Counter-Currents
1,644 words 
Part 1 here
But let us return to our story. A few days later, our young man is conversing with a friend and tells him, “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me last weekend.” Surprise and bewilderment can still be heard in his voice. He starts telling the story, but before he gets even half way through the other young man brings his hand sharply down on his knee and cries, “What do you know! Why, the very same thing just happened to me!”
The two men begin asking around, and it becomes apparent that the entire campus is turning into a kind of free brothel. Confusedly, the men begin debating just what has gotten into the girls. Why have they started behaving differently than girls had always done?
I have already given the reader most of the answer: they were acting on the utopian thinking of the time. They were young, stupid, and sure they knew better than their parents—as well as all other generations of women stretching back to Eve. It was time to enter the Age of Aquarius! The pleasure they sought in “playing house” with their dates was at least as much that of rebellion as of sex. Moreover, they may not have suspected they would not get as much physical gratification from it as the men, having been misled by the newly popular notion of equality (= sameness) of the sexes. If the boys are so keen on sex, surely we shall enjoy it just as much! (Women can enjoy sex as much as or more than men, but are less likely to do so as part of a one-night stand.)
So much for the young women’s motives. How did the men react to their unexpected sexual bonanza? They must have been simply overjoyed, right?
Wrong. Economist and columnist Paul Craig Roberts has left us a valuable testimony to the initial male reaction to the unexpected offers they received:
Many young men were of two minds about it. It was a helpful development for raging hormones, but it made it difficult for a guy to get a girl of his own, someone special to him.
It is normal for a young man to feel that if a woman has been intimate with another man, she can never truly be his. He will constantly picture her in the other man’s arms. For some romantically inclined young men, it can be heartbreaking to fall in love with such a woman. The situation is intrinsically hopeless (see the short story L’Arlésienne by Alphonse Daudet). Roberts recalls one young man of the time actually becoming alarmed that “nice girls are ruining themselves.” There is truth to this: women who have been intimate with many men can never form a bond to any man in particular. It is essentially the same difficulty communism meets with “what belongs to everyone cannot really belong to anyone.”
Yes, men want sex. If the reader was able to figure out this much on his own, congratulations. If all wishes could come true, men might choose to live in the Muhammadan heaven where every man can supposedly disport himself with a minimum of seventy-two gorgeous virgins. That way he gets both variety and exclusivity, for Allah can create as many new virgins as he likes.
But a little reflection will reveal the contradiction between the desire for variety and the desire for exclusivity among men living on planet Earth. If all men behave polygamously, they must intrude upon one another’s wives. Universal polygamy cannot coexist with wifely fidelity. Some sort of compromise must be reached. This compromise, known as monogamy, gives each man a woman and, if she is well-brought up, preserves the woman’s innocence until she marries him. If all women were virgins until marriage, the men would have to be as well, and the marriage bond would be that much stronger. Such is the traditional Western ideal.
Alas, this world falls short of perfection, and some women either “fall” to fornication or decide in favor of easy money by selling sexual favors to men. Men sense that fornication and prostitution are not socially desirable phenomena, but their natural urges can leave them too weak to resist. So they are sometimes no longer virgins when they finally arrive at the altar. But this does not mean men would want all women to become sluts or prostitutes to be passed around. Men do care about more than maximizing the amount of sex available to them from women. A tiny handful may even be concerned with the well-being of their sisters and daughters!
Those college men of the 1960s realized belatedly that the new sex they were getting was not pure gain for them but merely a trade-off, like everything else in life. You got a bit of hormonal release, but lost something most men had previously been able to expect: exclusivity. And men do not marry for sex, which they can always get from professionals, but for exclusive sex. Many young men felt, upon reflection, that this had not been all that great a trade-off. They blundered into it because, like all young men, they were dumb and horny (“well . . . if you say so”), and only later realized they had gotten snookered.
Looking back, the whole episode almost seems like a honeypot operation, an employment of sex to trap men in ways they could never have foreseen. Ever since, women have been busy inventing crimes only men can commit and of which only women can be victims: date rape, sexual harassment, marital rape, stalking, being a “deadbeat dad,” and on and on. For the male sex, that brief episode of casual rutting may have turned into the most expensive sex in the history of the world.
A sufficiently clever man might even have foreseen that those not there to observe events in person would blame the men of the late 1960s rather than women for the breakdown in traditional morality and mating customs. After all, many of the young men to whom it happened could hardly believe the change in women’s behavior themselves. Everyone knows women are not really like that!
I have called the campus sexual experimentation of the late 1960s “ground zero of the sexual revolution,” but for some time afterward it was understood to be the revolution. It was certainly what people meant when they spoke of “the sexual revolution” in the 1970s. As late as 1986, Chapter Eight of Warren Farrell’s book Why Men Are the Way They Are was entitled “Why Did the Sexual Revolution Come and Go So Quickly?” Of course, today many of us assume we are still living in the midst of it.
But such ambiguity is common with revolutions. When Edmund Burke wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France in the year 1790, everybody regarded that event as over. At the time, most observers assumed it had begun with the Storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and ended less than three months later with the October 5 Women’s March on Versailles. By 1790, things seemed to have calmed down.
As we now know, the Great Revolution had barely begun, and was to pass through a series of increasingly radical phases until at least July 1794 when Robespierre was overthrown. In the view of many historians, it did not end even then, but only in October of 1799 when Napoleon Bonaparte seized power. For a few scholars, it extended a bit beyond that point. William Doyle’s Oxford History of the French Revolution takes the story up to the Peace of Amiens in March, 1802. Such is the inevitable messiness and ambiguity of historical periodization, with which all serious historical thinkers are familiar. No one can agree on exactly when the Renaissance or the Romantic Era began or ended either. Examples could be multiplied almost at will.
So no one should be surprised at the ambiguity in the expression “sexual revolution.” It began as a brief episode, not unlike the Storming of the Bastille. This rebellious sexual experimentation could not last, however, because the girls quickly discovered that they did not really enjoy casual sex with multiple young men very much. Yet in a larger sense, that bit of youthful misbehavior proved the start of a mass phenomenon that has been unfurling itself for decades over the whole of American society and the entire Western world. This larger process is still playing itself out, and will not end soon—although I am confident that it will end, as all things contrary to nature eventually must.
Evanescent as the initial episode was, it established a principle that has never been abandoned in all the years since: that women have a “right” to sex on their own terms and without responsibility for any unpleasantness that might result either to themselves or to others. From this principle stems nearly every other aspect of our long revolution: divorce-on-demand, abortion-on-demand, date rape, marital rape, sexual harassment legislation, anti-stalking legislation, and all the social pathologies connected with family breakdown and fatherlessness. Everybody wonders what can be done about such evils, but few notice the single moral postulate from which they all derive, viz., (and to repeat): that women have a “right” to sex on their own terms. If it results in their own unhappiness, some man must be punished.
No one has ever tried to put this shoe on the other foot by suggesting men should have a “right” to sex with any woman they choose whenever they choose, something that would amount in practice to legalizing rape. But many men find it hard to say no to women who claim a “right” to act at whim, even when they require men and children to bear the most harmful consequences, or punish the men outright. And that was the real, lasting significance of what went on in those dormitory rooms so long ago.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
34 comments
As a purple-hearted veteran circa 1969-75, I have to say—I’m rather grateful I wasn’t burdened with this sort of analysis at the time. Had I known then what I know now, I might’ve missed out on the whole romantic prelude: the sharp uniforms, the parades, the kisses, the flowers in our barrels as we marched off with our girlfriends playing co-stars in our personal war films. Honestly, the nostalgia alone was worth the eventual fallout in the battle of the sexes.
This kind of insight, handed to young men prone to overthinking, might not just be unhelpful—it might be downright dysgenic.
And speaking strictly from anecdotal evidence: it was the girls who made the first move. Even the shy ones had their more assertive ‘sisters’ whispering strategy in their ears.
OK Boomer
And what is it you object to in my honest bit of life experience and speculation?
It smacks a little of bragging, perhaps?
Just another self-centered post missing the point. Yes, the article discusses how the women were making the moves and the guys were just happy to take what they were given.
“Honestly, the nostalgia alone was worth the eventual fallout in the battle of the sexes.” Your take away was it was all worth it. Glad to see you’ve gained some perspective over the years LOL
Fair enough. It is easy to be flippant about this topic once you’ve been through it. You only remember the good parts. I underestimated how serious it is.
I’m almost certain that even on an American campus in the 1960s, the behavior described in the article involved a very small minority of girls and an even smaller minority of attractive boys. The basic female strategy is ” attract but don’t deliver”. The female libido is very low and only the most attractive men arouse real enthusiasm.
The pattern you describe is certainly the one which holds today. I am inclined to believe less attractive / more ordinary young men and women were involved in the sexual experimentation of the late 1960s because the preceding society was monogamous and everyone dated, not just the highly attractive. The shift to intense hypergamy / polygyny came gradually after the dam broke. Socially imposed lifelong monogamy works to soften the disadvantages suffered by the relatively unattractive, although these can obviously never be eliminated entirely.
Is it possible to verify how it really was? When you talk to people who were young then, they usually mention the sexual revolution as an experience of “the others” that they missed. My own experiences only go back to the 90’s, but I always had the impression that the sexual revolution was more a matter of propaganda and advertising. It was basically an advertisement for this liberal system. The media and the elites were all about getting young men in particular to believe that somewhere around the corner there was sex with lots of beautiful, sexy girls and that their favour would be the reward for participating in the rat race.
Obviously not all the girls can have started slutting around in the late 1960s, and the whole thing was no doubt overblown at the time and has become even more so since. But some sexual experimentation certainly did occur, as Paul Craig Roberts reminds us. I also remember reading some shrewd comments by Robert Nisbet on what happened at Berkeley–to the effect that the girls probably were not really enjoying the sex all that much. The most experimentation probably occurred on campuses where radical political utopianism was also biggest. I don’t expect Wheaton College witnessed the same behavior as Berkeley, or that every Oakie from Muskogee (male or female) was participating.
It would be worthwhile digging up more of what was being said at the time, but it will never be possible to get a fully accurate picture of everything that went on behind closed doors. The utopian thinking of the time is easy to document, however, as are the long-term sexual dysfunction ever since. My own reconstruction of the “typical” pattern of the events in question is based largely on these, combined with the comments of contemporaries such as Roberts and Nisbet. As always with human phenomena, there were plenty of individual exceptions.
I think the first phase of the sexual revolution was pure hype orchestrated by lecherous rich men (mainly Jews). For a short time, they managed to convince some of the female students on campuses that it was cool for a girl to be promiscuous. However, this behavior went against the real female inclinations in sex (extreme calculation, hypergamy).The whole hype benefited only the most attractive men and then the various pimps who could more easily drag naive girls into various types of sexual exploitation (filming porn). If we ask, did the average men also gain anything? Probably just less procrastination by women before first sex, but that also meant a lot more unwanted pregnancies (despite the advent of birth control). However, just as soon the whole experiment jumped when lesbian feminists took up the cause and declared male sexual desire to be evil.
I follow up to this part, about the feminist idea that “women have a ‘right’ to sex on their own terms and without responsibility for any unpleasantness…” You later say “No one has ever tried to put this shoe on the other foot by suggesting men should have a ‘right’ to sex with any woman they choose whenever they choose…”
Is that really the other shoe? I grant that women seem to expect sex without responsibility, but I don’t see the “with any [man] they choose whenever they choose” part. The male equivalent seems to be not having to take responsibility for any resulting child, and also being able to claim victimhood if he regrets it, perhaps.
Could the availability of birth control have been the main reason why more women were willing to have sex casually starting in the 1960s?
I think that if access to birth control were restricted, the number of hookups on college campuses and everywhere else would drop dramatically.
If this is so, then it seems to me that banning over-the-counter contraceptives would be the most effective way to reverse the effects of the Sexual Revolution and to return a sexual morality that more closely resembles what existed before.
Yes
Oh please, Chicken Little needs a break.
The sky did not start falling because the Pill was introduced over sixty years ago. It took that long just to convince women that it was not going to fücking kill them, although they had no problem using it for “period control.”
I went to BYU-Idaho which has as a condition of enrollment contract to abstain from pre-marital sex, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (just kidding ─ in those days we actually had gun collections in the dorms).
But Mormon spouses do use birth-control of some sort in spite of their relatively large families. It is simply not the case that there was no access to birth-control on the BYU campus, although an oops was less likely to lead to an abortion than a bad marriage. In the 1980s when I went there, they were actually doing Red Cross blood drives on campus because there was less of a chance getting any donations tainted with HIV than with skid row donations.
An ex-girlfriend of mine graduated from UC Berkeley, however. This was in the ’80s also, and other than having some Liberal wrongthink about stuff like Apartheid, she was able to deprogram a lot of the Liberal claptrap. Years later she actually tossed the Berkeley degree as not being worth anything, a familiar outcome with higher education these days.
But anyway, she did not agree with the thesis presented here that there was all that much campus hooking-up going on when she went there. Occasionally you would have to fend off a Lesbian pass from some of her activist friends, but there just was FAR less “Sexual Revolution” than is typically stated. Laughably so. I don’t think the ’60s were really that much different on campus either. I also don’t think that Antifa chicks today are putting out ─ but that may be more from a lack of soap and water than anything to do with birth-control pills.
In any case, I think that WN efforts should focus on abating the scourge of coal-burning. Any Christian prude is going to always see endless sluttery everywhere, whether true or not. But they give their daughters zero guidance on miscegenation.
🙂
Yes, Race mixing is unquestionably a bigger problem than a minority of college students sleeping around all the time. There’s no doubt about that
Daryl Cooper talks about this in his podcast about Jim Jones. Young girls in San Francisco were drugged, used, abused, and spent by age 24. Summer of love, indeed.
Good one.
Eve had it in herself to be the weak link but it is alas Adam that committed the sin.
Separating pleasure from the act of generation was the pitfall in which they all swam.
“No one can agree on exactly when the Renaissance or the Romantic Era began or ended either. Examples could be multiplied almost at will.”
I think historians have pretty much settled on the idea that the beginning of the Renaissance is defined as the demographic natural catastrophe that occured during the Black Death that began circa 1348 and wiped out perhaps as much as half of the European population of the 14th century.
What this meant is that the per capita wealth rose massively, and suddenly the surviving gentry had the money and property that would allow them, for example, to hire specialized people to make marble statues of classical figures. And you suddenly got a flowering of classically-themed literature and a scientific revolution, whereas before you had the Church and their lice-ridden ascetics and the Dark Ages. Literally whipping your sinful flesh into submission or paying the Priest did not end the Plague.
This definition works because the Dark Ages were not nearly so Dark as commonly regarded, and because the High Middle Ages (after the end of the Crusades) were also a time of laying important foundations for Northern European progress. More so arguably than Rome and Greece unless we are talking about Law and Philosophy. I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about Rome and Plato to be honest.
And in the next century after the Plague, you got the Printing Press (1440) which was a game-changer with a very long reach. Eventually smart people had time that earlier would have been spent busting sod from morning to night and attending prayers, and they now could read and do problems in calculus and magnetics, or simply observe the heavens critically without writing obscurantist treatises in Greek or Hebrew ─ and they would not face the Inquisition for their trouble.
The Church by the time of Luther (1517) lost the power to order people to be burnt at the stake as Heretics for publishing the Holy Bible in languages that lay people can actually understand, so now you get the Reformation.
And now any clockmaker or Smith can interpret this quatsch and even have an opinion on the Royal Divorce or the Pope without getting a summons from the Lord Chancellor.
Plus the loss of Constantinople to Islam (1553) brings back the idea of Fortress Europe, but that Christendom is no longer Infallible. So you get a curiosity and appreciation for the esoteric learning of the Orient, and the arithmetic of the mullahs without the Kebab shops and the Anime tattoos.
I don’t see how anybody has really defined the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s other than Madison Avenue saying so. “You’ve come a long way, cancer baby!”
The synthesis, it seems to me, is that you have a weird convergence of Bluestocking schoolmarms looking to rap men on the knuckles for impure thoughts with their wooden truncheons AND the Leftist Lesbo man-hating “2nd Wave Jewish” Feminists perennially at war with the Patriarchy ─ whatever that is ─ who want “Liberation” from something to punish men. None of this benefits women but it is always to punish men. And the more concessions they get from Men, the more the Butthurt. The Church Ladies and the (((Feminists))) are not really that much different.
If we look at it more from an MK-Ultra perspective, for lack of a better term, it is easier to brainwash the masses if you can control deprivation that won’t quickly lead to certain death according to a simple hierarchy of needs.
Humans can go without oxygen for maybe four minutes without irreversible brain damage, water for about four days, and food for maybe a few weeks.
But SEX, well, as any cult from degenerate to sublime knows, the carrots and the sticks are carefully contrived. Maybe there are some weird LSD hippies spreading the Clap who like the idea of murdering celebrities and maximizing degeneracy. But the real danger is that pretty soon the self-flagellating scolds are seeing subliminal sex orgies spelled out as the foam circles the drain. Yeah, no, I didn’t like the nude dude on the Rush album standing in awe before the pentagram, but I didn’t go bonfire my vanity record collection when some Puritan Savonarola complained.
In general, the brainwashing (if we are going to call it that) does not have to be so weird if you can simply police sex; many of the faithful, or at least the Clergy and the brides of Jesus could probably go to their graves as virgins, and some belief systems would praise that above all else. Most modern people would (rightly) consider that weird.
In fact, the Afterworldsmen, as Nietzsche called them, can frequently convince the Faithful to do it to themselves, rather like the self-inflicted Orwellian hobnailed boot to the face. And pretty soon the uptight are laser-focused on finding the subliminal orgies spelled out for them on the Boob Tube with the antenna unhooked.
I despise somebody like (((Dr. Freud))) but he may have been on to something in that the fainting Victorians really just needed a few more orgasms (preferably with a life partner).
An organic and dynamic society has reasonable views about sexuality, and these are downstream from healthy racial instincts and other wholesome norms. There is no mystery about any of this. Like Justice Potter Stewart, we know filth when we see it ─ or at least we used to. There is a huge difference in the scale of the normalization of deviance between Woodstock and Drag Queen Story Hour.
There are too many extremes from both sides here. We need to not lose sight that we did not get into this mess as a result of some overhyped decade (contrary to many of the Zoomers here that likely won’t get my Virginia Slims advertising reference above). I just don’t quite follow the purpose of all the pontification and hype.
🙂
…
As someone with (I admit) no experience of sexual promiscuity, I have always been curious as to what practitioners find enjoyable or fulfilling about it, particularly the women. I wonder if the author has written, or might write, anything on this subject.
Promiscuous women are that way because they have a lot of “baggage”. They’re not doing it because they love it.
I believe men who say this line have not been on the receiving end of feral female sexuality. In my high school years and early 20s, in the 90s and aughts, there were social cliques that had women who passed themselves around like human sex dolls by their own volition. There was a routinely-unsupervised home I spent time at which was a place of utter debauchery and the females who went there were eager to give sexual favors to the males who were there. They liked it, as the males did! How much baggage could they have accrued at such young ages? And why can we not possibly believe women don’t like an activity that feels wonderful, in this case, sex!
I indulged in a fair amount of sexual hedonism in the aughts, when dating sites (not apps) were picking up steam, which, had I know what I know now, might have not partaken. And I’m not saying this as some humble-bragging boomer. I’m a Xenial from one of the most socioeconomically and multicultural places in the country and observed and experienced the sexual revolution during the 90s up close. I cannot share the details of the sexual enthusiasm of women I’ve known and those who I met during those years. I even had a friend I made at the gym who brought out three different women separately several times to “hang out” with us. The description in this essay of a college girl choosing to get busy don’t after a date is a nothing burger compared to some of the advances I experienced. And I’m not a high-status man.
During my freshman year of college, I sometimes had to keep a straight face when some women introduced me to their back-home boyfriends because I had already met their on-campus boyfriends.
Folks, don’t get unleashed female sexuality twisted. They like sex just like we do, and with no guardrails up, they’ll act act as they wish, as do many men. And that is porn come to life, as I call it.
Read “Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers,” “Back to Africa: Sexual Atavism in the West,” and “The Question of Female Masochism” by Roger Devlin. Hopefully he or Beau will chime in on this.
I’ve known plenty of sluts and they all have the same backstory. Broken homes, low self-esteem, substance abuse.
Women don’t experience sex the same way men do. None of your made up stories are going to convince anyone who’s not an incel.
None of my stories are made up or fantastic. You think stories of women throwing themselves at men who they find attractive or high status, of college women cheating on back-home boyfriends, of women indulging in threesomes with gym-going, attractive men, of a guy exploiting online dating, of women and of women who aren’t from screwed-up backgrounds indulging in so-called casual sex are fantastic?
I met some women from online who after a measly three dates would ask, “Why aren’t we having sex yet?” Some asked “why didn’t you kiss me?” on phone calls after first dates, to which I would reply, “I wasn’t sure I should kiss someone I knew for a few hours.”
As stated, I don’t recall this to brag. I recall it to confirm with personal experience how sex has no more regulation as discussed by Devlin in this article, and not solely for women with “daddy issues” (although that’s a factor for some women) and that such promiscuity is not only reserved for high-status men.
I was waiting for the incel slur to pop up somewhere in a conversation about sexual dynamics.
OK, as summoned. I’m literally a 1960s love child, and I wouldn’t exist if the very scenario described here hadn’t taken place on a campus long ago. On my personal behalf, I can’t complain too much.
As for adventurous women in general, I regard them as a blessing. Of those who’ve come into my life, I treasure them and cherish them.
Thanks for the reply Beau. In your experience, were adventurous women you encountered mostly troubled, as is so often assumed? I’m sure what I wrote doesn’t seem fantastic to a man such as yourself.
Even though I indulged, after self education on the matter, I now believe sex should be regulated to an extent, and that’s what serious societies have done.
Lack of regulation got us into this mess.
Some of my girlfriends did have troubled backgrounds, but not most of them. I learned to beware of “red flag” situations. I’m speaking in relative terms, though; these days, most people do have baggage of some sort.
Anyway, I think a big factor is upbringing, as well as the peer environment. Then there are individual differences. It’s the same way for guys too. For instance, I’m not a complete libertine, and there are certain lines I won’t cross. Some others will be up for whatever comes their way.
As far as the Sexual Revolution goes, it seems to me that the genie is pretty much out of the bottle at this point. A religious revival is the only thing that would have a prayer (if you’ll pardon the expression) of doing anything, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on anything like that happening. Probably the best that can be done is to get more conventional folk wisdom out there, as well as moderate certain bad tendencies, such as certain dating apps and e-thot platforms. The playing field was already tilted, and then Tinder and Onlyfans became game breakers.
Thanks for the input Beau.
The situation described in the opening article couldn’t be more different from my own experience as an older millennial circa 2000 and beyond. Nothing was as foreign to girls in my generation as some casual or low threshold indulgence in sex with random guys. Sex was an entirely rare overpriced commodity almost beyond the reach of mere mortals. There was overwhelming competition circling around every even remotely attractive girl I could remember. It always seemed to me that good-looking girls were already born with a boyfriend who was as a rule much more attractive and masculine and more cool than me. All my peer groups in my youth were characterized by extreme hypergamy, where dating was basically the domain of a few alpha males and the other guys were just envious onlookers.
Perhaps I should add that men from previous generations, if they were “late bloomers”, were usually able to marry in their thirties, when they could choose their partners from women a decade younger. For men of my generation, however, this meant targeting younger millennial women, who were the first age cohort of girls to be extremely oversaturated with male interest via the internet. This was essentially the most picky generation of young women in history, each of whom felt like a mini-celebrity thanks to social media.
This is a very insightful comment.
🙂
Yes, social media is a banquet for female vanity. They think their pool of potential suitors includes the entire world. But as I have written: no matter how many fish their are in the sea, there is still only one boy for every girl.
Evolutionary psychologist David Buss had an interesting theory of why the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ of the sixties happened when it did. He argued it was a simple consequence of the baby boom generation coming into sexual maturity.
On this view, since women/girls generally date, marry and have sexual relationships with men/boys who are somewhat older than themselves, the result was that, when the babyboomer girls came of age, there simply weren’t enough older males to go around.
The result was that, to attract an older male, females had to compete by giving males more of what they wanted – i.e. sex.
Buss writes:
“In the economics of the mating market, whenever there is a surplus of one sex, the other sex is in a better position to get what they want… Secondly, it’s very well documented that men have a greater desire for sexual variety, for a larger number of sex partners… When the baby boomers reach sexual maturity, since women desire men who are older, the pool of men they desire is much smaller, and so for these men who were born just before the baby boom, there’s a surplus of women. So you’d expect to see a lot more short-term mating going on in that group. And that coincides with what happened in the sexual revolution of the late sixties and early seventies a surplus of women reaching sexual maturity.”
This obviously doesn’t explain everything. I suspect the sudden widespread availability of the contraceptive pill was also a factor. But it is a very clever elegant theory.
https://oliverscottcurry.squarespace.com/s/buss1996.pdf
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.