawkins’ book “The Greatest Show on Earth” he outlines examples of Evolution in progress. One clever example discusses the counterbalancing of aggression and timidness. Animals in the wild often appear “braver” than what we’d consider ourselves; in other words, more manly. This gradual shift of humans to be more timid has taken place over thousands of years and is likely speeding up faster than ever given the population explosion.

Dawkins’ case is this (paraphrased):

Animals in the wild – where food is scarce – naturally evolve personality characteristics revolving around bravery. Timid animals would simply not be able to compete for food if a more aggressive and less timid animal shows itself.

But here’s where Dawkins’ hypothetical scenario for external influence on counterbalancing comes into play: If you took a landfill and placed it in the middle of the forest, and assuming it lasts forever as a plentiful food source, animals who were more timid would have a better chance at survival.

So the gist of evolution is: when selective pressures are mellow – such as the case for humans today – aggression lessens.

The argument of many people is that evolution has occurred over millions of years to produce who we are today. This is very true; however, the speed at which natural selection acts over many generations is being found to be quicker than originally thought. Rather than taking thousands, or even hundreds of generations for significant alterations in a population to take place, evolution likely takes place in only a handful of generations (at least when it comes to relatively simplistic alterations). This is, after all, the purpose of reproduction via sex – to create a higher amount of variation, subsequently preparing the species for an ever-altering environment.

• So in today’s society, where people live longer, food is plentiful, and people can nearly always find a mate – are men becoming less manly?

Well…it’s not gone yet, but slowly and surely, don’t be surprised if your future male offspring centuries from now rejoice in the beauty and manliness of Twilight. 

Every man wants it – the holy grail of sex. The right to claim “my manliness is simply too great to be contained by one woman.” Usually, people from both ends of the debate (who normally have no real knowledge on the subject) are extremely passionate about their viewpoints.

Those supporting monogamy feel that the ability to be monogamous is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Those supporting polygamy (usually as an excuse for their behavior) feel like monogamy is going against nature.

• The reality sits somewhere in the middle and most certainly varies in degrees…

You’re A Fox!

No, really. You’re a fox – both men and women. Given that there are quite literally, varying degrees of polygamy in the animal kingdom and it’s clear that humans have at least a slight polygamous tendency, it helps us to look at animals that behavior similar to us.

Enter Foxes.

• Why a fox? It’s probably a coincidence – to an extent – that they’ve evolved a similar pattern to us regarding mating in their social environment.

What’s Special about a Fox?

Foxes are seasonal polygamists. When foxes find each other, they stick to gether monogamously…for a period of time…for one season in fact.

And what is this season?

It’s a breeding season. Foxes stick together long enough to raise a child and then depart, repeating the same process, in general.

• Human’s average divorce-rate is 4 years into marriage – roughly the average age it takes to raise a baby.

Our Monogamy Idol

Think we’re the best species when it comes to monogamy? Think again.

The prairie vole mates with a partner for life. What causes this “pair-bonding”?

A chemical – Vasopressin (in males). Vasopressin reacts to receptors in the brain and causes stimulation in the reward system, much in the same way we get joy from eating sugary foods. The reward in this circumstance is associated with a single partner.

• Scientist can genetically alter a polygamous rat’s receptors in the brain to make this species act monogamously and vice-versa.

3 Levels of Human Polygamy

In the human brain, there are 3 different receptors to vasopressin, each person possessing one of the 3 types.

Your receptor type will alter your response to vasopressin, subsequently affecting your ability to pair-bond with a single partner.

Even in human species, polygamy-tendency varies. 

When most people play sports – including the majority of professionals – the clutch, high-pressure shot becomes incredibly hard to make.

Dating is not unlike sports. Both involve a few basic fundamental behaviors. In sports, we practice the basics of the game; in dating, we’re merely repeating human interaction, something performed since childhood.

So Where in the Hell Does Nervousness Come From??

Enter – Brain.

You can’t explain math without counting just like you can’t explain your behaviors without knowing the brain.

Need-to-know information about the brain:

• About 80-90% of your decisions are made subconsciously, including the actions you perform and thoughts you create.

• Consciousness evolved. There’s no solid theory as to how, nor why, but there is no doubt that the “self” most people identify as “them” is only a small part of the evolved brain.

Your consciousness acts mostly as a gateway for learning new tasks than a provider of instructions on performing tasks.

Consciousness, Your CEO

Scientist David Eagleman, in his book Incognito, asks people to think of the consciousness as a “CEO” of the body. It’s there for basic guidance for the rest of your brain; however, it’s merely a bystander in regards to the true essence of the company.

Even though consciousness is clearly beneficial and plays a large role in learning new tasks, such as dribbling a basketball, or language skills, it’s clear that the rest of the brain quickly takes over the task, allowing you to not think while performing the once difficult task.

Why? Energy efficiency.

Dating and Nervousness

Now that we’ve covered a very brief background – back to dating and nervousness. As mentioned previously, dating is only human interaction with a provocative title.

Attraction can interfere with the brain, stimulating the conscious mind to come alive – making a simple 3-foot putt extremely difficult.

What’s happening in these circumstance is interference with your subconscious brain – the part of the brain that normally performs the simple, repetitive task.

• This is akin to a painter – with a finished portrait – finding ways to continue to add paint to the canvas.

Only harm can come from thinking about a task after a certain point.

So Attraction is the Culprit

If it’s not attraction that stimulates you thinking too much, it’s generally some derivative of it.

Superficiality:

The Winner: Tie

Devotion to Children:

The Winner: Women

Power:

The Winner: Tie

Gay genetics

Other interesting statistics about gay genetics, related to biology:

• ~75% of children showing gender non-conformity (ie, boys that show significant displays of opposite sex behavior, who also spend the majority of their time with the opposite sex) later identify themselves as homosexual.
• ~20% likelihood of being gay if your fraternal twin identifies himself as gay.
• ~50% likelihood of being gay if your identical twin identifies himself as gay.

All these stats, according to scientist Michael Stebbins, author of Sex, Drugs, and DNA.

The moral of the story – there’s certainly more than meets the eye. And most importantly, there’s a lot of answers currently available.

Choices

Feeling gay today? No, you’re probably not – unless of course, you were feeling gay yesterday. “Gay genetics” – putting it informally – has become a hot topic in recent years and certainly for good reason. Being gay – at least in westernized societies – has been on the chopping block for quite awhile, being attributed to poor decision making. Luckily for our rainbow brethren, like many faulty assertions, this one is riddled with holes and in recent years will likely crumble “officially.”

Secrets of Science

When viewing homosexuality through an objective, scientific lens, the first thing noticeable about homosexuality is that it exists, to some degree, in over 200+ animal species. A poor choice on their part?

Bonobos – the closest genetic relative to humans, along with the chimpanzee – perform roughly 75% of their “sex” in a non-reproductive manner. For them, sex is a much broader social behavior that helps develop relationships (appearing to substitute for forms of aggression). And, oh yeah, they have a lot of gay sex as well.

Sheep are one of the most notable animal species featuring exclusively gay members (~8%); these gay sheep won’t mate with females under any circumstances. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the area of the brain controlling the sexual behavior in sheep (in this case, the sexual dimorphic nucleus within the hypothalamus) is roughly the same size between “gay” males and female sheep, while twice as large in heterosexual sheep.

 Inside the Human Brain

All of our behaviors truly stem from the brain, even the ones we take for granted. When it comes to emotion and attraction, our brain contains the receptors and produces the body’s endocrins, which dictate hormones in the body and ultimately, our behavior.

Male and female brains are quite different in their morphology. Morphological differences mean there is a distinctive layout difference in the brain. The layout alone, can create differences in behaviors (which is a point no heterosexual man or woman will argue).

Are humans like sheep – do our brain morphologies differ in heterosexuals and homosexuals? For homosexual men at least, who have been studied far more than women, the layout of the brain is thought to be more akin to a woman’s brain layout – at least as far as the hypothalamus (or parts of it), the region governing sexual behavior, is concerned.

The reason the word “thought” is necessary is that humans are tough to measure in regards to brain morphology and hormones. Regulations simply don’t take kindly to the idea of cutting up human brains (something that is consistently done in labs with much smaller animals, like rats or fish), but that’s not to say there’s not someone on your list you’d like to volunteer for the position.

A Homosexual Gene?

One misconception about the human genome is the “cookie-cutter” version, the fallacy that one gene controls one aspect behavior or physical feature of the body. Unfortunately, biology is an accumulation of small changes in the genome, acting randomly, causing a vast array of effects. Most aspects that make us “us” are in fact controlled by tons of genes acting together, much more like an extremely large orchestra, where a flute player might be holding up their partner’s trombone with his feet and a saxophone musician might have his hand on the clarinet in front of him (while playing his own instrument of course). It would simply be the most impressive orchestra you’ve ever seen.

The point being is that sexuality is extremely complex and the idea of discovering a single gene that controls it is highly unlikely to happen. The reality will likely be painted in shades of gray for individuals, where-by each person experiences degrees of homosexuality.

You Smell So Nice

And there’s a lot more than liking the “look” of someone; humans have a host of arousal sensories – namely through things such as hearing and smell. Numerous studies have been performed where participants are exposed to laundry, some of which is dirty. In reality, it’s coated with the sweat, ie pheromones, of the opposite sex.

Women prefer dirty laundry coated in men’s hard-earned sweat as opposed to clean laundry…and vice-versa. What’s interesting is that gay men, when subjected to the same experiment, show the same preference as heterosexual women!

There’s no shortage of signs that biological mechanisms are rapidly at work.

Think

Think again. I can even use psychology to predict who you are…

Your Profile:

“You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.”

Did this Hit a Nerve? Don’t be Surprised.

This seemingly complex and specific biographical paragraph resonates with close to 90% of those reading it, each claiming that the majority – if not all – of this profile represents the “real” them. It’s called the “Forer Effect” and it’s one of the many telling studies in psychology and this one’s certainly not cutting-edge information – it dates back to 1948.

To be fair, humans ARE unique when compared to one another – to an extent – which is the result of non-stop forces of nature, including sporadic mutations and environmental effects upon the body, each creating small deviations in the genetics of one person to the next. These mutations are beneficial as they create a constantly-altering machine that is the human body. Although nature spontaneously alters for the better, these mutations can also be for the worse (the location of the mutation on a genome is everything – it determines whether the mutation is beneficial or cancerous). In sexually reproducing species, genetic recombination via meiosis is the other key to genetic variation.

But, you say, “I’m nothing like anyone I know.” Well, you’re not if you pay attention to the subtleties; however, when it comes to the fundamentals of behavior (which is by-far the majority of our behaviors, contrary to what our common sense tells us), we’re pretty similar with our neighbor as well as an isolated tribe in the amazon (when you take out customs and traditions).

Overall, biologically, we’re just NOT THAT different, in that the majority of our behaviors are innate, common among populations (even incredibly isolated ones), and highly predictable via psychology and evolutionary psychology.

These differences become especially obvious when humans are compared to other species of animals. Our behavioral differences amongst ourselves becomes more akin to our viewpoint on the differences between individuals within a single animal species – virtually unnoticeable in our eyes.

Psychology of Dating in Your Life

A well-rounding understanding of Psychology in Dating can mean the difference between a relationship that “might have been” and one that’s still flourishing. No knowledge can guarantee success, but it can serve as your “advisor” to help encourage and constrain your actions when appropriate – something that becomes incredibly important in highly emotional situations…and dating, is a highly-volatile situation.

If you’re going to play the stock market, think like a broker, not an amateur. You’ll get ahead a lot sooner.