|
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 10:36 Killscreen wrote: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.
Not exactly true (and that article is utter garbage). http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP09325335.pdf
Much more balanced take in that link, supported by actual evidence. Yes, there was non-monogamy in human history, but it was far from the norm that you're making it out to be in the absence of social constructs to "select" against it.
|
United States43040 Posts
But people keep coming back to "if you behave in this way all women will want you" which is a very bold and poorly substantiated claim which is unfortunately somewhat relevant to the topic.
|
On June 01 2013 10:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 10:16 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 10:09 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 10:07 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 09:58 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 09:49 aksfjh wrote: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. This is the science I am basing my posts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection No wonder your opinion is so shortsighted, you've chosen the incorrect wikipedia. Here ya go. Sexual selection in human evolution 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. Edit: 1 and 3 are entirely unsubstantiated in regards to humans. 2 is simply far more complicated than a mere 1 to 1 relationship.
You will have to elaborate on these claims.
1) Why do humans differ in these aspects to all other species? Any science to back this up?
2) If this is false, why do most men feel attraction towards females who will give them high quality offspring? Why are we all attracted to pretty much the same traits; an hourglass figure, and symmetric facial features that correlate with fertility?
Thats certainly what we would expect if it were genetically determined.
3) No, its really logical. The same mechanisms apply to other species. We are smarter, but not as different as you might think. We share 97% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. A really smart monkey is still a monkey.
|
On June 01 2013 10:36 Killscreen wrote: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.
No.
EDIT:
I feel like I should clarify, despite it being so mindnumbingly obvious: Females choose the best partner, not the best genes. The difference is that the best partner is a sum of his genetics as well as his enviroment.
|
On June 01 2013 10:46 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 10:21 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 10:16 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 10:09 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 10:07 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 09:58 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 09:49 aksfjh wrote: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. This is the science I am basing my posts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection No wonder your opinion is so shortsighted, you've chosen the incorrect wikipedia. Here ya go. Sexual selection in human evolution 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. Edit: 1 and 3 are entirely unsubstantiated in regards to humans. 2 is simply far more complicated than a mere 1 to 1 relationship. You will have to elaborate on these claims. 1) Why do humans differ in these aspects to all other species? Any science to back this up? 2) If this is false, why do most men feel attraction towards females who will give them high quality offspring? Why are we all attracted to pretty much the same traits; an hourglass figure, and symmetric facial features that correlate with fertility? Thats certainly what we would expect if it were genetically determined. 3) No, its really logical. The same mechanisms apply to other species. We are smarter, but not as different as you might think. We share 97% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. A really smart monkey is still a monkey.
2) Because of our culture. If we wanted the best offspring we would all be dating women with a BMI of 25-28 and broad hips.
|
Norway28694 Posts
if sexual selection was just biological/genetical then the idealised body type would not have changed through history or differed between cultures. however, it has, and does.
|
On June 01 2013 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
if sexual selection was just biological/genetical then the idealised body type would not have changed through history or differed between cultures. however, it has, and does.
Citation please. I dont believe it has, not drastically. Are there significant differences across cultures today?
An hourglass figure, and facial features that correlate with fertility. I dont think you will find much deviation from that.
|
On June 01 2013 10:42 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Isn't this thread about how our luck is with dating? Not a thread about the various theories of attraction...
Seriously, this debate has been going on forever and honestly doesn't seem to have progressed at all.
|
Hey guys, my facial features once got a girl pregnant!
|
On June 01 2013 11:02 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 10:42 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Isn't this thread about how our luck is with dating? Not a thread about the various theories of attraction... Seriously, this debate has been going on forever and honestly doesn't seem to have progressed at all.
It's two people argueing on the internet. When was the last time someone actually said, "no you are correct and I am wrong, I give in". I'll tell you when, never. This will go on till someone gets bored, someone gets too mad or a mod tells them to stop.
|
On June 01 2013 11:01 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
if sexual selection was just biological/genetical then the idealised body type would not have changed through history or differed between cultures. however, it has, and does. Citation please. I dont believe it has, not drastically. Are there significant differences across cultures today? An hourglass figure, and facial features that correlate with fertility. I dont think you will find much deviation from that.
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljgjpqIBdt1qid7klo1_400.jpg)
DAT HOURGLASS FIGURE.
EDIT: Booohoo - the sensible people arrived. But you are right, better stop it here.
|
On June 01 2013 11:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 11:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
if sexual selection was just biological/genetical then the idealised body type would not have changed through history or differed between cultures. however, it has, and does. Citation please. I dont believe it has, not drastically. Are there significant differences across cultures today? An hourglass figure, and facial features that correlate with fertility. I dont think you will find much deviation from that. DAT HOURGLASS FIGURE.
Theres your citation.
|
Ghostcom, if you're not going to contribute to the debate just refrain from posting. A statue is not proof of that claim.
|
On June 01 2013 11:06 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 11:02 Najda wrote:On June 01 2013 10:42 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Isn't this thread about how our luck is with dating? Not a thread about the various theories of attraction... Seriously, this debate has been going on forever and honestly doesn't seem to have progressed at all. It's two people argueing on the internet. When was the last time someone actually said, "no you are correct and I am wrong, I give in". I'll tell you when, never. This will go on till someone gets bored, someone gets too mad or a mod tells them to stop.
For an internet discussion, we are actually being quite polite and respectful. We are debating an ( IMO ) interesting topic very relevant to dating. We will probably never agree, but thats OK. The value of a debate doesnt hinge on wether or not a consensus is reached.. I dont see anything wrong with this discussion.
|
On June 01 2013 11:09 Killscreen wrote:
Ghostcom, if you're not going to contribute to the debate just refrain from posting. A statue is not proof of that claim.
So not only do you not understand Darwin, you are also ignorant of history... That statue directly disproves your objection towards the idealized body type having changed through history and differed between cultures. How about you stop subscribing to pseudoscience and back up your claims with articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals?
|
You want peer reviewed journals? I thought the standard for evidence was pictures of statues? How bout you find a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates that that statue was attractive at some point in time and then we'll talk.
|
On June 01 2013 11:11 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 11:06 Zooper31 wrote:On June 01 2013 11:02 Najda wrote:On June 01 2013 10:42 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Isn't this thread about how our luck is with dating? Not a thread about the various theories of attraction... Seriously, this debate has been going on forever and honestly doesn't seem to have progressed at all. It's two people argueing on the internet. When was the last time someone actually said, "no you are correct and I am wrong, I give in". I'll tell you when, never. This will go on till someone gets bored, someone gets too mad or a mod tells them to stop. For an internet discussion, we are actually being quite polite and respectful. We are debating an ( IMO ) interesting topic very relevant to dating. We will probably never agree, but thats OK. The value of a debate doesnt hinge on wether or not a consensus is reached.. I dont see anything wrong with this discussion.
Yea it's sort of relevant, but it's just about the only thing that has been posted in this thread for the last ~10 pages. People posting their issues are getting ignored/drowned out because of how much this discussion is taking over. I think we're far past the point of relevancy and well into redundancy.
|
On June 01 2013 11:20 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 11:09 Killscreen wrote:
Ghostcom, if you're not going to contribute to the debate just refrain from posting. A statue is not proof of that claim. So not only do you not understand Darwin, you are also ignorant of history... That statue directly disproves your objection towards the idealized body type having changed through history and differed between cultures. How about you stop subscribing to pseudoscience and back up your claims with articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals?
Not that I disagree with the body type itself changing but what doesn't change is the concept behind it: Whatever body type makes individuals look "strong" in their respective environment is/was considered attractive throughout history.
Strong in this context can mean that you are able to provide lots of food in a time of scarcity but it also means you are able to resist temptation in terms of "too much food" in a time when it's abundant.
Isn't the change of the idealized body type over time just a result of us being attracted to what most likely gives our offspring the best chances at surviving in a hostile environment?
|
On June 01 2013 11:27 Killscreen wrote:
You want peer reviewed journals? I thought the standard for evidence was pictures of statues? How bout you find a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates that that statue was attractive at some point in time and then we'll talk.
You are the one making the wild claims in conflict with generally accepted theory. Burden of proof lies on you.
However, I shall humor you:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1548559506001066
P.S.: The Venus of Willendorf is probably one of the best known fertility symbols.
EDIT: @ r.EVO - I agree completely, but that at the same time disproves the whole caveman theory Killscreen has got going on. Also, as stated earlier, the body type of skinny girls is really not ideal for guaranteeing the best off-spring. Just like being obese is not good, neither is being that skinny, yet the majority of us (myself included) will prefer a woman in the normal BMI-range to one in the 25-30 range (despite the 25-30 actually being better for pregnancy).
|
On June 01 2013 05:21 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 04:53 HeavenS wrote:
umm killscreen is actually on point on alot of what he said. he even stated that this DOES NOT APPLY TO 100% OF WOMEN. don't ignore that. obviously you can't generalize everyone but its true, women want a fucking man. is there a chance that a woman might like you with you're a little bitch? sure, someone will like you. but what about when you two are walking together and some manly man walks right by you guys exerting his manliness, rugged as fuck. do you seriously think she's not going to fucking notice that guy or feel anything even slightly resembling attraction? if that's what you think, then you're delusional.
look, im not claiming to be some sort of pimp that fucks tons of girls and knows women like the back of his hands. but i started at a really really early age, with sex, with girlfriends, with everything, and i have made pretty much every fucking mistake in the book. girls don't like over feely guys that constantly talk about their emotions, they also don't like a man that never does, you have to find the right balance, but overall you need to exude confidence in yourself and in the fact that you are a man.
in bed, women like to get fucked. that is 100% true. obviously there is time for romance, especially when you're having a "moment" with that loved one, but there's no rule that says rough sex isn't romantic, or isn't passionate. a girl likes it when you pull her hair a bit, grab her ass hard while you fuck her, if you're fucking her from behind pull her up towards you and lightly (LIGHTLY!!! unless it escalates into more passionate, then obviously use your own judgement but don't be a fucking idiot and turn passion into stupidity) choke her with your free hand while you kiss her neck on the side or pull her hair with the other. she will go fucking nuts. i'm not saying you should rough her up or something because thats what they want, im saying be passionate in sex, be unapologetic, let it be raw, sex is SEX and that is romantic on its own. a good way to know what is a good balance in sex, watch the scene in 300 when leonidas fucks his wife, THAT is what they like, then after lay with them and be romantic, its not hard. its funny because ive had a girl that was my friend at the time tell me she loved that scene and that pretty much every girl wants to get fucked like his wife in the movie....guess what happened next lol.
overall, be a good man, but be confident and don't be scared to take charge. women want equality, obviously as they should have it. but, as zoe saldana or however you spell her name once said in an interview, there is something sexy and romantic about coming home after a long day of work and laying with your man with his arms protecting you, belonging to him, being his. This post is so full of assertions of arbitrary gender roles with no basis in actual logic beyond social construction that I'm not sure where to begin. Your anecdotal experiences with women do not amount to an extrapolation to all women.
i love how people just love to ignore the part in ALL CAPS where it says this DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL WOMEN. jesus christ i said it twice. I AGREE with you, it does NOT apply to all women. However, i do believe that it applies to the majority of women. Of course there are variations, and in all honesty, this topic is WAYYYY too complicated with wayyyy too many variables to just generalize all women into one category. Obviously, everyone has different tastes, different cultures, different strokes for different folks. I am simply speaking from my personal experiences in my entire dating life which so far has spanned 11 years. In MY experience, all the women i've dated have been into that shit. They have all wanted to feel protected, they have all assumed this sort of "cute little girl" attitude in our privacy. They are female, this is a biological fact. Obviously, we are not simpletons, we are not like other animals, we have a large brain capable or overcoming our raw instinct and overcoming our hormones, however that does not mean that we are not at least somewhat affected by them. I will agree that not all women like rugged men and what not, however i'd like to add that im not really rugged at all lol...im 5-8 I weigh 170 lbs, slightly athletic, generally attractive (i'd say 5 or 6 or 7 out of 10), but being rugged isn't the only appealing quality of a man to a woman, I'm actually pretty lovey dovey with girls i like, i'm in not way a dick to them, however...there are obviously times where my manliness shines lol. Its hard to explain really, sometimes a little dominance is really not a bad thing...we are biologically different to females. In nature, or in mammals i should say, males tend to be the dominant ones, for example lions, gorillas, chimps, and us, humans. We are just different and that shouldn't be a fact that we desperately shun in an effort to be "equal" and "politically correct", we should just accept that fact and not allow it to hinder our equality as equally rational beings. We have more testosterone, we are stronger (in general) because of it, we don't carry babies, we are dominant over the female gender. Now this is strictly from a BIOLOGICAL standpoint, PLEASE don't jump down my throat about being a chauvinist pig or something, because that statement does not take into account societal norms, and our progression as a species. I'm merely pointing out that biologically, and for a purpose, the difference is there even though as we advance that purpose is no longer needed. It LOGICALLY follows however, that (being the young species that we are) there are obviously plenty of remnants of these traits when it comes to attraction and whatnot. To deny this is, in my opinion just willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
