By example, because as a teacher, I'm well aware that a narrative is more effective learning in many cases:
Standard reactionary line:
Women prefer the life of a homemaker-mother to that of a working mother or single person.
Standard PUA line:
Men find fertility-cues the MOST attractive...WHR + facial symmetry.
IF you parse this line as saying
ALL Women prefer the life of a homemaker-mother to that of a working mother...
ALL Men find fertility-cues the MOST attractive...WHR + facial symmetry.
1. You're wrong
2. You end up with a particular notion of how society ought to be ordered.
I find this to be a largely natural, and nearly completely wrong way to look at the world.
The important issues is variance.
If we parse the above as saying
MOST Women prefer the life of a homemaker-mother to that of a working mother...
THE MEDIAN Woman prefers the life of a homemaker-mother to that of a working mother...
Then...we're in the realm of sane positions. I happen to believe that both of the above are true. On the other hand...neither of the above preclude the existence of, say, 40%, or 0.4% of the population that is naturally happier as a working mother or as a single, childless woman.
In short...the difference between ALL and MOST is enormous when it comes to policy implications. Since ALL is basically an insane position...we need to address the MOST question.
I will admit to being quite attracted to sexy, fertile-looking women. I've dated girls who are solid 9+s on ANYONE's scale. But they were fundamentally boring. I have very little interest in standalone sex...but rather seek a two-sided connection around the sexual experience. Furthermore, I'm so intellectually pushy/dominant in person, I get bored in weeks with girls who are not deeply independent. Furthermore...I'm deeply devoted to the topic of ethics...it having consumed a large amount of my thinking for the last 30 years. Hence...the people I choose to sleep with, I filter first on brilliance / ethics / super-confidence... and second on looks / femininity. I will and have turned down "8s" for more interesting 6s.
Ditto, my whole family reeks of (supported) hyper-confidence. Generally, through time, we've been better than the local bottom 90% on attractiveness (measured by romantic attachments) and physical activity/sports, and better than the bottom 99.99% on intelligence related tasks. Suggesting that my 150+ IQ, high confidence, physically active (lesbian) sister should defer to a man on damn near anything is insane. Ditto my harvard physics ph.d. girl-cousin. etc.
The question, once you consider variance is much more interesting.
1. Do we prefer a society that is super-comfortable for the median 67%, and far less pleasant for the outliers...
2. Do we prefer a society that screws with the comfort-level of the median, by reminding them that everyone is NOT like them, but which allows the tails of the distribution, 3 or 4 or 5 sigma out on various characteristics to find places.
I am deeply committed to vision #2.
People are different...along many axes. Heck...it's unusual to find a person who isn't 2 sigma out on one of the first 20 axes you check them on.
That gets interesting though, when you find people who are 4+ sigma in directions that disgust us.
The religious line that gays should avoid gay sex seems to me insane, and completely ignorant of variance in human nature..
Sex is a huge drive in most people. According to Athol Kay, it's pretty much nuts to ask a (married) man and a visiting woman living in the same house for a few weeks to avoid sex. Asking a healthy human being who has different drives to avoid those drives for their whole life? That's crazy.
Ok...what about crazier situations?
Suppose someone has a greater-than-average enjoyment from nicotine. Should they be expected to not smoke?
Suppose someone has a 5-sigma variance, and unlike the rest of us men who would just have sex with a 16yo in a heartbeat (if she wanted/could be convinced, and it wasn't illegal)...his real interests run to 8yos. That's what really gets him hard. (I have an 8yo daughter, if it helps with my reasonableness in asking the question). Suppose such a person concludes that to actually have sex with an 8yo would be harmful to said 8yo, and doesn't want to do that, because they're a good human being with highly unusual built-in drives. What should they do? And what should we do with them? I am personally a huge believer in using computer-generated pornography to allow them to fill their needs...and watching them closely besides. I prefer this solution to (a) locking them up forever (b) pretending that they don't have strong drives like the rest of us (c) asking them to just not have those drives.
The question is...how do you deal with variance.
The answer is: NOT by assuming there isn't rather large amounts...or trying to kill/disenfranchise anyone different from me.