|
On March 02 2013 03:28 Kyrillion wrote:
I don't see your point. A man expressing his desire for a woman with money won't be judged ?
Depends on the situation. If someone says they want to marry a 90 year old heiress, people will probably laugh but judge them if they were serious. But if someone says they met a girl on a date but she works in a supermarket so they're not interested then we would agree with them.
I've discussed this with my friends and the general consensus was that if we were going to advise future generations we should tell them to place more emphasis on money/earning potential and less on looks with personality being equal.
|
On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills? Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: ![[image loading]](http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MaleMessageDistributionByIncomeBright.png) On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women? That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men? Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men. for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat. Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear.
All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on.
Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started:
http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdf
www.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdf
http://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.html
On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one.
You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness.
On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with.
Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status.
On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote:
I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar!
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time.
And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?"
Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures.
|
If attractiveness was not objective and consistent then everyone on 'hot or not' would average out to a 5 
|
On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p
|
On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p
He's talking about sexual attractiveness from an evolutionary perspective you stupid pleb. This is not an artsy sociology debate.
|
I strongly disagree with your point op ...
Women do see money as a primary source, but not lots of money just enough to have a decent life (health, school, good life for children)
Men on the other side look at beaulty for a bang, overall all the guys in my ages are marrying (im 30), all my friends wants someone that they can rely and will grow with them, someone that wont betray you or isnt with you because of money, look is like the 3rd most important thing. Wiith our early 20s it was other story tho, just bangs, the most superficial the better ...
By the way nowadays I live in Brazil, but it was the same in the US so I think at least in Americas my point is safe 
|
United States22883 Posts
Except there's a whole lot of horse shit in evolutionary psychology.
Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. This is the part that's just patently false. First, it's not true. There are so many examples of this, where the ideal form at one time would be considered ugly today.
Two, it's not scientific evidence. Judging by the rest of your posts, I think you have a scientific and statistical understanding deficiency and you're completely misunderstanding how those tools are used.
People are attracted to wealth for numerous reasons and it cuts both ways. What studies regarding attractiveness have NEVER been able to cut through are cultural norms, which may in fact be the largest component in determining attractiveness. You can even see examples of this today, in some cultures where fair skin is highly preferred and others were tanned skin is highly preferred. To say there's an ideal form based on evolutionary traits is poppycock. Many fertility characteristics are actually less preferred in the 21st century, and it's because ideal attractiveness changes. The same goes for health characteristics. We have an imaginary idea of what looks healthy based on social norms, but it often doesn't translate into actual health at all.
|
If sexual attractiveness spanned across cultures you'd expect the ancient Greek statues to have large penises and big breasts.
|
I don't have a problem with a woman who is sincerely attracted to a rich man. What I don't agree with is a woman who pretends to be attracted to a rich man in order to get his money. Unfortunately it's sometimes hard to tell which is which.
|
On March 03 2013 00:19 nihlon wrote:
If sexual attractiveness spanned across cultures you'd expect the ancient Greek statues to have large penises and big breasts.
Even today, those standards are not universal
|
On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills? Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women? That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men? Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men. for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat. Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlShow nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote:
I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar!
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time.
And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures.
i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point.
still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects
"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder."
"Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions"
"Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect"
.. and so on and so forth.
|
On March 02 2013 23:27 Elurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:
From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children.
Wow, you certainly err on the side of chauvinistic. Yea, taking care of kids is a "woman's job". Men only have to bring home the bacon, and sit back on the La-Z-Boy while the woman fry up the bacon too! :p
Sunprince, whether or not you meant it to sound like it did, somebody will ALWAYS assume the worst if you try to relate things to evolution. It will start an argument about free will and somebody will say "I am completely unique and my body wasn't designed to do anything except for being special!111" I sort of see what you are saying, that the trade-offs are always going to be higher for women. I didn't read the rest of what you wrote, but I think everybody could agree with that.
Elurie, you literally just jumped to what you think you wanted to hear in order to tear his argument down. Saying that women are the primary caretakers of children is pretty much a fact. This doesn't mean that the father isn't busting his ass for the kid or that he shouldn't help, but the father will never breastfeed and a lot of mothers are very particular about how they take care of a child and end up taking a disproportionate role in directly caring for them.
|
On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills? Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men?
Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men. for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat. Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlOn March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote:
I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar!
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time.
And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point. still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder." "Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions" "Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect" .. and so on and so forth.
Sunprince is completely right about this. You are hopefully but naively arguing your opinion about how human attraction ought to work. The world would probably be a much nicer place if you were right. But the science is not on your side.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 03 2013 01:05 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills? Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat. Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlOn March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote:
I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar!
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time.
And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point. still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder." "Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions" "Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect" .. and so on and so forth. Sunprince is completely right about this. You are hopefully but naively arguing your opinion about how human attraction ought to work. The world would probably be a much nicer place if you were right. But the science is not on your side.
I think you've missed the argument.
The beholder is a part of a society and that society's norms are a very large aspect of what influences their perspective. Not evolutionary traits. And one society's norms are not every society's norms, because it's not based on objective reasons.
People like to backwards track to claim it's an evolutionary characteristic, just as scientists did in the 19th century when they were attempting to connect intelligence to skull shape differences between West Africans and Caucasians, but there's no evidence that humans necessarily attribute beauty because of evolutionary characteristics. Often times they may align, but it's because they align through social characteristics and perceptions, which is why often times they don't align. Sunprince wants to make a utilitarian argument for why some people are beautiful and others are not, but attractiveness does not fit that paradigm. From ancient Israelites to Egyptians to Chinese to Greeks to Romans to Middle Age Arabs to Europeans to South Americans, etc. There is no singular ideal form.
This isn't a case for "everyone is beautiful." It's a case for "in the time we're living in, in the parts of the world we're living in, there is a defined idea of beauty that is shared by most people in that space and time." It's not for health or fertility reasons, even if it started out that way, it's because we've been shown it our whole lives and all the other stuff that takes place in the socialization process.
Look at it this way, if you did a diagnosis on the entire human population, in what percentile do you think Victoria's Secret models would appear in terms of health, fitness and fertility? Now do the same thing for female basketball players. Do you really think people believe VS models are the most beautiful because they're in the 99th percentile of those areas, and female basketball players are not? Of course not. We think they are because of face type and breast size, but our ideal face type and breast size is not the same as Ancient Greek's or Ancient Chinese's and probably not even modern Chinese's or modern Greek's. Furthermore, face type and breast size are probably not of the same importance to those cultures as they are to ours.
|
On March 03 2013 01:30 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 01:05 ziggurat wrote:On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:[quote] Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: [quote] Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlOn March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:
[quote]
How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point. still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder." "Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions" "Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect" .. and so on and so forth. Sunprince is completely right about this. You are hopefully but naively arguing your opinion about how human attraction ought to work. The world would probably be a much nicer place if you were right. But the science is not on your side. I think you've missed the argument. The beholder is a part of a society and that society's norms are a very large aspect of what influences their perspective. Not evolutionary traits. And one society's norms are not every society's norms, because it's not based on objective reasons. People like to backwards track to claim it's an evolutionary characteristic, just as scientists did in the 19th century when they were attempting to connect intelligence to skull shape differences between West Africans and Caucasians, but there's no evidence that humans necessarily attribute beauty because of evolutionary characteristics. Often times they may align, but it's because they align through social characteristics and perceptions, which is why often times they don't align. Sunprince wants to make a utilitarian argument for why some people are beautiful and others are not, but attractiveness does not fit that paradigm. From ancient Israelites to Egyptians to Chinese to Greeks to Romans to Middle Age Arabs to Europeans to South Americans, etc. There is no singular ideal form. This isn't a case for "everyone is beautiful." It's a case for "in the time we're living in, in the parts of the world we're living in, there is a defined idea of beauty that is shared by most people in that space and time." It's not for health or fertility reasons, even if it started out that way, it's because we've been shown it our whole lives and all the other stuff that takes place in the socialization process. Look at it this way, if you did a diagnosis on the entire human population, in what percentile do you think Victoria's Secret models would appear in terms of health, fitness and fertility? Now do the same thing for female basketball players. Do you really think people believe VS models are the most beautiful because they're in the 99th percentile of those areas, and female basketball players are not? Of course not. We think they are because of face type and breast size, but our ideal face type and breast size is not the same as Ancient Greek's or Ancient Chinese's and probably not even modern Chinese's or modern Greek's. Furthermore, face type and breast size are probably not of the same importance to those cultures as they are to ours.
I get your point that transient societal norms about beauty play a role. But are you saying that evolutionary biology has zero relevance? Or are you just saying that it plays a smaller role than people realize?
|
United States22883 Posts
|
both sides are guilty, men for weighing looks very high, and women for weighing wealth/status s very high.
that said, i don't want a woman who solely wants me to secure her lifelihood.
This again proves that men and women are not meant to be together. but wait.. there is something called love, that changes things.
|
Agree with most of what Jibba said. But let's not forget that the terms beauty and attractiveness are two very different concepts. We can definitly observe differences amongst cultures but there are some universal concepts that make man and women attractive to the other gender.
You do have to realize the intention behind the feeling of attractiveness though. When talking about sexual partners and people that we have brief relationships with humans tend to choose typical society like beauty over evolutionary preferences. Creating typical beauty like victoria's secret models mentioned above or male models.
While a form of beauty and definitly a form of attractiveness it does not explain everything. And that is were evolution comes in (btw lets not forget that cultural values and perception of beauty are also bound by evolution, i'd say most of our values are derived based on natural selection and the evolutionary process, but that's a different discussion entirely.)
But there are a lot of studies that do suggest that when it comes to reproduction, when it comes to finding "life partners", lets just say when it comes down to serious bussiness, we do tend to choose partners that posses evolutionary traits that ensure healthy and as perfect as possible offspring. And we do tend to choose partners that are quite similar to us.
For example the attraction of men to female shapes is hardwired in the brain, it ensures health and the ability to produce healthy offspring.
So stating that any of these factors is superficial is just nonsense. Beauty and money have a place when determining attractiveness, as do evolution and a lot of cultural aspects. They just don't explain the entire process of finding a partner...
|
On March 03 2013 01:49 Jibba wrote:
Smaller role.
I feel the way you argue is likely to lead the reader to believe you discount the impact evolution has on what we find beautiful/attractive. While you are certainly right in that culture has a major impact on our perceptions, I still feel that the entire foundation stems from evolutionary needs. Also certain aspects like symmetry (which indicates health) actually do seem to be universally attractive.
|
On March 03 2013 01:30 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 01:05 ziggurat wrote:On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2013 09:29 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:[quote] Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role: [quote] Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records. the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear. All of your examples of self-reported data. Messages received, on the other hand, is not self-reported data. The only picture you see is the blindfold you deliberately put on. Take the blindfold off and take a look around, and you can easily find tons of data that corroborates the notion that women are attracted to men with wealth. Let me get you started: http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2008/genes.pdfwww.landofangels.de/py1/buss-barnes-1986.pdfhttp://www.popline.org/docs/1239/131493.htmlOn March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticsthere was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one. You're giving philosophical links on the abstract nature of beauty, which is irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the biological facts of human sexual attractiveness. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:
also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them. women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too. when the power shits, your point dies. if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with. Because the traits which make a man biologically successful are not the same traits that make a woman biologically successful. From an evolutionary standpoint, the most important things for a woman to successfully pass on her genes are youth, health, and fertility (all of which are measured by beauty). Those traits are much less important in men, as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children. By contrast, the most important things for a man to pass on his genes is his ability to provide for his mate(s) and children. For a social species like humans, this is first and foremost measured by his social status. On March 01 2013 18:01 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:
[quote]
How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread. i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia. everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?" Once again, you're posting bullshit red herrings about art. We're not talking about art here, we're talking about sexual attractiveness. Unlike art, there is substantial scientific evidence that human sexual attractiveness is objective and consistent across the vast majority of cultures. i'll just call you a troll and move on. i made my point. still, you should read your own links" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Social_effects"The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder." "Perceptions of physical attractiveness contribute to generalized assumptions based on those attractions" "Individuals assume that when someone is beautiful, they have many other positive attributes that make the attractive person more likeable. This is also called the 'beautiful-is-good' effect" .. and so on and so forth. Sunprince is completely right about this. You are hopefully but naively arguing your opinion about how human attraction ought to work. The world would probably be a much nicer place if you were right. But the science is not on your side. I think you've missed the argument. The beholder is a part of a society and that society's norms are a very large aspect of what influences their perspective. Not evolutionary traits. And one society's norms are not every society's norms, because it's not based on objective reasons. People like to backwards track to claim it's an evolutionary characteristic, just as scientists did in the 19th century when they were attempting to connect intelligence to skull shape differences between West Africans and Caucasians, but there's no evidence that humans necessarily attribute beauty because of evolutionary characteristics. Often times they may align, but it's because they align through social characteristics and perceptions, which is why often times they don't align. Sunprince wants to make a utilitarian argument for why some people are beautiful and others are not, but attractiveness does not fit that paradigm. From ancient Israelites to Egyptians to Chinese to Greeks to Romans to Middle Age Arabs to Europeans to South Americans, etc. There is no singular ideal form. This isn't a case for "everyone is beautiful." It's a case for "in the time we're living in, in the parts of the world we're living in, there is a defined idea of beauty that is shared by most people in that space and time." It's not for health or fertility reasons, even if it started out that way, it's because we've been shown it our whole lives and all the other stuff that takes place in the socialization process. Look at it this way, if you did a diagnosis on the entire human population, in what percentile do you think Victoria's Secret models would appear in terms of health, fitness and fertility? Now do the same thing for female basketball players. Do you really think people believe VS models are the most beautiful because they're in the 99th percentile of those areas, and female basketball players are not? Of course not. We think they are because of face type and breast size, but our ideal face type and breast size is not the same as Ancient Greek's or Ancient Chinese's and probably not even modern Chinese's or modern Greek's. Furthermore, face type and breast size are probably not of the same importance to those cultures as they are to ours.
From what I know, few scientists claim that what a person sees as attractive is entirely hereditary. They usually acknowledge the influence of culture. There are some traits that are almost entirely attractive due to genetics, some which are more 50/50, and others that are pretty much just cultural. Skin color is one of those 50/50 ones, where sometimes super white skin is preferred or tanned skin is preferred. However, it's worth noting that women are lighter-skinned on average than men, and this is true of every race. So the preference is not for light, but lighter. Breast size is another one of those 50/50 ones....while there is a rough minimum and maximum for ideal size (I'm sure you know the evolutionary advantage of large mammaries), culture can influence ideals around the starting point of hereditary preference, and hence cultures differ.
Pro female basketball players are almost certainly not in the 99th percentile in terms of fertility. The hormonal makeup that lends itself to reaching the top level of such a sport is relatively masculine and is quite different from one that maximizes fertility. As for using models as examples of ideal beauty within a culture, it may seem like a safe choice, but it's important to note that the people evaluating the models may have different standards than the general population. A large number of fashion models have rather androgynous bodies (which are therefore unattractive to straight men). This brings me to an attribute that is almost purely hereditarily preferred - the hourglass figure. Availability of food and resources can influence the ideal body fat percentage. Low availability = higher preferred body fat.
As for face type, men exhibit certain facial attributes more strongly than women do, and this is also cross-cultural. Men have a taller and wider masseter, more angled jaw, wider cheek bones and eye sockets, bushier eyebrows, larger noses, sloping forehead, more prominent brow ridges, and squarer chins. Some of these attributes, like bushy eyebrows and larger noses, might be explained by natural selection - bigger bushy eyebrows do a better job of catching particles before they reach the eye, deeper eye sockets protect the eye, and larger noses allow for greater air intake. Most of the other traits, though, are thought to be due to sexual selection. As with skin tone, this average holds across every ethnicity.
I've noticed that many people who try to explain things in terms of cultural influence do not take into account that culture arose from our nature and living conditions. Culture continues to influence and be influenced by our genetics, so attempting to take a side in the nature vs nurture dichotomy is somewhat pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
