Are women who tan sluts?

In the field of human biodiversity, there recently has been more attention on color variation, such as Rushton and Templer’s “Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”

And as noted by Peter Frost and others, there seems to be same-race variation in pigmentation.  Both among Europeans and North Asians, one finds that the upper classes tend to be fairer skinned, and the lower classes darker skinned.  Think of the “fair princess” (beauty = fair skin) and epithets throughout literature, such as “white-armed Andomache” or the fact that fair-skinned women are often thought of as more virtuous.

Globally, women will go to great lengths to make themselves appear more fair, as skin-lightening products are some of the most-sold beauty products in the world. In short, surveying history, one could say fairness is adaptive; swarthiness, maladaptive, at least as they concern recent post-hunter-gatherer societies.  Is fairness part of the domestication of Europeans and North Asians (as with foxes)?

Why, then, in the West,  the radical changes of the past 40 years or so?  Why is tanning among white women now considered hip?  Why do some white women intentionally try to make themselves look darker?

In short, one could say much in the West is now dysgenic; whatever the media (and those who have real power) prescribe is probably contrary to reality.

Also note that the rise of the tanning phenomenon coincides with the sexual revolution.  Does tanning of women denote sexual availability?  Are tan women perceived as being sexually easier?

I have no hard data on this but from my experience (of frequently going out for a decade in major American and European cities) guys internally view fair women as marriage material, and overly tanned women as sluts. (If this is true, this could be a powerful weapon for women looking to snag a husband.)

Thoughts?

Further Reading:

Peter Frost on Ashkenazis and the vilification of blondes, Skin color and the menstrual cycle, and the trading of fair-skinned women.

“Human Nature vs. Hollywood Political Correctness”

Primer on Immigration and Human BioDiversity

Our recent poll, “Should all Third World immigrants be deported from the West?,” has gained much attention but also highlights that there’s much confusion on what is central in discussing immigration into the West.  I thus offer this brief primer on immigration and human biodiversity.

Here are some key things to consider when discussing immigration.

Economics:  As Harvard economist George Borjas has shown, Third World immigration is driving down wages and lowering the standard of living both in Europe and the USA.  Third World immigrants also, since they use more in social services than they pay in taxes, drain the social services of Western countries.

Conservationism/ Infrastructure: More people in the West (through immigration) will put greater pressure on Western infrastructures and lead to environmental degradation.  (Do you want the West to look like this?)

IQ:  Outside Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), the rest of the world has considerably lower average IQs than European-descended countries.  As Helmuth Nyborg outlines in “The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian Selection,” allowing these people to immigrate to the West will prove dysgenic.

Crime and Corruption: Outside European-descended people and Northeast Asia, there might well be higher genetic tendencies toward violent crime. Also, outside European-descended countries (and isolated other places, like Japan), the rest of the world seems to consist of  low-trust countries, which results in more corruption, both in those countries and among those who immigrate to the West.  Bringing these problems into the West only makes the West more Third World.

Ethnic Genetic Interests:  As popularized by Frank Salter in “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” and “Misunderstandings of Kin Selection and the Delay in Quantifying Ethnic Kinship” (using ethnic genetic distances first outlined by Cavalli-Sforza), Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) shows that human populations are not fungible and that mass immigration could lead to the genetic extinction of certain groups of people.  It’s thus imperative for groups to maintain largely homogenous areas to further their genetic continuity.

There you have it.  Here are big four issues relating to immigration and, other than economics, they’re rarely discussed in the media.

Related:

“Who Supports Open Borders? Summary of Open-Borders Elite in USA”

Notes:

While IQ certainly is important, John Derbyshire doubts that the West needs to import any more high IQ people.

The French philosopher Alain de Benoist has offered the term “ethno-pluralism“: “a view stressing the ‘right of difference’ which asserts that each ethnic / racial group has the right to its own lands over which it can exercise complete sovereignty. This view envisions the world as a mosaic with a multiplicity of diverse races clearly delimited and with strict boundaries between them.”

Regarding IQ, here’s a roundup on the recent Richwine controversy where Richwine argued the US should not import low IQ immigrants.

Ted Sallis argues that ethnic genetic interests should be the primary concern when debating immigration.

Richard Spencer on the prospect of allowing white South Africans to immigrate to Western countries.

Updates:

[Coming….]

Chinese Eugenics: Ron Unz’s “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China”

In a similar vein to Geoffrey Miller’s recent essay “Chinese Eugenics” and echoing Gregory Clark’s findings in Medieval England, Ron Unz (whom we discuss here), has a new essay entitled “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China,” where Unz argues that heavy selection pressure has helped China to create a super-state.  As in Clark’s analysis of England where there was a downward drift of people (and genes) because of the lower classes not reproducing, Unz thinks something similar happened in China:

“…only the wealthier families of a Chinese village could afford the costs associated with obtaining wives for their sons, with female infanticide and other factors regularly ensuring up to a 15 percent shortfall in the number of available women. Thus, the poorest village strata usually failed to reproduce at all, while poverty and malnourishment also tended to lower fertility and raise infant mortality as one moved downward along the economic gradient. At the same time, the wealthiest villagers sometimes could afford multiple wives or concubines and regularly produced much larger numbers of surviving offspring. Each generation, the poorest disappeared, the less affluent failed to replenish their numbers, and all those lower rungs on the economic ladder were filled by the downwardly mobile children of the fecund wealthy.”

You should read the whole thing here.

Of course, as Miller states in his essay, many Westerners probably won’t “get it,” which can apply both to China’s past (Unz) and present (Miller) eugenic practices.  Miller writes:

“My real worry is the Western response. The most likely response, given Euro-American ideological biases, would be a bioethical panic that leads to criticism of Chinese population policy with the same self-righteous hypocrisy that we have shown in criticizing various Chinese socio-cultural policies.”

Unz seems to think the same, noting that extreme political correctness is undermining scientific research in the USA:

“Yet although Chinese researchers living in America willingly conform to American ideological restrictions, this is not the case with Chinese researchers in China itself, and it is hardly surprising that BGI—the Beijing Genomics Institute—has become the recognized world leader in cutting-edge human genetics research. This is despite the billions spent by its American counterparts, which must operate within a much more circumscribed framework of acceptable ideas.”

It’s a bit of an irony that when one thinks of eugenics the first thing that comes to mind are Hollywood movies about the H-Man.  While Europeans long practiced eugenics, from ancient times to Medieval times to modern times,  what is happening in the West now, for about the past 75 years, is largely dysgenic, because of mass Third World immigration and relaxed selection pressure.  What goes largely unnoticed, however, is that two other groups who have actively practiced eugenics are Ashkenazis and the North Asians.

Update:

#1: Speaking of Unz, you should also check out his resent response to Janet Mertz on Jewish over-representation in academia and the collapse of Jewish academic achievement (which we previously discussed here).

#2:  Unz responds to this article here.  I respond:  “Must eugenics be intentional?“

Chinese Eugenics

The Edge recently asked “What Should We Be Worried About?” and solicited the responses of 155 scientists, academics and writers.  The response below received the most attention.

Chinese Eugenics

Geoffrey Miller, Edge, Jan. 14, 2013

China has been running the world’s largest and most successful eugenics program for more than thirty years, driving China’s ever-faster rise as the global superpower. I worry that this poses some existential threat to Western civilization. Yet the most likely result is that America and Europe linger around a few hundred more years as also-rans on the world-historical stage, nursing our anti-hereditarian political correctness to the bitter end.

When I learned about Chinese eugenics this summer, I was astonished that its population policies had received so little attention. China makes no secret of its eugenic ambitions, in either its cultural history or its government policies.

For generations, Chinese intellectuals have emphasized close ties between the state (guojia), the nation (minzu), the population (renkou), the Han race (zhongzu), and, more recently, the Chinese gene-pool (jiyinku). Traditional Chinese medicine focused on preventing birth defects, promoting maternal health and “fetal education” (taijiao) during pregnancy, and nourishing the father’s semen (yangjing) and mother’s blood (pingxue) to produce bright, healthy babies (see Frank Dikötter’s book Imperfect Conceptions). Many scientists and reformers of Republican China (1912-1949) were ardent Darwinians and Galtonians. They worried about racial extinction (miezhong) and “the science of deformed fetuses” (jitaixue), and saw eugenics as a way to restore China’s rightful place as the world’s leading civilization after a century of humiliation by European colonialism. The Communist revolution kept these eugenic ideals from having much policy impact for a few decades though. Mao Zedong was too obsessed with promoting military and manufacturing power, and too terrified of peasant revolt, to interfere with traditional Chinese reproductive practices.

But then Deng Xiaoping took power after Mao’s death. Deng had long understood that China would succeed only if the Communist Party shifted its attention from economic policy to population policy.

[Continue reading….]

Updates:

Another notable response to the Edge symposium is Douglas T. Kenrick’s “Is Idiocracy Looming?”

David Galton:  Did Plato and Aristotle first popularize eugenics?

—