|
On February 26 2013 22:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 10:13 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 08:55 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. You have to ask yourself where those cultural norms originated from. Or where "culture" in general originated from. And I'm not talking about "recent" culture of 2000 years ago, I'm talking about the time when "instinct (or whatever it is you want to call it)" and "culture" first started to blur. It isn't an accident that most (not all) of the major cultures of the world have males as the dominant sex. It should be obvious that there is a mutual factor (shared among all humans) that caused that (i.e. nature). Culture is a reflection of human "nature" from before there was an idea of culture. And that is shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can't separate the two. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but you seem to be suggesting culture developed completely arbitrarily, and not as a product of human nature to begin with. Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. You lost me here. Even if what you are saying makes sense (and it doesn't really) you have no evidence or even logical foundation for making this claim. An alpha wolf acts like it is better than a beta wolf. Is that nature or nurture? Do wolves have culture? A.) wolves do have culture. Which is why they have regular sized groups, org structure, hunting practices, etc... They don't happen to just "randomly hunt in a pack." But this is really a moot point. B.) whether a group determines that everyone within the group is equal or whether there is a logical inequality within the group is cultural construct. A security guard is not a better human than a cashier clerk. A police officer is not a better human than a meter maid. A cook for a naval carrier is not a better human than the cook of a New York restaurant. Being a protector of a group simply means that that is your job--associating that power as superiority is a cultural construct. Women are still attracted to the protector due to its association with power--which why "I love a man in uniform" is a common phrase of sexual signifiers. But these are normally projected onto things with social capital. When a woman says "I love a man in uniform" what she means is cops, firefighters, military, etc... And not warehouse security, mall security, etc... So yes, the specialization of the protective figure still happens, it happens because Of the power dynamic between the two beings in question. Yet, notice how policy regularly does everything it can to prevent this role from being infiltrated by femininity? Notice how only recently the US has allowed women to fight? Because of American misogyny women are constantly restricted from positions of power such as the military because that is not thei societal role. It is to protect the power dynamic of male superiority (because no one actually hates and is reviled by women, despite how many American laws attack their rights and bodies) it is American culture forcing the dominant/submissive relationship of the male/female relationship that hurts and attacks women in America. Hence why it is nurture (and not nature) to associate being the protecter as being superior.
A: Wolves do not have culture. Culture is exclusive to man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture
Nevertheless, the term "culture" applies to non-human animals only if we define culture as any or all learned behavior.
|
On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere.
Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly.
I dont know, i still think vivax is right basicly.
Off course cultural norms decide how we treat men and women, but thoose cultural norms do come from somewhere.
And i firmly believe that they in the end come from genetic/physical differences between man and women.
Personally i think nature is still the basis, nurture has to work within the boundarys given by nature.
Maybe thats why the emancipation of women has such a slow pace.
|
On February 26 2013 23:27 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. I dont know, i still think vivax is right basicly. Off course cultural norms decide how we treat men and women, but thoose cultural norms do come from somewhere. And i firmly believe that they in the end come from genetic/physical differences between man and women. Personally i think nature is still the basis, nurture has to work within the boundarys given by nature. Maybe thats why the emancipation of women has such a slow pace.
Culture almost exclusively dictates how the people in power marginalize those who are not. How have you never heard of matriarchal societies?
|
On February 26 2013 23:10 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 10:13 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 08:55 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. You have to ask yourself where those cultural norms originated from. Or where "culture" in general originated from. And I'm not talking about "recent" culture of 2000 years ago, I'm talking about the time when "instinct (or whatever it is you want to call it)" and "culture" first started to blur. It isn't an accident that most (not all) of the major cultures of the world have males as the dominant sex. It should be obvious that there is a mutual factor (shared among all humans) that caused that (i.e. nature). Culture is a reflection of human "nature" from before there was an idea of culture. And that is shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can't separate the two. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but you seem to be suggesting culture developed completely arbitrarily, and not as a product of human nature to begin with. Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. You lost me here. Even if what you are saying makes sense (and it doesn't really) you have no evidence or even logical foundation for making this claim. An alpha wolf acts like it is better than a beta wolf. Is that nature or nurture? Do wolves have culture? A.) wolves do have culture. Which is why they have regular sized groups, org structure, hunting practices, etc... They don't happen to just "randomly hunt in a pack." But this is really a moot point. Why can't you just admit you are wrong instead of saying completely asinine things like "wolves have culture." If this is true, the "nature" side the argument simply doesn't exist. Of course you are going to see everything as "nurture" if you completely eliminate the other side of the equation. Sigh le internet.
Animals having culture doesn't negate the existence of nature...
Amongst lions, the male protects while the female hunts. The male *could* hunt (and males without prides do hunt) while females *could* protect (if the male has recently been injured/died) but their culture is that males protect and females hunt. Their having culture doesn't mean they're civilized nor does it mean that nature vs nurture stops being a conversation. It simply means that even animals have social pressures just as much as humans do.
|
I have no problem with women who put a lot of value on men's wealth. In order for a couple to work, both parts need to want it to work; both need to get something they want out of the relationship. If one of the things women care about is money, I think that's fair.
|
On February 26 2013 23:27 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 10:13 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 08:55 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. You have to ask yourself where those cultural norms originated from. Or where "culture" in general originated from. And I'm not talking about "recent" culture of 2000 years ago, I'm talking about the time when "instinct (or whatever it is you want to call it)" and "culture" first started to blur. It isn't an accident that most (not all) of the major cultures of the world have males as the dominant sex. It should be obvious that there is a mutual factor (shared among all humans) that caused that (i.e. nature). Culture is a reflection of human "nature" from before there was an idea of culture. And that is shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can't separate the two. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but you seem to be suggesting culture developed completely arbitrarily, and not as a product of human nature to begin with. Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. You lost me here. Even if what you are saying makes sense (and it doesn't really) you have no evidence or even logical foundation for making this claim. An alpha wolf acts like it is better than a beta wolf. Is that nature or nurture? Do wolves have culture? A.) wolves do have culture. Which is why they have regular sized groups, org structure, hunting practices, etc... They don't happen to just "randomly hunt in a pack." But this is really a moot point. B.) whether a group determines that everyone within the group is equal or whether there is a logical inequality within the group is cultural construct. A security guard is not a better human than a cashier clerk. A police officer is not a better human than a meter maid. A cook for a naval carrier is not a better human than the cook of a New York restaurant. Being a protector of a group simply means that that is your job--associating that power as superiority is a cultural construct. Women are still attracted to the protector due to its association with power--which why "I love a man in uniform" is a common phrase of sexual signifiers. But these are normally projected onto things with social capital. When a woman says "I love a man in uniform" what she means is cops, firefighters, military, etc... And not warehouse security, mall security, etc... So yes, the specialization of the protective figure still happens, it happens because Of the power dynamic between the two beings in question. Yet, notice how policy regularly does everything it can to prevent this role from being infiltrated by femininity? Notice how only recently the US has allowed women to fight? Because of American misogyny women are constantly restricted from positions of power such as the military because that is not thei societal role. It is to protect the power dynamic of male superiority (because no one actually hates and is reviled by women, despite how many American laws attack their rights and bodies) it is American culture forcing the dominant/submissive relationship of the male/female relationship that hurts and attacks women in America. Hence why it is nurture (and not nature) to associate being the protecter as being superior. A: Wolves do not have culture. Culture is exclusive to man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CultureShow nested quote +Nevertheless, the term "culture" applies to non-human animals only if we define culture as any or all learned behavior.
According to that article, culture began as a determination on a groups farm technologies. Over time it has become abstracted. Most likely because as we learn more about the world we learn more and more the bigness o it. Also, to quote the article you posted., "Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance"
|
On February 26 2013 23:36 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 23:27 Rassy wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. I dont know, i still think vivax is right basicly. Off course cultural norms decide how we treat men and women, but thoose cultural norms do come from somewhere. And i firmly believe that they in the end come from genetic/physical differences between man and women. Personally i think nature is still the basis, nurture has to work within the boundarys given by nature. Maybe thats why the emancipation of women has such a slow pace. Culture almost exclusively dictates how the people in power marginalize those who are not. How have you never heard of matriarchal societies?
Yes i do know matriarchal societies quiet well, i read a book about it once wich was quiet interesting (when god was a women-7000 years ago)
Do agree that culture almost exclusively dictates such things, and i never did deny that.
I just think that sometimes thoose cultural norms have a foundation in nature.
This is not always the case btw, for example i dont think discrimination has a base in nature and i think its 100% cultural.
But men and women have huge differences in nature, and i think that these differences in nature are at least part of the reason for the cultural differences.
That does not make it right or justified in anny way btw. i am all in favour of female emancipation.
Am just trying to understand this a bit more.
|
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this conversation. If people here think their society doesn't dictate what the like and don't like then I don't want to be the yelling at the ostrich with ther head in the sand. Peace.
|
On February 26 2013 22:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
A.) wolves do have culture. Which is why they have regular sized groups, org structure, hunting practices, etc... They don't happen to just "randomly hunt in a pack." But this is really a moot point.
You can't just change definitions of words so you can seem right. Wolves forming packs and having an organizational structure is part of their nature (instinct), not nurture. This is why you can train (or some will even do it without training) your domesticated dog to treat you like a pack leader, despite them never having even seen a pack or a wolf. It is part of their nature; they don't need to be raised in the environment to adopt the behavior.
On February 26 2013 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm wrong and finally realize it so I'm not going to try to defend my inane position anymore.
Well at least you're honest.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 26 2013 23:46 Rassy wrote:
Yes i do know matriarchal societies quiet well, i read a book about it once wich was quiet interesting (when god was a women-7000 years ago)
You know them quite well? Then please point one out.
|
On February 26 2013 23:46 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 23:36 Crownlol wrote:On February 26 2013 23:27 Rassy wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included. Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations. "Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children." "Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful." So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility? Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag. Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument. If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason? Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority? (Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.) And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings? It's purely a power dynamic. The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive. This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion. Here's the truth. Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role. In the end it's about power dynamics. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. I dont know, i still think vivax is right basicly. Off course cultural norms decide how we treat men and women, but thoose cultural norms do come from somewhere. And i firmly believe that they in the end come from genetic/physical differences between man and women. Personally i think nature is still the basis, nurture has to work within the boundarys given by nature. Maybe thats why the emancipation of women has such a slow pace. Culture almost exclusively dictates how the people in power marginalize those who are not. How have you never heard of matriarchal societies? Yes i do know matriarchal societies quiet well, i read a book about it once wich was quiet interesting (when god was a women-7000 years ago) Do agree that culture almost exclusively dictates such things, and i never did deny that. I just think that sometimes thoose cultural norms have a foundation in nature. This is not always the case btw, for example i dont think discrimination has a base in nature and i think its 100% cultural.
If discrimination was 100% cultural, then it would not be a universal phenomenom across cultures.
On February 26 2013 23:46 Rassy wrote:
But men and women have huge differences in nature, and i think that these differences in nature are at least part of the reason for the cultural differences.
That does not make it right or justified in anny way btw. i am all in favour of female emancipation.
Am just trying to understand this a bit more.
You have a reasonable understanding on the topic. Biological differences enable, reinforce, and are reinforced by cultural differences.
|
On February 26 2013 23:43 Zato-1 wrote:
I have no problem with women who put a lot of value on men's wealth. In order for a couple to work, both parts need to want it to work; both need to get something they want out of the relationship. If one of the things women care about is money, I think that's fair.
As long as you have no problem on men who put a lot of value on women's physical attractiveness, then sure, that's fair.
|
On February 27 2013 00:44 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm wrong and finally realize it so I'm not going to try to defend my inane position anymore. I like to change people's quotes, but still keep them in quotation marks to feel better about myself and show my superiority. Unfortunately, people realize what I am doing and I don't look intelligent, I look like a retard.
Well at least you're honest.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 27 2013 10:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 00:44 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm wrong and finally realize it so I'm not going to try to defend my inane position anymore. I like to change people's quotes, but still keep them in quotation marks to feel better about myself and show my superiority. Unfortunately, people realize what I am doing and I don't look intelligent, I look like a retard. I troll these boards because I'm fat and lonely and have nothing better to do with my life.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
|
On February 27 2013 10:42 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 10:11 dAPhREAk wrote:On February 27 2013 00:44 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 23:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I'm wrong and finally realize it so I'm not going to try to defend my inane position anymore. I like to change people's quotes, but still keep them in quotation marks to feel better about myself and show my superiority. Unfortunately, people realize what I am doing and I don't look intelligent, I look like a retard. I troll these boards because I'm fat and lonely and have nothing better to do with my life. I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Fascinating!
|
pretty amazing that such a stupid and petty topic can have 22 pages of posts
|
On February 27 2013 15:51 stelzer wrote:
pretty amazing that such a stupid and petty topic can have 22 pages of posts
Welcome to TL General.
Also, it's through a lot (A LOT) of practice, to address your quote and how these threads happen ;o
|
On February 27 2013 15:51 stelzer wrote:
pretty amazing that such a stupid and petty topic can have 22 pages of posts
I'm more amazed at how so many people in this thread seem to be ok with women liking men for their money. Really makes me feel bad for them.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
Men that like women that like men with money, why is it bad ?
|
On February 27 2013 20:56 Kyrillion wrote:
Men that like women that like men with money, why is it bad ?
If you want a serious long-term relationship with that woman I wouldn't hold your breath, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
