Why Do Women Live Longer Than Men, or How Healthy Is Your Porn?

With few exceptions among the nations of the world, females live longer than males, generally around four to seven years longer. Why this might be is a subject that is still debated and there most likely are multiple factors. One possible reason occurred to your humble blogger not too long ago, a reason which he had never before heard expressed by another and which he tentatively calls his own. An article about a scientific study sparked the idea, and now a new study seems to lend some important support to it.

Among the commonly listed reasons for the greater female longevity is the double X chromosomes that women possess. As I recall, there was evidence that women's bodies choose the healthier of the two X chromosomes to be the dominant member of the pair, whereas men have no other X to choose. Scientists point to species of birds where the male has a double sex chromosome and the female has only one of the two kinds. In these species males are reported to live longer. Since the X chromosome in the male comes from the mother and the female gets an X from both biological parents, it seems to me that there is a simple way to test this hypothesis, though I am ignorant as to whether this has been done. Couples in which the female is longer lived than the male should produce offspring of both genders that are long lived. Couples in which the male is longer lived than the female should produce long lived daughters but shorter lived sons. Obviously, any such study would want to focus on couples where both the woman and the man expired of old age or complications due to it rather than, say, a job-related accident. This would give us couples in which, if the hypothesis is correct, the relative healthiness of the X chromosome might be gauged and one possessed a healthier X chromosome than the other. Now, a long lived female, accordingly, might still have a weaker X to pass on, but over a large enough sample size the effect of the healthier chromosome should show itself if there is any validity to the theory.

Another commonly cited cause is that females have a greater responsibility in child rearing, a responsibility that reaches even into the last years of their lives with grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The reported longevity of most apes shows that the sex that takes care of the children - females in most cases, males in some - lives longer. Whether or not this is relevant to humans has not been conclusively determined.

Other reasons given include lifestyle - far more males die from risk taking and from accidents on the job - bad luck - more males are murder victims and hit by lightning - and stress from more physically and emotionally strenuous careers that males tend to have. Some even claim that the greater amount of funding that goes towards research into women's health issues over men's is causing the difference. All of these reasons seem plausible, and none excludes any other, but there is one other that your humble blogger would like to suggest as a very real possibility.

A few months ago your humble blogger came across a study which found that women are attractive more often than men, and that it doesn't have to do with greater options with makeup and clothing. This was immediately obvious to me, as I definitely find myself attracted to women more often than men, but the point here is that attractive couples tend to have more daughters than sons. Though this at first seems unlikely, the idea is really not ridiculous at all. Since a female's body is going to invest time and resources and effort into 'growing' a child, it does not seem at all absurd that evolution would have bestowed on it a way of choosing a child who was more likely to succeed with the qualities it was going to have (there is a similar effect for males. High achievers tend to have more sons, and evidence for this can be seen with the American presidents, whose sons outnumber their daughters by about 2 to 1). Perhaps the pH level of her body slightly alters, making it easier for the female sperm to get to the egg, or perhaps it is more likely to abort male zygotes before they even take hold. However it accomplishes it, attractive couples do seem to have more female offspring, and it is not hard to believe that beauty does more for a woman than a man. Anyone who disagrees need do no more than look at the salaries of female models as compared to male models to get an idea of how in demand female beauty is. Of course pulchritude is, to certain extent, subjective, but there are some good objective indicators. One is the extent to which one side of the face mirrors the other, and in studies, highly symmetrical faces are always rated as more attractive by participants.

But how does a woman's body know that the recently injected sperm inside her are going to make for beautiful children. I would suggest that it has something to do with the very reason that some people are more attractive than others in the first place: health. It all comes back to Evolution. We are driven to have sex (or at least men are, which is why beautiful people have girls. Women are sometimes driven to it when the Tylenol is working). Any individual who is attracted to, and therefore more likely to have carnal relations with, other healthy individuals is more likely to have offspring who are healthy and therefore who live to pass on their genes. Consequently, the individuals most likely to have children that pass their genes on are the ones who are attracted to the exterior markers that indicate inner health (one of these being the symmetric face, it would seem). These exterior markers, in a species which develops language, come to be called beauty. This is significant for several reasons. One, it means that porn is about health. Two, it means that if effective aspirin had been around 200,000 years ago, there might be more good looking men today. Three, it means that women have only themselves to blame when they go to a bar and can't find any appetizing prospects (if you put out a bit more easily, your great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- great- granddaughters might thank you). Finally, it means that in tending to select offspring who will get the most out of the traits they are going to have, which means in selecting more females to be attractive, a woman's body is also selecting females to be healthier.

It has long been known that women have slightly stronger immune systems than men, baby girls have fewer problems when they are born and have lower infant mortality, and now a new study cited on LewRockwell.com seems to give more support to the humble blogger's hypothesis. Apparently, beautiful people are healthier than fuglies. It is difficult to say how much impact this has, but it seems reasonable that longevity will be affected by it to some extent. Indeed, it is difficult to see how it could avoid having an effect.

It used to bother the humble blogger that he might be destined to punch out a bit earlier than if he were a female. If I have an average life span, I will get to watch five or six fewer Ohio State/Michigan games because of the gender I wound up with, but it is now apparent that it is all for a greater purpose. Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Let us keep our porn healthy and our females beautiful, even if we have to miss a few football seasons to do it. That's a sacrifice that I am willing to make. Did you hear that, ladies? I will die early to make you beautiful. Now take off that slip and put your ankles behind your head while I turn the camera on.