Summary: Feminism is the big revolution of our time, over-turning our ideals of romance and marriage. The TV show “Castle” is a mirror in which we can see 21st century America, especially the relations between men and women. Today we look at the dark side of marriage masked by the light comedy of the Beckett-Castle romance, and what it reveals about our future. It’s one of the most shocking (& darkest) posts of the 3,900 on the FM website. Post your reactions in the comments.
Contents
- TV helps us see ourselves.
- Beckett’s boyfriends.
- Why she choose Castle.
- Life imitates fiction.
- About the revolution.
- Other posts about “Castle”.
- For More Information.
- Beckett lassos her man.
(1) Stories help us see ourselves
“People need stories, more than bread, itself. They teach us how to live, and why. …Stories show us how to win.”
— The Master Storyteller in the BBC’s “Arabian Nights“.
“.We watch dramas not just for entertainment, but to see our society from different perspectives, and so better understand our lives and those around us. The characters are fiction, but the situations and emotions are those of our moment in time and space. With the rapid change in gender roles during the past several generations — now accelerating — the ability of film and TV to show us different paths becomes especially valuable.
The TV show “Castle” does this well. As described in the previous chapter of this series, here we see a world in which the war of the sexes has begun to swing in women’s favor (e.g., women’s superior performance in grade school, college, and graduate programs) — and the traditional gender roles begin to invert. Kate Beckett shows one way for women to adapt their relationships to this new world. We’ll look at what the show-runners plausibly provide as her boyfriends, speculate why she choose Castle as her husband, and conclude with a real-life illustration of these dynamics.
(2) Beckett’s boyfriends
Beckett dated several alphas before marrying Castle.
Josh Davidson
Dr. Davidson, Beckett’s boyfriend in season 3, has it all. He’s a cardiac surgeon. He rides a motorcycle. He travels to Third World nations, providing free surgical care. See his series bio. In S04E04 he saves her life after she was shot in the heart.
We never learn how Dr. Davidson’s relationship with Beckett ended. In season 5 we learn he went to the Amazon to build free clinics. As an alpha, he expects Beckett to follow him or get left behind. It would take him a few days (max) to find a new girlfriend. Beckett would dream of him during her marriage to a rich nice-guy family man beta (like Castle).
Will Sorenson
Sorenson is an FBI Special Agent, he was Beckett’s boyfriend in season 1. See his series bio. As the lead agent on kidnappings, he probably has a hot hand at the FBI. He was Beckett’s boyfriend sometime in the past, before she meets Castle.
He’s another alpha. Like Davidson, he expected Beckett to follow him when the FBI rotated him to a new city. That’s not something he will compromise on, and so they went their separate ways before the series begins — and again in season one. It might take him a month to get a new girlfriend.
Tom Demming
Demming is a NYPD detective working robberies (series bio). He was Beckett’s boyfriend in season 2. She dumps him in the season finale, explaining that “was not what she was looking for.”
As a New York City cop, TV tropes require that Demming be an alpha. And so he is, with a softer side (much like Ryan and Esposito).
(3) Why Beckett choose Castle
We can easily imagine why Beckett married Castle. As an attractive, intelligent, strong-willed, aggressive, and high-spirited women, she it’s no surprise she has four good choices to choose from. Davidson has a good income, charisma, and good looks. He’s the alpha of the group. But he might not marry her.
Sorenson and Demming are good-looking, stable nice guys with good careers. They will make nice family men. And then there is Castle. …
Castle is over-weight (unlike his action-adventure physique in season one) and 7 years older than Beckett. He’s often submissive to her (and to his mother and daughter), and has become more beta with each passing year (decaying from season one, reprising his role as the alpha on “Firefly”). On the other hand, he’s proven himself a good father and devoted to her. Plus he’s rich and well-connected. Beckett hears her biological clock ticking, and sees Castle as a logical choice. I suspect at night she’ll dream of Davidson.
(4) Life imitates fiction:
…..A note from a woman about real men
“Stories are less simple than we think they are.”
— Scheherezade in the BBC’s “Arabian Nights
Beckett is fiction, but shows us what modern women are like, as seen in this autobiographical essay by Jill Rothenberg: “Falling for a Hells Angel” posted at Narratively (“Human stories, courageously told”). If you have much experience with these kind of girls, you’ll be able to read the start and write the rest of it as if you had precognition. My notes follows the except.
“When a mild-mannered book editor with a sheltered background breaks into a world of outlaw bikers, the excitement is alluring, but the violence is never far behind.”
“…The last time I had seen {Angela} was for breakfast at Ole’s, an old-time pancake house on Alameda’s main street, the East San Francisco Bay city where I lived. I had met her there with her boyfriend, Pancho, who was over 30 years older — a huge and imposing man {age: 65} of over 300 pounds, with long black hair and a mustache, dressed in the largest flannel shirt and jeans I had ever seen, the scowl on his face making me feel like he was not happy — with the restaurant, the food, me — or Angela, who, at 33, could have passed for his much-younger daughter.
“It was the first time I met Pancho, though Angela had talked about him since the day I first met her months earlier, at my 40th birthday party. Pancho clearly had no patience for Angela’s chattering. “Hey Pancho, Jill lives just a few blocks away from here in this cute little apartment,” she said. “Did you know she learned to play tennis when she was little, like eight or something? Isn’t that right?” she asked me. “That’s why she’s so good! Hey, we should try to play this weekend.”
“‘Can you just shut up?’ Pancho asked loudly, interrupting Angela mid-sentence. It was more like a snarl, teeth bared. So we sat in awkward silence, looking down at the table full of eggs, pancakes and coffee cups.
“…I loved my job at a publishing house in Berkeley, but over the past year my life had taken a very different turn. I met Angela as well as John, a man I dated and then remained friends with. My nights were no longer filled only with workouts, after-work cocktails and editing manuscripts. Together, we hung out at dark bars filled with biker dudes and black leather. I began to crave the balance this new place brought to my life. I welcomed the sheer slice of the wind that hit my face on the back of a motorcycle as I pressed my helmeted head against John’s back as we rode across the Bay Bridge at one a.m. The lights of Oakland were like a city of brilliantly colorful beads in the distance, the air cold and wet, the speed making everything pulse with life.
“This world felt like an alarm clock jolting me awake to a life that had been invisible to me, one that was lived out in color and on the edge.
“… It was an overdose of so much testosterone in one place, which after spending a work week among women, felt bracing, a slap of another reality. My senses came to life, away from the dull glare of the computer screen and the muddle of words and worries in my head. It was the same feeling I got from running a hard trail in bad weather, or putting on a headlamp to navigate steep trails at night in the Oakland Hills with an ultra runner I trained with. It was the edge, and I liked it there.
“… I could feel the adrenaline pumping like at the start line of a race. … I could never understand how a man like Pancho and other members of the club could have these two opposing sides: the explosive anger and fear for which they’re known, and the rational, intelligent and often genuinely friendly faces they wear just as comfortably. All I knew was that it was compelling, and that the undertone, the buzz of something about to blow, even in a friendly conversation, drew me in, as it did many women.
“… As much of a thrill as it was, it felt like I was on overload.”
See more of Jill Rothenberg’s writing at her website, or follow her on Twitter @JillRothenberg.
You know how this plays out. Rothenberg meets sexist bad boys, who treat her like dirt. She loves them (she only hints at the nice boys who she lets buy her dinners and shows, and whom she treats like pets). Eventually she leaves the fast life and the story ends. If she marries a nice beta (aka settling), she’ll dream at night of her biker lover. It’s worth reading in full. It’s an extreme version of a commonplace story of our time. Too bad that most of us cannot be alphas — or their faux version of bad boy bikers.
(5) About the revolution
Feminism is a revolution, one with few or no precedents in history, now in the last stages of consolidating its victory. We can only guess at the effects. This post discusses one facet. I expect (guess) that as guys understand the new order, many will refuse to play. They’ll become insurgents — outlaws — from their designated role as beta males — expected to dutifully ask permission at each step of the romantic escalation (see “Feminism for Bros“), marrying a women at the end of her youth after she’s chased alphas (of whom she’ll dream), and dutifully supporting a family until and after your wife divorces you (40-50% of first marriages; higher for subsequent ones; most initiated by the wife).
Once men see the game, why would they play? An insurgency might begin, perhaps leading to a new revolution (or a counter-revolution).
It’s already begun. Like most revolutions, it begins covertly. Especially this one, so transgressive of our cultural rules. You see its insurgents’ trail when women complain about the “Peter Pan syndrome” (men refusing to marry). You see it in the rise of “game” — “pick-up artists” who mimic the traits women use to identify alphas, and manipulate women’s typical behavior patters (e.g., “dark triad” traits; see details here. If you look carefully, you’ll see both behaviors spreading like viruses through our culture; it’s Darwinian.
Don’t expect to see clear analysis of the insurgency by journalists or Hollywood. They’re romantic only in distant lands, but too threatening to touch when at home — except in condemnation (Marxism gets more positive coverage).
I have no idea what shape this new world will take. My generation, the boomers, built this world but don’t have to live in it. Those exploring it (such as this guy) tell us of monsters. Fortunately, neither our hopes or fears provide accurate guides to the future. I am confident our future will differ from anything in human history.
(6) Posts in this series about “Castle”
Castle gives us a mirror in which we can see ourselves, skillfully constructed by the best producers, actors, and technicians in Hollywood.
- Spoilers for “Castle”: explaining the finale & season 7. It’s a metaphor for America.
- What the TV show “Castle” teaches us about America, and ourselves, — About our myths.
- The TV show “Castle” challenges us to see our changing values. Most fans decline, horrified.
- “Castle” shows us marriage in America, a fault line between our past & future.
- “Castle” shows us a dark vision of Romance in America.
- Richard Castle shows us the dark reality of justice in 21st C America.
- The bitter fruits of our alienation from America — more lessons from “Castle”.
- “Castle” helps us adjust to a new America, with women on top.
(7) For More Information about women
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Women and Gender, especially these about women’s changing role in our society…
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- The war of the sexes heats up: society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- Women are moving on top of men in America.
- The Economist proclaims that men are “The Weaker Sex”.
- A look ahead at the New America, after the gender wars.
- Love in the new world, after the gender wars.
- Taylor Swift shows us love in the 21st century.
- Men are “going Galt”. Marriage is dying. Will society survive?
- Women have won the gender revolution.
(8) Beckett lassos her beta
We don’t have to guess. Look at the black community where these dynamics have been going on for decades. For whites it won’t be quite the same but I see something similar happening as the economy winds down.
I was shocked to discover that women’s romance novels all have the same plot device, positive outcome rape.
DaShui,
That’s a brilliant observation. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted, the 1960s expansion of the welfare system (War on Poverty) blasted the Black family in our inner cities. A somewhat matriarchial system resulted, with a rather intense war between the sexes (which the news media and Hollywood carefully ignore).
That might foreshadow what will happen in the broad American society.
I forgot to add in my post that the evolution of our society doesn’t “just happen”, a spontaneous order. It’s under our control, should we wish to exert ourselves.
Historically women have had two fundamentally important jobs;
Procreation and nurturing, and observing and advising men who historically have run the world. Now that baby making and child rearing are on the wane as priorities the second job of telling men when and how we are wrong comes to the fore. And boy do us world running men need someone to point out how wrong we are right now. No doubt there is over reaching in the PC sex practices area but jeez someone needs to push back against the current male paradym in military and financial affairs. Naomi Prins and Janet Tavakoly come to mind.
Peter,
“us world running men need someone to point out how wrong we are right now.”
Seldom have I seen so much factually wrong on one sentence.
(1) Men are not running the world. Women have voted in almost every developed nation since WW2, and are a majority of voters. Nations with women presidents and prime ministers are not run differently (e.g. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi). In addition, women own most of the wealth.
(2) This time is perhaps the best in the history, by many metrics. Technology and public health methods have brought a standard of living, including security, to levels unimaginable to previous generations. Global violence levels, internal and inter-state, are low and falling. An large and increasing fraction of the world’s people live in democracies. I could continue, but is it necessary?
Well I am transgendered, steadily working through my transitioning, so I’ve seen both sides of the street, sometimes it is quite funny.
You can sum it up by:
Males: “I really don’t understand women”.
Compared to:
Females: “I really don’t understand men”.
My observation is that a lot more males than females are struggling with how the male/female power balance and behavioural rules in society have changed. The US seems in particular (judging by how much males talk about it there) to be having a lot of problems. Other countries (eg Nordic) have far less issues with all this.
Both sexes seem to live in a state of mutual incomprehension, which is a bit sad because they are actually far more alike than they think. Just their ‘conditioned’ (and I use the word advisedly) ways of expressing the exact same feelings and thoughts are different, particularly in public with a group of their own sex. Their need to ‘fit in’ with the group will override their ‘true’ feelings and normal/natural behaviour.
In my experience this herd behaviour is worse with males than females and that this is a not insignificant factor in why more males than females are struggling with all these changes.
This ‘alpha/beta’ thing seems to be a big US concern, which I suppose is understandable given its high level of individual competitiveness, lack of community and underlying ‘machismo’. But it is far less of an issue elsewhere, different cultures (even within the Angle Saxon world) show much more ‘groupness’, with far smaller differences between alphas and betas, even to the point where alphas can become targets for scorn (you see this in parts of Australian culture for example).
Female attraction to ‘alphas’ tends to be an adolescent thing. Most females find out very quickly that ‘alphas’ tend to be pretty narcissistic, far more concerned about their position and image than in anyone else and then they move on after a few heartbreaks. Yes you see at times older females who have had over protected teenage years following this behaviour…and who then find out the exact same thing, good for a fling but that is all. Most female partners of ‘alphas’ tend not to be very happy.
Another issue that I also observe is a sense of entitlement by too many males. That they really don’t have to do anything except wait until a reasonable female picks them. Then they get all hurt and angry when this doesn’t happen…and of course ‘blame the woman’.
The game of ‘blame the woman’ never seems to get old for (sadly) far too many males. The idea of actually having a cold hard look at themselves and modifying their own behaviour just doesn’t occur that often.
I’ve seen this in the singles scene, where unsuccessful males whine about it being womens’ fault that they are not getting anywhere. The fact is that a shower, some presentable clothes, maybe a smile or two, some decent conversation and being polite wouldn’t actually hurt…..
In relationships I see far too males becoming, by 40-50, total bores (and even boors), wedded to their careers (or something), with what little life, charm, fun, capacity for intimacy and openness they started out with now totally gone, drones. Heck when I was a male I found them boring and couldn’t stand spending any time with them….
Female partners at this stage, with the children getting out of their way, then have a real look at them…and the thought of being stuck with such a bore for the next 20 or 30 years makes wrist slashing seem attractive. But let’s all ‘blame the women’ of course, never the men for the divorce rate. “Whatever happened to the man I loved” is not an uncommon complaint by older females.
The fact is that 50%-60% do stay together and often have a lot of fun and enjoyment throughout their years, with both the males and females being pretty happy with each other. They have successfully worked out their compromises between each other and navigated the societal changes fairly well. Interestingly some of the happiest couples I have met have been within the ‘alternative sexuality’ crowd. I suspect their rejection of the ‘standard’ relationship roles and flexibility of mind makes it far easier for them to just enjoy being with each other as people, not roles.
And other countries and cultures are handling these changes fairly well, with both the males and females learning and adapting and getting on ok together (with some friction and mutual misunderstanding of course). Take this ‘pick up’ stuff (all nonsense by the way), a leading US ‘teacher’ of this just got kicked out of Australia and wasn’t even let into the UK. Goes against our culture (male and female) where a good sense of humour is far more important and attractive.
oldskeptic,
“This ‘alpha/beta’ thing seems to be a big US concern … Female attraction to ‘alphas’ tends to be an adolescent thing.”
Both of these statements have been shown to be false by peer-reviewed research. There is not need to rely on annec-data. I suggest you start by reading about women’s attraction to the “dark triad” traits. That’s just a first step in looking behind the veil of normative beliefs about women’s behavior which have little basis in fact.
old skeptic, that was brilliant.
Sorry FM, goal seeking ‘research’ you will find out far more about females having a few drinks with them or meeting in a toilet and talking to them…trust me.
Vacuous ‘research’, with a sample size of sod all, on US middle/upper class students, with very questionable ‘statistical’ analysis.
Hey, you are talking to someone that spent an entire Easter holidays pouring through Psych/social papers…95%+ of them wouldn’t even be allowed as a 1sty year Physics paper. Heck I had a friend who got a Psychology PHD from Oxford University no less on research that yielded a 0.11% correlation…..that, in other areas, is a TOTAL FAIL.
So when you read all those psychology/sociology/.etc reports (you do read the actual papers rather than the media reports?) ..they are usually crap….
Forget them….
oldskeptic,
It’s a constant in science for centuries that laypeople don’t believe it. You sound like Senator Imfohe talking about climate scientists, or a Southern Baptist talking about biologists. You haven’t bother to read the peer-reviewed research, but you’re sure that it’s just all too silly for words. I’ve learned that there is no point in these discussions, so I’ll just note this an move on.
“goal seeking ‘research’ you will find out far more about females having a few drinks with them or meeting in a toilet and talking to them…trust me.”
Got to be one of the dumbest statements in comments on the FM website. With 35k of them, that’s an accomplishment (of a sort).
Oldskeptic has often appeared here to explain his disbelief in science, and confidence he knows more than scientists. Today he tells us psychologists are fakes. In 2008 he explained that some climate scientists were ignorant of high school physics (details here). As usual in these debates, ignorance lost. We can see the folly of Oldskeptics’ remarks, since 6 years alter much of the work by scientists that climate activists denounced is now consensus.
One example I cited in 2008 was the work of Roger Pielke Sr. (see Wikipedia) whose peer-reviewed research said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate. For example:
For this he was smeared and called a denier by activists. Such as those at Skeptical Science (more accurately called “skeptical of science”). See this page calling him a “climate misinformer” (note that all of Pielke’s quotes shown there now appear correct). See this note for more detail and references to his work.
Now the oceans’ role have become a central focus of current research and is one of the leading explanations for the pause (see section 7 here).
Laypeople explaining why scientists are fools is a staple of western history. They’re to be ignored, except for their entertainment value.
And never use them to justify some sort of ‘male privilege’ nonsense… Sorry boys, you want a good woman (and there are heaps of them desperate to meet good men) …and a good relationship …work at it.
Try putting in even 25% of what the average woman does. You might be surprised at what happens.
As for the ‘alpha’ thing. The most successful men I have ever seen with women were those ‘who had the gift of the gab’ and could make women laugh….looks..totally irrelevant…some were even fairly ugly. While the ‘alphas’ were all posturing with each other (in whoosy US, in Glasgow they fought with each other) …those ‘gab’ guys took the women home…so who really is an ‘Alpha’?.
Never mind someone will do ‘research’ with a sample size of 10…from a rich US university, with a correlation of 0.01% that ‘proves’ women have a fantasy to be ‘dominated’ by an ‘alpha’ male…yeh right….there are actually a lot more men out there who fantasize about being dominated by a female…and, unlike women, pay lots of money to be treated that way…..
I do not agree with your supposition that Beckett will fantasize about JD, long after marrying Castle. Women are smarter than. Sure JD was a pretty face, but he was also a jerk. Women do not fantasize about jerks, no matter how physically attractive they are. I learned this lesson many years ago in high school. I have no idea why men think women are that superficial because most of us are not. Perhaps they are reflecting their own superficiality onto women.
Lisa,
Thanks for sharing your experiences! That’s how we can better understand the “Human Comedy” (to use Balzac’s great description).
Jill’s story is unique and extreme yet relevant in parts. It does tell us of her confusion though
Men are too passive in many ways today. Women are quite confused at times across an age spectrum. During mating ages, things do work themselves out between us. It’s after that …..that men and women seem to be at the mercy of new now generational changing paradigm
Men can learn alpha and should mix it with all this beta they now seem so comfortable with. Women will respond
Did you really watch the show? Because there’s no way she dream about another man! Especially Josh. They were all good guys, but no one hit “Beckett’s wall”… only Castle. Because love is not only about the physical thing. The emotions Kate shared and shares with Castle are so much different then the other relationship she had.
So, I understand your point, but say that she choice Castle for the “biological clock” is absurd, to be very honest. That’s a great love story and you making it look like a stupid thing. Sorry, but I have to say it.
Then Castle is handsome for his age and he isn’t so weight as he was in season 4, and there it was because NF has some problem, so… if for you is more important the physic… you’re doing it wrong!
Hope you will not marry a man only for the biological clock :) or if you are already married, hope the same tbh.
Kitty,
Thank you for taking the time to share your views! The drama of humanity is how people look at the same situation, yet see different things.
While “Castle” is a love story, it tells the story of a dysfunctional one. Neither could talk to the other with honesty, tormented by their pasts. And Castle began to decay under the force of Beckett’s personality, slowly at first (i.e., his acceptance of her physical abuse!) — but at increasingly fast rate after his proposal in season 5. Perhaps the stress of police work contributed to this. By season 7 there’s not much love left visible on the screen, imo.
We all look at a drama and see different things. As we do in this little drawing. Is is a rabbit or duck?
.
[caption id="attachment_73340" align="aligncenter" width="300"]
Duck or rabbit?[/caption]
Well, you’re right: people see what they want to see :)
I still can feel the love in their scene and the chemistry too… but as you said, people see different things :)
But can assure you… Caskett love each other and she doesn’t need to dream about another man. Never see Kate so happy, tbh.
Well, it was just my opinion and I think the opinion of other loyalty fans of the show :)
Enjoy your day.
Kitty,
“people see what they want to see”
How true. In fact, romance on the big screen leaves cynical people quite cold. For the extreme example of this we go to the invaluable Cracked.com: “26 Famous Movies That Gave You Terrible Romantic Advice“:
.
[caption id="attachment_73353" align="aligncenter" width="550"]
Cracked.com, 24 November 2014[/caption]
.
[caption id="attachment_73354" align="aligncenter" width="550"]
Cracked.com, 24 November 2014[/caption]
My against science? Nope…BSc Physics (inc a year of Psychology). Worked in Operations research, actuarial, analytic, etc work all my life. Because of that I know the difference between good analysis/research and ‘iffy’ analysis/research and downright nonsense.
As far as I know none of the FM team has any science qualification and/or experience whatsoever. No one on the FM team has anything like my technical skills (and specialist software).
Social science, sadly, is full of very poor methodology, terrible statistical analysis and, even more sadly, basic rigour. Yes there is good stuff, but it is nuggets within a sea of dross.
Take a basic example: Quotes from IFLS for brevity reasons, follow the link to the paper.
“Contraceptive Pill Acts As “Beer Goggles”, Making Unattractive Men Seem More Attractive”
“When choosing partners, pill goggles may be more effective than beer goggles. Men who would otherwise be seen as unattractive look like a good candidate to women who are taking hormonal contraceptives. If a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is to be believed, the problems start when, once in a relationship, women go off the pill and decide they actually care about looks.”
Ok, lets look at this in detail:
Sample size: 48 couples…..ok sod of nothing…..Not nearly enough to deal with biases, let alone normal human variation: Biases could include:
Age/Generation. What is deemed attractive changes through time for both males and females. Fashion and society have huge effects on perceptions of handsomeness and beauty.
Take a very simple example, the current fad in some countries for males with the ‘half shaven’ look. 30 years ago no woman would have looked at them because it was perceived of as ‘scruffy’….plus it scratches when you kiss. Also male body hair, sometimes in, sometimes out. Age changes things, as a 16 year old male the girl that you fancied back then you shake you head about now at 25, or 35….. It is exactly the same for females as well.
Class: Different classes focus on different details as ‘attractive’ (or Alpha using those teems). Upper class are (both males and females) looking for the tell tail markers that the other person is upper class (usually pretty obvious), that biases their perception of what is attractive. Oh sure both sexes will have a bit of ‘scruff’ now and then, but unless you are a female super model you have no chance, pill or not. This is not just cold calculation, mostly emotional and non reasoning, both sexes see the visual (etc) triggers and judge within those limits. Other classes do the same, they work within the constraints of their class. What lower middle /class woman thinks of as attractive will be very different from an upper class woman.
Cultural/ethnic background. This is a huge effect.
Ok, for another simple example, the ‘rugged’ US male will make an average Japanese woman puke……
The sample are all US people …ok….yeh I suppose the rest of the world is just like you …not….
Ok so do you see the problem? To do a proper study you have to have a sufficiently large sample size to separate out all the significant factors, so you can correct for biases.
Sadly, this doesn’t just apply to the sample…
“Among these, women who married men that were rated below average physical attractiveness by an independently “trained” panel were the least satisfied in the study.”
And this panel is composed of who? And how big is it? Biases, biases again…..who chooses what is ‘attractive’? So we have biases multiplied by biases….
Putting it all together, this is a nonsense study that doesn’t even pass the ‘sniff’ test. I’d argue that 90%+ of those other ‘studies’ are at about the same level of confidence.
On topic: I did a quick ‘straw pole’ of women who watched Castle here in Australia. None of them could understand why she just didn’t jump his bones right away and then go and have a great life together, or flick him off entirely and move on…..All this other (probably male written) stuff turned them off and they stopped watching….
oldskptic,
I cite scientists, with links and abstracts. I use quotes of your comments to show that you frequently say scientists are wrong, and substitute your own opinion for theirs.
Case closed. Amateur night is at the bar next Tuesday.
Sigh…as usual FM.. like our climate change arguments…you are sort of leaning that way..another year or two two will agree with what I posted , what, 5 years ago..Like all the other things I posted that have come true…’US ‘opportunities; comes to mind.
Be easier instead of arguing with me, then change your mind later you just started agreeing with me first off…..sigh…You will by the way, in the end, agree with me….as usual…..sigh…
I am cheap , in in all there billions wasted on idiot ‘analysis’ what about some some money for me? Heck I am cheap, Aus$150,000 a year will be fine.. heck of a lot better than those billions spent on the ‘letters’.
Better record than the CIA/NSA/etc and even better than the FM crew…lol……
Because I am a real, albeit trangendered, analyst.I can get down and dirty with the data…
I am so tempted to go through our ‘arguments’ in the past..and then see, a few years later, when you agree with me……your mean time to date is 2 years….Once it was only 6 months….