We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned: 1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post. 2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no. 3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture. 4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating.
On June 01 2013 07:52 Killscreen wrote: It's more a set of personality traits and how you carry yourself; first and foremost being dominant and not submissive. How you dress/look isn't really a big part of it.
God forbid you don't go around dominating everyone all the time, then you won't get laid!
Some women like men who take charge, others are turned off by the arrogance and presumption of it. Throw into that a massive evidence bias because everyone who has had any kind of success with sex has clearly found someone who likes what they do so everyone thinks their thing works, doesn't mean only their thing works. Furthermore if there is any evolutionary component to success with the opposite sex then congratulations, we all win. Everyone reading this is the result of countless generations of people who all succeeded to find someone to fuck, if there is a biological secret to it then everyone is fine because everyone has been biologically selected for it.
Then there's just obvious flaws with this like "if all women like to be dominated then how to lesbians work?". I mean I guess they could find a man to dominate them both at the same time while they fuck each other but I think we're moving away from actual lesbians and into porn there.
Amen. I'm getting rather annoyed by the swarm of posters talking about "biological wiring" and "evolutionary predisposition." I've personally dated women of all sorts with varying tastes, and failed with even more. I have tried acting different ways in a general sense as well as tailoring my behavior based on perceptions. At some point, I have tried being the "nice guy," and the "dominant asshole," and varying degrees of both, with no change in success. I have been mysterious and had girls lose interest, I have come on strong and had girls lose interest.
About the best advice I can give to anybody looking to date is to be yourself at your best. Don't change who you are or how you act unless you think personally that it isn't the best you can be.
Oh, you have anecdotes that contradict 150 years of research in biology? Alert the press, Darwin was wrong. What I find irritating is people saying I'm wrong without being able to logically state specifically what is wrong with my posts. No one has so far.
On June 01 2013 09:33 Killscreen wrote: Oh, you have anecdotes that contradict 150 years of research in biology? Alert the press, Darwin was wrong.
I think it's funny that you pretend to know biology. That's cute. All I've read from you so far is about as intellectually honest as eugenics. Bastardization of Darwin's work and labeling it as his as some sort of appeal to authority is dishonest at best, incredibly harmful to science and life at worst. Here's a video for thought:
I'm pretty sure Darwin's on my side. What I said is that doing whatever comes naturally for you ought to work if it's biological because whatever comes naturally to you came naturally to your ancestors and your ancestors definitely got laid.
If your argument is that girls desire a certain thing to bear your offspring due to evolution and that these evolutionary traits are passed on then by now everyone everywhere would all have those traits.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
On June 01 2013 09:41 KwarK wrote: I'm pretty sure Darwin's on my side. What I said is that doing whatever comes naturally for you ought to work if it's biological because whatever comes naturally to you came naturally to your ancestors and your ancestors definitely got laid.
You're father may not have been particularly successful either. He may in fact only have had sex once in his entire life, or with only one woman. If that is you're goal, then yes you'll be fine. Even if he was more successful doesn't mean that you automatically will be. You are not a genetic copy of your father, and you dont live in the same environment.
On June 01 2013 09:45 KwarK wrote: If your argument is that girls desire a certain thing to bear your offspring due to evolution and that these evolutionary traits are passed on then by now everyone everywhere would all have those traits.
Alternatively it's more complicated than that.
Yes that is right. This is the reason we posses our extreme intellect. My argument is that women will choose the best genes available to them, thereby advancing the species even further than natural selection could by itself. This is called sexual selection.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
You'll have to forgive me if I assume an elementary understanding of evolution. I work with the following assumptions.
1) All life is optimized to reproduce as efficiently as possible. 2) Our genetic make up determines what we find attractive in the opposite sex. 3) Our sexual behavior is closely related to that of other social mammals.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
On June 01 2013 09:41 KwarK wrote: I'm pretty sure Darwin's on my side. What I said is that doing whatever comes naturally for you ought to work if it's biological because whatever comes naturally to you came naturally to your ancestors and your ancestors definitely got laid.
You're father may not have been particularly successful either. He may in fact only have had sex once in his entire life, or with only one woman. If that is you're goal, then yes you'll be fine. Even if he was more successful doesn't mean that you automatically will be. You are not a genetic copy of your father, and you dont live in the same environment.
I have multiple siblings with a fair amount of birth spacing. I find your theory that my parents only had sex once uncompelling.
Even so, genetics is about trends working out over time. It's possible that people who have sex only once in their lives could pass on their genes but the chances are way, way higher that you descend from people who had a lot of sex.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
Your entire argument hinges on an infallible appeal to authority, as though the mainstream biology community is uniform its opinion on the matter. This is totally wrong.
The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters (for example, Alfred Wallace). Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan Roughgarden, citing many elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans, that cannot be explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human evolution was primarily social.[32] Joseph Jordania recently suggested that in explaining such human morphological and behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin (and proponents of sexual selection) totally neglected another important evolutionary force, intimidation of predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display. Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism (warning display), in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species (including humans) use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations, drumming on external objects), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual selection. Jordana proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating) display.[33] Rather than sexual selection, the alternate concept is self-selection and rejection of the weak, as survival of the loudest.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
Your entire argument hinges on an infallible appeal to authority, as though the mainstream biology community is uniform its opinion on the matter. This is totally wrong.
The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters (for example, Alfred Wallace). Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan Roughgarden, citing many elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans, that cannot be explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human evolution was primarily social.[32] Joseph Jordania recently suggested that in explaining such human morphological and behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin (and proponents of sexual selection) totally neglected another important evolutionary force, intimidation of predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display. Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism (warning display), in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species (including humans) use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations, drumming on external objects), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual selection. Jordana proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating) display.[33] Rather than sexual selection, the alternate concept is self-selection and rejection of the weak, as survival of the loudest.
Oh, you copied the controversy section. Good for you! Yes, it is a controversial subject, obviously. Now please, explain where my logic is flawed, or where I am making a false assumption, because there is nothing in that quote that refutes my claim. Again, here are my assumptions: 1) All life is optimized to reproduce as efficiently as possible. 2) Our genetic make up determines what we find attractive in the opposite sex. 3) Our sexual behavior is closely related to that of other social mammals.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
Your entire argument hinges on an infallible appeal to authority, as though the mainstream biology community is uniform its opinion on the matter. This is totally wrong.
The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters (for example, Alfred Wallace). Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan Roughgarden, citing many elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans, that cannot be explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human evolution was primarily social.[32] Joseph Jordania recently suggested that in explaining such human morphological and behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin (and proponents of sexual selection) totally neglected another important evolutionary force, intimidation of predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display. Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism (warning display), in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species (including humans) use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations, drumming on external objects), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual selection. Jordana proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating) display.[33] Rather than sexual selection, the alternate concept is self-selection and rejection of the weak, as survival of the loudest.
Oh, you copied the controversy section. Good for you! Yes, it is a controversial subject, obviously. Now please, explain where my logic is flawed, or where I am making a false assumption, because there is nothing in that quote that refutes my claim. Again, here are my assumptions: 1) All life is optimized to reproduce as efficiently as possible. 2) Our genetic make up determines what we find attractive in the opposite sex. 3) Our sexual behavior is closely related to that of other social mammals.
If I am wrong, one of those are wrong.
Because, as I have explained, if the above are true then 2 means that after many generations 1 will give us uniform sexual characteristics. You claim dominant behaviour is a sexual characteristic and yet it is not something uniform across our species. Clearly it cannot be selected for.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
Your entire argument hinges on an infallible appeal to authority, as though the mainstream biology community is uniform its opinion on the matter. This is totally wrong.
The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters (for example, Alfred Wallace). Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan Roughgarden, citing many elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans, that cannot be explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human evolution was primarily social.[32] Joseph Jordania recently suggested that in explaining such human morphological and behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin (and proponents of sexual selection) totally neglected another important evolutionary force, intimidation of predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display. Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism (warning display), in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species (including humans) use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations, drumming on external objects), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual selection. Jordana proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating) display.[33] Rather than sexual selection, the alternate concept is self-selection and rejection of the weak, as survival of the loudest.
Oh, you copied the controversy section. Good for you! Yes, it is a controversial subject, obviously. Now please, explain where my logic is flawed, or where I am making a false assumption, because there is nothing in that quote that refutes my claim.
Well I suppose congratulations are indeed in order, considering that you did not even refer to the correct page in the first place. Your entire argument has hinged on a relatively simple 1 to 1 relationship between sexual selection and desirable traits in partners. The above complicates the matter rather greatly, whether that be the possibility that many apparent traits are explained by aposematism or the social aspect of human sexual interaction. The moral of the story is that humans are incredibly more complicated than other animals, and it is along these lines that the discussion ought to continue instead of a misguided attempt to oversimplifiy. Furthermore, you've snarkily referred to Darwin and the general school of Biology in place of any actual logic throughout, so, other than an appeal to authority and what amounts to a copy/paste from the wrong wikipedia reference, what logic are you putting forward?
Edit: 1 and 3 are entirely unsubstantiated in regards to humans. 2 is simply far more complicated than a mere 1 to 1 relationship.
On June 01 2013 09:42 Killscreen wrote: If that is true then it should be easy for you to point out where my logic is flawed or my science is bad or unsubstanciated . Go ahead, I'll wait.
What science? You've posted nothing of substance so far other than blind conjecture and asserted it as fact. You haven't even attempted pseudoscience.
Yeah take your pick. I chose the main one because we have no reason to think the mechanism is fundamentally different for humans than it is for other species.
Anyway, now you have the theory. Go ahead, tell me where Im going wrong.
Your entire argument hinges on an infallible appeal to authority, as though the mainstream biology community is uniform its opinion on the matter. This is totally wrong.
The role of sexual selection in human evolution has been considered controversial from the moment of publication of Darwin's book on sexual selection (1871). Among his vocal critics were some of Darwin's supporters (for example, Alfred Wallace). Darwin was accused of looking to the evolution of early human ancestors through the moral codes of the 19th century Victorian society. Joan Roughgarden, citing many elements of sexual behavior in animals and humans, that cannot be explained by the sexual-selection model, suggested that the function of sex in human evolution was primarily social.[32] Joseph Jordania recently suggested that in explaining such human morphological and behavioral characteristics as singing, dancing, body painting, wearing of clothes, Darwin (and proponents of sexual selection) totally neglected another important evolutionary force, intimidation of predators and competitors with the ritualized forms of warning display. Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism (warning display), in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species (including humans) use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations, drumming on external objects), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed to the forces of sexual selection. Jordana proposed an aposematic model of human evolution, where most of the human morphological and behavioral features that had been considered by Darwin as the result of sexual selection, via female choice, are explained by the aposematic (intimidating) display.[33] Rather than sexual selection, the alternate concept is self-selection and rejection of the weak, as survival of the loudest.
Oh, you copied the controversy section. Good for you! Yes, it is a controversial subject, obviously. Now please, explain where my logic is flawed, or where I am making a false assumption, because there is nothing in that quote that refutes my claim. Again, here are my assumptions: 1) All life is optimized to reproduce as efficiently as possible. 2) Our genetic make up determines what we find attractive in the opposite sex. 3) Our sexual behavior is closely related to that of other social mammals.
If I am wrong, one of those are wrong.
All life isnt optimized to reproduce as efficiently as possible. There are many common conditions that prevent both males and females from reproducing. There are other things like homosexuality, which is genetic, and clearly isnt optimal for reproduction, but is extremely common. You are generalizing with your statement, its more complicated than that.
As for 2, genetics only play a part in determining what we find attractive. Your upbringing, the characteristics of females and relationships you grew up around, your social status, etc... can all play into determining what you find attractive. You arent born to innately only be attracted to a fixed physical/personality type.
Both of your statements are somewhat right, but do not explain your claims fully. Like Kwark said, it is more complicated.
Females choose the best genes available to them. That is part of reproducing as efficiently as possible. There will still be variance, because in every single offspring, the males DNA only accounts for half of the offsprings. Over time it will produce some uniform traits, but there is no end to this process. Each generation chooses the best genes. Rince and repeat. It doesn't reach a goal and then stop. The prevalent theory is that this is how we evolved our intellect.
You could make the same argument for natural selection, that in the end there would be no variance, but this is not how evolution works.
In a group of social mammals, only one male will be dominant. The alpha male. Obviously humans do not live in harems now, but we do live in groups, and our ape ancestors definitely had harems ( the size of our testes tells ut that, http://suite101.com/article/adultery-and-the-evolution-of-testicle-size-a345524 ) so the genes that code for that behavior are still present. Unless they are explicitly selected against they will remain.
EPT
