As much as most women absolutely hate it, the evidence that there is a statistical correlation between past and future behavior is remorseless. The Audacious Epigone goes through the GSS and uncovers the following data related to the number of men with whom a woman reports she has had sex and the percentage of married women who admit that they have been unfaithful:

00.0% 1 (by definition)
10.4% 2
14.9% 3
17.7% 4
21.6% 5
26.0% 6-10
36.7% 11-20
46.8% 21+

It’s interesting to see that most married women still do not report cheating regardless of their personal history; one might have imagined the 21+ crowd to surpass 50%. Some of the other interesting data derived from the GSS data is that male atheists are the most likely to be unfaithful (30.2%) while women who are vaguely spiritual and believe in Some Higher Power are the worst risk (25%). And only 2.6% of Slim women report cheating while married versus 15.7% of Stocky ones.

On a related note is what young women tend to deprioritize in terms of what they want in a man. And unsurprisingly, it isn’t what they will later prioritize in a marriage.

“A second measure is the number of sex partners that “sub-optimal men” have had. I define that group as men who are 22 years old, dropped out of high school and don’t have a full-time job — men who don’t have a lot going for them. We compare the number of partners they’ve had with the number of partners of a male college graduate who is employed full-time. Theoretically, if sex is valuable to her then she’s not going to trade it away to just some crummy man, and when we look at the data, we find that those sub-optimal men report a lot more partners than men who actually have a lot going for them.”

As with most things, it all comes down to economics in the end.

A fascinating defense

PZ Myers makes a remarkable “argument from inhuman sociopathy” in defense of abortion:

[T]he standard bullying tactics of waving bloody fetuses might cow the squeamish, but I’m a biologist. I’ve guillotined rats. I’ve held eyeballs in my hand and peeled them apart with a pair of scissors. I’ve used a wet-vac to clean up a lake of half-clotted blood from an exsanguinated dog. I’ve opened bodies and watched the intestines do their slow writhing dance, I’ve been elbow deep in blood, I’ve split open cats and stabbed them in the heart with a perfusion needle. I’ve extracted the brains of mice…with a pair of pliers. I’ve scooped brains out of buckets, I’ve counted dendrites in slices cut from the brains of dead babies.

You want to make me back down by trying to inspire revulsion with dead baby pictures? I look at them unflinchingly and see meat. And meat does not frighten me.

It’s probably a good thing he is an atheist without any moral standards, otherwise he might demonstrate at least a modicum of conscience for the bloody acts in which he appears to take such pride. And if he happened to take any sexual gratification from them as well, who can say it is wrong from his perspective, given his total lack of any moral or ethical code. If he feels no revulsion at looking at the pictures of butchered babies, then he likely feels no revulsion and sees only meat when looking at pictures of dead Jews and murdered Ukrainians as well. The awful thing is not that the pictures do not frighten him; they do not frighten me either. The awful thing is that he does not find them revolting like any normal human being with even a minimal amount of empathy would.

This is the naked face of atheism, ladies and gentlemen. Look on it well and remember it, because it usually doesn’t dare to show its disgusting and anti-human nature so openly.

Pat Buchanan on China and free trade

The growing power of China and the decline of an indebted America is just one small aspect of the strong historical case against free trade:

Revalue your currency, we demand of the Chinese, stop running these trade surpluses at our expense, start practicing free trade, and abandon these mercantilist and protectionist policies. But why should they? Why should China abandon a trade policy that is working marvelously well for them, and adopt a trade policy that is failing dismally for us? Does that make sense?

Why should any nation emulate the U.S. trade policy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era that has stripped us of a third of our manufacturing jobs and made us dependent on China and the world for the needs of our national life and the borrowed money to pay for them?

Why would China, seeking to make herself an independent and self-sufficient nation, adopt a policy that cost us our independence? And what are the Chinese doing in their ascendancy to first power on earth that we did not do in ours?

One of the interesting things that readily becomes apparent when reading Rothbard’s An Economic Perspective on the History of Economic Thought is that virtually everything the free traders – and I was once one of them – believe about economic history is wrong. They have various theoretical problems too, to be sure, but history provides an easier means of undermining the primary intellectual engine for totalitarian globalism than comparatively esoteric economic theory. Of course, the weakness of the free trade case is very easily seen in the way that they immediately retreat from their previous analogies and arguments as soon as their weaknesses are demonstrated.