Women demonstrated a desire to control their partners & more likely to use physical aggression than men. 1000 students in UK (similar results: Arbach, 2015) Evidence against male control theory, based on the idea of patriarchy.
My overarching observation is that across most categories, people seem to have about the same level of happiness. But ATUS data suggest:
❌ married women aren’t “fucking miserable”
❌ women who never married or had children aren’t the “happiest population subgroup”
To wrap this up: I didn’t explicitly state this above, but the problem with the “spouse in the room” statement was that it was based on misreading a key variable, as I explained here. In an email, Prof. Dolan said he believes I’m correct about this. 16/16
Unlike @NickWolfinger, I don’t have a dog in the fight over whether married people are happier than unmarried people. But building off of what he’s pointed out, Paul Dolan’s argument using ATUS data that many outlets have picked up is even more misguided than I first thought.
Women’s size preferences for muscles on a man’s body: 1. Obliques 2. Glutes 3. Abs 4. Biceps 5. Shoulders 6. Triceps 7. Calves 8. Delts 9. Quads 10. Pecs
Bodily attractiveness is an important component of mate value. Musculature—a crucial component of men’s bodily attractiveness—provides women with probabilistic information regarding a potential mate’s quality. Overall musculature is comprised of several muscle groups, each of which varies in information value; different muscles should be weighted differently by attractiveness-assessment adaptations as a result. In the current study, women and men (N = 1,742) reported size preferences for 14 major muscle groups. Women’s reported preferences provided only partial support for our hypotheses that women will prefer muscles that most reliably differentiate between potential mates to be larger; men tended to prefer larger upper-body muscles. We discuss possible interpretations of these mixed findings. Ultimately, our findings suggest that attractiveness-assessment adaptations are sensitive to the information contained within specific muscle groups and they highlight the potential for additional research on the nuances of bodily attractiveness assessment.
“Sex differences in muscularity translate into the average man being stronger than 99.9% of women…The sex difference in upper-body muscle mass in humans is similar to the sex difference in lean body mass in gorillas, the most sexually dimorphic primate”
Consanguinity is rampant in Indian M population just like the global Ummah, Arabs and pakistanis. First paternal cousin is the preferred mode, 2nd cousins in 1/4 to 1/3 cases with regional variations, no surprises they’re so sick and try to spread sickness
An analysis of consanguineous marriage in the Muslim population of India at regional and state levels.
Consanguineous marriage is widely favoured in a large majority of the world’s Islamic populations. According to recent estimates, the resident Muslim population of India is over 100 million. However, apart from a few numerically small or geographically defined surveys, little is known about their patterns of marriage preferences since partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947. This study seeks to determine the prevalence and patterns of consanguineous marriages contracted among Indian Muslims at regional and state levels during the last two generations. Data from the 1992/93 Indian National Family Health Survey (NFHS) were used in the analysis. The NFHS was a nationally-representative survey of ever-married women aged 13-49 years, conducted across 25 states of India. Of the initial 9845 respondents, 8436 were included in the final weighted analysis sample. Overall, 22.0% of marriages were found to be contracted between spouses related as second cousins or closer, ranging from 15.9% in the eastern states to 32.9% in the western states of India. In all parts of the country first cousin marriages were the preferred form of consanguineous union, and in four of the five regions paternal first cousin marriages predominated. Despite predictions to the contrary, there was no evidence of a significant change in the prevalence of consanguineous unions over the course of the study period, which extended from the late 1950s to the early 1990s.