(Un)Natural bullshit from the USA.

I find myself in a situation where at the mere mention of "evolutionary psychology," my hand instinctively reaches for my pistol. I know it's a strong image, but lately, there has been a wave of individuals who try to justify their behavior by claiming it's the most sensible course of action in terms of evolution. Then they spew out their daily load of nonsense. These "self-proclaimed evolutionary experts" seem to be abundant, especially on YouTube, and they often hail from a country with the worst educational system in the world.

One of the latest trends in absurdity is the attempt to justify "timosexuality," which refers to the attraction that certain women feel towards wealthy and powerful men. And when I say "justify," I mean to distinguish it from prostitution. The most commonly used excuse these days is to argue that, due to evolutionary reasons, it would be advantageous for females to choose the most powerful male, the best hunter, the muscular one, as this would ensure the well-being of their offspring.

I don't know what kind of science these ladies have in mind when they say such things, but they probably managed to escape their biology class unscathed. Firstly, when we talk about "evolutionary" matters, we're practically referring to any living thing. So, we first need to ask ourselves which species we are talking about. Plants? Animals? Fungi? Usually, we mean animals. But even among animals, things are not so straightforward. In some species, the male must be accepted by the female. However, these are rarely social species where there is a choice involved. We're not talking about packs where the female chooses, or where there is an alpha individual. So, we can narrow it down to mammals only. But I must say that creating a social moral code based on the behavior of a wombat or even a domestic cat would be challenging and wouldn't have the intended effect. It's true that a female cat chooses the male that mates with her, but it's also true that from that moment on, it's all rape.

So, we will have to narrow this analogy down to sufficiently organized social species, preferably among primates. Here's where the problem arises. There are different species of primates that form organized groups, including humans. In some species (although it has never been observed in Homo sapiens), there is an alpha male. So, we have this incredibly strong male who fights and prevails over all the other males (females never compete in this phase, as they are too weak), and at this point, he has proven that he is the cool one, the alpha, who can obviously provide greater support to any potential offspring. Now, the ladies might get all excited because they think it's easy to claim that females will choose to mate with him.

And here, the theory fails miserably. Because in these groups where they elect the alpha male through competition or duels, the female doesn't choose the partner. The alpha does.  The female doesn't  choose anything at all. She doesn't decide anything. Consent is not highly valued. In fact, it's not even requested. In these groups where there is a strong and capable alpha male, he decides. He decides which female to mate with, when to mate with her, he empties himself inside her, and then he just leaves without even saying thank you. In other words, in societies where the alpha male exists, the female doesn't decide anything. Her opinion is not required. The alpha male chooses. Period. Rape by default, if you prefer.

Here, I need to correct myself. This whole idea of favoring the strong and powerful male occurs in one particular species: Horses. The woman who goes after the wealthy can be called a "mare woman." Having grown up in the countryside, I know how horse mating works. The mare starts running, sometimes even in circles within the enclosure if any, and the male chases her. After some time of running like crazy, the female becomes exhausted. If the male still has the strength, then he is deemed worthy by the mare, and she decides that he is worthy. So, you might say, can we apply this theory?


While it is true that after verifying that the horse is a true powerful male, the female consents, let's not forget one thing: the male never asked (or cared) for her consent. He chased her to exhaust her and forcibly mated with her when she couldn't run anymore, taking advantage of his superior physical stamina. There are, therefore, two points of view. If we accept one, we must accept both. (I even saw a horse,  kinda son-of-bitch, running near the center of the enclosure, putting in very little effort, while the mare galloped near the fence. She got exausted very quickly, while he was almost chilling.But let's pretend that she also selects based on IQ.)

The cunning error of these theories is to believe that they can retain a part of the normal concept for humans, like the idea that the female chooses her partner, and then apply it to a context where that concept doesn't apply at all. Moreover, "choosing" the alpha or being chosen doesn't change the situation regarding parental care for the offspring. The reason is that in these groups where the alpha male exists, the males don't care about parental care. Usually, there is welfare within the group, which is typically executed by the females of the group. But it doesn't depend on whether the child belongs to Pino or Antonio. If the group exists, the female will receive the same welfare, whether she mated with Pino or Antonio. Not only does the dynamic of "choosing the alpha" not exist, but there is also no evolutionary advantage.


In the case of the bizarre theory about women choosing the wealthiest partners, for example, we should observe phenomena that we do not observe. First of all, we should observe that women who are with wealthy men have more children than those who are with poor men. Why? Because we just said that women choose wealthy men for the well-being of their children. Therefore, we should observe more children. Or at least children. But if we observe our species, we also observe something else: it is the poor families who have more children. Globally, it is the poorer countries that have higher birth rates, not the wealthy ones. This simple experimental observation should be enough to refute the theory.

If women were naturally inclined to change partners for wealthier ones, or to actively seek out the wealthiest partners, we should observe massive migrations of women from poorer countries to wealthier ones. Women would immediately start seeking out wealthy men to marry. But even this does not happen: migrations do not exhibit these characteristics. Therefore, we should not believe in this theory. Similarly, the theory that there are alpha males in the human species should also have observable effects that we do not observe.

If alpha males truly existed in the human species, we would not have a war like the one in Ukraine. It would all be resolved through a duel or a brawl between Putin and Zelensky. Because I want to point out that, being the strongest, it is the alpha male who fights. Especially with an external enemy: this is a common characteristic in ALL species that have alpha males.

If alpha males existed in the human species, for example, Mussolini would not have sent soldiers to Africa. He would have gone himself. Where there is an alpha male, not only does the alpha male fight, but any other public display of violence, strength, and power is considered a challenge to the alpha male. You might say, "But lions send the females to hunt." That's correct. The females. So if we had a similar ethology, Mussolini would have sent Italian women to invade Africa. Which is something we do not observe.

The second characteristic of the alpha male, where it exists, is the disproportionate size of his biological offspring. The alpha male, in other words, possesses all the females. And mates with them.  The result is that if you take a species with an alpha male, a significant portion of the next generation depends on him. However, we do not observe this in the human species. In France, millions of Macron's children are not being born, even though artificial insemination technologies would make it possible. Moreover if we had an alpha male in our society, he would likely behave like the alpha males in other species and, with access to artificial insemination techniques, prohibit other males from having offspring and impose his sperm on the whole nation. That's what alpha males do in species where they exist. But we do not observe any such attempts in Homo Sapiens.

This whole nonsense of "evolutionary psychology" or "pseudo animal ethology," which leads women to believe that prostitution is normal while leading men to believe that it's normal to drive an SUV to the corner store, has another catastrophic flaw. It systematically commits an error in its reasoning. It is only applied to defend, justify, or glorify the behavior of one party involved. But it fails to remember that it should apply to all parties involved.

I'll give you an example. When a woman cheats with a wealthier man, the experts in evolutionary psychology rush to tell you that it's normal because it provides greater guarantees for the offspring. But they always conveniently forget that if it applies to her, it applies to him as well. In other words, if he then grabs a crowbar and smashes the new partner's head, and maybe even the cheating woman's, there are excellent evolutionary reasons to justify that too. In nature, if you bother a lioness, you'll have to deal with an enraged lion. So, if we bring up this non-existent branch of science called evolutionary psychology, we must apply it to everyone.

And so, if we accept certain female behaviors because "that's how it is in nature," we should also accept certain male behaviors "because that's how it is in nature." But here we enter a minefield: in nature, female consent is not considered necessary, let alone required. There are few species where females select their mates, and hardly any are social species, and to top it off, none have an "alpha" element. If it exists, he chooses and decides, not her. The same goes for rape, which is quite common in nature. In conclusion, I want to say two things

The first thing I want to point out is that "evolutionary psychology" is not a legitimate branch of science. It stems from a ludicrous and romantic notion of "nature" and "evolution" to prove political theorems. It's like trying to establish the "thermodynamics of poetry" – there's simply no connection between the two. So, when someone presents you with an evolutionary argument, feel free to burst into laughter right in their face.

 The so-called "evolutionary psychology" is built on a faulty premise and lacks the ability to establish a proper control group. It's like trying to build a sandcastle in the air – it's just not possible. This pseudo-science tries to weave together unrelated concepts and ends up with a tangled mess of unfounded claims. So, the next time someone tries to dazzle you with evolutionary theories, give them a hearty laugh and remind them that real science requires more than just imagination.

The second point, on the other hand, is that even if these behaviors were true in "nature" (a concept that often introduces confusion into the discussion), no moral or political judgment derived from them should be applied to the entire human population. So, if it is deemed acceptable for a woman to cheat on her husband "because it's natural," we must also remember that monogamous relationships are rare in the world of primates, and therefore, the natural behavior of males should also be justified: impregnating anything that can be impregnated without necessarily obtaining consent.

Alternatively, you could question whether it makes sense to build a society based on the imitation of animal behavior. Speaking of reproduction, I'm not sure I would want to live in a society of hyenas, for example, while I'm quite tolerant about the bonobo monkeys, which I could apply for in the next life.

Just a thought.