|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On January 27 2010 09:07 NeverGG wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 03:19 Alethios wrote:
I'm starting to see this thread as a concentrated effort to drive away our female members. Actually it's a handy guide to me regarding who I will never do any favors for or talk to on these forums  Thankfully most of the posters here are actually nice enough blokes to realize what a pile of over-generalizing crap it is.
Evolution of a species is perpetuated by the things in the article in the OP, amongst many other things. If you don't think it applies to you as well I could tell you why it does. Then we'd be having some real fun in this thread.
|
rape and murder are evolutionary strategies too
but we're mostly over that kind of stuff
|
only in situations where they dont get you thrown in jail or killed.
|
If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more?
|
Evolutionary psychology and sexual selection beautifully explain why this is the case.
|
Although the value judgments are wrong and stupid and are shitting up this thread.
Anyway, the real deal is: in nature, ova are rare and sperm are cheap. That is the essential difference between male and female. Sexual dimorphism (difference between male and female) arises because of this. Ever wonder why the male peacock and the female are so drastically different, despite being members of the same species and subject to the same natural selection pressures?
Its because the sex difference matters, and creates sexual selection pressures that drive them apart. These days we have the bullshit assumption that male and female are simply social constructs, which is an assumption with absolutely no basis in reality.
Anyway, among mammals, sexual dimorphism usually drives males to be larger in size and compete over access to females, while females are driven to choose carefully among competing males. The reason is that female mammals have a high degree of parental investment that they cannot skip out on- a long gestation period, lots of nutrients for the infant, nursing the infant with milk, etc. Because of this, having an infant is a big commitment for a female, whereas for the male, it could be as easy as one night's mating. Males aren't bound by their biology to high parental investment, although in many species, including humans, males do invest a good deal because of the nature of human infants and the fact that females have selected for this trait in males.
Essentially, a male maximizes his reproductive success by having sex with as many females as possible; one man can easily have hundreds of children as a theoretical maximum, whereas one female can never have that many. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if a woman fucks one man or 100, she can still have at most about one infant each year. Thus its OK if its one guy, in fact preferable, to secure commitment. In fact having multiple male partners is sure to drive them away because of the huge risk of getting cuckolded ("and on the 18th birthday, he found out it wasn't his?" -Kanye West) Which is why polygyny is wayyyyy more common than polyandry, which is essentially non-existent.
Typically, in pre modern times, man would have 0-100+ children and a female would usually be constant between 4-15. The reason competition is less among females is because they have less to lose; most women, even unattractive ones, don't have trouble finding mates, and their reproductive success is more constant. However, among males, many men get shut out of reproductive success altogether which drives behavior like violence and competition, while some men enjoy enormous reproductive success. The variation is much higher.
Thus, men are attracted very strongly to physical signs of fertility in a woman; an overview of human history will show abundant signs of this. Men don't really care that much if the woman is poor or rich or what her status is if she's fertile and available. Thus the attraction to youth. Women don't care about male fertility as much since the main thing they care about is securing investment in offspring; thus the attraction to wealth, status, and a preference for older men or younger men with ambition.
|
Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
|
If I have ever gone out to go clubbing, dancing or to a party, I groom myself, I dress well and I make sure I look good, not for anyone else, but for myself, if I think I look good, I get a massive boost of self confidence, I become 10 times more social, a lot more open and a lot more fun.
A couple of years ago, I stopped trying to look for and attract girls. I just decided to work on making myself awesome, worked on getting a great job, tons of awesome and social hobbies, great physical fitness and other things in my life that specifically made ME happy. At which point I didn't really have to try and attract girls anymore, they were just there.
In that sense, I agree with the article.
|
Yeah energies, after all your hard work, all it takes to like you is a whore.
|
On January 27 2010 22:46 Cloud wrote:
Yeah energies, after all your hard work, all it takes to like you is a whore.
He stopped trying to get girls and got more girls omfg!!
|
|
|
On January 27 2010 21:59 Cloud wrote:
If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more?
the women who can get a movie star can get another movie star just as easily so theres not any extra drive to stay in that marriage than an average woman married to an average man. the lifestyle that class lives makes infidelity more common and the press cares about them, so when movie stars break up you hear about it. you dont hear about 2 nobodys breaking up.
and no, of course more than 10% get married. every woman wants the best man. not every woman can get the best man, so they have to settle with the best they can get.
a man is useless to a woman if she cant hold on to him, so even if cheating ups his social value (and it doesnt necessarily since honesty and integrity are traits valued by selection) it makes him unreliable, which lowers his overall value.
|
On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote:
Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
the brain is the reason women want high value men. if you're a woman and you're not thinking you just want a big burly guy who has good physical genes to produce the strongest, healthiest child. but if you're thinking you realize that you're gonna need someone to take care of you and the kid afterwards too, which is where the social power and quality as a provider come into play.
|
On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote:
Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it?
The simple answer is: attraction IS NOT love/relationship/commitment, and so while you can be attracted on a sexual/reproductive level you can find that they have a horrendous personality, or that the social circumstances prevent you from pursuing any sort of relationship. It's the same sort of thing that puts men into the friend-zone - the man's a nice enough person, but there isn't anything interesting or outstanding about him, at least to her.
Of course men will gravitate towards beautiful women and women will gravitate towards interesting men (wealth/power/fame but also just friendly/social/etc). If this weren't the case, one-night stands wouldn't happen. But relationships don't happen only because of this - and if they do they don't last.
The fact that we're human doesn't change the way we're hardwired; it only changes the way that we express certain aspects of our biological drives.
|
On January 27 2010 22:58 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 21:59 Cloud wrote:
If the article was true, wouldn't only about 10% of the world's population be married (or in a couple)?
I mean, surely by its tone, only that 10% are the ones that are truly envied, that may have good reasons to laugh, that are usually more handsome than the rest.
Or, at least they should be the ones with the longest lasting marriages. Surely a movie star fits perfectly in every category that the article mentions, and if it's everything that a woman wants, then why the hell does it last so little?
Then take infidelity for example. The article does not mention anything about self-respect, it goes so far to classifying every woman as a whore and, I would expect a "baller" to be even more envied by the rest of the males. Shouldn't that make his wife like him even more? the women who can get a movie star can get another movie star just as easily so theres not any extra drive to stay in that marriage than an average woman married to an average man. the lifestyle that class lives makes infidelity more common and the press cares about them, so when movie stars break up you hear about it. you dont hear about 2 nobodys breaking up. and no, of course more than 10% get married. every woman wants the best man. not every woman can get the best man, so they have to settle with the best they can get. a man is useless to a woman if she cant hold on to him, so even if cheating ups his social value (and it doesnt necessarily since honesty and integrity are traits valued by selection) it makes him unreliable, which lowers his overall value.
On January 27 2010 23:02 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2010 22:29 Cloud wrote:
Well that's a whole lot of text and a bunch of big words. And sure, it's probably like that in most species; all hormones and shit. But then you're completely disregarding the human mind. Surely the very same thing that makes us human, that turns us into murderers, that is supposed to override hormones with thought. Has something to do with it? the brain is the reason women want high value men. if you're a woman and you're not thinking you just want a big burly guy who has good physical genes to produce the strongest, healthiest child. but if you're thinking you realize that you're gonna need someone to take care of you and the kid afterwards too, which is where the social power and quality as a provider come into play.
All of what you are saying might be true if women thought about children before they married. But I think most women (and men) think about children after they are married. I don't think a guy's usefulness to a woman is measured on how he can provide their children, but on how he can provide her (I'm not just talking money here). The article states that basically women are whores and all they want is to be seen with the top dog. That is just incredibly shallow.
You say that women that marry movie stars can easily find a replacement. I do not think so, mostly because of what you mentioned about exposure; social criticism is more severe against women that failed at a marriage than men.
Now, would you really marry a movie star or something similar, based on your children? I think the exposure would be good for myself (for a little while). But not in the least for my kid, also because of what you said about the inherent lifestyle of people in that status. This kind of preferring long term "investments" over short term satisfactions is what I call thinking. And the immediately obvious, such as getting a very rich partner is not usually the best approach.
|
United States4796 Posts
|
you're missing the point. this is about attraction, initial desire for someone. like someone said earlier in the thread, you'll fuck a 10 even if she has the personality of a rock. but you're not gonna marry her. the op's saying that the way guys are turned on by a girl who looks good, girls are turned on by a successful, powerful guy.
the evolution stuff is the rationale for how these instincts developed.
so ya, if you think it through you might not want to marry a movie star for the sake of your kid. but when you were cavemen the equivalent of the movie star was the tribe leader, or someone high up in the tribe, who had power and the ability to provide. so you instinctively go for someone with those characteristics. your brain isnt thinking "fuck ya a movie star" its thinking "fuck ya someone powerful and successful"
|
On January 28 2010 00:17 DivinO wrote:
So women like Rekrul.
Not the white ones.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On January 28 2010 01:07 pubbanana wrote:Not the white ones.
Except strippers.
|
On January 28 2010 02:35 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 01:07 pubbanana wrote:On January 28 2010 00:17 DivinO wrote:
So women like Rekrul. Not the white ones. Except strippers.
You should start aiming for the Lebanese, not white, but close enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
