...or to just inform those who are simply smart enough to learn from others. A society teaches morality for the same reason it teaches history, art, physics or anything else for that matter. For every luminary in the next generation, there are a ten thousand shlubs that'll be forgotten, but the luminaries need to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I don't know, any stats on that? A creepy-rape in a smelly alley by a petty criminal is qualitatively different from a non-creepy rape, and the subsequent trauma (the reason we think of rape as such a heinous crime) also would be different.

"You should read the work of radical feminists." No, I should not. I have better thinks to do with my time. They are lesbians, of course they think penises are evil. They can't force their views on the rest unless lesbianism is teachable, and it's not. Normal women are drawn to penises like bears to honey.

Jayman, Your second paragraph applies to basically every philosophy, religion, scientific theory, or idea. Most proponents of "something" will not understand what that is or what it means, regardless of the idea.

Thanks. Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious, wasn't it? HBD is based in the idea that people are fucked up, and there's little we can do about it. That's a revolutionary idea if you think about it.

> hybristophilia, where women are attracted to cruel and brutal criminals Your def doesn't match the wik one, which I am basing my thoughts on. I just don't think cruel and brutal are always apt predicates of rape and murder, it seems to me much underclass US White violence stems from somebody did X and then something led to Y, and plenty of times none of the parties are pure as the driven snow. And then of course infidelity is a huge cause of murder. And for rape, booze and insane lust -- glad I don't have the diathesis to lose control that way but I can still catch a glimpse, introspectively, of how it could happen were I rather differently constituted. But the wik definition even talks about armed robbery in addition to murder and rape, armed robbery being terrifying, and perhaps somewhat traumatizing to some women or high-affect men, but hard to call truly brutal on average IMHO, I mean Fritzl it ain't. I'm actually not trying to be a semantical pain in the ass, but rather, just explain fully why I suspect normal hybristophiles are probably pretty common and normal hyper-alphaphiles, as opposed to Fritzl-philes.

Fritzl was of course a defector from the social compact, not a real big cooperator. A free-rider. The main reason a woman is (often) into the Dark Triad thing -- I'm sure someone has more or less figured this out but I'm not so sure I've seen it made really explicit -- is that it's rather difficult for her to cope with socially defecting on her own behalf ; the man is better at it. But if he can do some robust defecting for their common benefit (more than the average bear), and get away with it pretty well, then they can enjoy freeriding the fruits of defection, along with the indispensable fruits of the social compact. It's a more general or deep kind of rent-seeking -- 'darwinian rent-seeking', which will often encompass the issue of rents in the market/money world but will also include other kinds of rents, for instance seducing a woman and then abandoning her when this was strongly against her expectation or the social expectation. Rent seeking is very well known to biologists, only they call it cheating or defection, and I have no doubt that it has been likened to economic rent-seeking more than once, but one does not see the connection underlined frequently. Fritzl is an ultra-defector, way waaay past the point of what is fitness-optimizing for him or for a mate. But it's completely typical of very damaged, distorted complex systems (here the alpha-philia biosystem) to seek extreme objectives and stimuli and generate extreme outputs. Humanities academia, or the visual fine arts in the West, are not dissimilar. To return to what I said about always considering the damagedness and suboptimality of individual organisms, this again is just the same as it is with institutions. We would never try to model the institutions of the US, Third Reich, EU, Roman Empire, USSR, contempo Russia, without continual reference to greater or lesser degrees of rent-seeking, internal friction, conflict, defection, suboptimality. In social bodies, it's largely individual and factional interest that causes suboptimality ; in individual organisms, the picture is more dominated by genetic damage (though organisms do face the problem of cells defecting against the body out of individual interest -- tumors). The mechanisms of suboptimality are therefore mostly disanalogous ; what is analogous, identical, is the need to keep suboptimality in the foreground of one's mediations.

The middle eighty? Come on. No need to exaggerate.

jim check some 'nonpaternity' figures bro. jim's like oh sorry, i thought we were talking about elephant seals the whole time not people. your take on women is over-eager, you must be an enthusiastic spirit after my own heart, on the other hand monsigneur i thought your recent comment on patriarchy was the best short L0&0$ of the subject ive read or heard anywhere.

I played lots of video games as a kid, and my take on the unrealistic female characters is that they aren't there to arouse the boys. They're designed to make boys happy by making it seem there are hot chicks who share their interests: fighting and killing. Of course they are still pretty and soft and girly when they have to be.

But you can't discount that both culture and nature normalcy has men leaning to dominance and women to submissiveness, which sort of makes male hybristophilia more exceptional as a deviation of this pattern. But perhaps some of the psychological explanations work both ways regardless of that, like some peoples' nurturing tendencies, of feeling compelled to fix the partner's problems (and the male/female differences in this regard also would make female hybristophilia even more likely besides the larger availiability of deviant men). Perhaps some men are also particularly susceptible to histrionical women, who may have some degree of more classic psychopathy/socipathy. But maybe the majority prefer submissiveness, perhaps another true analogue would also be the complete inversion, a somewhat pathological attraction to women who are totally idealized and "pure". There must be a "philia" name for something like that already, even though I'm just guessing here about the validity of this analogy. Perhaps another analogue in EvPsych terms would be that men are commonly attracted to promiscuous women, who aren't the best marriage deal either. That's perhaps the more common natural approximation of the violent male, as females themselves don't need or can't often resort directly to violence. But, as some studies show, attraction to girly/fragile females changes based on environmental conditions, so perhaps in other cultures where more "masculine" women are seen as more attractive, there's also more of an attraction to violent women and to extremely violent women the corresponding tail of the distribution. I particularly find kind of cool the idea that a woman could kick somebody's ass, being able to physically defend herself, but that's pretty much how far it goes. Even doing drugs without having much trouble with it is kind of a turn off already, having had trouble with the law with things other than running topless/naked where it's not legal is way worse.

My sources differ. What are yours?