There are so many blonde jokes. At first I thought those are jokes. But there are so many of them, I thought I should actually check things out. I ended up reading up on the net trying to verify. There isn’t a lot of effort trying to deny it. There is no scientific evidence supporting it either.

For comparison, there are tons of debates, enough to kick Kanazawa out of his famous blog, when he said that black girls are less attractive. Curiously, black people have 15 points lower IQ than whites. Yet I do not see many dumb black jokes.

Out of curiosity I asked in sceptic stack exchange. The answer is actually not very surprising to me. Blondes, are not only NOT dumber than the rest of the population, they are actually smarter. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8507/are-blondes-really-dumber-than-others-by-how-much and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5274/are-blondes-dumb-or-is-it-just-a-sarcastic-saying.

Blondes actually have higher IQ average than general population. Not much, only 1%-2%. Still, not bad.

One of my business partners that introduced me to many JV is blonde. He’s quite smart and the only one honest among my short stint adsense arbitrage.

What’s significant is what I remember 12 years ago when I was a graduate student studying plasma physics. I once personally knew a very smart blonde male. He is more competent than I am. He did all electrical experiments better in our classes.

One day I was reading a book about conversion and transformation in non orthogonal coordinate system. We need to use that to build a working stellarator so we can run fusion reactions and bring tons of cheap energy. If successful, we may actually get a nobel prize or two or something to help pay the bills, so the professor said. The book was very good. I am very impressed.

I start imagining that one day all schools will teach coordinate system this way. Then we put orthogonal restrictions and show kids how simple life would be if coordinate systems are orthogonal to one of another like what it mostly is. That should teach kids how fun and beautiful math is.

“Is this best seller?” I asked the blonde. “Are you kidding?” said the blonde. I was embarrassed. Ah. It must be a stupid question. It’s a very good book. Of course it’s best seller. What follows surprised me. “This book is only useful to build stellarators. Only 9-12 people in the world are working on it and need to use it. So no, it’s not best seller,” the blond spoke dismissively. Well, he’s quite aloof but not dumb.

For quite a while, I still didn’t get why many won’t just study the book for fun.

The message is clear though. If I want to be successful at any businesses, the simpler way is to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I should please the majority of the crowd, rather than serving some super smart elite freak that nobody understands.

That unusual important life insight, the blonde taught me, is one of the guiding principles I used. I dropped out of graduate school and be a businessman partially because of that. Why bother learning something very few people understand? Connecting with the mass is more important than finding the one truth only a few know.

I also expand to bigger market with bigger market share, like China, for my internet marketing bizs.

Also in bizs, as in politic, I simply presume that everyone is a psychopath with really really shiny masks. I ignored their masks and game them to behave the way I wished. Words, are just words. Incentive is everything.

Homo economicus theory should have really been replaced by homo psychopathus or something.

I met quite a few blondes in my life. I really have no impression whatsoever that they are dumber than other people I saw.

My best guess and I do not think it’s a guess at all, is that blondes are not dumber than the rest.

But there is something that makes people keep making those harmless blonde jokes.

I remember a russian TA every male want to meet. Guess what she is also blonde.

Samus Aran, a video game character made by the japs, also features a blonde. So are many videogame characters made by Japanese, even those aimed at Japanese market. Japanese, are not blonde. They often die their hair blondes. Blondes are over represented in video games. Two out of original 8 street fighter characters are blonde even though adult blondes constitute only 2% of the world population.

Blonde girls may be slightly more attractive on average, than non blondes. Not all blondes, of course. I know those who aren’t that hot. But on average, they may be more attractive.

What’s the connection between attractive and dumb? Normally we would think that the connection is positive. So why when someone is more attractive people think they are dumb?

In one short word: jealousy. This phrase may express this more clearly: gene pool socialism.

The truth is there is nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong, with being blonde. It’s just that because they have some positive quality, jealous people come up with some negative traits for them.

Attractive people are competitors for many. So to explain away and justify gene pool socialism, people tend to compensate positive quality that mates desire with something negative. So blonde girls, because they are more attractive, are called dumb.

When talking to many people, I often sensed an obvious strong deep seated believe among white guys (and  mainly westernized guys) called monogamy assumption. For a bunch of totally irrational reasons, they believe that somehow humans are paired one on one. They think everybody should have equal number of spouse, namely one, and roughly equal number of kids. Let’s call them gene pool survival socialists. They think the optimum number of mate is 1 for every person and the optimum number of kids are around 2.5 or something.

It’s like socialism. Socialists think that everyone should or would naturally make the same amount of money. Gene pool survival socialists believe that everyone should or would naturally have one and only one mate. Socialists will think that something is wrong when one guy makes more money. The same way, tons of people would think that something is dead wrong when one guy or girl, get all the mates, attention, sex, better terms, or if they breed more kids etc.

Monogamous assumption obviously would work just fine if all humans are equally sexually attractive, equally determined to make kids, equally capable to support kids, etc. The problem is, that’s obviously untrue. There are beautiful girls, there are ugly girls. There are rich smart males, there are poor dumb males. There are those who want kids, there are those who would rather abort their babies.

It’s natural that more attractive people either get more mates or get higher quality mates or more favorable terms, or all 3. It’s natural that some people have more kids than others.

It’s natural then to expect non monogamous pairing under free market and grossly unequal number of children. However, the market for sex and reproduction is not totally free. In fact, if we think the market to mean commercialized market, there isn’t much. Yes humans are, mainly monogamous mainly due to many prohibitions against choosing the alternative lifestyles.

So how do people explain away the obvious discrepancy between disparity of sexual attractiveness, preferences, and capability to make better offers and apparent almost equal success in getting mates and breeding where almost everybody got 1 mate and make 2.5 kids?

Simple. When a competitor has an edge, jealous competitors will be discredited to compensate their edges.

Ah, blonde girls are more attractive. They must be dumb.

Ah Asians fill our engineering schools. They must be nerdy.

Justin Bieber got so many girls. His song must sucks and we need to slaughter him before he breed more kids. Those are actual jokes I read by the way. I am not making this up. Hei, just look for more here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101126110730AAEY1IM and http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/288324-justin-bieber-jokes-and-burns. Oh wait a minute, he’s blonde too.

All those are just harmless jokes. Government doesn’t enforce that anyway. There is no law that says that because blondes are dumb they must be prevented from going to school, etc.

But when the “edge” starts getting bigger, most societies respond with something far more than harmless joke.

For example, it’s obvious that males like young beautiful women. For women, beauty and age matter far more than how rich she is in attracting a mate. It’s obvious. So it’s very normal that women want to mate and get pregnant when they’re still young and valuable. It’s also natural that many beautiful women are not that determined to be good engineers, nor would we expect them to have such talents. Why study Math, calculus, and stellarators if you’ll end up becoming a housewife?

So what do feminists call that? Oppression.

Men wanting younger women are like blonde girls being blonde. There is nothing wrong with it. Somehow that male is called a manipulative pervert.

Not as obvious as the above is that women prefer the rich. Males that postpone getting married may be able to accumulate more wealth and acquire prettier girls. So it’s normal that most males work harder than women to pursue careers. Let’s put it this way. Men that don’t get rich can’t afford their kids. In ancient time, before welfare, that means not being able to attract a mate either. For most men, the rule is get rich or go extinct. Financial and political success for most males are pretty much a must rather than an option. Somehow this is called male chauvinism.

Again, there is nothing wrong with women picking the rich. If all women pick the rich, there will be no more poverty in the world. Somehow, those women are called gold diggers and males that accept them are called shallow. Most consensual relationship where women pick richer males are actually borderline illegal.

Currently, the marginal costs of breeding and raising children is artificially low for the poor and artificially high for the rich. In other word, some people are favored and subsidized by government and some are penalized from breeding.

For the poor, the cost is lower because of subsidies, food stamps, and sometimes typical cash incentive. For the rich the cost is artificially high. Marriage, for example, is far costlier for richer men than for poorer men. Child support and alimony is statutorily set proportional to the man’s income.

It’s as if the rich smart males that productively serve the society has such a low status that they do not deserve to stay in the gene pool. It’s simple genocide against the rich and productive.

The easiest way a rich man can persuade women to sleep with him is to just pay the women. Well, that’s illegal. The law is so comprehensive that someone noticed should all relationship where women get paid and men get sex from those same women is illegal, we would have all been criminal.

Quite often, women simply prefer rich smart males that offer money than poor dumb males that offer mere marriage. We can see samples here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080711095317AAGNPkp. In fact, any men still offering marriage must be less desirable as shown here: http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/764/does-marriage-terms-tend-to-kick-out-more-desirable-mates-males-out-of-mating-ma

So what’s the stereotype? Any men that are paying must be really unattractive. The deal must have been so bad that it can’t be consensual. Is it? Well, http://www.sugardaddybabes.com/weblog/2008/01/24/famous-sugar-daddy-celebrity-relationships/

It’s not just a joke. Governments actually make it difficult for women to pick rich paying males. Most of the ways are illegal or borderline illegal.

So why not let the women choose?

Because no women could possibly want to be a sugar baby?

I went to college in Las Vegas and can tell you at least a third of the female student body were stippers or had a sugar daddy. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110223122755AA0W5kc

Women do want to be sugar babies under free market. We’re talking about at least a third of female student body. Those are beautiful women whose parents are rich enough to send their daughter to college. Not a bad catch. It’s the crème of the crop of women population. Most horny men would consider only what they wish and start considering what other women want should they fail to get one of those hotties.

Sugar relationship is mutually beneficial for both richer males and many women. Rich men can have sugar babies without fearing bankcruptcy or fear ended up paying a life time of alimony. Women that are not hell bent on destroying a rich man’s life can then pick richer males. Not sure how long government will let this happen before it starts interfering.

As someone points out it’s still grey area.

Being a “sugar baby” entails a “relationship” even if that relationship is based on false pretenses. People that enter into these relationships know what they are getting into. The term relationship changes the terms of solicitation for sex.
If one of the people from this web site were to solicit sex for money, then it would be prostitution. The fact that they are being treated well for being someone’s partner in a relationship doesn’t quite cross the line into solicitation.
It’s all a very grey area, and eventually someone will use the wrong terminology and wind up being charged. Until then, it’s legal. Whether it’s moral or not is another question altogether. - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110223122755AA0W5kc

There is nothing wrong with being a sugar baby. There are far more wrong things that happen in marriage than in sugar babies relationship. I never heard somebody going to jail for 14 years because of being a sugar daddy. I know a husband that has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick.

However, as usual, people will claim that it’s wrong, even though there is nothing wrong.

Then sometimes the choice gets even more obvious.

We know that Taliban men are not rich. Not to mention they like to cut women’s noses and stone them.

Maybe women are hardwired so differently than men. However, I think it’s pretty obvious most women would rather be wife/sugar babies/sex workers for some richer males in rich countries than in poor countries.

Again, there is nothing wrong with women from poor countries wanting to mate with richer men from richer countries. In western world, women are more valued than in afghanistan. Hot women can earn $5500 per hour in western world such as these http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw. That’s far more than what typical afghanistan’s husband can offer. There is absolutely nothing wrong.

Then what? Genepool socialists will claim that somehow those obviously rationally profitable acts can’t possibly be consensual.

Why not just let the women’s choose?

This time it’s no longer just jokes. It is an actual lie that most people actually believe. Government actually enforces these jokes with anti women trafficking laws. The laws explicitly said that consent of the girls is not a defense.

Then what?

What about jews? These people won so many nobel prize. They are also performing well in businesses. They look pretty good to me. What happened to them?

When people are very smart, and are successful at businesses, we would think that they are superior. Maybe genetic, maybe culture, who knows what. They’re fine. Not so according to genepool socialists. Eugenics simply claims that they are inferior. Again, no harm is done as long as governments don’t get involved. When governments do get involved, boom, we got the most famous mass murder in the whole history.

Yap. They became genocide victim. So were the Armenians in Turkey. So were the rich in china. All the victims of genocide are the smartest most productive members of society.

That’s what happen when total egalitarian concept is maintained too far. What often becomes some jokes can get pretty serious.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a jew. Winning nobel prize and making tons of money is actually a great thing. So? People made some bullshit that those people are inferior.

No wonder most people seek power than wealth. Emperors knock up thousands of women. Mere rich men cannot even knock up 5-20.

Currently rich males produce so few kids. The issue is simple. Genocide. It’s simply way more costly for a rich male to breed kids than for a poor male. The marginal cost of raising a kid for the poor is so cheap due to subsidy. The marginal cost of getting a mate and raising children for the rich is so expensive due to alimony laws, child support laws, and other laws that conveniently link the cost to man’s income. In addition, almost any relationship where the man pays can be illegal.

So what’s the society do? They explain things away with total nonsense.

1. Rich men don’t want to have many babies. Actually the truth is the opposite. Just ask abortion clinic doctors whether it’s the rich or the poor that value having babies least. Then go to fertility clinic and ask the doctors there which clients value babies most. It’s obvious that the rich put more dollar value on having babies than the poor. If we measure how much you want something by how much you want to pay to get that thing, it’s very obvious that the rich want to have babies far more than the poor.
2. Women don’t prefer the rich. I won’t even argue for this. Google is your friend. Always? No. Many women would pick Brad Pitt to Bill Gates. But I bet there are quite a lot that prefer the rich.
3. Higher quantity of child will so significantly lower the child’s quality. Child’s quality is determined by quality of parenting by biological dad. Quality of parenting would be destroyed if dad has too many kids. Genes doesn’t matter. I heard this theory several times. All those times I thought it was a joke. It does sound funny. I was surprised when I found out that the guy is actually serious. I mean, says who you can’t have both quality and quantity? Why not let the women choose who should be dad of her children? Why not judge that by actual childs’ performance in school or earning power when they grow up? Oh but life is not just about money and grade. Yea then what? The claim can’t even be proofed or disproved.

Evolutionary psychology (EP) actually assigns quality to mean quantity of offspring. Best genes are genes that reproduce. Quantity is quality. Nothing else matters. Higher quality individuals, in evolution, are simply those who can and will produce the largest number of offspring.

Also the reason why we are selective in picking a mate is precisely because genes matter. From evolutionary psychology points of view, a penniless dumb studs that can seduce 100 women is superior. In fact, EP correctly predicts that many women will leave their rich husband to mate with those dumb studs. In fact, women do.

The rich husband has one problem that studs do not, morality. Those who would do anything to get what he wants is superior because they tend to be more successful.

Of course, superiority depends a lot on environment. In era where government pays for kids of those who can’t afford them, it’s easy to see that seducing women is a far more important skill than making money. In era, where sugar babies are legal, then earning money will be a far more superior traits than merely seducing women. The problem is that most libertarians are not hell bent to survive in the gene pool and don’t bother examining this. Most nice libertarians simply don’t plan to make many kids.

We remember Osama bin Laden as terrorists. None of us remember him as a bad dad because he had many kids. If to have many kids you need to be a leader of terrorist organization rather than a CEO of some corporation, it’s normal that people want to be terrorists.

That reminds me of another important blonde in my life.

My bible teacher, when I was still a devout christian, was also blonde. At that time, I was a normal typical conservative christian male wanting to earn money, get a normal job, reduce tax, and find a young beautiful wife to form a family and raise 2.1-2.5 kids and live happily ever after till I died old.

Some people think, I never changed my mind. Well, let’s just say that being a young normal christian middle class man is no longer close to my current life goals. My current goal is to get extremely rich, knock up as many young hot babes as possible, avoid forming any family, encourage others to do the same,  and destroy as many government infested marriage as possible. I don’t care about tax. There are ways to avoid that anyway if you’re very very rich and all this socialism would have been peanuts if government stops regulating reproduction.