Sunday, February 28, 2010

Rational Relations – Why only the Rich and the Beautiful should get laid

A friend of mine asked me recently whether a man can tell when they meet the woman who could be their wife. My response was swift and categorical. No. I suggested that one needed time to learn the woman and if any man claimed to tell a wife at sight, they only wanted to get laid. But I may not have had the opportunity to consider the question and to refine the response. I have since given it just thought and come up with conclusions that I am afraid will not be palatable to many a dear reader. Humans – no - animals have an innate ability to identify their potential mate. It’s a simple-complex process governed by a good hormone called a pheromone. The critical role of copulation has always been propagation of the species. Given that, the process of selection has always served the Darwinian end of self preservation.  Survival for the fittest. Anything else is hoopla! Love and marriage were a big mistake instigated by a group of women keen to detract the course of nature. Before you either damn me for my audacity or laud my nerve, let me share my argument.

Animals were never meant to be married. Never! Observe the cock in your village. He will mount left right and center without any qualms from fellow cockerels or hens. The process is simple, if I beat all the other cocks, then I win the right to lay you. Observe the weaver birds. The male who makes the best nest gets laid. Observe the bees. All males will chase the fertile queen-to-be who is wired to be very fast and the first to reach her earns the right to mate. For lions, the one with the best mane, or loudest roar, wins the right to mate with all the lionesses in the pride. This ensures that only the best genes get an opportunity to be passed to the next generation. That is nature giving us an indication of idealism. Idealism that we have for so long lived away from. As animals. It has been so long since we enjoyed the privilege that we have come to accept the current fallacy of love and marriage. For humans, the best have relinquished their right to fertilize. In the least, that right has been stolen from them.

When a man wants to know whether or not a woman is fit to be his wife, he must today consider her passions, her interests and whether or not they are right for each other. I assure you that all this is fakeness! Ideally, all one needed to do is to pick out the best genetic donor to contribute to a species that will survive the tumultuous times. Simple. For peacocks, the cock with the best display of feathers wins the battle hands down. For commodore dragons, it is a vicious battle and the victorious lizard wins the mantle. Simple. For humans however, the best get victimized for having a natural advantage and a conspiracy arose that defrauded them of such a vital and deserved right. I beg to ask, when did we start thinking about ourselves when looking for a mate? Are we alike? Are we compatible? Are we in love? All useless questions! We have a duty to ensure that we propagate the best offspring. That is the core. Its not about us, it’s about the kids.

Ever wondered why a man is only ugly until he drives a Range Rover? Ever wondered why beautiful women can get away with less than bright minds? I already said it. Pheromones. When a woman sees a rich successful man, she is wired to desire his sperm for the reason that the offspring is likely to be just as successful. A beautiful woman preferably with full hips and rounded breasts is desirable to men because she presents the assurance of fertility. It is the offspring in mind. But today, we have started talking about gold-diggers! That is a term that was invented during a seminar convened by ugly women and attended by broke men.  The agenda was affirmative action to ensure that weaklings in the species also got a fair share of sex. Humanity got selfish. The result was that we allowed inferior beings to in-breed and produce even more inferior beings. Previously, one successful male would have been allowed to donate sperm to whichever number of females to improve their profile. It was an opportunity of promotion into the pedigree cadres of humanity. Division of labor meant that other males stuck to menial chores and left propagation of the species to the thoroughbreds.

Think about it, have you ever heard a rich man complain about gold diggers? The reason is simple; they understand the idealism of nature. They have the advantage and the cost is collateral damage. Have you heard beautiful women complaining about the vanity and superficiality of men? No, because they know that nature has assigned them a special role. Only broke men and not so pretty women are whining about how unfair nature is in denying them copulation. They invented big words to cover up the conspiracy. Women on the other hand invented love to justify why men must settle for less than the best. Looking for similar interests and so on has come in as a distraction from the Darwinian role of mating. Monogamy is an advancement of that feminist agenda. Now the best males have lost the opportunity to donate sperm a variety of receptive females. Tiger Woods has now to apologise for serving the interest of nature. Ten well hipped, round breasted women have been cowed by one claiming the protection of marriage. In a recent post, Zumapithecus, I called Jacob Zuma an under-evolved African. He is fortunate not to have bought into the foreign allusions of love and monogamy. The rest of us are sold. We have lost the opportunity to build the best future generation. The fittest will not survive.

So to answer my friend’s question, ideally, a man ought not to care whether or not a woman could be the wife. It should only matter whether or not the two will generate offspring that will survive the coming of days. But this is not an ideal world. We have women to consider - and marriage - and love. Trivial, but without these backdoor conditions fewer males are getting the opportunity to mate. It takes a little more than a look, pheromone action and copulation. I do not expect wide support for such daring propositions. After all, the majority is neither rich nor beautiful. They are members of that caucus fighting for an undeserved right of propagation. But I will get the support of those who have earned their deprived right. I will get the support of Charles Darwin in his grave. But should these fail, will I care? I am the Tin Man. I have no heart. I feed on candor. I am a thoroughbred.

The Tin Man.


  1. for once am agreeing with you, as failure is the best way to success in whatever category one's want to put it.
    Life is all about how one person perceives it, and in every game there is always the winner,n loser what people dont care about is when its a mutual draw of understanding n you get to live even happier than the winner on one side.
    A lovely day to all.

  2. For once? Agree? Well, I would have expected a backlash especially this time. I struck chords that I knew would squeak. If that was music, then I cannot complain.


Recent Comments