NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Brain size » Why Are Men Attracted To Low Waist-to-Hip Ratios?

Why Are Men Attracted To Low Waist-to-Hip Ratios?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 118 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

3050 words

Why are men attracted to low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR)? Like with a lot of our preferences, there is an evolutionary reason why men are attracted to low WHR. I came across a paper the other day by M.D. William Lassek, “Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Research Associate in the department of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara” and co-author P.h.D. Steven Gaulin, Professor of Anthropology with specific research interests in “evolutionary psychology, cognitive adaptations, the human voice, sexual selection, evolution of sex differences, lipid metabolism and brain evolution.” This paper fascinates me because it talks about the evolution of human intelligence through a lens of nutrition and micronutrients, something that I’m well-read on due to my career. First, I will discuss the benefits of fish oil and the main reason for taking them: omega-3 fatty acids and DHA. Then I will discuss the WHR/intelligence theory.

Fish Oils, DPA/EPA, and Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Misinformation about fish oils is rampant, specifically in the HBD-sphere, specifically with Steve Sailer’s article HBD and Diet AdviceThe study he cites (with no reference)  I assume is this study by Yano et al (1978) in which they found that Japanese men who ate more carbohydrates had less of a chance to die of cardiovascular heart disease (CHD). He says that the first generation ate mostly rice and no fat while the second generation “ate cheeseburgers and had higher rates of coronary disease than their parents.” He then says that these diet recommendations (low-fat, high-carb) were put onto all populations with no proven efficacy for all ethnies/racial groups. These diet recommendations began around two decades before the 80s, however.

He then quotes an article by the NYT science write, Carl Zimmer, talking about how the Inuit study has “added a new twist to the omega-3 fatty acid story”. Now, I read papers on nutrition every day due to my career, I don’t know what kind of literature they read on the subject, but fish oil, more specifically DPA/EPA and omega-3s are hugely important for optimal brain growth, health, and function.

Controlled studies clearly show that omega-3 consumption had a positive influence on n-3 (fatty acid) intake. N-3 has also been recognized as a modulator of inflammation as well as the fact that omega-3 fatty acids down-regulate genes involved in chronic inflammation, which show that n-3 is may be good for atherosclerosis.

An increase in omega-3 consumption leads to decreased damage from heart attacks.

Omega-3 may also reduce damage after a stroke.

Dietary epidemiology has also shown a link between n-3 and mental disorders such as Alzheimers and depression. N-3 intake is also linked to intelligence, vision and mood. Infants who don’t get enough n-3 prenatally are at risk for developing vision and nerve problems. Other studies have shown n-3’s effects on tumors, in particular, breast, colon and prostate cancer.

Omega-3’s are also great for muscle growth. Omega-3 intake in obese individuals along with exercise show a speed up in fat-loss for that individual.

Where do these people get their information from? Not only are omega-3’s good for damage reduction after a stroke and a heart attack, they’re also good for muscle growth, breast, colon and prostate tumor reduction, infants deficient in omega-3 prenatally are at risk for developing nerve and vision problems. Increase in omega-3 consumption is also linked to increases in cognition, reduces chronic inflammation and is linked to lower instances of depression.

Clearly, fish oils have a place in everyone’s diet, not only Inuits’.

This also reminds me of The Alternative Hypothesis’s argument that there are differing CHO metabolisms based on geographic origin (not true, to the best of my knowledge).

WHR and Intelligence

Most of the theories of the increase in brain size and intelligence have to do with climate, in one way or another, along with sexual selection. Though recently, I’ve been rethinking my position on cold winters having that big of an effect on intelligence due to some new information I’ve come across. The paper titled Waist-hip ratio and cognitive ability: is gluteofemoral fat a privileged store of neurodevelopmental resources? by Lassek and Gaudin (2008) posits a very sensible theory about the evolution of human intelligence: mainly that men prefer hour-glass figures due to an evolutionary adaptation.

Why may this be the case? One of the most important reasons I can think of is that women with high WHR have a higher chance of rate of death. The Nurses Health Study followed 44,000 women for 16 years and found that women who had waists bigger than 35 inches had a two times higher risk of dying from heart disease when compared to women with the lowest waist size of less than 28 inches. Clearly, men prefer women with low WHR since they will live longer, conceive more children and be around longer to take care of said children. So while a low WHR is not correlated with fertility per se, it is correlated with longevity, so the woman can have more children to spread more of her genes.

Lassek and Gaulin also bring up the ‘thrifty gene hypothesis’, which states that these genes evolved in populations that experienced nutritional stress, i.e., famines. I’ve read a lot of books on nutrition and human evolution (I highly recommend The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Diseaseover the years and most of them discredit the idea of the thrifty gene hypothesis. However, recent research has shown the existence of these ‘thrifty genes’ in populations such as the Samoans and ‘Native’ Americans. It’s simple, really. Stop eating carbohydrates and the problems will fade away. (Hunter-gatherers don’t have these disease rates that we do in the West; it’s clear that the only difference is our diet and lifestyle. I will cover this in a future post titled “Diseases of Civilization”.)

Lassek and Gaulin pursued the hypothesis that gluteofemoral fat (fat stored in the thighs and buttocks) was the cause for the difference in the availability of neurodevelopmental nutrients available to a fetus. If correct, this could show why men prefer women with a low WHR and could show why we underwent such rapid brain growth: due to the availability of neurodevelopmental nutrients in the mother’s fat stores. Gluteofemoral body fat is the main source of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LPUFA) for children, along with another pertinent nutrient for fetal development: DHA. Lassek and Gaulin also state that 10 to 20 percent of the fat stored by a young woman during puberty is gluteofemoral fat, obviously priming her for childbearing. Even with caloric restriction, the gluteofemoral fat is not tapped utilized until late pregnancy/lactation when the baby needs nutrients such as DPA/EPA and omega-3s.

Further, 10 to 20 percent of the dry weight of the brain is made up of LCPUFA, which shows how important this one nutrient is for proper brain development in-vitro as well as the first few years of life. Lassek and Gaulin state:

A recent meta-analysis estimates that a child’s IQ increases by 0.13 point for every 100-mg increase in daily maternal prenatal intake of DHA (Cohen, Bellinger, Connor, & Shaywitz, 2005), and a recent study in England shows a similar positive relationship between a mother’s prenatal consumption of seafood (high in DHA) and her child’s verbal IQ (Hibbeln et al., 2007).

Along with what I cited above about these nutrients and their effects on our bodies while we’re in our adolescence and even adulthood, this is yet another huge reason WHY we should be consuming more fish oils, not only for the future intelligence of our offspring, but for our own brain health as a whole. Lassek and Gaulin state on pg. 3:

Each cycle of pregnancy and lactation draws down the gluteofemoral fat store deposited in early life; in many poorly nourished populations, this fat is not replaced, and women become progressively thinner with each pregnancy, which is termed “maternal depletion” (Lassek & Gaulin, 2006). We have recently shown that even well-nourished American women experience a relative loss of gluteofemoral fat with parity (Lassek & Gaulin, 2006). In parallel, parity is inversely related to the amount of DHA in the blood of mothers and neonates (Al, van Houwelingen, & Hornstra, 1997).

That critical fatty acids are depleted with parity is also consistent with studies showing that cognitive functioning is impaired with parity. IQ is negatively correlated with birth order (Downey, 2001), and twins have decreased DHA (McFadyen, Farquharson, & Cockburn, 2001) and compromised neurodevelopment compared to singletons (Ronalds, De Stavola, & Leon, 2005). The mother’s brain also typically decreases in size during pregnancy (Oatridge et al., 2002).

This also could explain why first born children are more intelligent than their siblings: because they have first dibs on the neurodevelopmental nutrients from the gluteofemoral fat, which aids in their brain growth and intelligence. What also lends credence to the theory is how the mother’s brain size typically decreases during pregnancy, due to the neurodevelopmental nutrients going to the child. (I also can’t help but wonder if this has any effect on Chinese IQ, since they had a nice increase in intelligence due to the Flynn Effect from 1982 to 2012. I will cover that in the future.)

“This hypothesis,” the authors write, “thus unites two derived (evolutionarily novel) features of Homo sapiens: sexually dimorphic fat distributions and large brains. On this view, a low WHR signals the availability of critical brain-building resources and should therefore have consequences for cognitive performance.”

The authors put forth three predictions for their study: 1) that a woman’s WHR should be negatively correlated with the cognitive ability of her offspring, 2) a woman’s WHR should be negatively correlated with her own intelligence since a woman passes on DPA as well as her own genes for low WHR to female offspring and 3) “cognitive development should be impaired in women whose first birth occurred early as well as in her future offspring, but lower WHRs, which indicate large stores of LCPUFA should be significantly protective for both” the mother and the child.

Lassek and Gaulin used data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) III which included over 16,000 females with a mean age of 29.9 years. Measurements were taken on waist and hip circumference, WHR, BMI, and body fat as measured from bioelectrical impedance.*

For 752 “nulligravidas” (medical term for a woman who has never been pregnant), WHR explained 23 percent of the variance in total body fat estimated from the bioelectrical impedance (ugh, such a horrible measure). Moreover, “controlling for age and race/ethnicity” showed an increase of “0.01 in WHR increases total body fat by .83 kg” (1.82 pounds in freedom units). They also discovered that WHR explains 28 percent of the variance in BMI, with an increase of .47 kg per square meter, increasing the WHR by 0.01. BMI also explained 89 percent of the variance in body fat (garbage ‘body fat measuring instrument’ aside) with an increase of 1 kg per square meter increasing fat by 1.8 kg (close to 4 pounds in freedom units), but when added to the regression model, WHR made no additional contribution.

Lassek and Gaulin’s first hypothesis was corroborated when they found that the mother’s WHR was negatively correlated with the child’s intelligence on 4 cognitive tests. WHR accounted for 2.7 percent of the variation in test scores, “with a decrease of 0.01 in the mother’s current WHR increasing the child’s mean cognitive score by 0.061 points”. In the first subsample, they controlled for mother’s age, parental education, family income and race/ethnicity. Even when these variables were controlled for, WHR was still negatively correlated with the cognitive score. When these variables were controlled for, a decrease of 0.01 in WHR increased the average score by 0.024 points.

Their second hypothesis was also confirmed: that women with lower WHR would be more intelligent than women with higher WHRs. In girls aged 14-16, the WHR accounted for 3.6 percent of the variance in the average of the four cognitive tests. Also discovered was that in women aged 18 to 49, WHR accounted for 7 percent of the variance in years of education and 6 percent of the variance in two tests of cognitive ability. Even when controlling for age, parity, family income, age at first birth, and race/ethnicity, the negative correlation was still seen in 14 to 16-year-old girls.

There is also competition neurodevelopmental resources between mother and child. As I showed earlier in this article, a woman’s brain size decreases during pregnancy. This decrease in brain size during pregnancy is due to the babe getting more of the neurodevelopmental nutrients for brain growth from the mother. Clearly, as the mother’s stores of brain-growing nutrients become depleted, so does her brain size as te nutrients from her stored fat goes to developing the fetuses’ brain.

Lassek and Gaulin confirmed their hypothesis that a woman with a lower WHR would be more intelligent as well as have more intelligent children. WHR predicts the cognitive ability of the offspring while BMI does not. However, controlling for family income and parental education decreases the effect of WHR on the child’s intelligence, the effect still remains giving strong support to the hypothesis that women with low WHR pass on genes for low WHR as well as nutrients needed for neurodevelopment. Further, controlling for parental cognitive ability may mask the effects of the WHR. It’s well known that the mother’s intelligence is the best predictor for her offspring’s intelligence, which is due to the mother and grandmother passing on genes that augment the effect of LCPUFAs, along with the genes for lower WHR.

Women with a lower WHR were found to be more intelligent, and a lower WHR helps to protect cognitive resources (neurodevelopmental nutrients) for the mother and child. The mother’s body has a dilemma, though: it has to store nutrients for the mother’s own cognition; store resources for future pregnancies; and provide nutrients for their growing fetus. Obviously, especially in young mothers, this poses a problem as there is a conflict for what the brain should do with the nutrients the mother ingests. Children born to teenaged mothers have lower cognitive test scores, but, they are protected from this fate if the mother has a low WHR. This shows, definitively, that young mothers who are still growing will show no negative effects on their growth when pregnant if they have a low WHR which signals they have a large amount of LCPUFAs and other essential neurodevelopmental nutrients for the baby’s brain growth.

LCPUFAs are scarce in human diets. Thusly, an evolutionary preference for low WHR evolved for men so their children can have optimal nutrients while growing in the mother’s womb. The study confirmed that large brains, and along with it higher intelligence, and sexually dimorphic fat distribution have a strong link. Clearly, if a mother doesn’t have adequate levels of LCPUFAs, neurodevelopment will be impeded since the babe will not be getting the optimal nutrients for brain growth. Moreover, diets low in omega-3s should have consequences for intelligence and brain size of a baby, since when a baby is in the womb that is the most important time for it to get optimal brain nutrients. Is there any type of environment we can make ourselves and lifestyle choices we can take for ourselves, spouses and children to foster higher intelligence in them? I will cover that in the future.

Men love hour-glass figures, a low WHR. As I’ve shown in this article, there is an evolutionary reason for this. Men were asked to rate women who had surgery to move fat to their buttocks. Body weight stayed the same, but the fat was redistributed. It was found in brain scans of the men that the same parts of the brain related to reward lit up, including regions associated with drugs and alcohol. (more information here)

Conclusion

I’ve long known of the tons of positive benefits of omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil on human brain development. Fish oils and the nutrients in them are imperative for a healthy and growing brain. Without it, brain development will suffer. As a man, I can say firsthand that a low WHR is the most attractive. Now I understand the evolutionary reason behind it: fostering high intelligence due to the mothers lower-body fat stores. Omega-3s and LCPUFA are extremely important for optimal fetal brain growth. Moreover, the current American diet is low in omega-3s, while high in omega-6s. There is evidence of high omega-6 intake being related to obesity, metabolic syndromes, a progressive increase in body fat over the generationsThe omega-6 and -3 ratios in the body also play a role in obesity, with a lower omega-3 ratio and higher omega-6 ratio being related to obesity. This is due to adipogenesis, browning of the fat tissue, lipid homeostasis, and systemic inflammation. Clearly, as shown in this article, it’s imperative to have a balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. This could also have to do with the hyperactivity of the cannabinoid system (which we all know what that’s involved with: eating more) and that could also be a cause for obesity with out-of-whack omega-6 to -3 fatty acid levels in the body. That’s for another day, though.

The totality of evidence is clear. If you want healthy children, choose a mate with a low WHR. She and her offspring will be more likely to be more intelligent. Clearly, if you’re reading this, you’re interested in intelligence as well as having the best possible life and life outcomes for your children. Well, choose a woman with a low WHR and you’ll be more likely to have more intelligent children!

* I have one problem with this study. They assessed body fat with bioelectrical impedance. The machine sends a light electrical current through the body and measures the degree of resistance to the flow of the current, which body fat can then be estimated. Problems with measuring body fat this way are as follows: it depends on how hydrated you are, whether you exercised that day, when you last ate, even whether your feet are calloused. Most importantly, they vary depending on the machine as well. Two differing machines will give two differing estimates. This is my only problem with the study. I would like if, in a follow-up study, they would use the DXA scan or hydrostatic weighing. These two techniques would be much better than using bioelectrical impedance, as the variables that prevent bioelectrical impedance from being a good way to measure body fat don’t exist with the DXA scan or hydrostatic weighing.

(Also see Eternal Curves by the Lassek and Gaulin and their book Why Women Need Fat for more information.)

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. Afrosapiens says:

    Damn, Eureka !

    I think you have a great point with the association between birth order, fertility and intelligence. Fewer children means proportionally more first-born children, hence a increase in mean IQ. Do you have figures about the IQ-birth order link ?

    Like

  2. iffen says:

    RR, I want to come back and read your article with more comprehension, it looks like it will be very good.

    Just one thing that I noticed though. There are a lot of black women that I work with that have what looks like more than an adequate supply off Omega-3 on their hips. This is not going to screw up any other planks, is it?

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I’ve noticed that a lot of black women have a low WHR as well. I’ve done a lot of work in NYC and that’s one observation I’ve had. One more thing I’ve seen is that black men go for overweight or obese women more often than white men. I assume this has to do with evolutionary instincts, bigger women have access to more food and the man unconsciously picks up on it, which is one reason why black men find that attractive.

      Freedman et al (2004) observed that, as expected, black men were more likely to choose heavier figures as an ideal body for women than white men. Also expected was that both groups would choose figures with a low waist to hip ratio, but black men would choose a lower waist to hip ratio as ideal. They also show weight to be a more important cue than waist to hip ratio in mate selection as well as supporting the theory that black men’s preferences may serve as a protective factor against eating and body image pathology in black women.

      I also saw this paper today, The Effects of Prospective Mate Quality On Investments in Healthy Body Weight Among Single Women:

      This study examines the relationship between suitability of mates and exercise.

      To control for time-varying unobservables, a quasi-triple difference is used.

      Specifically, within a marriage market year, we difference single vs. married women.
      A 10 pp increase in ‘unsuitable’ men reduces single black women’s exercise by 10%.

      Results are insignificant for white women.

      Abstract

      This paper examines how a single female’s investment in healthy body weight is affected by the quality of single males in her marriage market. A principle concern in estimation is the presence of market-level unobserved heterogeneity that may be correlated with changes in single male quality, measured as earning potential. To address this concern, we employ a differencing strategy that normalizes the exercise behaviors of single women to those of their married counterparts. Our main results suggest that when potential mate quality in a marriage market decreases, single black women invest less in healthy body weight. For example, we find that a ten percentage point increase in the proportion of low quality single black males leads to a 5% to 10% decrease in vigorous exercise taken by single black females. Results for single white women are qualitatively similar, but not consistent across specifications. These results highlight the relationship between male and female human capital acquisition that is driven by participation in the marriage market. Our results suggest that programs designed to improve the economic prospects of single males may yield positive externalities in the form of improved health behaviors, such as more exercise, particularly for single black females.

      This paper is particularly interesting to me due to what I do for my career. I’m going to look for the full paper later.

      So yea I think there is an evolutionary reason why black men are more likely to like bigger women. And since AMH began in Africa, I’d assume that the preference for low WHR evolved there, but I have to look into it more before saying so.

      I also must say, as a nutritionist, this theory makes a ton of sense to me. Other than what I wrote about omega-3s,there are numerous other important benefits. I can’t believe Steve Sailer says that about fish oils. It doesn’t matter what your race or ethnicity is, fish oils are extremely important for optimal brain health and functioning. It pisses me off when people spread disinformation about nutrition, but that’s rife in this business and I’m used to it.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens says:

      I believe white men’s attraction to prepubescent bodies is a recent phenomenon created by the fashion industry (influenced by gay men) and Hollywood. Because until the early 20th century, the standards of beauty favored women with flesh, the same women that we see in Rembrandt’s paintings. There are also these stone age Venuses from Europe.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I believe white men’s attraction to prepubescent bodies is a recent phenomenon created by the fashion industry (influenced by gay men) and Hollywood.

      I agree. At the beginning of last century, a more buxom figure was found attractive. During the Dark and Middle Ages, Europeans also found more buxom women attractive, as that signified wealth.

      Because until the early 20th century, the standards of beauty favored women with flesh, the same women that we see in Rembrandt’s paintings. There are also these stone age Venuses from Europe.

      Exactly. Figures like that show more neurodevelopmental nutrients, and a father does want what’s best for his offspring, so he will attempt to mate with a woman with a low WHR, the so-called ‘child-bearing hips.’

      But over the past 100 years, extremely thin and unhealthy near anorexic bodies have been found to be attractive. Though throughout history, a woman with a more buxom figure was more attractive.

      Also on the Venus statues, here’s an interesting paper, Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of Prehistoric Gender Representations.

      Like

  3. melodoesnotlikejellosodontgivehimany says:

    I thought black women had the widest hips?

    Also that is a very interesting point you made with the birth order/fertility correlation

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I thought black women had the widest hips?

      White women do. See Racial Differences in Pelvic Anatomy by Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

      White women have a wider pelvic inlet, wider outlet, and shallower anteroposterior outlet than African-American women. In addition, after vaginal delivery, white women demonstrate less pelvic floor mobility. These differences may contribute to observed racial differences in obstetric outcomes and to the development of pelvic floor disorders.

      Also that is a very interesting point you made with the birth order/fertility correlation

      Yes it is, I linked some studies above.

      Like

  4. Chinedu says:

    All hail the master of pseudoscience. You can’t make this shit up.

    Like

  5. iffen says:

    What is your opinion on claims by the makers of fish oil supplements that they have removed any mercury contamination that might be in the fish oil supplements?

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      It’s fine. There is more mercury in fish meat than in fish oil. The FDA doesn’t regulate nutritional supplements, though, and they have to wait until something goes wrong with one of them. For instance of you lift you may have heard of the problem with Jack3d a few years ago. They took out the beta alinine I believe, which gives the tingling feeling. They regulate when a supplement causes a hazard. Though Jack3d is still in the market,

      USPLabs faced criminal charges last year for Jack3d and OxyElite Pro. They are facing criminal charges because last year after 2 soldiers died and they found elevated levels of DMAA, which the coroner said attributed to the heard problems the soldiers had.

      The reason why I bring this up is because Jack3d was thought to be safe but some of the ingredients in it may cause problems, the same could be possible in the future in regards to fish oil, but I highly doubt it.

      But fish oil is safe.

      ConsumerLab.com’s tests of fish oil supplements have found none to contain mercury and most, although not all, to have only trace levels of PCBs (which can’t be fully avoided since PCBs are found in water everywhere). A serving of fish meat is likely to contain far more contamination than a fish oil supplement.

      Is fish oil safe? Is it contaminated with mercury and PCBs?

      The common American brands are fine.

      A study at the Harvard Medical School that was published in the December 2003 issue of “Pathology & Laboratory Medicine” analyzed five commercially available fish oil supplements for their respective levels of mercury. These brands included CVS, Kirkland, Nordic Ultimate, Sundown and OmegaBrite over-the-counter fish oil supplements. The Sundown, Kirkland and Nordic Ultimate brands contained no detectable amount of mercury, where the CVS brand contained 10 micrograms per liter, or mcg/L, and the OmegaBrite brand had 12 mcg/L of mercury. While two of these brands contained some mercury, these levels are low enough to be considered negligible. Daily consumption of these fish oil preparations would result in less mercury in the body than eating two to four fish meals per week. The researchers suggested that fish oil supplements may be a safer source of omega-3 fatty acids than eating fish.

      List of Mercury Levels in Fish Oil Supplements

      Everyone should take fish oil. Everyone shouldn’t listen to Steve Sailer about fish oil, because it’s clear he’s ignorant to the benefits of them. Inuits aren’t the only ones who should have omega-3s in their diet, it should be a staple in the diets of all people, regardless of race and ethnicity.

      Like

  6. Chris says:

    Would it be more advisable to eat real fish rather than fish oil pills?

    http://www.ocl-journal.org/articles/ocl/pdf/2004/02/ocl2004112p116.pdf

    The studies say that fish oil gets incorporated more effectively.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Thanks for the paper.

      Of course eating the real thing is the preferrable way to maximize nutrient intake. But fish oils pills are a great supplement to a diet. High levels of n-3 have great benefits, as seen above and supplementing with fish oil will get you more benefits.

      Fish oil is a nootropic. Omega-3s are extremely important for a growing fetus, as well as a nursing mother’s breast milk and DHA levels, which lead to further positive effects on a baby’s cognition and brain development. So consuming more fish oil has a positive effect on cognition.

      Supplements are good enough for people to get more DHA in their diet, but of course eating the real thing is superior.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 230,543 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: