I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
i think you should keep men out of this discussion. There is enough to discuss here without bringing up sexism. There is always some superficial quality that woman will be attracted to - if not money then it will be looks. Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology.
You could also say the same about people (women and men) who like to have sex a lot. They probably personally like having sex more than other people, so they have more sex (with different people usually). Why is that bad?
I read an article that argued that women are more likely to be attracted to men with money when they are younger, as this is a time in life when they want security and to be provided for. More mature women, more likely to have careers/financial security are then more interested in a man's looks than his money. See: cougars.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women. It may be that he earned his money through hard work and ingenuity. It may be that he inherited his money from his money or his occupation alone. The amount of money a man makes tells you very little concerning whether you would have a happy relationship with him. And if you make a good amount of money in your profession, attraction to money decreases dramatically. Rather money is supposed to be indicative of other attractive qualities or a placebo to generate said attractive qualities.
it depends... it's like I want a woman who is going to do a good job raising my children and has qualities that are beneficial in that regard. Naturally, a woman will want a man who can provide, that's kind of the flip side of that coin.
On February 22 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote: If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology.
My logic does not say being able to pro-create is the only measure of attraction. There are other factors as well.
What I'm saying is that there are many qualities about a person that makes them "attractive" and fall under the "superficial" category that society has placed a label on.
What I'm saying is the concept of superficial shouldn't even be a word used in the world of attraction.
On February 22 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote: If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology.
My logic does not say being able to pro-create is the only measure of attraction. There are other factors as well.
What I'm saying is that there are many qualities about a person that makes them "attractive" and fall under the "superficial" category that society has placed a label on.
What I'm saying is the concept of superficial shouldn't even be a word used in the world of attraction.
Imagine "superficial" being synonymous with "ephemeral".
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I actually find men in general more superficial
You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
I go the the gym regularly with my friends. We're not even typical "superficial" men, we like to date women with personalities.
Yet at the gym we rate women on a 1-10 scale, and say absolutely nothing about what kind of person that female is. I don't need to do a survey amongst other guys out there to see if there is any difference when talking about women. It's a 1-10, hot or not, "I'd do her" or "I wouldn't" scale.
One of my best friends talks to me about her dating partners. For her, her measure of attraction is looking at a guy and thinking if she can "reproduce" with him, if their lives would match.
That is different than her going around giving 1-10 number scales on men.
Some women just can't imagine themselves "reproducing" with a man that earns 15 000$ a year. The life she wants isn't compatible with it. Why is this superficial?
It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
There are so many double standards between genders right now. Hey if you don't mind being used like that, then go find yourself a gold digger. Don't get tricked though, sign that prenup, cuz she probably won't mind living with half your money and a hotter guy instead.
That's my US advice. I don't know about marriage laws in other countries.
Superficiality is short sighted, you have no idea if a wealthy parent is better than a poor parent. This isn't to say it's wrong to want someone with money, only that judging someone based on a single trait is risky.
Additionally, there is probably a cultural reason society doesn't favour extreme superficiality. I doubt being excessively superficial actually benefits most people.
Yes, everyone is a superficial, but there is a difference between a gold digger (taboo for a reason) and your average person who finds blondes more attractive than brunettes.
If you are wealthy and your wife stays with you just because of your money you will most likely end up raising somebody's else son without knowing. Women can't choose who they are attracted to as men do because they are more emotional and impulsive and the chance of being cheated on if she is not attracted to you is close to 100%. Also what kind of shitty relationship would it be anyway? If you want to fuck a hot woman you can just go prostitutes, they are cheaper anyway.
If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships).
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries?
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
On February 22 2013 04:11 Tor wrote: Superficiality is short sighted, you have no idea if a wealthy parent is better than a poor parent. This isn't to say it's wrong to want someone with money, only that judging someone based on a single trait is risky.
Obviously. My point is with attraction it is rarely just 1 trait that makes the person attractive, there are many different traits that we see consciously as well as subconsciously.
But some traits play a larger roll in attraction than others. For men, that trait could be looks, then personality, etc etc.
For a certain female it could be the man's wealth / then his personality second, etc etc.
This topic has interested me for awhile. You can also branch off into male and female concepts of honor and loyalty and how they differ (they do) because of the biological basis they developed off of.
The fact is, women and men both prefer certain traits and while individual valuations may vary, all variance tends to fall within a normative range. That's why pick up artists are a thing, why emotionally abusive relationships chug along, and why the sad boys sitting at home writing poetry pining for their love who is oblivious of their existence need to change it up.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
On February 22 2013 04:12 aTnClouD wrote: If you are wealthy and your wife stays with you just because of your money you will most likely end up raising somebody's else son without knowing. Women can't choose who they are attracted to as men do because they are more emotional and impulsive and the chance of being cheated on if she is not attracted to you is close to 100%. Also what kind of shitty relationship would it be anyway? If you want to fuck a hot woman you can just go prostitutes, they are cheaper anyway.
woah woah woah women are impulsive? I swear to god its the other way around. And biologically speaking, women have to be more careful about emotional things such as sex cuz it affects them waaaay more than it does for men.
it is bad because, you dont get a partner, you get a hooker that likes your money. I would not call this a relation ship, its more like a contract or business. You act as couple aslong as there is money.
By my standards, this is not what I would call a healthy relationship.
I think it's not the fact of superficiality itself that matters but the extent of it. If a guy or girl focus exclusively on one superficial factor to the exclusion of all else, they are neglecting much of what makes life and relationships worth having. I would not question at all a woman who says her man ought to be able to provide a good standard of living for her and their children, any more than I would question a man who wants to be sexually attracted to the person he's going to spend his life with. It's the extreme cases that people question.
Where exactly that line lies, I leave to individual judgement. Dating and relationships are complex.
On February 22 2013 04:13 supervizor wrote: If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships).
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries?
If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way.
On February 22 2013 04:12 aTnClouD wrote: If you are wealthy and your wife stays with you just because of your money you will most likely end up raising somebody's else son without knowing. Women can't choose who they are attracted to as men do because they are more emotional and impulsive and the chance of being cheated on if she is not attracted to you is close to 100%. Also what kind of shitty relationship would it be anyway? If you want to fuck a hot woman you can just go prostitutes, they are cheaper anyway.
woah woah woah women are impulsive? I swear to god its the other way around. And biologically speaking, women have to be more careful about emotional things such as sex cuz it affects them waaaay more than it does for men.
You don't seem to know much about the other sex. When a woman is married it's much easier to get her rather than if she was single. If you are an attractive and socially capable alpha male you will get laid very easily with any woman while some other nice guy will raise your kids. Women are extremely weak and vulnerable to seduction and that's why they have so many defenses, but if somebody knows how to get past them it doesn't matter how much a woman is involved with somebody else, she won't be able to resist. It's just how it works, blame nature for this.
On February 22 2013 04:07 Tien wrote: Some women just can't imagine themselves "reproducing" with a man that earns 15 000$ a year. The life she wants isn't compatible with it. Why is this superficial?
Because a woman lower on that 1-10 scale isn't compatible with the lives that men want. Why is that superficial? You can point that finger in both directions. I'm just trying to refute any possible men bashing that may or may not be taking place.
On February 22 2013 04:13 supervizor wrote: If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships).
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries?
If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way.
This, but doesn't acknowledging this makes your entire OP irrelevant? It's superficial, it's just not as bad as society makes it out to be.
Edit: Feeling the need to add a bit, as it can be misconstrued. I didn't mean to say superficiality is not bad, it's just less bad than it's meant to be. In your OP it comes across as not being bad at all. Is that actually your position or do I get the wrong impression?
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable unless they undergo the same things I described above (alternatively dieting, exercise, and plastic surgery can shift things to the opposite end).
On February 22 2013 04:13 supervizor wrote: If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships).
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries?
If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way.
Not superficial. Anyone who lets themselves go that quickly lacks self-discipline and personal hygiene. Sorry, we're talking about the real world and not situations that only occur in magical parodies.
Judging people based on their looks (especially those of the opposite sex) has basis in the way our very brain is hardwired; males in any species (with sexual reproduction that requires a pair of individuals) will instinctively look for and be drawn to females that look healthy and fertile. I thought this was common sense.
Now as far as "gold diggers", I'd say there's mostly two large categories. First there's women from poorer / shaky backgrounds that will naturally look for establishing a stable, comfortable family. You could argue that this also has *some* basis in evolution, although in a far more indirect way than it does in males. I would not necessarily disagree. I can see where these women are coming from and the fact that they want to distance themselves from the hardships of their lower-class past and ensure better conditions for their children.
What I cannot understand however, is the 2nd category. The actual gold diggers. Women who are middle or upper-middle class to begin with, naturally good looking, and instead of doing anything productive for society they choose to sleep around with various wealthy middle aged men. This isn't a woman who wants to establish a healthy family, it's a low-intelligence specimen with the attention span of a brick who wants to get showered with shiny gadgets and jewelry and thinks her relationship with aforementioned men grants her some sort of high societal status.
The first category is only natural; the second is a worthless parasite. Sorry for rather aggressive tone but you can't possibly not see this.
On February 22 2013 04:13 supervizor wrote: If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships).
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries?
If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way.
not 100% how your response relates to mine, so i could be wrong in my response but: Not saying its fair, just giving an explanation. If you're a guy you could reason along my lines to avoid "golddiggers".
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world.
A woman is not a gold digger if one of the reasons she likes a guy is because of his fat bank account. She is one if she ONLY likes him for that. Superficial women are women who weigh material over non-material items (such as love, family, friends etc). A woman who is attracted to someone not for their character but their external factors can be labeled many things, depending on what those external factors are.
Men are all different from one another. So don't use a term like, men as a whole. Some men only go for money and wealth. Some men only go for women who are beautiful. There is no "whole". I'm going to skip the "if you listen to any type of man conversation", because that's just silly.
Men and women can be equally "superficial"... To think different is ignorant. Your whole argument is based on stereotypes. That shows inexperience, because I've met every color of woman and man on this planet, well, not every, but a hell of a lot, and they are all different. Even "gold diggers" are different from other "gold diggers". People are individuals. Don't generalize.
What an asshole thing to say, Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Have you ever dated ANYONE?! Women go through catalogs at sperm banks, and pick donors based on their looks! And just as many men do too! Man! Come back in 5 years and you will laugh at what you said today.
One thing you are right on, everything is personal preference. And if you want to date someone for their car, or their heart, or their huge fucking rock hard penis, that's your prerogative. And It's nobody's business but your own. Nothing wrong with it, nothing right with it. Freedom of choice allows you to be whomever you want to, and to pick whatever mate you want.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable.
Exactly my point. Looks will change, given sufficient years alot. To base a relationship on looks only, or mostly will make it unstable over the years, unless you change the basis of the relationship.
My personal opinion is that if you judge people then you are compensating for your own shortcomings, and projecting them on other people to protect your own oversized ego.
Thus I would not say that a woman being a gold digger is bad. It is how she chooses to live her life according to her priorities. I wish her the best for it.
I don't see any reason to hate someone based on them having taking a liking for money.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable.
Exactly my point. Looks will change, given sufficient years alot. To base a relationship on looks only, or mostly will make it unstable over the years, unless you change the basis of the relationship.
If you base your relationship on looks alone (or any singular trait alone), you will have a bad time. Once again I direct you to the point that this is rarely condoned in our society. Men who date hot women and are bossed around by them are not admired since we also value self-autonomy and classic views of masculinity.
My exgirlfriend left me for a man twice her age because he has lots of money. We dated for two years before this, she still loves me. She drinks a lot now. Money doesn't make you happy.
Uhh... If a woman is attracted to a wealthy man, she is expecting the guy to spend a lot of money on her, and every cent is away from the man. Men who like beautiful women doesn't take away their beauty.
Why would you assume that men care more about looks that anything else? Personally i highly doubt that i would ever get into a relationship with someone who does not either hold a Master's Degree or is working towards it, preferably from a top 100 university. For me social status is more important than good looks.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable.
Exactly my point. Looks will change, given sufficient years alot. To base a relationship on looks only, or mostly will make it unstable over the years, unless you change the basis of the relationship.
If you base your relationship on looks alone (or any singular trait alone), you will have a bad time. Once again I direct you to the point that this is rarely condoned in our society. Men who date hot women and are bossed around by them are not admired since we also value self-autonomy and classic views of masculinity.
Then I guess we were only discussing pedantics. We're pretty much of the same opinion, as can be seen in my first post.
On February 22 2013 04:26 MrRicewife wrote: Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world.
Save the condenscending attitude there fella, nobody gives a rats ass how old and experienced you think you are. You got so caught up emotionally in my opening post you missed the point completely. And lol on the "little taste of the real world".
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Decide - which is it? Personal preference or biology? If the former: personal preferences can be terrible (subjectivism is pretty bad); if the latter: whatever is natural does not necessarily have to be good (naturalistic fallacy).
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
This is a tu quoque fallacy: You attack person x for arguing that we should not be superficial by pointing out that they're a hypocrite. But being a hypocrite does not logically invalidate one's arguments.
On February 22 2013 04:37 Grumbels wrote: A lot of men would be uncomfortable with a partner that is a lot wealthier than them. I don't think that's true the other way around usually.
That's just a leftover from earlier masculine ideals.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically.
Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50?
No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable.
Exactly my point. Looks will change, given sufficient years alot. To base a relationship on looks only, or mostly will make it unstable over the years, unless you change the basis of the relationship.
If you base your relationship on looks alone (or any singular trait alone), you will have a bad time. Once again I direct you to the point that this is rarely condoned in our society. Men who date hot women and are bossed around by them are not admired since we also value self-autonomy and classic views of masculinity.
Then I guess we were only discussing pedantics. We're pretty much of the same opinion, as can be seen in my first post.
Pretty much. I think superficiality is a matter of attitude rather than subject.
Well obviously these relationships have their advantages like you've mentioned with genes and a good future for possible children. However the reason people react to relationships based on "money in exchange for beauty" is not only the obvious parallel to prostitution, but also the lack of a foundation based on love and common interests.
Take me as a chemical engineer for example, I could get together with some dumb blonde that has no idea what I do and doesn't give a shit about it. I'll buy her stuff to make her happy, she lets me have sex with her and I'm happy? Is that really all it would take too fulfill me?
My answer is no. I atleast want to have something incommon with the mother of my childen, it's not something I could share with a woman I don't respect and love. Maybe that makes me a hopeless romantic, but I'll keep waiting for it.
To be clear I don't mind others doing this, I just couldn't really commit to a relationship such as that myself.
On February 22 2013 04:26 MrRicewife wrote: Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world.
Save the condenscending attitude there fella, nobody gives a rats ass how old and experienced you think you are. You got so caught up emotionally in my opening post you missed the point completely. And lol on the "little taste of the real world".
Yet you are sidestepping his other valid comments right now.
As I see it, time spent with your partner should please you. A gold digger doesn't want to spend time with a wealthy partner; a gold digger wants to spend time with money, and uses a wealthy partner to acquire it. That is very different from eroticizing wealthy partners.
Likewise, a person who desires beautiful partners as a status symbol is very different from a person who desires beautiful partners because they particularly enjoy beauty.
On February 22 2013 04:42 Intox wrote: Well obviously these relationships have their advantages like you've mentioned with genes and a good future for possible children. However the reason people react to relationships based on "money in exchange for beauty" is not only the obvious parallel to prostitution, but also the lack of a foundation based on love and common interests.
Take me as a chemical engineer for example, I could get together with some dumb blonde that has no idea what I do and doesn't give a shit about it. I'll buy her stuff to make her happy, she lets me have sex with her and I'm happy? Is that really all it would take too fulfill me?
My answer is no. I atleast want to have something incommon with the mother of my childen, it's not something I could share with a woman I don't respect and love. Maybe that makes me a hopeless romantic, but I'll keep waiting for it.
To be clear I don't mind others doing this, I just couldn't really commit to a relationship such as that myself.
Random butt-in: you don't want to talk about prostitutes when discussing "money in exchange for beauty". Maybe courtesans.
On February 22 2013 04:12 aTnClouD wrote: If you are wealthy and your wife stays with you just because of your money you will most likely end up raising somebody's else son without knowing. Women can't choose who they are attracted to as men do because they are more emotional and impulsive and the chance of being cheated on if she is not attracted to you is close to 100%. Also what kind of shitty relationship would it be anyway? If you want to fuck a hot woman you can just go prostitutes, they are cheaper anyway.
woah woah woah women are impulsive? I swear to god its the other way around. And biologically speaking, women have to be more careful about emotional things such as sex cuz it affects them waaaay more than it does for men.
They should be more careful about emotional things, but they arent. They give in to their emotion all the time even tho it can be the dumbest thing to do. Currently experiencing a great example of this in the form of my gf's best friend. Bitches be crazy...
OT: I can only understand the "golddigger" mentality if the woman's attraction is based on her attraction to the qualities that got the man his money, like ambition, ingenuity, brilliance, hardworking, dedicated, etc. However, what ive seen is girls that want to marry a rich guy out of pure laziness (so they never have to work) or some notion of their only job being to raise the family and be a loyal wife for their husband's family (which who is to say that is wrong, just opinion).
Men may be more shallow when it comes to looks i believe because of the prevalence of beautiful models and how every man aspires to have one from a young age. As a whole society seems to be okay with the fact that men are supposed to want a girlfriend that's a model, and every woman feels like they need to try their best to be that model (because that's what men want?). Maybe there is just too much emphasis all around on physical beauty?
Maybe your friends are just bros? None of my friends are into good looking women that are annoying/dumb/etc. People conversate about what is readily available (oh she is hot, dam I would need a few beers for that , etc) But I dont know many people that actually rate looks as their #1 including myself.
Can be the hottest girl in the world but if she is even remotely bitchy or annoying, not gonna have any part of that.
I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I think these scenarios are mostly "would you bang?" scenarios. Lack of attractiveness isn't any less important for me than personality if I'm looking for an actual relationship and not just a person to sleep with.
And if you are just looking for someone to sleep with than who cares if she's a gold digger and you're just in it for the looks, but I get the feel in the OP that you are also indicating this is the case in long-term relationships, which again, I would agree to to and extent, but I still don't think it's as clear cut as the way you worded it.
On February 22 2013 04:11 Tor wrote: Superficiality is short sighted, you have no idea if a wealthy parent is better than a poor parent. This isn't to say it's wrong to want someone with money, only that judging someone based on a single trait is risky.
Obviously. My point is with attraction it is rarely just 1 trait that makes the person attractive, there are many different traits that we see consciously as well as subconsciously.
But some traits play a larger roll in attraction than others. For men, that trait could be looks, then personality, etc etc.
For a certain female it could be the man's wealth / then his personality second, etc etc.
I don't see how you're addressing his point. "Gold diggers" value money exclusively whereas wealthy men, heck anyone, wants to be valued for other aspects as well like their character and accomplishments. Same for men who're overly concerned with looks. You're kind of ignoring the fact that most people are ok with superficiality save in the extreme cases - at which point id say both men and women become subject to harsh judgement.
It's not a personal preference for me to want to be with a attractive female, it is a biological imperative. The same way it is not a personal preference for a female to be with a financially stable or wealthy male.
On February 22 2013 05:00 biology]major wrote: It's not a personal preference for me to want to be with a attractive female, it is a biological imperative. The same way it is not a personal preference for a female to be with a financially stable or wealthy male.
Biologically speaking, a woman is not attracted to a wealthy man since biologically the concept of "wealth" has no meaning. Rather you are attracted to the implied traits behind the wealth.
On February 22 2013 05:05 Sejanus wrote: Good point. I too have nothing against prostitution
Said the man who never had to service dirty, smelly strangers in the name of making a living.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world.
A woman is not a gold digger if one of the reasons she likes a guy is because of his fat bank account. She is one if she ONLY likes him for that. Superficial women are women who weigh material over non-material items (such as love, family, friends etc). A woman who is attracted to someone not for their character but their external factors can be labeled many things, depending on what those external factors are.
Men are all different from one another. So don't use a term like, men as a whole. Some men only go for money and wealth. Some men only go for women who are beautiful. There is no "whole". I'm going to skip the "if you listen to any type of man conversation", because that's just silly.
Men and women can be equally "superficial"... To think different is ignorant. Your whole argument is based on stereotypes. That shows inexperience, because I've met every color of woman and man on this planet, well, not every, but a hell of a lot, and they are all different. Even "gold diggers" are different from other "gold diggers". People are individuals. Don't generalize.
What an asshole thing to say, Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Have you ever dated ANYONE?! Women go through catalogs at sperm banks, and pick donors based on their looks! And just as many men do too! Man! Come back in 5 years and you will laugh at what you said today.
One thing you are right on, everything is personal preference. And if you want to date someone for their car, or their heart, or their huge fucking rock hard penis, that's your prerogative. And It's nobody's business but your own. Nothing wrong with it, nothing right with it. Freedom of choice allows you to be whomever you want to, and to pick whatever mate you want.
I think most guys find themselves entrapped in this false dichotomy that women are somehow fundamentally different from men in terms of desires and what qualities they are attracted to in the opposite sex.
Women are not as different from men as society wants you to believe. Generally women are also attracted to good looking men, just as men are attracted to good looking women. Money is not a very important criterion in dating/marriage, at least not in comparison to looks/personality/social status. Social status is not synonymous with wealth.
A woman would rather be with a guy who looks like a model and has a great personality but doesn't make that much money, than with a fat balding middle aged guy whose money falls out of his pockets but has no personality or motivation or goals in life.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
One of the most advantageous features of our species IS that we've been able to overcome the biological and primal nature to build the kind of societies we have today, which are if not built, then certainly sustained, on various ideals that transcend our biological nature.
Suggesting that something that is "simply biological" or "human nature" is by default acceptable is a line of thought that seems to be quite popular these days, but if you think about it, most of the things that are in our "nature" are destructive, chaotic and not exactly beneficial to a civilized society.
It's not something that should be accepted, but something that we should strive to overcome instead.
So, evolution has come up with a nice general strategy, which is well described already in this thread - women seek wealthy men because they should be able to be better providers, whereas men seek attractive women because... yeah It is natural this strategy has become prevalent, darwinian selection chose it since it dominates others. Thats because there is a CORRELATION between being wealthy and ability to provide, but not CAUSALITY.
On the other hand, if you: - are intelligent - have personality - have feelings, affections, want to share - wanna live happy life in harmony ...
you might want to ditch this stupid ad-hoc darwinian strategy that`s been hardcoded into your genes. Bummer is you can`t (that easily). Think about it - lying, plotting and higly attractive woman + coldhearted, wealthy dominant man are (more) likely to have their son become a head of mafia and own up others - that`s THE WIN for a selection strategy in darwinian evolution. I think you all can finish my argument from here.
In my experience, very few women are real gold diggers; there aren't that many women who would decide to build a relationship or marry someone purely because of their money. But you have to remember that money and career is also associated with certain character traits; let's face it, most of the people with no savings and crappy earning potential in the modern world are only broke because they are lazy or inept.
If you see a guy earning 200k per annum at the age of 28 with his law degree and a partnership at Munich, you can be fairly certain that they are reasonably determined, able to set and achieve goals, and know how to work hard. On the other hand the guy that works at mcdonalds 10 years after finishing high school probably has all sorts of issues and most people don't want to deal with that. There are people who don't have savings or a stable income by conscious choice, as in because they pursue a different lifestyle or whatever - but if you think about it, those people rarely have trouble attracting women either, for all kinds of reasons.
As for people saying that selecting prospective partners based on their looks is shallow and won't make you happy, regardless whether you're male or female... that's just dumb. You're never going to be happy in a relationship with someone if you do not find them physically attractive; different people have different tastes / standards, but literally every single human being on Earth 'discriminates' based on looks at least to some extent, be it consciously or unconsciously - we all do it. There's nothing wrong with that, either. To have a happy relationship you should feel good both about yourself and your partner, including the physical aspects.
I wouldn't consider a girl being attracted to a financially stable man her age as superficial. I think it would be superficial if it was a 20 year old marrying a 60 year old - it's obviously not for the sex (haha), highly unlikely for the looks (I guess I won't deny the strange possibility), and he won't be around as long as the average 20 year old guy (barring accidents) to care for her children. So what else would there be? As for two twenty year olds, an argument for money being a bad thing is much less prominent imo.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
One of the most advantageous features of our species IS that we've been able to overcome the biological and primal nature to build the kind of societies we have today, which are if not built, then certainly sustained, on various ideals that transcend our biological nature.
Suggesting that something that is "simply biological" or "human nature" is by default acceptable is a line of thought that seems to be quite popular these days, but if you think about it, most of the things that are in our "nature" are destructive, chaotic and not exactly beneficial to a civilized society.
It's not something that should be accepted, but something that we should strive to overcome instead.
I think it is something that should be accepted. There, now we're at an impasse.
What's more, the way you're using "nature" seems very narrow. Empathy, community, and a desire to see things ordered are also in our nature. You seem to be creating tiers of human "nature" when in fact all these characteristics are there all the time in varying hierarchies by person.
Society is not a rebelling against nature, it is an extension of it. Ideals are not transcendent of our natures, they are our natures.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
im guessing you are quite young from your post . a woman who is called a gold digger = the MAIN reason if she with the man that because he got money , ( aka not one of many reason , she can hate him , but he got money so she with him )not like a add-on in sc , in sc2 term that like the COMMAND CENTER.
and honestly the other point you bring about ""men as a whole are superficial'' realy not true , that true only when you are realy young from my experience , pass 25++ year old if she good looking that a + , nothing else . for talking with friend ( who got kid and family ) and living my life most people around me find the personality of the woman realy more important that how she look . usualy past this age you are done with the one night stand and so on and are more looking for a girl to stay with you for your life ( or try )
superficialty not a bad thing = biological ? what kind of nonsence im reading here.....?? you bring many stuft at the same time here and try to link them for make them work , you need to pick each one because all of them are not the same thing and not linked .
''Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of.'' most guy who work and got standar job got enough money for raise children , and the girl work too , that how this work usualy . now if you say this for a 3rd world country about a poor girl who pick a man because he give food for her baby that totaly something else .
for man who pick girl for how they look exist , just like real gold digger but are a minority . you started this topic about real girl gold digger and for reply to only that , they are superficial and are just like parasite in my eye ( again a girl like that pick the guy ONLY because he got money , or that realy the main reason )
It's bad because money is not a trait of the actual person, it's one of their possessions; liking someone for their money is like liking someone for their house, car, record collection, steam library, or something else along those lines, which is pretty pathetic in my opinion.
MoltkeWarding wrote: The point is none of these women are marriable.
Pictures don't tell much about how attractive someone really is.
How can you know whether you're attracted to a person or not until you know
-Their religion, and respective piety -Their family and family history -Their socio-economic class -Their artistic and literary talents -Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism -Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture -Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities -Their mental and emotional stability -Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life -Their racial origins (if not already clear) -Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc)
The above listed constitute 95% of the qualifications for any marriable and therefore attractive girl
A lot of that goes for men as well. It's not just about money, it's about the "socio-economic class".
If she's only interested in money, she's a gold digger, but she's bound to like something else as well, not only that. And everyone is different.
edit: yeah, I just wanted to find a place to post that gem again, and educate the newer posters. :D
The choices made in regards to the ability to produce money or the the looks have nothing to do with gender. It's all about social pressure. You were educated to voice your opinion regarding this matter and not by direct teaching but with a ripple effect. If your male best buddy would chose a woman for here money than his parents, friends and acquaintances would back talk about how he is a lazy bum, he is unable to sustain himself and so on. Repeat something enough times and it becomes a fact. Coupled with the innate competitively of male gender and you have a ego that strives to upkeep himself. Once he does that he does not need to look for equity in opposing sex, and the logical step is "hell I got all this money, I worked hard for them, at least I'll chose someone that makes me feel good at night"
On the other side there is no social pressure on women and the nature of woman competitivity manifests mostly by proxy and perception.
Just a really shallow and poor thought, but a rich partner can mean that you can be lazy or unproductive. In a way, they can take advantage of the financial status. A beautiful/sexy partner can't really be used in the same way.
This thread have some of the most educated, hilarious, and misguided posts I have ever came across on this forum. The title of the thread is even somewhat uninformed in plethora of ways.
I'd say this, women's primary attraction to a man is absolutely NOT based on his money, the house, the car, and/or the blings blings. They are HOWEVER attracted to a male who get a hold of their EMOTIONS. There are many cases where a man of great wealth loses their trophy wife to the plumber, pool boy, or some random dude at bar. Reason for cheating against a rich, successful husband is that they were bored by the husband's overall presence. The man that she have cheated with offered her that dangerous adrenaline rush that she craved.
That being said, there is a whole another reason why they ARE attracted to man with money. If you have money, that means you have the POTENTIAL to bring her into various uncharted territories from her previous state of mind. This would includes vocation trips to exotic places, eating at high end restaurants, getting her attires that impressed her peers. But if you arrive to a certain spot where you can no longer pull her emotions at the other polarity, then sooner or later, she will get bored of you and begin on seeking thrills and that's when a gold digger would ultimately cheat on their husbands.
The conclusion to this post is that YOU as a man w/o perhaps the most beautiful property or having an abundant amount of cash CAN not only score yourself a extremely gorgeous women but to keep her as well if you followed some simple rules. That rule is to always bring her into new experiences that she have not yet felt before (notice the word "felt", meaning emotions). That means to be unpredictable in your course of actions, to never settle down, always looking to go ahead and bring her into doing new things. If you manage to keep her busy along with yourself, you'll be the superhero in her heart. Nevertheless, this is where the money problem comes into the play to financially keeping the parade alive.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women. It may be that he earned his money through hard work and ingenuity. It may be that he inherited his money from his money or his occupation alone. The amount of money a man makes tells you very little concerning whether you would have a happy relationship with him. And if you make a good amount of money in your profession, attraction to money decreases dramatically. Rather money is supposed to be indicative of other attractive qualities or a placebo to generate said attractive qualities.
Men more superficial? The most guys (yes, even the majority, who are pretty simple and undeveloped beings) will look at in terms of superficiality is looks. Women look at money, looks, status, and basically anything they can get out of dating a guy. Extremely superficial and selfish.
Personally I don't put up with any girl who's dating me simply because of what she can get out of dating me. Even in college, eg. before even making loads of money, this is very common. I'm not one to be used. It's a lot better being single and doing whatever than it is being used or being made a whipped bitch (all too common at my univ.). I've been single for 14 months, which is by far the longest I've been single in college, and it's not bad at all.
The money thing is true though. This summer, I had an internship. When I'd go downtown on weekends, I'd tell women I was working with Intel. Let's just say they suddenly became 10x more interested and were very dtf... >_>
wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
It's just how it is. Men who don't have money get upset about it (self-defense mechanism). Same reason fat women get upset that men like non-fat women. It's a shaming technique to increase one's self-esteem ("Those who aren't attracted to me are unattracted because I don't have some external thing, not that I'm lazy, etc).
Superficiality is biological? I strongly disagree with that statement. I would argue its due to mental conditioning. If a women like a man because he has money, and the man like the women because she is pretty, they (probably) share no true bond and are only fulfilling crude desires and are not truly 'in love'.
Looking for money or look isn't superficialism but rather materialistism. And in the end you can't really blame someone who think materialist, especially after a certain point in life, because you learn that there is less and less reward for looking at intellectual things. Money doesn't make you happy but it helps. And look isn't everything but it still matters a lot.
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
On this topic, I'd be lying if I denied that I find women who can provide a stable future a lot more attractive than those who still are a huge question mark. This doesn't necessarily mean rich, but a stable job, college/university education etc.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
One of the most advantageous features of our species IS that we've been able to overcome the biological and primal nature to build the kind of societies we have today, which are if not built, then certainly sustained, on various ideals that transcend our biological nature.
Suggesting that something that is "simply biological" or "human nature" is by default acceptable is a line of thought that seems to be quite popular these days, but if you think about it, most of the things that are in our "nature" are destructive, chaotic and not exactly beneficial to a civilized society.
It's not something that should be accepted, but something that we should strive to overcome instead.
I think it is something that should be accepted. There, now we're at an impasse.
What's more, the way you're using "nature" seems very narrow. Empathy, community, and a desire to see things ordered are also in our nature. You seem to be creating tiers of human "nature" when in fact all these characteristics are there all the time in varying hierarchies by person.
Society is not a rebelling against nature, it is an extension of it. Ideals are not transcendent of our natures, they are our natures.
So by your reasoning veganism for example is our nature instead of transcendent of our nature?
There's countless ideals that transcend our very nature. To think otherwise is belittling our existence and intelligence.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
Yes I know it can be frowned upon, I just disagree that a woman is called a gold digger when it is one of the traits. Nearly every woman wants the man to have wealth to at least a small degree and I don't think you would classify nearly every woman as a gold digger.
I agree with your point, I just don't think that's a very accurate description of a gold digger. I would only really classify them as a gold digger if it is the primary trait.
edit: I mean maybe that's just how I identify one personally, I dunno.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
if you describe someone's postive traits as 'he/she has money' instead of 'they are ambitious, independent and successful; not a deadbeat' then yeah, you're gonna rightfully get judged, guy or girl. there's a big difference between those words
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
Disagreed, women also look for primitive features in men, such as looks. So they take it a step further in wanting to be financially secure for their future and their children, which is understandable. Men on the other hand do not seek the same thing in women, except for the few men who have sugar mamas; which are rare.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
I think the responses in this thread should indicate to you that what you're describing isn't looked down on as much as you think. Maybe its just in the particular circles you run in?
I spent many years in a lower middle class area and most of the young adultish females I knew were very open about wanting to find a partner with a decent job or education. Particularly those whose parents immigrated to the us. They weren't judged for having standards, only the ones who took it to extremes and would serial date and try to extract huge shopping trips and presents out of their boyfriends and would dress sleazy, go clubbing, obsess over their appearance and clothes and talk about finding a rich guy, these were the ones looked down on. Much as I imagine idiotic, vaguely misogynist, womanizing "bros" are looked down on by most women.
I think most women would like most men if they got to know them. I think women who only chase men with money realize this in themselves and decide that they might as well pursue the richer guys since they are probably gonna like the guy in the long run either way.
Though that's probably just one type of gold digger. Others might think themselves incapable of getting emotionally attached to a man while others still might feel pressured by society. IDK its an interesting topic.
On February 22 2013 05:32 Ettick wrote: It's bad because money is not a trait of the actual person, it's one of their possessions; liking someone for their money is like liking someone for their house, car, record collection, steam library, or something else along those lines, which is pretty pathetic in my opinion.
It may be pathetic if all of those things were given to you from either parents or relatives, but if you earned all of those things does that not say alot about you? It is perfectly reasonable to like/respect/adore someone for their money, because it can represent a large portion of who they are as a person.
The girls I've dated have never been overly attractive except when I first started dating. I learned early on that just cause it looks good doesn't mean shes mentally sane, now not all hot chicks are crazy, but since then I've kind of stopped chasing after everything that looks perfect. I tend to base my relationships on having a common interest, exercise, gaming, and food; and so far it has proven to work better than looks.
As for the biology thing, I think someone with a better more stable personality and a higher level of intelligence will make more sense when it comes to raising a child and as far as the child's chances of survival in the world as an adult.
But when you're talking about men choosing their partner over mostly looks I am thinking you mean sexual partner and not life-long or several years long partner, if this was true then every time a woman became old and unattractive then the man would just work hard to make more money and get a hotter younger woman. That view of the world doesn't hold water at least not for a long period of time.
It's definitely part of the initial attraction. But people stay together because they can trust each-other and form a bond that transcends it all. Sounds sappy, but I mean it in a very utilitarian fashion. The biggest thing people crave is companionship. It's built into our brain since we're social animals.
Those who remain in a relationship purely for money and looks will find themselves alone very soon. Or they have some deep issues with trust and maybe borderline sociopaths. BUT. Don't judge, I agree with OP on that.
You don't know a person well enough at first glance. I once met an older rich man with a hot young chick, and I figured it was the money. But once I got to know them, they were a really good couple in other ways as well. They openly admit it was money initially, but that it's blossomed into something more. Just my anecdote. Take it as you will, but be more positive and less cynical. Er, objectively positive. I can't stand naivety as much as I can't stand cynicism.
From my personal observation I think girls pay more attention to looks in guys than the other way around, contrary to what the standard wisdom says. I see plain girls getting much more attention than plain guys, as long as they keep slim. Not sure how it is in other parts of the world but this is what I notice right around me.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I actually find men in general more superficial
You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
Males care almost exclusively about looks when searching for a partner. Some research said I read somewhere a long time ago in some book.
Excuse me? That's entirely insulting to men in general. You mean pigs? See, a man who looks only for looks is equivalently superficial to a woman who only looks for power. Is there anything to discuss here? As a man my first thoughts go like this "Is she polite, can she carry a conversation, is she smart, is she clean" and then I look upon her with regards to attractiveness. Personally I look at weight as a hygiene related topic, if she's overweight (hence why I kept this last) and could help it by being more active then I find that as a personality fault (I'm not talking about 10-30 over, I mean like 200+). That's one of the last things I consider and the only superficial part imo. If a girl can make me laugh, keep a conversation going and is polite I find her just as attractive as a super model ever could (lacking these traits).
So yeah, let's not scape goat all men into a single ridiculous assertion of looks > everything and I won't make the ridiculous assumption women only seek money/wealth/power for the same reasons.
Women certainly don't like wealthy men because that would give their children a better living standard.
Looks are part of who you are. Money isn't. If you wanted, you could give that "quality" (money in this case) to anyone and it would make them as attractive as you to a a woman who likes money.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
In my opinion looks is still a lot more personal than wealth, wealth is not even a trait of the actual human being you'd be spending your time with. How are the two even comparable?
Only bad if they run out of money. Your free to base your relationships on just about anything (within reason). Personally though I feel its wiser to base these things on more permanent less tangible qualities. But thats just cause i dont mind eating KD like 3 times a week :D
On February 22 2013 09:12 grobo wrote: In my opinion looks is still a lot more personal than wealth, wealth is not even a trait of the actual human being you'd be spending your time with. How are the two even comparable?
Wealth is typically something that requires valuable personal qualities to acquire, hold onto, and grow.
Arguably, those are more important than looks, something which automatically degrades over time.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
On February 22 2013 07:18 puppykiller wrote: I think most women would like most men if they got to know them. I think women who only chase men with money realize this in themselves and decide that they might as well pursue the richer guys since they are probably gonna like the guy in the long run either way.
Divorce statistics which indicate that women intiate the majority of divorces suggest the opposite. Most women will dislike most men the longer they get to know them (the same is true for men, to a lesser extent).
On February 22 2013 07:18 puppykiller wrote: Though that's probably just one type of gold digger. Others might think themselves incapable of getting emotionally attached to a man while others still might feel pressured by society. IDK its an interesting topic.
Most women do not consciously gold dig. It just so happens that most women subconsciously find men with high status to be more attractive, and wealth can be a large contributor to that high status.
From a woman's perspective (Me) every woman is very different but in the end they want the same thing that is built into their biology. So ill address this from a biological standpoint. Woman are attracted to men based on what she can sense will be the best outcome for her children (deep down that is 100% true). To me it comes down to three things. 1) Attraction = Good looking man shows a woman that he is healthy and will give you a good probability that your kids will be healthy in the future. 2) Wealthy = Shows that this male can, for sure provide for you and your children. 3) Connection = good connection to a partner insures that he will not leave you aka better for your children.
Personally i lean more toward the 'connection' as a woman, but that's just me. But in the end, all woman are different and being attracted to good looks or wealth or anything else isn't a bad thing at all. It just shows different ways that females approach someone who will best provide for them. Society yes 'golddiggers' are frown upon but honestly there is nothing from with it. It really just shows how different people find mates.
Two postulates: 1. Humans like cautionary tales(ie the boy who cried wolf) 2. Humans like to stereotype.
Consider women who get married to rich people and then divorce for half their money. Consider also the prevalence of divorce in marriage nowadays, where child support is a possibility if equal parenthood isnt possible that nearly always gives custody and thus child support to the mother.
These are clearly undesirable situations, and so the stereotype of the gold digger is used to remind of this repeating cautionay tale. Calling someone a gold digger and therefore superficial means thatthey are not a desirable mate if gold digger is an accurate description. Surely, women who are virtuous, loving, and dating a guy with lots of money(plenty of them, right?) are not gold diggers except in jest and certainly are not superficial.
Men do like attractive women. But they only put up with women who dont nag or have a terribad personality. Thus, real preference in women is superficial in attraction but wholesome in interaction.
Obviously this is a lot to go on, like your reasoning. But, i think rather than justifying superficialIty as natural so that its ok it exists, i think it should be better presented as something that normally and naturally occurs yet is not the end all be all of relationships. My critique is that you are too deterministic and darwinistic, making human beings predestined to do things and then saying "thats ok".
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
Haha, I like how a spiritual bond between a man and a women have degenerate into some sort of business exchange. Kudos, humanity, kudos.
Saying there's a problem with a woman liking a man for his money is like asking if it's ok for a woman to like a man because of his good looks, or because of his ability to think, or because of his desire to do this or that.
The problem isn't liking someone for this or that. The problem is when you like someone for their money and they think you like them because of something else. Or love them or whatever it is you feel about them.
The funny thing about social shit like this is that it's relative to the relationship. If you're ok with dating someone for their money, or being friends with someone for their money and they're ok with it, then I don't see the problem. Personally, I don't really agree that you could call that a friendship, but that's my opinion, and it is not my place to judge that type of thing. It's only the people who are having that relationship.
The real question this thread is begging to ask but is avoiding is.... Why do people give a fuck about other people's relationships? Unless you're involved in some way, get the fuck out. People can and will date people for whatever reason they want. It doesn't matter what it is - what matters is that they're honest about it. That's where you get "gold diggers", because they go after a guy pretending they like him for his emotion or who he is all around, but they just want this money, and will do anything to get it, moral or not.
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce.
EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed. Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, unless they are really really superficial.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed. Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, unless they are really really superficial.
Well, it is ALWAYS better to improve on your looks and your wealth than to say, not to. But thing is to connect with the girl emotionally as well. Most people here thinks that you can just go up to a random stranger and say "Hey look all my cash, BLOW ME!"
NOT going to work.
Instead you have to display your wealth in a non-arrogant manner so that you don't appear as a try-hard. Again girls are not attracted to money per say but the way you carry yourself with whatever you possess.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce.
EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets.
It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife.
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce.
EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets.
It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife.
As far as I know, most of the assets aren't even held in his name--they're held in the name of various relatives, such as his sister, his brother, etc. And couldn't he just set up false identities to dodge a paper trail?
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote: What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce.
EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets.
It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife.
As far as I know, most of the assets aren't even held in his name--they're held in the name of various relatives, such as his sister, his brother, etc. And couldn't he just set up false identities to dodge a paper trail?
Essentially it boils down to this: anything your financial advisor can tell you to do, an equally competent financial advisor can show a divorce attorney and private investigators how to dig up. On top of that, you're risking criminal prosecution or at least being blackmailed with the threat of criminal prosecution, if you are discovered.
Now, if you have highly skilled financial advisor and legal team and your wife does not, then that's a different story. But considering that your wife will be able to access your shared finances to fund her legal representation, or at least get equivalent representation due to the large contingency fees they stand to gain, that's not all that likely.
Honestly, a man's best shot (aside from marrying a woman who wouldn't divorce or pursue alimony, and maintaining a happy relationship with her) would be to make sure that his wife doesn't think he has enough wealth to go after in the first place, but that would unfortunately entail living substantially below his means. Or, you know, don't marry (or live in jurisdictions with common-law marriage).
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
Problem is that most psychological researchs are telling us that, while it's true that a lot of women are mostly attracted to power/money and while a lot of men are mostly attacted to the look/body... those peoples are more unhappy in life than the one who are actually not putting that before other criterias.
So... is it the case for a lot of people? Yes. Is it anormal? No. Is it bad? Yes it is.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
I have the dual perspective of someone who has gone between being dirt poor, and fairly wealthy during my adult life, and I find it annoying when anybody calls a girl I'm dating a "gold digger". To be honest, the types of girls I have dated in both phases are not very different, but there are certainly some girls who would date rich me but not poor me. That doesn't make them gold diggers. It just means they are attracted to success in the same way that most guys are attracted to nice tits. Sure, there are some girls out there looking for a free ride, but they are far from the norm, and it's usually a combination of factors that will land you any particular girl.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_-
Society wants to make sure women are taken care of, and government wants to make sure women aren't being supported by government when they could be supported by their ex-husbands instead. On top of that, courts receive a cut of alimony and child support payments in the form of processing fees and government incentives. For even more fun, family court judges in some jurisdictions are appointed magistrates without formal legal training. Put it all together, and there's essentially an enormous bias towards invalidating any prenup that doesn't serve the woman's best interest.
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: What's the point if they can do that?
The point is to give a false sense of security to men so that they'll get married for the benefit of society regardless of the cost to themselves.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$.
I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias?
Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
On February 22 2013 11:51 BurningSera wrote: Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make.
You'd be surprised by how many rich guys are just as shallow and interested in beautiful women. But then, it kinda works out for the rest of us, if women who see men as merely credit cards get together with men who see women as merely tits and a vagina.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
It is not "bad" but usually frowned upon, same way prostitution is.
The "gold digger" is a bad deal. If the relation is sololey about money, anything she/he can provide, you can buy for much less, wealth. Sex, Children, clean house, ex, you name it.
It is as simple as that, and neither rich are fans of gold diggers.
I don't think it has to do with the sole factor that someone is rich. If someone has a good paying job, they are considered successful, and they work hard at what they do. Whereas if someone doesn't work hard, and had a dead-end job, they not only are less successful, but it can be considered that they don't work hard enough, didn't try at school, or have little motivations to succeed.
I personally am attracted to smart girls, girls who want to do something in their life. Being motivated is an attractive attribute. For instance, I would much more likely be friends with someone who works hard in their career / academics than someone working as a delivery drive full-time.
People of the opposite sex are the same. I'm not attracted to people without motivation to follow their dreams and continue to try and better themselves. Meaning, I would rather date a girl who is preforming well at school, or working in a field that has possibilities that further her career. I'm not saying money is a factor, but instead it's a side benefit of being motivated and working hard, which are attractive attributes.
The OP is generalizing, and the majority of people within this thread that are saying "+1, agreed" are missing the picture.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$.
I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias?
Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness?
Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$.
I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias?
Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness?
Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior.
I'm just exposing double standards and seeing where people stand on the issue.
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote: I don't think it has to do with the sole factor that someone is rich. If someone has a good paying job, they are considered successful, and they work hard at what they do. Whereas if someone doesn't work hard, and had a dead-end job, they not only are less successful, but it can be considered that they don't work hard enough, didn't try at school, or have little motivations to succeed.
And yet, men who are born into wealth, status, and privilege are still highly attractive to most women.
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote: I personally am attracted to smart girls, girls who want to do something in their life. Being motivated is an attractive attribute. For instance, I would much more likely be friends with someone who works hard in their career / academics than someone working as a delivery drive full-time.
People of the opposite sex are the same. I'm not attracted to people without motivation to follow their dreams and continue to try and better themselves. Meaning, I would rather date a girl who is preforming well at school, or working in a field that has possibilities that further her career. I'm not saying money is a factor, but instead it's a side benefit of being motivated and working hard, which are attractive attributes.
Assuming you actually live by your words (and many people claim they want certain things in significant others and end up with the complete opposite), you are in the minority. The majority of men do not care much what a girl's career prospects are, and are willing to date beautiful unemployed girls, while the majority of women would not date unemployed, poor men.
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote: The OP is generalizing, and the majority of people within this thread that are saying "+1, agreed" are missing the picture.
"Anyone who believes there are no exceptions is a bigot. Anyone who believes everyone is an exception is a moron."
Generalizations don't imply everyone is like that, but that doesn't mean they don't hold truth.
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote: I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things:
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power.
I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$.
I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias?
Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness?
Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior.
I'm just exposing double standards and seeing where people stand on the issue.
Almost everything we do has its roots in our evolution. Maybe everything, even though some of the stuff doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't mean that we can't dislike it. That said I think it's fine. There's nothing wrong in being attracted to, well, attractive traits, may they be physical or otherwise. If a woman like successful or even "powerful" men, it just means she has taste IMO.
My ex was an architect who was working her way up the corporate ladder much faster than most people would, and I thought it was hot as hell.
On February 22 2013 11:51 BurningSera wrote: Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make.
You'd be surprised by how many rich guys are just as shallow and interested in beautiful women. But then, it kinda works out for the rest of us, if women who see men as merely credit cards get together with men who see women as merely tits and a vagina.
Agreed. I did say smart (as in educated one) but meh, if i were rich i'd get any woman that i like, the one who after money is ironically the easiest one to get.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Theres your next story. Shady Sands LLC: My father.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
What? I didn't assert that at all. In fact, I asserted the opposite, that it does contribute to attractiveness, but made the point that the contribution is overestimated. I'm done with this now though, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that continually willfully misinterprets and twists points to their opposites.
Yall are missing the point. Seriously. Women find money attractive because it demonstrates worth. Now, that is what women find attractive. Why do people who are supposedly pick up artists preach confidence to their students? Well now you have the answer, it is a demonstrated worth. Money and confidence have 2 things in common, not everyone has it (but anyone can get it if they work) and both show demonstrated self-worth/worthyness. People look down upon it because it isn't some shining showing of "true love" but I'll be honest here, men and women are equally as shallow. Women want demonstrated worth, that can be in the form of beauty, wealth, confidence, and a plethora of other cultural factors, and men almost universally want beauty and other forms of demonstrated worth. I can't stress that enough, demonstrated worth is what all of this is about. You don't have to love someone because of their looks, but they demonstrated worth in some way, these are just the most popular ways to do so. For men, success in the workplace and women success in the body are the popular stereotypes.
Evolutionary psychology is such a hand wavy crap. You can make up any scenario you want and you would still have explained nothing. I d be curious to see if the percentage of people using comfortable wealth as a dating criterion changes between societies and cultures. A society more materialistic, with less social mobility, that put more importance on external signs of status will likely have more people seeking wealth in a mate.
As for what is superficial: A person is a whole, if you cut people in little pieces and sort them out using restrictive and narrow criteria, that is superficial. You may miss a lot. I don't notice much difference between men and women in the superficiality department.
Evolution. Women who value material wealth of men have been more likely to leave offspring than those who didn't or valued it less. It doesn't matter much today at least in developed countries where most of us live because even poor guys are often rich enough to provide, but ,say, 10000 years ago, it was always life and death situation. Women who married to poor men were far more likely die without a child. Natural selection is at work. Behavior of women today are partially the result of it. Similarly, men are often attracted to women with a slim waist because slim waist = not pregnant = can have my own child. Those who didn't like a slim waist were more likely to have sex with pregnant women who couldn't conceive and therefore less likely to leave their trait to the next generation. Obviously, not everyone is like that because wealth/slim waist is not the only factor to successfully pass on your DNA, but such preference greatly helped to achieve the goal.
If its the ONLY thing she likes about him, it might be a problem in traditional marriage since the partner might loose the wealth somehow again, If its just something she additionally likes about him i dont see any problem then.
Same goes the other way in my opinion. I guess if a guy only likes her becouse she looks good and young and she likes only his waelth it might work out best in the end.
IF you are young and attraktive as well as wealthy dont settle for less i guess.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
???? Way to be a woman hater.
One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
What? I didn't assert that at all. In fact, I asserted the opposite, that it does contribute to attractiveness, but made the point that the contribution is overestimated. I'm done with this now though, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that continually willfully misinterprets and twists points to their opposites.
You said:
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't.
Emphasis mine.
You specifically stated that they don't like you because you're hot. I provided evidence that people actually do like you (your personality) because you're hot.
If that is not what you intended to communicate, then my argument is withdrawn.
Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife.
On February 22 2013 12:35 harlock78 wrote: Evolutionary psychology is such a hand wavy crap. You can make up any scenario you want and you would still have explained nothing. I d be curious to see if the percentage of people using comfortable wealth as a dating criterion changes between societies and cultures. A society more materialistic, with less social mobility, that put more importance on external signs of status will likely have more people seeking wealth in a mate.
As for what is superficial: A person is a whole, if you cut people in little pieces and sort them out using restrictive and narrow criteria, that is superficial. You may miss a lot. I don't notice much difference between men and women in the superficiality department.
Societies and their systems of valuation are effected by evolution just as much as the species itself is. A society that values individuals for the wrong reasons will fail to encourage successful traits in its members and will eventually be outcompeted, destroyed or conquered by more successful ones. Just saying. It's evolution at play whether you look at it at an individual, societal or species wide scale.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
That said, the reason such discrimination persists is because society/culture/biology consider men to be more disposable, so we don't rush to correct the injustice the way we would if women were on the short end of the stick.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women. It may be that he earned his money through hard work and ingenuity. It may be that he inherited his money from his money or his occupation alone. The amount of money a man makes tells you very little concerning whether you would have a happy relationship with him. And if you make a good amount of money in your profession, attraction to money decreases dramatically. Rather money is supposed to be indicative of other attractive qualities or a placebo to generate said attractive qualities.
Man is attracted to a woman based on her looks because they are more likely to generate a healthy offspring = natural.
Woman is attracted to money/status (the 21st century equivalent of top hunter/warrior of the tribe) aka: provider = unnatural.
Dating, sex, man, women...It's all about reproduction. This is evolution. Rich male means better chance for offspring to survive, and in better conditions. It means female won't be alone or have a very hard time looking after the children. Therefore, females go for wealthy males. I am pretty sure that most females don't really care that much for looks unless you're somehow horribly disfigured or just plain considered ugly by most of the people. All thing that matters is how big your wallet is.
It's simple, we want tits, they want money. Beauty/handsomeness most likely comes into play when ensuring your child is physically attractive enough so that when the time comes he/she can find a mate. Because even though tits/money is important, some females will select their mates with this in mind, and you should at least fit a certain standard of good looks unless you're pissing dollars and shitting Euros, I guess. Men will always look for sexy/beautiful women because again, their daughters have to be attractive enough to attract potential mates' attention, which is pretty important since men are primarily searching to mate with good looking females.
Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
???? Way to be a woman hater.
Stating that men are more discriminated against than women does not imply a hatred of woman, no more than stating that blacks are discriminated against implies a hatred of whites.
Every single metric that we use to demonstrate that blacks are more discriminated against more than whites, is not only true of men compared to women, but actually amplified:
That's not even getting into forms of sexual discrimination that simply don't exist in comparable ways for racial statistics, such as reproductive and parental rights.
On February 22 2013 12:54 Tien wrote: One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one.
An anecdotal exception doesn't change the reality for the vast majority of people.
On February 22 2013 12:35 harlock78 wrote: Evolutionary psychology is such a hand wavy crap. You can make up any scenario you want and you would still have explained nothing. I d be curious to see if the percentage of people using comfortable wealth as a dating criterion changes between societies and cultures. A society more materialistic, with less social mobility, that put more importance on external signs of status will likely have more people seeking wealth in a mate.
As for what is superficial: A person is a whole, if you cut people in little pieces and sort them out using restrictive and narrow criteria, that is superficial. You may miss a lot. I don't notice much difference between men and women in the superficiality department.
Societies and their systems of valuation are effected by evolution just as much as the species itself is. A society that values individuals for the wrong reasons will fail to encourage successful traits in its members and will eventually be outcompeted, destroyed or conquered by more successful ones. Just saying. It's evolution at play whether you look at it at an individual, societal or species wide scale.
Hand wavy, bring in the math. First off I d like to see the set of genes hard coding for these traits. Then a model of of propagation of these in a population of given size etc..., and no historical contradiction. For basic stuff controlled by reptilian brain good evo psy can do it. Most of the other thing is marketing type research. It explains as much as saying "it's physics at play because we are made of atoms and molecules".
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
???? Way to be a woman hater.
One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one.
Please, stop. The fact that the there is no requirements for the money that you allegedly give woman to take care of a child to actually be spent on a child is ridiculous and wide open to abuse. Not to mention the interests of the Child well being. It has nothing to do with a single case of horrible husband. But if single cases are all you`re interested, how about we speak about women that think men should be just 10% of population?
The mentality of men being expendable, being "justfully" abused for being weak, and being the "primal agressor" does exists in society. THat is a legitimate problem, the same way the brest cealing is.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
It's about masculine power.
Women like powerful men--which some women associate with money. Men don't like powerful women--which some men associate with money.
Hence some women like rich men, while men normally don't seek out rich women.
people clearly don't even know what a gold digger is. someone who marries / dates someone rich to help their family or provide for their children isn't a gold digger. a gold digger is a chick who gets with a rich guy so she can get him to buy a bunch of material possessions like jewelry or clothes or a car.
has nothing to do with being attracted to wealth. a gold digger is not what 99% of the people in this thread are even talking about.
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Dating, sex, man, women...It's all about reproduction. This is evolution. Rich male means better chance for offspring to survive, and in better conditions. It means female won't be alone or have a very hard time looking after the children. Therefore, females go for wealthy males. I am pretty sure that most females don't really care that much for looks unless you're somehow horribly disfigured or just plain considered ugly by most of the people. All thing that matters is how big your wallet is.
It's simple, we want tits, they want money. Beauty/handsomeness most likely comes into play when ensuring your child is physically attractive enough so that when the time comes he/she can find a mate. Because even though tits/money is important, some females will select their mates with this in mind, and you should at least fit a certain standard of good looks unless you're pissing dollars and shitting Euros, I guess. Men will always look for sexy/beautiful women because again, their daughters have to be attractive enough to attract potential mates' attention, which is pretty important since men are primarily searching to mate with good looking females.
You've got the general idea right, but some details wrong. The reason men look for beautiful women, is that traits related to physically attractive females indicate fertility, youth, and health. These are all factors which increase the likelihood that (a) your children will be healthy, and (b) the mother will survive childbirth (which was frequently fatal prior to modern obstetrics) to raise the children.
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Monogamy is actually not prevalent across the human species. What is prevalent is humans pretending to be monogamous, while frequently engaging in extra-pair copulations (i.e. cheating) or serial monogamy.
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote: Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife.
Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest.
The difference here is that men are superficial about women looks when we want to bang them, not when we want to settle down with them. When we want to settle down with them, looks are important too, but many other factors come into play.
Women who are gold diggers have marriage in mind as the end goal. That's the difference. Not sure why there are 9 pages on this :/
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote: Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote: Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife.
Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest.
The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility).
Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically.
I think on the issue of superficiality being "bad" I think its just a matter of degree. Like it obviously plays a role if on the beauty scale of 1-10 you're a one, because of some serious disease. I think all that people are referring to there, is that people underestimate the importance of personality in a relationship, and that it can play a more significant role than beauty if the latter is just average; and this is found to be a near-universal understanding.
I guess that's why for most people, they would avoid or label a person who is too superficial as a bad partner because there is no inner connection. Also it would require so much maintenance to keep that beauty going, and for most people they would feel really hollow and worthless inside.
Now of course, it may be possible that some people exist for whom superficial attraction is genuinely all that matters, or highly significant. That's fine! I'm always for supporting the minority of people who may be different; we shouldn't look down on them for that, because its bigotry. This is just a case of the majority assuming their views hold for everyone, I think, which would be unfortunate if this minority even exists!
On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote: Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife.
Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest.
The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility).
Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically.
I don't see the connection between "I MUST SHOW OFF MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND" and "I AM ATTRACTED TO MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND." It is more related to the desire to raise one's social status than to evolutionary biology, imo.
A person's wealth is an aspect of their character. A gold digger is a woman who seeks a man to get his money, not a woman who is attracted to successful men.
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote: It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children. However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
I would argue strongly that it is. Sure you can succeed if you come from a poor/ugly family, but it sure helps being beautiful, rich and having successful parents.
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote: wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
What? I didn't assert that at all. In fact, I asserted the opposite, that it does contribute to attractiveness, but made the point that the contribution is overestimated. I'm done with this now though, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that continually willfully misinterprets and twists points to their opposites.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't.
Emphasis mine.
You specifically stated that they don't like you because you're hot. I provided evidence that people actually do like you (your personality) because you're hot.
If that is not what you intended to communicate, then my argument is withdrawn.
The second part of that quote should have made it obvious what I was trying to communicate, your evidence that I was wrong was actually in agreement with my argument. Sorry for the confusion.
On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote: Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife.
Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest.
The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility).
Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically.
I don't see the connection between "I MUST SHOW OFF MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND" and "I AM ATTRACTED TO MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND." It is more related to the desire to raise one's social status than to evolutionary biology, imo.
M point is that you wouldn't show off something unless other people are also attracted to it.
Saying that we're attracted to something because it allows us to show off is putting the horse before the cart; rather, we show it off because it's attractive.
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
???? Way to be a woman hater.
One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one.
One of my male friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible wife. He's losing his entire livelihood, while she's living better than ever before.
See what I did there? Individual examples do not hold sway on the larger picture. While I do not want to go into the subject of which sex is currently more antagonized against in society at large (I believe it's pretty even). One can say that alternately both females and males get the short end of the stick on various cases.
In retrospect, I get the feeling that you're not really looking at the subject objectively, but rather more emotionally, if anything else.
Women who try to rationalize their tendency to be attracted to wealth and influence rather than personality factors, physical factors or conditions for offspring are more often than not either looking to gain wealth and power from that man using him like a stepping stone, or they are just really lazy spoiled bitches that don't want to grow up or get any sort of skill or knowledge in their lifetimes and just want to look pretty and mooch off their rich bf while screwing whoever they want on the side because they can.
On February 22 2013 09:37 sunprince wrote: [quote]
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
Money and power can be a presentation of personality as well, it means that you're smart, like to take charge, and dedicated to what you do. Of course it doesn't apply to all cases but you get the point.
On February 22 2013 15:04 nayumi wrote: Money and power can be a presentation of personality as well, it means that you're smart, like to take charge, and dedicated to what you do. Of course it doesn't apply to all cases but you get the point.
Money and power mean no such thing. One can very well be born into money or status among other options. At best it's slightly more likely to show intelligence and willpower, but it's very much a precarious notion.
If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If one marries for money then one will pay for every cent" Think about it and it will be come clear the meaning behind that phrase. Then comes to my mind " no matter how hot she is someone, somewhere, is tired of her shit" Looks are just an initial attraction. I immensely care more about the person themselves than the looks. And if you'ever really cared about someone than they become more attractive the more you become into a person.
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
The great thing about the human brain is the fact, that it is so powerful, it can be used freely for things other than the basic needs and instincts, which evolve around survival and natural selection, despite it having evolved out of those needs. No other animal we know of has that kind of power. Denying it is a felony.
It's fine to give someone a "shot" based on superficial shit, it's the chumps staying with hot chicks that don't treat them right or the gold diggers leeching off men for life so they dont have to lift a finger that are the problem.
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
That would be due to the tender years doctrine (prior to this, men would generally be given both custody and the responsibility of providing for the child). Thanks feminists!
Although it has technically been superseded by the "best interests of the child", it persists both in practice and socioculturally.
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
If you're thinking about personal preference, nothing is a bad thing because everyone enjoys themselves in their own way.
If you're talking about if it's actually bad, as in provides either negative or no influence on society, then superficiality is a bad thing.
More so gold diggers than anything in some ways. People who look for beautiful partners for the sake of their children are looking out for other people. Gold diggers are looking out for themselves. You say so "their children/lifestyle will be taken care of", but money doesn't take care of anybody, and it doesn't make anyone a successful person. Family does do that, and good personalities do too, but money does not.
Superficiality is bad, but it's acceptable with limits. Gold diggers are worthless, they have no purpose. To know that you're superficial is part of the solution. Realize your personality and your faults, and choose to be better than them. That is the answer. Mix your superficiality in with limits to make yourself a happier person without making yourself an idiotic burden.
Women are attracted to wealthy men (or at least they think they are) because for a long time in society, if you had a lot of money it said a lot about who you are as a person. If you were wealthy chances are that you were a smart, driven, capable man that is she is able to depend on. Basically, all very masculine features that as a social female organism finds extremely desirable and attractive. Money was a indicator of good traits to be found in males, but with our culture nowadays people simply fall in love with the money instead of what the money pointed toward before, the person who was able to earn that money.
Of course it's the same thing, that women go for money and men go for looks. Both are superficial. BOTH ARE BAD. The OP makes it seem as if everyone thinks it's bad when women go for money but it's totally fine when males go for looks. No. That's why there's sayings like "It's what's on the inside that matters". If you're a superficial person, you're not a BAD person... you're just a bit sad.
On a more serious note...uhh I think that it's fair to look for a certain threshold of sustainability (money), but if you are marrying to a large degree for the money in most circumstances this is not a good choice!
Why liking rich man has to be bad? its not, I mean in my country women have this saying: "All men are the same", so if for them all are the same of course better take the rich one)
You cheat on yourself if you chose your gf/bf based exclusively on money or looks anyways. No true happiness comes from shallowness....It's a just trick your retard brain gives you. Also, if a guy hooks up with a girl for long period of time if he is like at a 5 and she is like a 9 and you don't have anything special, like an amazing charisma.....BAIL SON! BAIL!!
This is a very complicated issue but the gist of it comes down to the fact that the prestige / consumption / class / wealth driven system is broken and very obviously destroying (or in the very least holding back) the human race as a whole at this point in history. It's time to move on from the petty materialist bullshit and rise to the next stage in the development of human consciousness, and as long as women perpetuate the current status quo by selectively going for rich people - who are much more often than not corrupt, self-serving and obtuse - over smart / kind / compassionate / creative people they aren't doing humanity any favors.
Beauty, on the other hand, is an universal absolute. It might be superficial to seek a beautiful mate but there is nothing "ugly" or corrupt about aesthetic quality, the very existence of beauty brings an inspiring light to the world unless you're obsessing over your own inadequacy.
It's bad because it makes us rich guys insecure. If you're rich you can never be 100% sure that your woman isn't yours because of money rather than real love. Could also be both, which raises another question probably more relevant than the one in OP, "can money influence love ?"
On February 22 2013 18:02 M2 wrote: Why liking rich man has to be bad? its not, I mean in my country women have this saying: "All men are the same", so if for them all are the same of course better take the rich one)
The women of your country are wrong. Not all men are the same, and not all women are the same. In fact, there's a massive difference.
"Oh man, that babe is so hot, all women are the same so I will marry her." * 2 years later * "Whoops, she's stupid and whines about crap all the time. She's also infertile. She's still hot though." * 10 years later * "Fuck my life."
On February 22 2013 18:20 kyriores wrote: Usually they are attracted to money more than they are attracted to the man.. That's not a healthy relationship.
Well it depends, if they are attracted to the man primarily because of his money...then that's okay. That's like being attracted to dimples or a 6-pack. You can lose the 6-pack and your face can be scarred, just like you can lose the money. But she still might stay attracted to you if she has developed feelings.
If she is primarily attracted to the money, and the man happens to be incidental to her obtaining the money. THEN you got problems!
In terms of who is more superficial, I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it's men, BUT women aren't far behind!
On February 22 2013 17:06 XForce3 wrote: Women are attracted to wealthy men (or at least they think they are) because for a long time in society, if you had a lot of money it said a lot about who you are as a person. If you were wealthy chances are that you were a smart, driven, capable man that is she is able to depend on. Basically, all very masculine features that as a social female organism finds extremely desirable and attractive. Money was a indicator of good traits to be found in males, but with our culture nowadays people simply fall in love with the money instead of what the money pointed toward before, the person who was able to earn that money.
Money is not just an indicator for good traits, it is a true advantage for the offspring. The game of reproduction is not restricted to biological factors.
All that talk about superficiality is so wrong. It's not like good looks or humor are morally superior traits.
A man who likes a woman just for her look, is either not foresighted (every beauty will become "ugly") or he don´t want to live with her up to the end of his life. Just my opinion :/
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
On February 22 2013 23:00 llIH wrote: I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
It's easier to teach a hot girl to be good in bed than an ugly girl to be hot.
On February 22 2013 23:00 llIH wrote: I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
It's easier to teach a hot girl to be good in bed than an ugly girl to be hot.
I sincerely hope the people claiming "look" is the sole factor are under 20... Not saying look shouldn't play a huge role, it does, but intelligence and personnality are a huge factor as well. There's no way to engage in a sane relationship, in other words spending time talking together/going out and maybe even living together, with a girl whom you're entirely seceded of mentally.
I think this complaint mostly is about women who "like" a guy ONLY for his money. The kind of girl that will wrap you around your finger, suck your wallet dry, and leave your ass when you dont have a dime left to spend. But in this situation you aren't really talking about love or anything, just someone pulling a scam on someone else.
Yeah I agree to some extent but personality is different than social standing. If you base your judgment of someone based on social standing (wealth/power) on the basis that this individual will better provide for you than a lower class man, the your essentially asserting your dependence on that individual. I've grown up bombarded with feminist ideology; the idea that woman operate on the same level intellectually and thus should operate on the same level in society has been forced down my throat more than one can shake a stick at. So I'm biased but whether or not it is acceptable for a woman to admit their lack of independence and chose a mate based on social standings is a question on the same level as 'are women equal to men'.
Pre-school philosophy threads on TL never cease to amaze me. Be careful about what you say because any time there is topic like this and it goes awry Kwark comes in for ban-cred. And it's generally not pretty.
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Nothing wrong with wealth being an attribute you like in a mate. It shows success and stability.
However, if the wealth is the primary thing you're looking for, and not a mate, then it's an issue. That's what people are offended by, people being used for their money.
On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Isn't it actually already working like you want it to work? In the statistics about the situation in the US, isn't it usually the men getting custody if they actually try to get it? The way I remember it, it's only overall more women having custody, simply because their husband doesn't try getting it.
Its only wrong when the woman cares more about the money and her ability to take care of herself with it, than about the guy himself. Having a bunch of money should just make it better not the reason for the relationship. If your with somebody for a main reason that isn't their personality, something is probably wrong whether its money or something else.
Women are NOT attracted to money. They may like money, they sure like spending it, but they are not ATTRACTED to it. What they are attracted to is the behavior of men with money. Men with resources believe themselves to be valuable and important, so they act that way, and it is that behavior women are attracted to, not the money.
Further more, it is natural for men to be attracted to a females appearance. That's how nature intended it. And no amount of social nonsense can over rule mother nature. Men are attracted to physically attractive females and women, especially the attractive ones, are attracted to men who behave and act valuable and important. Thats how mother nature intended it and it has served our species well.
If a woman's feelings would change about a man based on whether or not he has money then he should be prepared for disappointment. I'm lucky, my wife is the bread winner When we first started dating however I was the one working and she was looking to get back on her feet, since then the roles have reversed and nothin about our feelings for each other have changed in the slightest.
On February 22 2013 04:07 Tien wrote: Some women just can't imagine themselves "reproducing" with a man that earns 15 000$ a year. The life she wants isn't compatible with it. Why is this superficial?
Because a woman lower on that 1-10 scale isn't compatible with the lives that men want. Why is that superficial? You can point that finger in both directions. I'm just trying to refute any possible men bashing that may or may not be taking place.
can you read? he already pointed the finger in both directions clearly stating it goes both ways, looks vs money.
your pre-emptive refutation of 'possible men bashing' that certainly isn't taking place in the vast majority of posts in this thread, just shows your insecurity. man up and discuss or get out.
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure... he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about.
I think that it's fine to make a decision to enter a relationship or not based on earning power/etc... mainly due to the fact that income limits where your relationship can go (comfortably). You can't comfortably and safely start a family if you're broke, and living with someone else who is broke can create an awkward dynamic.
On February 23 2013 07:11 MooMu wrote: "Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit.
On February 23 2013 07:11 MooMu wrote: "Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit.
why do you think we like to fuck beautiful women
Your name tells me you know the answer to this question
On February 22 2013 23:59 Steel wrote: Yeah I agree to some extent but personality is different than social standing. If you base your judgment of someone based on social standing (wealth/power) on the basis that this individual will better provide for you than a lower class man, the your essentially asserting your dependence on that individual. I've grown up bombarded with feminist ideology; the idea that woman operate on the same level intellectually and thus should operate on the same level in society has been forced down my throat more than one can shake a stick at. So I'm biased but whether or not it is acceptable for a woman to admit their lack of independence and chose a mate based on social standings is a question on the same level as 'are women equal to men'.
Do you believe that women are smart enough to make their own choices? If so, then it's perfectably acceptable for a woman to choose a lack of independence.
Many women, in fact, do choose to be dependent, when given the choice, and many wives who do work express resentment that their husbands aren't well-off enough to allow them stay at home.
Women are equal to men, but they're not the same, and on average they don't have the same preferences in life.
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure... he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about.
That's a wild inference considering I didn't post anything beyond a gender swap.
The point being made is that the gender swapped version would be considered politically incorrect, and often attracts charges of misogyny. Either both of these statements are okay, or neither of them are. My gender swap was to illustrate a sociocultural double standard.
On February 22 2013 12:01 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Isn't it actually already working like you want it to work? In the statistics about the situation in the US, isn't it usually the men getting custody if they actually try to get it? The way I remember it, it's only overall more women having custody, simply because their husband doesn't try getting it.
I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman. Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure... he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about.
That's a wild inference considering I didn't post anything beyond a gender swap.
The point being made is that the gender swapped version would be considered politically incorrect, and often attracts charges of misogyny. Either both of these statements are okay, or neither of them are. My gender swap was to illustrate a sociocultural double standard.
They're both fairly politically incorrect statements. Both also very realistic statements. Not that I'm denying such double standards exist, but I think dating/attractiveness is one of the relatively fair aspects of life as far as gender standards. At least where I live...
On February 23 2013 08:31 GohgamX wrote: Both money and looks are not solid building blocks to a stable relationship, so that's why I frown upon it. They're both things that can be lost
I think looks are fine for an attraction, but not money. Honestly money comes and goes, but you will pass on your genes to your kids.
On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Isn't it actually already working like you want it to work? In the statistics about the situation in the US, isn't it usually the men getting custody if they actually try to get it? The way I remember it, it's only overall more women having custody, simply because their husband doesn't try getting it.
I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
bro everyone knows protoss players are more likely than zerg or terran men to be deadbeat dads
On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage.
Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Isn't it actually already working like you want it to work? In the statistics about the situation in the US, isn't it usually the men getting custody if they actually try to get it? The way I remember it, it's only overall more women having custody, simply because their husband doesn't try getting it.
I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
Not to mention that men aren't going to contest custody if it's unlikely that they will win, something known as bargaining under the shadow of the law.
It's just like how a disproportionate criminal trials result in not-guilty verdicts, which might give the false impression that the police/prosecution are doing their jobs badly... until you take into account that most of the guilty made plea bargains and never wound up at trial.
I think its alright. Everyone is shallow and no one can criticise each other for being so. Therefore there's no such thing as being shallow. Survival of the fittest. If that's what we like, then so be it.
As a guy, I am a gold digger. I like a smart and hardworking girl who wants to work hard to persevere through the hard times just to win my heart as any guy would do for a woman. Who doesn't like strong, feministic and individualistic women? These values are worthwhile and transcendent.
Hell I don't care if she's not attractive, and you may be wondering why. Survival of the fittest, its simply adaptation. The very one thing women value very very much is physical height. Forget money for the time being. Even though I'm a handsome good looking guy and kinda smart, I'm way toooo short for 99% of the females. I simply cannot compete with other men because I don't exist as a man because my presence is not felt.
Studies have shown that if the males are at least 6-7 inches(15 + cm)taller than the female, height can more than make up for lack of success/money. In fact there's increasing returns(not diminishing returns) for every inch/cm after 7-8 (15-20cm). height disparity. It's like as if she's found the tall guy of her dreams(fantasy). It really gives her that much value and pleasure.
Or do you prefer a backwards woman who has an inferiority complex who believe that women are inferior in such a way that they should only be relegated to gender roles > boring housewife, mother bearing and raising children she doesn't want, oppressed dishwasher etc.
It isn't bad at all. There is nothing wrong with women valuing financial security whilst choosing a mate. What's bad is when women place too much importance in it, or engage in a relationship solely to enjoy the financial benefits. I do agree that women tend to get the sort end of the stick when it comes to being labeled superficial. Leonardo Di Caprio pretty much exclusively dates young supermodels, but he receives little to no flak for it, which is fine. It's his choice who he wants to date. However, if a popular actress or female celeb only dated rich men or models, I think most would agree that they would receive more negative attention.
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.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
This isn't limited to just women. Gay men prefer rich guys also.
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?
There is a range for everything. The traditional mentality is that men is the provider thus women look upon men as a source of income and men don't tend to do the reverse. Why is it bad when women chase men of money? The amount of money that women need to live "comfortably" is subjective. It's when a woman defines comfort level to the high end and disregard all other aspects that is when respect are lost. Also, I'm not going to marry a woman who is a total jobless bum either (not the one who is unemployed because of economic reason). Yes, men are chasing women for her appearance and there is a range there as well, but the reverse is quite true.
We call it superficial because is. Here is the definition: a (1) : of, relating to, or located near a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface. Money is something that is outside of someone and not intrinsic to them. Looks however are a reflection of their biological makeup. People with good genes are attractive. It is below the surface as it is part of their DNA.
How is it superficial to want/find attractiveness in your partner? I'd be worried for you if you didn't rate attractiveness high on your preferability scale. Good luck ever having a decent sex life, which, imho almost dooms any relationship from the start. You need the physical AND the emotional attraction. It isn't one or the other. Now, money has nothing to do with either of those things (well in some sense, since more money = better physique is possible..., but I digress), for the most part. Hence, it being superficial. I can't stand gold diggers. Most of them are emotionally atrocious, but they do look good. Not a good combination for a lasting relationship, but most men with money just want some booty, so its a good short term fit for them. Most people however, want both aspects of a successful relationship.
I had this argument with my ex, that if she ever got 'fat' if I would dump her. Let's just say I tip toed around that one as much as possible. When we're 65 it is one thing (but hell, I still want to look like Robby Robinson when I'm 65!), but take some respect for yourself and your partner in the meantime.
On February 23 2013 13:22 StreetWise wrote: We call it superficial because is. Here is the definition: a (1) : of, relating to, or located near a surface (2) : lying on, not penetrating below, or affecting only the surface. Money is something that is outside of someone and not intrinsic to them. Looks however are a reflection of their biological makeup. People with good genes are attractive. It is below the surface as it is part of their DNA.
There's more to attraction than just your biological makeup.
To me it is all the same. Wanting someone for their looks has equal weighting to wanting someone for their money, both require no need to know the person on a deeper level so for one camp to call the other shallow is strange to me.
On February 23 2013 13:35 yandere991 wrote: To me it is all the same. Wanting someone for their looks has equal weighting to wanting someone for their money, both require no need to know the person on a deeper level so for one camp to call the other shallow is strange to me.
Because one is needed for a successful relationship and the other isn't? As human beings we need sex. Obviously we need some amount of money, but when people flaunt money they're talking the girls who refuse to notice anyone who doesn't drive around in Ferrari's or own 4+ BR houses.
Attraction is almost entirely based on evolutionary instinct and men and woman are looking for different traits in their partner, its not to do with men being more superficial than woman or vice versa.
Men want an attractive woman because if you have children with an attractive woman then your children are more likely to be attractive, which means they will be more likely to have children in the future, passing your genes on. Also particular features most men find attractive like wide hips are more ideal for bearing children.
Women look for more things, but at the end of the day their basic instinct is survival, so they will go for men with features that make them more likely to survive, although obviously the meaning of survival in a first world country is a lot different to the meaning when we lived in caves and hunted for our food. Attractiveness plays a part still because attractive man=more attractive children, but factors like money and a guys general alphaness are more important because a guy that displays these things will be a better provider.
Also things change depending on the stage of live the man or woman is in.
A younger man will still find more ideal mothers more attractiveness, but they will likely lower their standards because most young guys want sex but not children.
A younger woman may rate attractiveness higher because it doesn't matter if the guy is also a poor student if you're not planning to have children for a few more years.
On February 23 2013 13:35 yandere991 wrote: To me it is all the same. Wanting someone for their looks has equal weighting to wanting someone for their money, both require no need to know the person on a deeper level so for one camp to call the other shallow is strange to me.
Because one is needed for a successful relationship and the other isn't? As human beings we need sex. Obviously we need some amount of money, but when people flaunt money they're talking the girls who refuse to notice anyone who doesn't drive around in Ferrari's or own 4+ BR houses.
If your partners looks is such an important criteria for that relationship to exist I wouldn't say that this relationship is more "successful" than one that has wealth as the deciding criteria.
I have bought girls diamond rings, ear rings and necklaces. Along with hundreds of dollars worth of gift certificates to the shops they like to shop at. Always drove them around in the nicest SVUs or Trucks. Bought hundreds of dollars worth of roses and dinners.
AND I HAVE BEEN SINGLE FOR 9 YEARS NOW BECAUSE I HAVNT HAD A GOOD JOB SINCE.
tbh all girls can burn in hell and i have seen the true face of those blood sucking ass holes.
The only reason its looked down upon more with women is when a woman wants their potential partner to prove he can support them it costs him, leading to bitterness if there is a fallout.
Whereas men know whether their prospective partner is suitable or not with no cost applied.
Everyone is shallow though no shit, the only people I have met that have said they aren't shallow are either lying or ugly. But yeah, emotional compatibility should be considered as well when deciding long term partners, when people enter relationships based on what their loins tell them they usually break up or live unhappily ever after.
On February 22 2013 03:55 WikidSik wrote: its only a problem when superficial factors are THE ONLY factors considered in starting/continuing relationships.
A gold digger isn't attracted to the man at all, she is there for the money.
The difference is that a woman can be attracted to a man that is successful, and be with him, even if he is stingy with his money.
If a gold digger was with a rich man, and the rich man didn't allow her to spend a ton of his money, she would leave in a heartbeat.
If we were to apply the same logic to males. This would be like a male dating a female purely for looks, he would drag her around with his friends purely for showing off, but whenever the female wanted anything, even sex, he would say no unless he really had to.
well beauty and monet is different. if a man likes a woman cause she is pretty, he likes her. if a woman likes a man because he has money, well she just likes money not the man.
On February 23 2013 15:30 Dbars wrote: I have bought girls diamond rings, ear rings and necklaces. Along with hundreds of dollars worth of gift certificates to the shops they like to shop at. Always drove them around in the nicest SVUs or Trucks. Bought hundreds of dollars worth of roses and dinners.
AND I HAVE BEEN SINGLE FOR 9 YEARS NOW BECAUSE I HAVNT HAD A GOOD JOB SINCE.
tbh all girls can burn in hell and i have seen the true face of those blood sucking ass holes.
On February 23 2013 16:12 Geefking wrote: Am I the only male who looks at the financial viability of a women and of course her future career prospects when considering dating?
However this is of course after she passes the most important test regarding looks
When I look at a girl, the first question I ask myself is "can I afford her?"
I wonder if the topic was "Women that like Men that are taller than them, is that bad?" would it get the same response? Essentially the same topic, except one is genetic and one is social.
And yet the majority of women are superficial about height which says nothing good about a man other than maybe you'll look great in photos together.
Everyone has superficial needs. Things they appraise at face value.
Also @ Dbars: best of luck with the future man. Stories like that though scared me off dating unless I knew a person really well for most of my life though haha.
Men like attractive women because its a sign of a healthy body meaning said female is a viable potential mother. If her personality is not compatible then relationship will end. A woman is attracted to a man for his money because she is a self absorbed, lazy egotist and regardless of personalities the relationship continues until it is no longer beneficial financially for the woman or it is financially more beneficial to end it.
The two are vastly different and have been discussed extensively in social psychology
it is bad because there is no up-front proof that the man in question earned the money by himself, which in turn would make him a good provider. having money means shit and should be treated as such but earning those money is somewhat a different matter.
On February 23 2013 19:04 xM(Z wrote: it is bad because there is no up-front proof that the man in question earned the money by himself, which in turn would make him a good provider. having money means shit and should be treated as such but earning those money is somewhat a different matter.
Why would it matter if the money is earned or not? lol.. I don't even...
edit** - the post below mine answers the OP pretty well imo.
On February 23 2013 18:19 Meatex wrote: Men like attractive women because its a sign of a healthy body meaning said female is a viable potential mother. If her personality is not compatible then relationship will end. A woman is attracted to a man for his money because she is a self absorbed, lazy egotist and regardless of personalities the relationship continues until it is no longer beneficial financially for the woman or it is financially more beneficial to end it.
The two are vastly different and have been discussed extensively in social psychology
I like how you call upon social psychology, yet you are either completely wrong or just sarcastic.
Basic idea is that males, whether human or not, sexual economy is extensive, meaning they spread as much of their genetic material as they can. It doesn't cost them much, but they need a healthy carrier for their genetic material, this is why they search partners based on their looks. Looks in many cases mean health, but also women's ability to take care of herself, which may be transferred onto offspring.
Women and other females have intensive sexual economy, meaning they invest a lot into breeding. In case of humans they spend not only 9 months of pregnancy but also upbringing, which primarily draws on females health and biological strenght. This is why when searching for a partner, women look not only for looks (health), but primarily on ability to sustain her and her offspring during pregnancy and upbringing.
This is of course only one aspect and doesn't cover the whole subject. But it is basic social psychology theory on reproduction.
On February 23 2013 18:19 Meatex wrote: Men like attractive women because its a sign of a healthy body meaning said female is a viable potential mother. If her personality is not compatible then relationship will end. A woman is attracted to a man for his money because she is a self absorbed, lazy egotist and regardless of personalities the relationship continues until it is no longer beneficial financially for the woman or it is financially more beneficial to end it.
The two are vastly different and have been discussed extensively in social psychology
I like how you call upon social psychology, yet you are either completely wrong or just sarcastic.
Basic idea is that males, whether human or not, sexual economy is extensive, meaning they spread as much of their genetic material as they can. It doesn't cost them much, but they need a healthy carrier for their genetic material, this is why they search partners based on their looks. Looks in many cases mean health, but also women's ability to take care of herself, which may be transferred onto offspring.
Women and other females have intensive sexual economy, meaning they invest a lot into breeding. In case of humans they spend not only 9 months of pregnancy but also upbringing, which primarily draws on females health and biological strenght. This is why when searching for a partner, women look not only for looks (health), but primarily on ability to sustain her and her offspring during pregnancy and upbringing.
This is of course only one aspect and doesn't cover the whole subject. But it is basic social psychology theory on reproduction.
That is not the point i'm arguing because the reality is that women are also attracted to men that appear healthy (base instincts) and yes women will consider security, meaning money, when deciding on whether a man is viable relationship material but relationship is NOT the subject of this discussion as I understand.
Its women being attracted to primarily money - so gold diggers as they would be called derogatorily. Where as physical attractiveness equating to healthiness is natural reproductive psychology a woman seeking out a male base solely for his wealth is not, its simple laziness meets greed
Because having money is not something you gain through sheer willpower, but something you are basically born with or without for 99% of the population. In this regards, having money is not judged as something indicative of anything aside from the women's will to access some kind of comfort through her relationship. Being a gold digger means you are egoist or are with someone for purely egoistic reasons. Also, women that are paid to have sex are called whore.
On February 23 2013 19:04 xM(Z wrote: it is bad because there is no up-front proof that the man in question earned the money by himself, which in turn would make him a good provider. having money means shit and should be treated as such but earning those money is somewhat a different matter.
Why would it matter if the money is earned or not? lol.. I don't even...
edit** - the post below mine answers the OP pretty well imo.
the answer is in my post. people were arguing that the choice to go for the man+money is an evolutionary sound one. i said it's not. a woman can just go for the money, she doesn't need the baggage, the man.
Women who fall for men just because money and success (or if you want to put it nicely, "he provides security") are superficial and most likely wont result in happy relationship.
Men who fall for women just because their looks ( or if you want to put it nicely, look healthy and active) are superficial and most likely wont result in happy relationship.
No problem in my opinion to see ones wealth or looks as one upside though, if theres other things that interest you in the other person too.
On February 23 2013 18:19 Meatex wrote: Men like attractive women because its a sign of a healthy body meaning said female is a viable potential mother.
Correct.
A woman is attracted to a man for his money because she is a self absorbed, lazy egotist
Dead wrong. A woman is attracted to a man of means because he can provide food for her and her babies. Understand that we haven't had social welfare for more than a few hundred years, but our genes have existed for a hundred millenia. Child mortality used to be extremely high. It was lower for children of men with great resources, thus giving women with a preference for rich men a strong evolutionary advantage.
The two are vastly different and have been discussed extensively in social psychology
The two are close to direct counterparts of each other and have been discussed extensively in evolutionary psychology.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I actually find men in general more superficial
You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
Males care almost exclusively about looks when searching for a partner. Some research said I read somewhere a long time ago in some book.
Why is this superficial? I don't think anyone would tell you that looks are the most important part of a relationship, but if I assume that regardless of looks you are equally likely to be a nice/not nice person why on earth wouldn't I be narrowing my search by selecting initally on looks? Therefore if you ask a person what they're `searching' for, then after they say `a relationship' which entails all of the more important aspects, they will say `good-looks', because that's something that they value and that is a perfectly natural thing to want.
On February 23 2013 18:19 Meatex wrote: Men like attractive women because its a sign of a healthy body meaning said female is a viable potential mother.
A woman is attracted to a man for his money because she is a self absorbed, lazy egotist
Dead wrong. A woman is attracted to a man of means because he can provide food for her and her babies. Understand that we haven't had social welfare for more than a few hundred years, but our genes have existed for a hundred millenia. Child mortality used to be extremely high. It was lower for children of men with great resources, thus giving women with a preference for rich men a strong evolutionary advantage.
These are very basic attractive principles, but something I hope the mostly intelligent forum-goers and their ilk here would see beyond. If you're the type of man who "puts up" with a woman's bad traits simply because you like her body and if you are a woman who "puts up" with a man's bad traits because he has money, well then you are indeed shallow and lack the will to understand your desires.
From a pure economic sense this early human biology thing makes sense. But we don't live in a world where reproducing is the only goal. Those who do not think that happiness is one of the primary components of a relationship DOES not deserve my respect, or more exactly those who have willfully ignored that imperative. If you're meeting somebody for the first time and you find those traits attractive, well that's fine. But down the line you must look past those "superficial" qualities. It is not only bad for your future, but disrespectful to eachother. We can rationalize and customize so many things in relationships, why would you settle for an old model for an old world? Easy is hardly ever good. I understand that for some, it is a good model (provider/caretaker) going forward, but if we're talking about the changing world it is an anachronism.
There's nothing wrong with liking a man for his money or liking a woman for her looks (or vice versa, of course). What's problematic is when these are the primary reasons for a relationship.
On February 23 2013 07:11 MooMu wrote: "Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit.
On February 23 2013 19:04 xM(Z wrote: it is bad because there is no up-front proof that the man in question earned the money by himself, which in turn would make him a good provider. having money means shit and should be treated as such but earning those money is somewhat a different matter.
Why would it matter if the money is earned or not? lol.. I don't even...
edit** - the post below mine answers the OP pretty well imo.
Because most women are not attracted to spoiled guys who never grew up, have never worked a day in their lives, and inherited massive wealth. There are women who would go after to such a person. They are called gold diggers. They only care for the money. Most women are attracted to success, and this is an aspect of the man's personality. This is the distinction between gold diggers and the majority of women that so many people here are failing to realize.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of.
Exactly how old is OP? Women who are attracted to men because of their money because they worry about their lifestyle needs to be at least 30 or something.
And I don't agree with your arguement with what you have to say about the male populace. Both sexes are attracted by looks more than anything. Males and Females both consider looks first, isn't this common sense?
Though I personally find it an unattractive trait, I don't take issue with it so long as she in turn doesn't take issues with men who won't give a woman the time of day unless she's very good looking.
I thought women were evolutionarily (is that a word?) supposed to look for partners that could protect and take care of them.. maybe the manifestation of that in modern society is a man with a lot of money. who knows.
Well for people who want a relationship based on things besides simply 'reproducing'... those should be secondary factors.
And to OP point is kind of irrelevant because good-looks are different than having money. Having good looks is a natural biological factor that goes to the roots of every organism, even birds choose mates with attractive feathers. Money is different, its a superficial element created by man to judge one's worth. That's different than a biological factor attracting us to one another. That's why choosing someone for money is considered more superficial.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
No I haven't, because I don't consider myself as someone of character, and this is how I see it. You did a fine job making me realize that deep inside I'm a real tool, though.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might. Does being successful at something mean you're a good person? Not at all. You could be the best in the world at what you do and still go home and beat your wife.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
Concerning your edit. Look up what character means, and determine which definition is being used when us naive folks say success reflects good character.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
The obvious:
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character.
Kind of a no-brainer and selflessness =/= being a Christian...not to mention I'm an atheist so I'm not sure why you brought up religion. Being good at something doesn't make you a good person. Treating others with kindness and respect does.
edit: just realized this is going to end up being an argument on semantics, because technically the definition of character does vary >_> I always thought of it as how you treat other people and what you do when no one is looking, not how good at your job/sport/whatever you are.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
Concerning your edit. Look up what character means, and determine which definition is being used when us naive folks say success reflects good character.
I don't understand why ppl are treating money/success and character as independent variables. passion/drive and persistence are key to being successful. Thus when a woman sees a man with money/success, it can indirectly clue her into his way of life and his drive/desire to be great and not just some average joe. Obviously there are people just born into wealth, and there are those who are strong characters but cannot obtain wealth due to circumstance, however for the vast majority of people I say wealth and character are strongly correlated.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
Concerning your edit. Look up what character means, and determine which definition is being used when us naive folks say success reflects good character.
I don't understand why ppl are treating money/success and character as independent variables. passion/drive and persistence are key to being successful. Thus when a woman sees a man with money/success, it can indirectly clue her into his way of life and his drive/desire to be great and not just some average joe. Obviously there are people just born into wealth, and there are those who are strong characters but cannot obtain wealth due to circumstance, however for the vast majority of people I say wealth and character are strongly correlated.
They confused definitions and then called us stupid, when their was ample context to infer the meaning intended. All this is is a failure in reading comprehension. I personally think their immediate assumption and understanding of the term "character" says a lot about their character.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
Concerning your edit. Look up what character means, and determine which definition is being used when us naive folks say success reflects good character.
I don't understand why ppl are treating money/success and character as independent variables. passion/drive and persistence are key to being successful. Thus when a woman sees a man with money/success, it can indirectly clue her into his way of life and his drive/desire to be great and not just some average joe. Obviously there are people just born into wealth, and there are those who are strong characters but cannot obtain wealth due to circumstance, however for the vast majority of people I say wealth and character are strongly correlated.
Sure, they could be correlated, but they aren't the same thing. Your examples aren't exactly anomalies..
Having positive characteristics (tall, muscular, wealthy, athletic, etc...) and having positive character (honest, polite, caring, etc...) are, to my understanding, different things.
Character:
Character refers especially to moral qualities, ethical standards, principles, and the like: a man of sterling character. Individuality refers to the distinctive qualities that make one recognizable as a person differentiated from others: a woman of strong individuality. Personality refers particularly to the combination of outer and inner characteristics that determine the impression that a person makes upon others: a child of vivid or pleasing personality. 5. name, repute. See reputation. 14. sign.
Characteristic:
1. a distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait
I mean if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I really am having a hard time understanding it any other way, maybe I am biased because I'm poor but like to think of myself as a great husband? Lol..
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
I'm just curious, how does one explain those who are attracted to women that most people would normally find unattractive from a biological standpoint? Such as a woman who possesses NO traits whatsoever that would increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
I'm just curious, how does one explain those who are attracted to women that most people would normally find unattractive from a biological standpoint? Such as a woman who possesses NO traits whatsoever that would increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
Evolutionary biology explains why the majority of a given population express certain traits.
That doesn't preclude the existence of exceptions to the rule.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
I'm just curious, how does one explain those who are attracted to women that most people would normally find unattractive from a biological standpoint? Such as a woman who possesses NO traits whatsoever that would increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
Evolution requires that some new things are tried. Such as some people being attracted to things that most others aren't. If it works, it works. If it doesn't work, they will die out.
science needs to prove how prettiness comes from actually having desirable evolutionary traits (morals, principles, maternal instincts, some other bio-energy-constructs). then it'll all make sense.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
I'm just curious, how does one explain those who are attracted to women that most people would normally find unattractive from a biological standpoint? Such as a woman who possesses NO traits whatsoever that would increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
Genes can be expressed in a number of ways. A combination of genes that expressed in a certain way appear to be counter-productive will be useful in other situations. The overall flow of alleles within a population is quite complex. One explanation for your hypothetical situation is that kindness is important to the population as a whole, although in some instances it is expressed in an non useful way. Humans are an interesting case when it comes to our genes because in very recent history we have essentially overcome and altered out entire environment. This makes it difficult as it is quite likely a lot of genes may no longer be useful in modern society.
i don't think it goes as deep as that sometimes. some men who go as far as scorning less (physically) attractive women want to experience (or in some cases continue experiencing) the lifestyle that may come from being attractive or from having an attractive mate.
i am saying that sometimes it's as simple as wanting to be sought after and being accepted by people you have a preference for. i like to think that if any one habit goes unchecked or is relatively unnoticed for a while, you become more and more numb to it in different ways.
a lifestyle centered around money is common (rightfully so), and as more people are tied into it there's more involvement in the process of making that money and growing your 'group'.
i personally tell myself to never buy into superficial beliefs, or to never act the way that i've observed other people acting around women. it's alright to be curious or to try and understand why or what they might do those things for, but i would not want to have my mate deal with how i'd be taking in things at face-value.
you know, you could compare your judgment of other people to having different types of game-sense for starcraft. honestly, i'd rather stay with the feelings i have now for the gold-digger labels, the shallow labels, and etc. they do it for a reason--good, bad or inbetween--but it's not something i'd want to ever see myself doing at all
OP is mixing up personal and general judgements. Men in general judge by looks first and then by personal traits. I do personally think that favoring money and looks too much is bad. I can't find myself spending too much time in person I don't respect etc. and the looks have zero affection on how much time I will spend with someone, maybe not to be my SO but if I enjoy time with someone, HEY, it's nice.
e: Fit personal traits make person a lot more beautiful. and everyone hopefully have noticed that in their lives. e2: Now when I think other people around me I doubt that many people judge by looks mostly. Sounds extremely naive.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
Yep, where you can see more feminism dominated countries is where you would mostly find more homosexual males because of the pre-pubescent emasculation done to him by a specific or plural female(s). This in turn makes him rethink about female attraction and renders his sexual orientation different.
And vice versa, the region with more masculine men have a less density of homosexuals and more balanced in terms of sexual production. The evolution is a machine that can't be stopped. As matter of fact every day as you are being influenced to do a certain task, you are evolving along with the decision.
No men are attracted to certain women which are considered beautiful because: 1. Symmetry usually means that the person was born without any genetic defects (We consider symmetry plus certain ratios as beauty)
2.And the hips to waist ratio (which usually displays fidelity)
Beauty in itself is not an advantage in a hunter/gatherer society. Beauty is representation of your health. People should really start spouting incorrect information
If a solid realtionship is created its legit, if a women marrys a man with the clear intention to just get his money its just freakin bad. Same if a man just marrys a young beatiful woman because shes freakin hot But sure, ur comparison between Income and "Beatuy" is correct and its kinda biological, but it depends on what we make out of it. In an Episode of "lie to me" they also compared the big income of a man to the beatuy of his woman as the appealing factors
On February 24 2013 23:30 thezanursic wrote: No men are attracted to certain women which are considered beautiful because: 1. Symmetry usually means that the person was born without any genetic defects (We consider symmetry plus certain ratios as beauty)
2.And the hips to waist ratio (which usually displays fidelity)
Beauty in itself is not an advantage in a hunter/gatherer society. Beauty is representation of your health. People should really start spouting incorrect information
And contrary to popular belief 2. doesn't mean that men have a skinny preference. Some women have good hip to waist ratios either if they are fat or if they aren't being skinny is a social construct and a good example of that being true is:
Venus of Willendorf and other mother goddess figures
Maybe I read a little bit to much into a single sentence, but still...
But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
My physical attraction to a person is based off their personality. I would date a 5 or a 6 with an amazing personality far more than I would date a 9 or 10 with a shitty personality.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh what? No it hasn't, what evidence do you have that evolution has stopped? Sure the game has changed a little bit, medicine has advanced the human lifespan drastically and weak traits that would be weeded out by natural selection are now cureable, treatable or no longer such a huge obstacle, but of course evolution still happens.
More attractive people will on average have more children so these attractive traits will be passed on, and some genes are going to become less common in the next 100 years, while others become more common, that is evolution.
Why is there so much judgement involved in this discussion?
Couldn't you just say that you wouldn't want to have a woman who wants you for you money, without condemning the notion that some women are attracted to wealth?
I think it's rather presumptuous to imply that attraction based on X is morally inferiour to attraction based on Y.
For instance: as an ugly, poor person, any attraction felt towards me is based on despair meeting opportunity. If I were to scrutinize the issue, I could do only harm.
So just stop being so self-righteous and try not to overthink such primal issues. You won't adequately understand them anyway and if you did you probably wouldn't like the result.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh what? No it hasn't, what evidence do you have that evolution has stopped? Sure the game has changed a little bit, medicine has advanced the human lifespan drastically and weak traits that would be weeded out by natural selection are now cureable, treatable or no longer such a huge obstacle, but of course evolution still happens.
More attractive people will on average have more children so these attractive traits will be passed on, and some genes are going to become less common in the next 100 years, while others become more common, that is evolution.
Many people seem to believe that evolution has stopped for us because there are some people who would have died had they been born in the past and now they're allowed to survive. To say that it stopped is ridiculous and I don't know why anybody would believe that outright, but it's true that modern medicine kind of manipulates natural selection.
So we survive when we should have died, we're fertile when we would have been sterile, etc. By no means does that "stop" evolution, obviously. Like you said, there are still traits which are favored and whatnot.
So I too am interested to know what would make people think that evolution stopped. Hopefully we won't be subjected to the good ole argument that "have you ever seen a fish give birth to a dog". =P
But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
My physical attraction to a person is based off their personality. I would date a 5 or a 6 with an amazing personality far more than I would date a 9 or 10 with a shitty personality.
Most guys would. All that 9/10 shit only has one purpose: shallow inter-male conversations, like with guys you don't know very well, are greatly simplified and give a common ground for conversation and bragging.
When looking for a relationship, most guys I know would prefer an interesting '5' (God that's so pathetic) over an annoying, boring '9'.
"But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological." If you go down that route you could also say killing people you don't like isn't bad because its biological.
If we really lived like nature intended there would be nothing but chaos.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Evolution happens by both natural and sexual selection. They exist fully among humans, in fact they cannot be eliminated from a species until that species becomes extinct. We can only change the rules by which natural selection occurs.
On February 24 2013 23:26 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Of course not, you can do better than that, here let me help you explain your thoughts by answering these questions:
Instead of explaining my thoughts to me, which I already fully understand, why don't you try to explain your thoughts? Because those are a complete fucking mystery.
On February 25 2013 00:43 Vandrad wrote: "But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological." If you go down that route you could also say killing people you don't like isn't bad because its biological.
If we really lived like nature intended there would be nothing but chaos.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh what? No it hasn't, what evidence do you have that evolution has stopped? Sure the game has changed a little bit, medicine has advanced the human lifespan drastically and weak traits that would be weeded out by natural selection are now cureable, treatable or no longer such a huge obstacle, but of course evolution still happens.
More attractive people will on average have more children so these attractive traits will be passed on, and some genes are going to become less common in the next 100 years, while others become more common, that is evolution.
Many people seem to believe that evolution has stopped for us because there are some people who would have died had they been born in the past and now they're allowed to survive. To say that it stopped is ridiculous and I don't know why anybody would believe that outright, but it's true that modern medicine kind of manipulates natural selection.
So we survive when we should have died, we're fertile when we would have been sterile, etc. By no means does that "stop" evolution, obviously. Like you said, there are still traits which are favored and whatnot.
So I too am interested to know what would make people think that evolution stopped. Hopefully we won't be subjected to the good ole argument that "have you ever seen a fish give birth to a dog". =P
The bigger the population, the more mutations, in that sense we are evolving maybe even faster. However evolution often implies that these mutations spread eventually to the whole population sample through selection. If you remove natural selection, those mutations are just there but do not increase in frequency. I m not convinced that a "5" will have less children than a "9". If someone says he likes blondes, is it from the genes that appeared in a population when being blonde was an indication of superior health, or belonging to wealthier family? so that the gene telling you to like blondes conferred you an advantage in life over people who only liked brunettes?
People who invoke evolution are just mindlessly following a fad. One day they will explain males strategy is to put their dick in as many females as possible to pass on their gene. Another day they will say males care about the fine details of said female. In fact, they just make up a maybe plausible scenario and have really no idea.
They usually can't describe a gene that would "code" for whatever character they talk about. And if there is a correlation between some genes and that character, the path is very long from that DNA sequence to the actual brain electrical signals. But apparently it is fancy to say "it's biology" now, as a token of belonging to the enlighten rather than the bible freaks.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
This is very simple. Men look down on women's superficiality. Women look down on men's superficiality. That's it in a nutshell.
So the question becomes: Why does the OP and so many posters identify with the female perspective? 1) Because they are female. 2) Because they are males who have been feminized by modern society.
On February 25 2013 00:43 Vandrad wrote: "But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological." If you go down that route you could also say killing people you don't like isn't bad because its biological.
If we really lived like nature intended there would be nothing but chaos.
I don't know if that really works, I mean nature evolved us with a brain, and the brain has (almost always) some universal moral values. So we are basically following what nature "intended" (we're not the same as animals).
Natures "intention" is therefore pretty much synonymous with the brain's intention, as it is the result of evolution. Of course we're anthropomorphizing nature, but I understand what you mean. If we followed the rules of nature might be a better description.
And also, sure our brains can affect certain change in how we behave, but we also have certain natural impulses that really can't be changed, probably because they are ingrained in our genes somehow as a result of millions of years of evolution. Basically the nature vs nurture debate. I'm sure you understand that but just wanted to point it out since its relevant
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Ugly and stupid individuals have been able to pass on their genes in every species since life started, just not always as successfully. Stop talking when you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
I want to be with a woman that will make me happy.
Is she rich? That will probably make me happy. Is she super hot? That will probably make me happy.
How are any of these things superficial? You act as if people will date a super bitch because they have both of these things. Some people are just into super bitches. There are people I wouldn't date in 1 billion years, but they still manage to get dates (Somehow).
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear.
But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
My physical attraction to a person is based off their personality. I would date a 5 or a 6 with an amazing personality far more than I would date a 9 or 10 with a shitty personality.
Most guys would. All that 9/10 shit only has one purpose: shallow inter-male conversations, like with guys you don't know very well, are greatly simplified and give a common ground for conversation and bragging.
When looking for a relationship, most guys I know would prefer an interesting '5' (God that's so pathetic) over an annoying, boring '9'.
All I gotta say is that if someone is profoundly physically unattractive, I'm not gonna be super interested in dating her. I don't know where the various numbers fall on that scale but it's the truth. Same about being super dumb. At the very least you gotta be moderately physically attractive and moderately intelligent or I'm not gonna be interested. And on that point, I also get it if chicks don't have like hella lady-boners for me if I'm not the best-looking, most charming, or richest dude. People are allowed to have tastes.
If for example, I was a person entirely interested in looks rather than personality, that would be a legitimate set of tastes because it would be the set of tastes I hold. I'm sure I'd have a good argument defending why I personally would be reasonable to hold said tastes. and if a hot chick only gets lady-boners for dudes with tons of money cause she wants to have like 7 babies and send them all to college, that's her prerogative. I know that I sure can't afford to send 7 kids to college so yeah
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sorry to pick your post out but lots of people are saying this and it's completely false. Evolution is not "gone" in humans - it is just favouring different characteristics than it did in the past, particularly in developed countries. There are still genes that will be more successful in modern society than others. You are right strength/survivability is less important but then that means that factors such as sexual attractiveness, fertility and promiscuity become more important. That is evolution in action, just acting on a new set of environmental constraints.
On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote: [quote] this makes sense.
[quote] that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sorry to pick your post out but lots of people are saying this and it's completely false. Evolution is not "gone" in humans - it is just favouring different characteristics than it did in the past, particularly in developed countries. There are still genes that will be more successful in modern society than others. You are right strength/survivability is less important but then that means that factors such as sexual attractiveness, fertility and promiscuity become more important. That is evolution in action, just acting on a new set of environmental constraints.
that and being part of a religion that is like "hey dudes have like 900 babies, no contraception plz" this is very clever imo
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources).
Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character.
The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote: [quote] this makes sense.
[quote] that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear.
I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
Edit: At least it is true here in Spain. I am not refering to third world countries where the rules of natural selection are much more raw and depend a lot less on social statuss and wealth.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
Edit: At least it is true here in Spain. I am not refering to third world countries where the rules of natural selection are much more raw and depend a lot less on social statuss and wealth.
I don't have any raw data to support my viewpoint, but I was under the impression that poorer families generally have more children. Not only that, but that there is a slight correlation between lower IQ's and higher reproduction rates. In other words, assuming that intelligence is somewhat hereditary, we are slowly shifting to a lower average IQ over time.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
Ya, 'evolution'(in quotes because we're treating it as some kind of entity, not a concept here) doesn't really know or care about anything other than ability to produce viable offspring. Rich, good looking, successful(in society) people may individually have the best pick of mates, but that hardly means they're the only ones mating, and thus aren't the only ones successful in the eyes of evolution.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
When 1/2 of people died before they could reproduce, evolution works quickly (relatively obviously), now almost everyone can reproduce so evolution among humans happens so slowly it's essentially negligible. The current factors that affect reproductive rates like income are not hereditary.
Even if you believe that wealth/personality/social status etc. affects how likely one is to reproduce, for my point to be false, you'd also have to believe that those things are hereditary (as in, through genes)?
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
When 1/2 of people died before they could reproduce, evolution works quickly (relatively obviously), now almost everyone can reproduce so evolution among humans happens so slowly it's essentially negligible. The current factors that affect reproductive rates like income are not hereditary.
Even if you believe that wealth/personality/social status etc. affects how likely one is to reproduce, for my point to be false, you'd also have to believe that those things are hereditary?
What are you even talking about? Evolution has always happened slowly. Evolution is by no means "over" it can never so long as species exist be "over".
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
When 1/2 of people died before they could reproduce, evolution works quickly (relatively obviously), now almost everyone can reproduce so evolution among humans happens so slowly it's essentially negligible. The current factors that affect reproductive rates like income are not hereditary.
Even if you believe that wealth/personality/social status etc. affects how likely one is to reproduce, for my point to be false, you'd also have to believe that those things are hereditary?
What are you even talking about? Evolution has always happened slowly. Evolution is by no means "over" it can never so long as species exist be "over".
Evolution is based upon natural selection. Meaning, people dying before they can effectively reproduce. When the average life expectancy is around 80 years, there is less natural selection, and therefore less evolution.
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
Ever noticed how wealthy families have 3-4 kids, where poor families have 1 or none?
Yeah. Evolution and natural selection did not just stop because we invented medicine a few centures ago.
What? If anything, I've noticed the reverse in Canada.....
Yeah, the opposite is the reality actually... not sure where he got this idea from.
This is like election time all over again, people imagining themselves in alternate realities to fit their beliefs.
I'm not sure exactly where people are getting this evidence that evolution has stopped in humans...this is kind of an absurd claim to me. Evolution doesn't have to mean the trends are always positive, the movie Idiocracy is a pretty good example of this (and I think there is a tiny bit of truth to it). Evolution is a result of change for survivability, when less things are needed to change for survivability we evolve different traits until more changes are needed to survive again.
When 1/2 of people died before they could reproduce, evolution works quickly (relatively obviously), now almost everyone can reproduce so evolution among humans happens so slowly it's essentially negligible. The current factors that affect reproductive rates like income are not hereditary.
Even if you believe that wealth/personality/social status etc. affects how likely one is to reproduce, for my point to be false, you'd also have to believe that those things are hereditary?
What are you even talking about? Evolution has always happened slowly. Evolution is by no means "over" it can never so long as species exist be "over".
Evolution is based upon natural selection. Meaning, people dying before they can effectively reproduce. When the average life expectancy is around 80 years, there is less natural selection, and therefore less evolution.
evolution has a timescale so massive the alleged so-called "fact" that we've stopped evolving is like literally the least big thing that's happened to us. inventing things like forged metal and animal husbandry and agriculture so massively overshadow evolutionary changes it's kinda preposterous that anyone is even a tiny itty bit worried about this sooper dooper tiny decrease in the rate of change of human lives
they are fine if you are just looking for some expensive sex. but if you want a relationship, a person who only is interested in you because of your money is not the kind of person you'd want to have one with, because ultimately you can't because they aren't even interested in you, only your money.
I often don't understand how someone like J. Howard Marshall II can be brilliant enough to earn billions only to sign it all over to some random blonde instead of his own family.
If annything this should be a good thing, as its a means of natural selection. If we keep up this process for the next 1000 years we will end up with an earth full of highly succesfull and rich man, and verry beautifull women. From this we can conclude, that the natural selection is working in the favour of man (who devellop multiple usefull traits during this path of evolution) while it is not working in the favour of women (who only develop the good looking trait). In the long run these 2 factors should enforce eachoter. Beeing rich becomes even more important for males, and beeing good looking becomes even more important for women. For the feminism movement this is disastrous,in the long run women are digging their own revolutionary grave so to say, by picking the richest man.
On February 25 2013 09:14 Bub wrote: I often don't understand how someone like J. Howard Marshall II can be brilliant enough to earn billions only to sign it all over to some random blonde instead of his own family.
What did his family do exactly to deserve it more than she did? It could be that he's just brilliant enough to understand that DNA a fraction of a percent closer to his than the rest of humanity isn't much of an achievement. Whereas she'll have sex with him, something I doubt his family will.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
You could literally say the exact statement with ALMOST ANYTHING inserted in place of 'money and success' aside from like rape and murder. It's really not saying a lot.
Money and success don't even say anything about character anyway...what you do with your money and your success might however.
Not everyone agree's with the Christian interpretation that only altruism reflects positive character. Some people actually experience elation when someone exhibits superior ability.
Do you experience elation when you state the obvious? I never said that strictly altruism reflects positive character, only that it might.
So how does success not say something positive about someones character? This is honestly blowing my freaking mind here. What exactly is obvious? What I thought was obvious moments ago has been contradicted by you. Perhaps I shouldn't assume what is obvious between us as we are seemingly worlds apart.
Concerning your edit. Look up what character means, and determine which definition is being used when us naive folks say success reflects good character.
I don't understand why ppl are treating money/success and character as independent variables. passion/drive and persistence are key to being successful. Thus when a woman sees a man with money/success, it can indirectly clue her into his way of life and his drive/desire to be great and not just some average joe. Obviously there are people just born into wealth, and there are those who are strong characters but cannot obtain wealth due to circumstance, however for the vast majority of people I say wealth and character are strongly correlated.
just not true , and in my book successful = not alway make the most money in life , for exemple i got 2 friend for my exemple , one got 150 000 $$ year and the other about 50 % of that . with the way you think the first one got more character and got more passion and drive ?? the first one from a rich family so he got it easy since he was young , he have go to private school and so on , got a bac , but this guy was alway LAZY ( honestly that not like school that hard... ) after that he got a big job because he have study . he was not happy the last time i have talk to him 9 year ago .
my other friend was poor , he stoped school at 16 , for then come back at 20 , did a job in mechanic , then did many website page and many random stuft , he was alway finding good job who make money ( strangely he never did many big studie , but he was alway fine with money , the type of guy who alway got money and live at a high standar but you dont know how ?? , he then started to travel , started to realy love diving , then he have open a dive shop in cancun and he realy happy right now with a girl he love and 1 year he got a litle girl . in my book this guy far more succesful that the first one he got 3x the character of my other friend ( the first one not realy my friend anymore that why im talking like that )
character and money and completery separate , many people got wrong value in your society
money = just money , prove nothing and mean nothing . just hope one day people will understand something basic like that .
when in your society get alot or more money that someone who got less mean you are better that someone who got less (
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
some thoughts: 1. Women care about how a man looks. If the man is wealthy but ugly you can be sure women who still have options will not fall for him much. 2. Women care about how a man looks, but not to such an extent as men do. This is biological. The process requires much more initiative from a male to produce an offspring. Unless the male is sufficiently "attracted" the process will not have much of a success rate. 3. Women have their looks age much faster. So an age difference of 6-10 years is actually a good idea for lasting relationships. It may look at the start that the girl is in for his money but unless the gap is huge, it will even out quite a bit with time. 4. Children being taken care of is an issue when there are children already. When there are none yet I dont believe that people can have some kind of strong feelings for future children that can influence the decision-making process. So when you say "lifestyle / children will be taken cared of" its 95% their lifestyle/5% future children. Is it bad? Yes. People don't like other people to have a parasitic lifestyle, naturally, and despite popular misconception not all people want it for themselves. 5. The feelings part. This is where it gets complicated: how do you separate the clear attraction and feelings for successful men that women clearly tend to have? I don't have an answer for that. The nature uses it as a mechanism for better genes selection but the process is bugged as hell. The same applies to the going for the looks approach, as the nature hopes there is a strong correlation between looks and being healthy.
The conclusion: if we were mere animals I would say evolution has created a mechanism that time has proved to be working so it's fine. But we are not. We are capable of much more better than that.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
(I haven't read the thread)
The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true).
On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear.
I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less.
I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased.
On February 22 2013 03:55 WikidSik wrote: its only a problem when superficial factors are THE ONLY factors considered in starting/continuing relationships.
First page gold. It's not wrong for a woman to want a man who won't let her and her children starve (assuming stay-at-home mom is her goal), just as it's not wrong for a man to want a woman who (based on her appearance) could have some severe physical defects. But it is awfully shallow to pick a man purely for his money or a woman purely for her looks, because then they're really no different from an inheritance or a sex doll.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
I think you mean Eugenics.
Hardly. That's one small sub-topic of the discussion. What about genetic intervention in the form of therapy? Enhancement?
Ignorant of you to automatically assume I was referring to Germany-style eugenics.
On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote: [quote] No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear.
I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less.
I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased.
The fact that people with lower IQ in general have more children does not mean that aspect is changing (evolving) unless you show that IQ is almost completely hereditary, which it's not. Also I'm not sure if you live in Somalia or something but from where most of TL comes from children in wealthier families do not have have higher odds of survival.
How are we changing if retards have a lower chance of reproducing than wealthy people if that has always been the case. /facepalm
If anything you should be arguing they're reproducing more than before.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote: [quote] What?
That's really all I can say to that.
[quote] Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear.
I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less.
I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased.
The fact that people with lower IQ in general have more children does not mean that aspect is changing (evolving) unless you show that IQ is almost completely hereditary, which it's not. Also I'm not sure if you live in Somalia or something but from where most of TL comes from children in wealthier families do not have have higher odds of survival.
How are we changing if retards have a lower chance of reproducing than wealthy people if that has always been the case. /facepalm
If anything you should be arguing they're reproducing more than before.
Lol Somalia. Being able to afford the exorbitant medical expenses that some countries like the US have gives you an edge in survival, which doesn't apply in countries like Canada with universal healthcare. Another thing is that wealthier people are less likely to be overweight or obese, which are obvious contributors to preponed death.
IQ is estimated to be 50-80% hereditary. Even at 50%, if people below average IQ have more children that survive to reproduce than those above average IQ do, the net effect is a drop in IQ each generation. The effect will almost certainly taper off, assuming environmental pressures don't change to favor increased intelligence before that happens.
Once again on the topic of retards: the guy I first responded to said that since retards are kept alive by society, evolution has stopped. But if retards maintain a lower fertility rate than the general population, deleterious genes that contribute to such defects are kept from increasing in a population through reproduction, if not actually dropping. It's a different story that the fertility rate of retards is higher now than before.
Ultimately, what I'm arguing is that evolution never stops unless every single person has the exact same fertility rate, nobody dies before reaching that fertility rate, and mutations cease to occur.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
(I haven't read the thread)
The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true).
On the contrary, a woman's looks deteriorate over time, time spent with perfect pert boobs before they sag is a limited resource. If a woman dates a man from when she's 28 to 32 then she has dedicated a considerable portion of her remaining pert years to him. If it doesn't work out then she won't be able to offer the same to the next man, there is a considerable investment.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
User was warned for this post
lolumad
So because the rules of natural selection have changed from the "caveman times" it's dead?
Tell me, does a famous actor or you have a higher chance on passing on their genes to anyone they wish?
If you're referring to how many poor people get more children than rich ones, well then the rich people lose out because of their own damn (stupid when it comes to passing on their genes) choice.
They were the alphas but they didn't reproduce so they lose out. Natural selection.
Btw in caveman times ugly stupid people just rape lots of women if they're strong enough
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
(I haven't read the thread)
The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true).
On the contrary, a woman's looks deteriorate over time, time spent with perfect pert boobs before they sag is a limited resource. If a woman dates a man from when she's 28 to 32 then she has dedicated a considerable portion of her remaining pert years to him. If it doesn't work out then she won't be able to offer the same to the next man, there is a considerable investment.
Hmm this is an interesting observation and definatly a reason why there are such huge differences between the sexes when it comes to picking partners. It makes room for manny interesting theorys. If we take that the most important evoluntionary trait in a man is his wealth (wealth is no trait off course but lets say that wealth is an indication for having thoose traits that can lead to beeing wealthy) and the most important trait in a women is her beauty, then we can see that males get more atractive to women the older they are (since in general people get richer when they become older), and women get less atractive to males the older they are. Males should not be in a rush to find a life time partner, as their odds increase the older they become. For women on the other hand its a race against time to find a rich partner, and since its a race against time and rich partners are limited, it would be unwise for a women to be picky about her partner. Her safest best would be to settle at the first rich opportunity.
All this off course in a hypothetical world where man only select women on beauty, and women only select man on their wealth wich off course is not reality. For man i am not to sure lol, but women definatly choose their partners not only for beeing rich, but also for beeing beautifull or their personality.
If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
However, in reality, the gold digging type of women are not satisfied with a man who only makes $30k a year. Why? Because they want more than extravagant necessity. Their focus is not on whether a man can provide for a family and be secure in their finances, but whether a man can provide her and her children with almost bottomless spending allowances. They want to be able to afford new expensive clothes and wear them once. They want to be able to wear that $10k necklace so that they can make the other women in the room jealous. They want to appear to be the most beautiful thing in every room they ever walk into, and that includes the Queen's dining room in Buckingham Palace and the lobby of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
And they want to do this by wearing designer red-carpet dresses, expensive shoes and expensive golds, silvers, and diamonds. But they want it all bought for them, because if a man buys her all these things then she will feel that she deserves them, that maybe it is actually her who is the most beautiful thing in the room and not the things she is wearing.
Of course, the guy who makes $30k a year can't give her that level of status. He can only give her food, a nice car, a big house on a quiet street, average clothes, and a new iPad every few months. But the girl will tell you she just wants a wealthy husband so that he can provide for her. What a crock of nonsense.
On February 26 2013 02:42 hp.Shell wrote: If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
Yeah sure, and any woman who showed no outward signs of disease would be very attractive to men.
Oh wait, there's such a thing as better than enough.
Not to mention that a millionaire wouldn't be able to provide only for her kids, but also for her grandkids and maybe further generations past that.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote: Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before.
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same.
No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans.
Just wow.
In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists?
Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ?
l o l .
Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand.
l o l.
Oh wow. You truly are an idiot.
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: [...] Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here.
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes.
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
I explained this already, but here's some more detail since you have a poor understanding of evolution.
Your explanation is essentially "men like pretty women because they want to fuck pretty women, therefore evolution is BS". That completely fails to explain why men consider certain things "pretty" in the first place.
Men are attracted to beautiful women because they want to fuck them, sure. But the question is, why do we consider traits associated with youth/health/fertility attractive in the first place? The reason why is because those men who were attracted to those things in the past were more likely to successfully pass on their genes, than men who were attracted to traits associated with age/infirmity/infertility.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources).
Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character.
The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
Your entire post rests upon the assumption that character is limited to "good character" and "bad character". This is a blatant oversimplification.
Wealth (or lack thereof) can indicate character traits such as ambition, or greed, or intelligence, or patience, etc. In other words, wealth is correlated with a number of character traits (as is lack of wealth), which does give you insight into a person's character.
On February 26 2013 02:42 hp.Shell wrote: If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
However, in reality, the gold digging type of women are not satisfied with a man who only makes $30k a year. Why? Because they want more than extravagant necessity. Their focus is not on whether a man can provide for a family and be secure in their finances, but whether a man can provide her and her children with almost bottomless spending allowances. They want to be able to afford new expensive clothes and wear them once. They want to be able to wear that $10k necklace so that they can make the other women in the room jealous. They want to appear to be the most beautiful thing in every room they ever walk into, and that includes the Queen's dining room in Buckingham Palace and the lobby of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
And they want to do this by wearing designer red-carpet dresses, expensive shoes and expensive golds, silvers, and diamonds. But they want it all bought for them, because if a man buys her all these things then she will feel that she deserves them, that maybe it is actually her who is the most beautiful thing in the room and not the things she is wearing.
Of course, the guy who makes $30k a year can't give her that level of status. He can only give her food, a nice car, a big house on a quiet street, average clothes, and a new iPad every few months. But the girl will tell you she just wants a wealthy husband so that he can provide for her. What a crock of nonsense.
Dunno where in the States you live, but $30k a year isn't getting half that shit where I am. You might want to double that if you want any of that to be remotely true.
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.
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.
On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote: Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources).
Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character.
The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
Your entire post rests upon the assumption that character is limited to "good character" and "bad character". This is a blatant oversimplification.
Wealth (or lack thereof) can indicate character traits such as ambition, or greed, or intelligence, or patience, etc. In other words, wealth is correlated with a number of character traits (as is lack of wealth), which does give you insight into a person's character.
Patience (with people specifically) and greed are character traits, ambition and intelligence are not. Wealth tells you nothing about character, you literally know nothing about somebody's character based on their wealth. They might be lucky, they might be an honest worker, they might be a thief, you have literally no indication of their character by knowing their wealth. They could be a rich dick or a poor kind person. I don't understand why people think that money means character. It doesn't.
Character refers to morals, ethics and principles. Characteristics refer to distinguishing attributes, which include a persons character, but a persons character does not include all of their distinguishing attributes.
This logic is terrible to me because that means you basically think in general poor people tend be scumbags and rich people tend to be good people.
You think it is an oversimplification, I think you are trying to combine the meaning of other words to fit the meaning of character. You can't measure character in dollar bills. Period.
The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Wealth and intelligence have no relation to any of these things.
What somebody does with their wealth is telling of their character (greedy or generous). What somebody does with their ambition is telling of their character (selfless vs selfish ambition..ambition doesn't mean integrity). What somebody does with their intelligence is telling of their character. But none of those things standing alone say anything about a persons character, its all about what they do with it.
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.
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.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
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?
When it's the difference between struggling through life and living comfortably sure, it's fair to base that as a reason for choosing another man. When it's the difference between living comfortably and living luxuriously then no, they are shallow and I would never want to be with someone like that
If my desire to have my children not look like tiny gremlins is superficial, then a desire to raise children in an affluent home is superficial.
Anyway there are a lot of studies explaining why males are attracted to what they are attracted to. Go read up. Apparently everything is just conditioning and evolution.
This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL.
I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources).
Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character.
The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
Your entire post rests upon the assumption that character is limited to "good character" and "bad character". This is a blatant oversimplification.
Wealth (or lack thereof) can indicate character traits such as ambition, or greed, or intelligence, or patience, etc. In other words, wealth is correlated with a number of character traits (as is lack of wealth), which does give you insight into a person's character.
Patience (with people specifically) and greed are character traits, ambition and intelligence are not. Wealth tells you nothing about character, you literally know nothing about somebody's character based on their wealth. They might be lucky, they might be an honest worker, they might be a thief, you have literally no indication of their character by knowing their wealth. They could be a rich dick or a poor kind person. I don't understand why people think that money means character. It doesn't.
While there are any number of reasons why a person might be wealthy, this doesn't change the fact that it generally reflects certain character traits. You do understand what I meant when I used the word "correlated", don't you?
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes.
On February 24 2013 14:14 forsooth wrote: [quote] I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life.
While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way.
Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you.
My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former.
You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character.
Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character.
If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources).
Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character.
The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
Your entire post rests upon the assumption that character is limited to "good character" and "bad character". This is a blatant oversimplification.
Wealth (or lack thereof) can indicate character traits such as ambition, or greed, or intelligence, or patience, etc. In other words, wealth is correlated with a number of character traits (as is lack of wealth), which does give you insight into a person's character.
Patience (with people specifically) and greed are character traits, ambition and intelligence are not. Wealth tells you nothing about character, you literally know nothing about somebody's character based on their wealth. They might be lucky, they might be an honest worker, they might be a thief, you have literally no indication of their character by knowing their wealth. They could be a rich dick or a poor kind person. I don't understand why people think that money means character. It doesn't.
While there are any number of reasons why a person might be wealthy, this doesn't change the fact that it generally reflects certain character traits. You do understand what I meant when I used the word "correlated", don't you?
Yes I do, however I don't think there is one. Like I said before, what kind of ambition a person has could be a reflection on a persons character, but simply having ambition does not. As I already explained, selfless ambition vs selfish ambition. There is no correlation between wealth and integrity. If you were born into wealth you may have been spoiled and snobby, or you could be nice, or you could be neither. If you weren't born into wealth you could acquire it by stealing from people, ripping people off, winning the lottery, or earning it by being a hard worker, but you simply don't know and have no way of accurately pointing out what kind of person they are based on that. To quantify ones character in dollars complicates the matter too much to make an accurate judgment.
Are most millionaires rich because they worked for it or because they inherited it? Is someone with $50,000,000 more ambitious than someone with $2,000,000? Or are they just older? Or luckier? Too many factors to measure.
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.
You're right in that the genetics determined the culture for thousands of years and therefore indirectly genetics of humans affects gender roles to a massive extent today. While that explains why today's culture is the way it is, it isn't what most people mean when they refer to "nature". They're typically referring to the direct impact of genetics upon each individual person, and not the thousands of years of culture that were caused because of a hostile environment + genetics + natural selection. It's a good point, but it isn't super relevant to the future because you can just treat today's culture as "ground zero" (i.e. how we got here culturally isn't as relevant as how we can change the culture now that we are more advanced).
The ideal scenario is that over the next hundred years, the gender roles will begin to equalize because the genetic/hormonal traits that made men so 'superior' to women in the past are now almost entirely irrelevant. However, we may keep gender roles the same or even drift them further apart depending on how things proceed. The media in specific is a very interesting area of debate on this issue because it is easy to argue that it is holding gender roles in place, but it is also easy to argue that the increased connectivity is helping to displace them.
On a different note, more and more we're finding that the genetic differences between men and women can be mostly summarized as "hormonal differences" because the actual genetic differences between the X and Y chromosome (apart from their effects on hormone production/pituitary) are not very large at all.
Some things that are real modern genetic/hormonal differences (ignoring puberty's differences specifically because that would take too much time to compile): Men - slightly more aggressive, take slightly more risks, moderate increase in muscle mass (this is actually not part of puberty but a continual process) Women - slightly stronger emotions, slightly better memory, moderate fat redistribution (this is actually not part of puberty but a continual process)
And I emphasize the "slightly" in this. It had an small to moderate increase in something like 25% of men for the risk-taking study IIRC. These qualities are all found in men to much more ridiculous extents than pure genetics/hormones cause because our society has compounded the genetic/hormonal differences so that they are part of our gender roles.
Side note: It's sad how hard it is to find decent estrogen/progesterone/etc studies. Testosterone studies are a dime a dozen, but the other body's hormones are just as critical and so under researched. They don't even teach the benefits of most of them in textbooks besides testosterone, which leads to further cultural issues ("men have more of the best hormone").
I guess my overall point here is that genetics used to be super important, and now the main factor is actually just the lingering presence of the time when genetics were important (these are now "gender roles"). After those are dissolved or largely worn down at least, the real effects of our genetics in a modern day society will come through (i.e. we're pretty fucking similar). It does kind of baffle me why some men/women don't want to accept the reality that they're truly very similar.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes.
Do you even know what domestication means?
Cows have been taught how to eat, when to sleep, and what to eat, how to sleep, how to run, how to live, etc... There is nothing a cow does that is not regulated and guided by man's cultural pressures on the lives of cows. Domesticated animals barely breed without human supervision. No, cows are not these animals that walk around in cow preservations being hunted from their natural habitats. They are man taught animals living in man made environments, living by man made rules--they live within the pressures of human culture and in less than 2000 years they (as well as all other domesticated animals) have radically changed in both size, shape, and demeanor. No amount of their primitive natural instincts could overcome human influences on their lives. The same is true for humans.
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.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Quote of the day. Because it is known that in the times of Jesus, caws were madly vicious animals that would go on rampages and destroy entire villages just by themselves. Oh the horror.
To go back to the topic--the US is a country that associates money with power. Women are supposed to be attracted to men in power. So women fulfill this role by being attracted to rich men. If American culture ha said "number of piercings denotes power" then those same women would be attracted to the men with the most piercings. It's not the money, it's the association we as a culture have with money.
The only cultural force men are subjected to is the American objectification of women. When news/entertainment/social media objectifies women's bodies and treats them as vessels of sex and production--then it's natural that men are attracted to "pretty" women, society is telling them to be attracted to pretty women. Much on the same way women are told to be attracted to powerful men whether that be defined as money, brawn, safety, or social capital (being famous/best at something).
People acting this way are not shallow, theyre simply playing their part in the cogs of society.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Quote of the day. Because it is known that in the times of Jesus, caws were madly vicious animals that would go on rampages and destroy entire villages just by themselves. Oh the horror.
How many villages have been regularly trampled by wildabeast? Would you consider those animals domesticated or wild? Or maybe wild does not mean tramples villages but simply being a wild animal that minds it's own business until you go to his land and fuck with him. Wild does not mean monster of the week.
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.
The reason why women prefer dominant and wealthy males and prefer to work in support jobs like secretaries, nurses, etc., is simply evolutionary biology.
The point about changing the physiology of animals, such as cows, via domestication doesn't disprove this. In domestication, animals are specifically chosen for breeding, which greatly accelerates evolution. Naturally, you cannot expect a thousand years of human civilization and a few hundred years of equality for women, to have even the most negligible effect on the conditioning that has been done over millions of years of evolution. Homo sapiens have been on the planet for over 100,000 years, the last few hundred years is simply immaterial in the grand time scales of evolution.
The documentary linked above is from Norway, where women are more equal than in virtually any other country. In the documentary, it shows that the freer the women in society are, the more they freely tend to choose traditional roles.
In addition, experiments testing the preferences of newborns, before any social conditioning could take place also demonstrates automatic preferences for traditional gender roles. So claims that roles and preferences of females (or males for that matter) are based more so on culture and society, don't seem to fit the facts. Moreover, culture and society didn't just fall from the sky, it too is a result of evolutionary biology.
I don't want to sound like a sexist. This is just science.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
You have a narrow and naive view of this.
My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure.
Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
You have a narrow and naive view of this.
My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure.
Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
You are missing the mindset that several people in this thread have voiced and elaborated on.
Your fiance agreed to marry you because you are who you are; being able to provide financial security simply shows that you have better opportunities in the future for a family (note: children are very, very expensive). And though this might sound chauvinistic, a family is what most women want in life. Being married ain't cheap (note: money is not a requirement for a happy marriage, but it sure as hell helps with quality of life).
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
You have a narrow and naive view of this.
My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure.
Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
You are talking about something completely different, I was referring to women who are primarily attracted to your finances and any other things they like about you are just an added bonus.
edit: If you think your fiance would leave you because you lost your job then you are probably more insecure than you think. I'm not saying that is the case, but if it were it would be telling of your insecurities. Money isn't everything and believe it or not you can be happy and poor.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes.
Do you even know what domestication means?
Cows have been taught how to eat, when to sleep, and what to eat, how to sleep, how to run, how to live, etc... There is nothing a cow does that is not regulated and guided by man's cultural pressures on the lives of cows. Domesticated animals barely breed without human supervision. No, cows are not these animals that walk around in cow preservations being hunted from their natural habitats. They are man taught animals living in man made environments, living by man made rules--they live within the pressures of human culture and in less than 2000 years they (as well as all other domesticated animals) have radically changed in both size, shape, and demeanor. No amount of their primitive natural instincts could overcome human influences on their lives. The same is true for humans.
There is a huge difference between cultural pressure and being tamed. Society putting pressure on a person to act a certain way is not the same as being dominated by a more powerful and intelligent species via a fence and food supply. Cows could never overcome our influence, but a person can definitely overcome cultural pressures. You're equating not walking out the door because no one else is, and not leaving a cage because it's locked.
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.
Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun.
Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like.
Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures.
Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow?
Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes.
Do you even know what domestication means?
Cows have been taught how to eat, when to sleep, and what to eat, how to sleep, how to run, how to live, etc... There is nothing a cow does that is not regulated and guided by man's cultural pressures on the lives of cows. Domesticated animals barely breed without human supervision. No, cows are not these animals that walk around in cow preservations being hunted from their natural habitats. They are man taught animals living in man made environments, living by man made rules--they live within the pressures of human culture and in less than 2000 years they (as well as all other domesticated animals) have radically changed in both size, shape, and demeanor. No amount of their primitive natural instincts could overcome human influences on their lives. The same is true for humans.
There is a huge difference between cultural pressure and being tamed. Society putting pressure on a person to act a certain way is not the same as being dominated by a more powerful and intelligent species via a fence and food supply. Cows could never overcome our influence, but a person can definitely overcome cultural pressures. You're equating not walking out the door because no one else is, and not leaving a cage because it's locked.
Not to mention the tendency for people to resist cultural pressures simply for the sake of being different. Some people want to fit in, others don't. Societal influence plays a minimal role, if any, in determining a persons attraction. We see hourglass figure women in bikinis on tv because we like hourglass figure women in bikinis, them being on tv isn't what makes people like them.
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty.
Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you.
This thread turned out so much better then expected btw
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty.
Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you.
This thread turned out so much better then expected btw
Your a ecomparing instinct to greed, finding someone physically attractive doesn't make you more likely to use them for sex. Finding someones money attractive does make you more likely to use them for their money though.
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.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty.
Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you.
This thread turned out so much better then expected btw
Your a ecomparing instinct to greed, finding someone physically attractive doesn't make you more likely to use them for sex. Finding someones money attractive does make you more likely to use them for their money though.
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?. is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women?
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.
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.
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.
"Yes, I really like you, but I'm going with this other guy instead because he has better financial security" Said no one ever
I think I'm going to have to spend some more time trying to understand this thread. I seriously thought it was an elaborate troll until I read like 5 pages in... I really am amazed at how many people just assume that wealth/looks = happiness. I honestly have never found either of these qualities to be attractive (people who concern themselves primarily with their money or their looks). I enjoy being around people that I have something in common with, and unless they're literally begging on the street or a freaking burn victim or something I haven't been repulsed by these people that I otherwise like...
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?
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.
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.
"Yes, I really like you, but I'm going with this other guy instead because he has better financial security" Said no one ever
Of course few people would admit to it. That doesn't change the fact that hypergamy is a real thing, even if it's a taboo subject among women.
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:
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.
@OP It's not bad. I personally don't like it and find woman who are intrested in money to be boring and bland. I wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me.
On February 28 2013 08:50 SayGen wrote: @OP It's not bad. I personally don't like it and find woman who are intrested in money to be boring and bland. I wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me.
Women who aren't interested in money are about as common as men who aren't interested in beauty.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
I think you mean Eugenics.
Hardly. That's one small sub-topic of the discussion. What about genetic intervention in the form of therapy? Enhancement?
Ignorant of you to automatically assume I was referring to Germany-style eugenics.
Actually Eugenics as a word was coined by an Englishman and a lot of it's early champions were English or American. There's a fair bit of debate over what actually qualifies as Eugenics. I think it's safe to say though that gene therapy in order to engineer human "enhancement" falls pretty much bang in the middle as a definition. Giving it the insipid corporate title "Genetic intervention-mediated evolution" is really cool though so props for that.
It's acronym would be GIME. Could we fit an R in there I wonder? Genetic Re-engineering and Intervention Mediated Evolution perhaps?
On February 28 2013 08:50 SayGen wrote: @OP It's not bad. I personally don't like it and find woman who are intrested in money to be boring and bland. I wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me.
Women who aren't interested in money are about as common as men who aren't interested in beauty.
And about as common as men who aren't interested in money and women who aren't interested in beauty.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women.
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Perhaps there is a correlation. Harder working men make more money than non-hard working. And hard-working can be an honourable trait for a women to look for in a man
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women.
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Perhaps there is a correlation. Harder working men make more money than non-hard working. And hard-working can be an honourable trait for a women to look for in a man
Eh, you've criticized a broad generalization and substituted another of your own.... Surely you would agree that millions of men working average 9-5 desk jobs make much more than unskilled labor who work much harder. There's tons of brutal jobs out there like farming and construction that pay very poorly. Or how about the janitor working an extra night job. Initial opportunity/education/well-being end up mattering a whole lot. I'll agree with you that hard-working is a valuable trait, but it doesn't correlate very well with money. I think wealth is a more complicated puzzle and working hard is just one piece.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women.
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Perhaps there is a correlation. Harder working men make more money than non-hard working. And hard-working can be an honourable trait for a women to look for in a man
Eh, you've criticized a broad generalization and substituted another of your own.... Surely you would agree that millions of men working average 9-5 desk jobs make much more than unskilled labor who work much harder. There's tons of brutal jobs out there like farming and construction that pay very poorly. Or how about the janitor working an extra night job. Initial opportunity/education/well-being end up mattering a whole lot. I'll agree with you that hard-working is a valuable trait, but it doesn't correlate very well with money. I think wealth is a more complicated puzzle and working hard is just one piece.
Exactly, and what about all the guys who just inherit their wealth, they don`t have to work a day of their life and yet somehow that money is supposed to indicate to women how hard they work and therefore how suitable they are?
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:
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) 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 do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable. 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.
Women liking rich men is like men liking women with big boobs. It's fine to like those things. But just like you have right to like what you want, I have the right to not like a person like that.
People have very different tastes, and that is a good thing.
one thing regarding the evolutionary advantages of women beeing attracted to wealthy men: from an evolutionary point of view it is a very new thing that the social status has a minor effect on the reproduction rate. until mid of the 1800 local food shortages, diseases or beeing the victim of crimes was something that could partially be prevented by having money. combine this with the fact that birth control was only reliable and common since the 20th century, women who chose men with a high social security had a better chance that she and her children will survive. 200 years is nothing for human evolution. it is like 30 seconds of a day.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
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.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
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.
A wealthy woman can get men easier as well, attractive or not. Also people seem to ignore the fact that generally (which the whole thread seem to be about) people end up with a partner with a reasonably similar look. Sure there men that get models just by their wealth and such but that's not the case for the large majority of us (and there's many unattractive guys to go around). A woman doesn't have to suffer just because unattractive men dream about getting married to Angelina Jolie and vice versa.
And I'd question the ability to get better at humor. Most people have a sense of humor that they keep for most of their life.
On February 28 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote: Also people seem to ignore the fact that generally (which the whole thread seem to be about) people end up with a partner with a reasonably similar look.
Fair point, I do believe this happens 70% of the time if not more. But you do see less attractive men with more attractive women much more than unattractive women with attractive men. I actually lived with a guy who is thin, small, a doctor (also with a degree in physics) and kinda lame looking. He was going out with a pretty fat and horribly irritating girl for like 3 years. I actually spent quite a lot of time telling him she was a shit partner and he deserved better lol. Anyway he broke up with her and got together with this total babe who had actually, in my opinion, been pining for him for like 1 year! They're both doctors so I doubt it's about earning power. She's just infatuated with his intellect, and when he told sci fi stories or like physics things she would always be in rapt attention. I pretty much saw something right there that I think would be pretty much impossible in reverse.
Also in my band from which unfortunately I have been ejected recently, the lead singer/guitarist is someone I would not consider attractive. He's thin as a rake and has kind of a whispy, whiskery proto-beard going on, with pretty weird spindly features. But he totally owns the stage and actually gets loads of female attention, and has a pretty good looking girlfriend, definitely better looking than he.
And I can think of another guy I regularly used to meet in Games Workshop where I used to work. He was an 40 year old with the intellect and sense of humour of a teenager, but he had a different, gorgeous 20 year old (or thereabouts) on his arm every time he'd come into the shop. I have no fucking idea what he was up to because let me tell you he wasn't that attractive. He kind of looked like a satanic goat. He always scowled and had a certain angry presence about him but man he definitely fought against the genetic current when it comes to the girls he got.
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:
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.
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.
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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.
A wealthy woman can get men easier as well, attractive or not.
And yet, men do not ignore poor/unemployed women, while poor/unemployed men are avoided by most women.
On February 28 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote: A woman doesn't have to suffer just because unattractive men dream about getting married to Angelina Jolie and vice versa.
That's because those unattractive men have no chance of marrying an Angelina Jolie, and must therefore settle for a less attractive woman instead.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
I'm not sure I understand what your question is.
i was implying an end to your means so to speak. if men pursue financial gains for sex only while women think men pursue financial gains to give them a future/stability/hapiness/family/whatever, it just seems like the women that go for the men with the money, are not in on the joke played on them.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
I'm not sure I understand what your question is.
i was implying an end to your means so to speak. if men pursue financial gains for sex only while women think men pursue financial gains to give them a future/stability/hapiness/family/whatever, it just seems like the women that go for the men with the money, are not in on the joke played on them.
But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played.
Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive.
And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him.
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.
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.
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote: He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Sick but true....
Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm.
What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility.
I think you mean Eugenics.
Hardly. That's one small sub-topic of the discussion. What about genetic intervention in the form of therapy? Enhancement?
Ignorant of you to automatically assume I was referring to Germany-style eugenics.
Actually Eugenics as a word was coined by an Englishman and a lot of it's early champions were English or American. There's a fair bit of debate over what actually qualifies as Eugenics. I think it's safe to say though that gene therapy in order to engineer human "enhancement" falls pretty much bang in the middle as a definition. Giving it the insipid corporate title "Genetic intervention-mediated evolution" is really cool though so props for that.
It's acronym would be GIME. Could we fit an R in there I wonder? Genetic Re-engineering and Intervention Mediated Evolution perhaps?
+1 pedant points for you. Additional +1 derision points. Score!
Perhaps you should check out some peer reviewed literature authored or co-authored by Julian Savulescu, European bio-ethicist before you poke fun and mock usage of words.
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.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
I'm not sure I understand what your question is.
i was implying an end to your means so to speak. if men pursue financial gains for sex only while women think men pursue financial gains to give them a future/stability/hapiness/family/whatever, it just seems like the women that go for the men with the money, are not in on the joke played on them.
But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played.
Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive.
And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him.
i wouldn't call someone who "comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine" a man with money. your second example, altow true on some extent, is outdated. the women can, in these days, provide for themselfs.
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?
Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women.
k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money).
I'm not sure I understand what your question is.
i was implying an end to your means so to speak. if men pursue financial gains for sex only while women think men pursue financial gains to give them a future/stability/hapiness/family/whatever, it just seems like the women that go for the men with the money, are not in on the joke played on them.
But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played.
Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive.
And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him.
i wouldn't call someone who "comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine" a man with money. your second example, altow true on some extent, is outdated. the women can, in these days, provide for themselfs.
Maybe not a coal mine per se, but it is a reality that many dangerous jobs can pay considerable more than others.
Women can provide for themselves but you're forgetting two things: 1) two wages are better than one. 2) society has changed rapidly in the last ~5000 years, but our genes and therefore our instincts have not.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
eXACTLY this. sexual attraction is much much more.
So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
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:
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.
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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.
On March 01 2013 14:51 Tien wrote: So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
because no one thinks that's bad/inexplicable in this day n'age.
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?"
I don't know what you are argueing right now, but about what is seen as "bad".
1 - All the love marketing shit to sell you lifestyle and products. You "must be with somebody because you are in love", like anyone knows the fuck is that past 3-4 years with the same person. 2 - Female - Male being equal. If we are equal, why the fuck do i have to substain you. Get a job already.
Everyone is shallow. The question is how shallow. For guy example, most men are attracted to both physical and personality aspect. But the real judgment is passed on how much each aspect influences your emotion.
I do not consider myself terribly shallow in evaluation of finding a significant relationship with a girl however physical appearance is important to me still. Personally, I can't find a girl with one eye, boils all over the body, 3 sticking appendages sexually/physically (using the two words interchangeably) appealing although she could have a great personality potentially.
By logistics OP has merit and I lol at people who try to argue otherwise
On March 01 2013 14:51 Tien wrote: So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
So we're forced to accept that women pursuing men with money (as compared to men with other advantages) is either neither good nor bad (gray area), or good in general.
It's not like the stubborn realities about relationships have to be politically correct or flattering to one sex or the other. It's simply what emerges from a variety of factors that have been analyzed to varying degrees in the previous pages.
Women are the ones that are forced to keep their mouths shut in public social situations when it comes describing what they're looking for in a guy with respects to money.
It's not wrong, but if they bring it up in a conversation they will be judged.
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 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:
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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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 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 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 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 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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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.
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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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 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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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?
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...
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 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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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.
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.
seems like you're the stupid pleb. most of these 'evolutionary theories' relating evolution to other aspects of our life are about as scientific as astrology.
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: [quote] 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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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: [quote]
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'm sure you know the evolutionary advantage of large mammaries
Oh? Please explain. Because breast size isn't an impediment to the amount of milk a woman can produce, and in many animals, such as chimps, they're relatively small. In humans, large mammaries can also be extremely disadvantageous depending on one's life style such as within nomadic tribes. They're a secondary sex trait that doesn't actually reflect reproduction and they don't serve a functional purpose, outside of attracting more attention in certain cultures. It could be evolutionary within a single culture, but there isn't a biological basis for it being attractive.
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.
Yes. The point of the example was that both super models and athletes are poor in that regard, yet we view one as extremely attractive and the other as unattractive.
]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.
You're already pre-supposing what men find attractive, based on evolutionary psychology bullshit. What men find attractive differs from culture to culture, include waist-to-hip ratios and assuming an hourglass figure is the most fertile (of which only correlation has been found in a small amount samples), it's quite likely that fertility only plays a very minor role in what men find attractive. Furthermore, the ability to reproduce depends on many other social factors besides fertility, which is why women with wider waists (who may be less fertile) tend to do better in countries where women have economic independence. You're basically saying "men find hourglass figures most attractive, therefore supermodels, who don't have an hourglass body shape can't be attractive," when really what you should be thinking is that "men today no longer find hourglass figures most attractive." Look at this very site and the Kpop idols people fantasize about.
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.
There is no doubt that culture arises from circumstances, which is why it's impossible to say there is an inherent, ideal form of beauty that's universal to all cultures, as sunprince tried to say. That is not to say biological factors were never a factor, but often times, especially in modern societies, they have been overridden by cultural norms. A woman with an hourglass figure may be more fertile, but that doesn't mean she's more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce or inherently more attractive to a given culture.
Hourglass figure has nothing to do with fertility, larger hips means easier time with childbirth normally.
Men like attractive women, women like powerful men. This does not apply to all people, and what people find attractive varies from person to person.
Dominant males will generally go for submissive women with hourglass figures and likewise attractive women will normally go for dominant males.
Men like women with larger breasts because breast size is directly related to estrogen levels, dominant males (read high testosterone) want women with high estrogen levels for reasons not worth going into for this topic.
If you are androgynous, a manchild etc do not expect to follow this norm and likewise if you are an ugly girl (by common perception) do not expect to either.
Directly on topic though, money = power so women liking men with money is not even remotely uncommon or socially unacceptable. Women gouging men for money however normally is.
Are you suggesting that the norm for attractive women is to be submissive? Because that's pretty stupid. Also large breasts have not always been the norm for when or comes to the sexual ideal
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.
seems like you're the stupid pleb. most of these 'evolutionary theories' relating evolution to other aspects of our life are about as scientific as astrology.
Everything about humanity has been determined by evolution. It is pretty dumb to suggest it has nothing to do with our lives...
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: [quote]
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:
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: [quote]
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: [quote]
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.
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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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'm sure you know the evolutionary advantage of large mammaries
Oh? Please explain. Because breast size isn't an impediment to the amount of milk a woman can produce, and in many animals, such as chimps, they're relatively small. In humans, large mammaries can also be extremely disadvantageous depending on one's life style such as within nomadic tribes. They're a secondary sex trait that doesn't actually reflect reproduction and they don't serve a functional purpose, outside of attracting more attention in certain cultures. It could be evolutionary within a single culture, but there isn't a biological basis for it being attractive.
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.
Yes. The point of the example was that both super models and athletes are poor in that regard, yet we view one as extremely attractive and the other as unattractive.
]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.
You're already pre-supposing what men find attractive, based on evolutionary psychology bullshit. What men find attractive differs from culture to culture, include waist-to-hip ratios and assuming an hourglass figure is the most fertile (of which only correlation has been found in a small amount samples), it's quite likely that fertility only plays a very minor role in what men find attractive. Furthermore, the ability to reproduce depends on many other social factors besides fertility, which is why women with wider waists (who may be less fertile) tend to do better in countries where women have economic independence. You're basically saying "men find hourglass figures most attractive, therefore supermodels, who don't have an hourglass body shape can't be attractive," when really what you should be thinking is that "men today no longer find hourglass figures most attractive." Look at this very site and the Kpop idols people fantasize about.
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.
There is no doubt that culture arises from circumstances, which is why it's impossible to say there is an inherent, ideal form of beauty that's universal to all cultures, as sunprince tried to say. That is not to say biological factors were never a factor, but often times, especially in modern societies, they have been overridden by cultural norms. A woman with an hourglass figure may be more fertile, but that doesn't mean she's more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce or inherently more attractive to a given culture.
1. What makes you think that Victoria's secret models aren't fertile? Are you basing this on something or is it just a hunch? 2. No one is "presupposing" what men find attractive. Everyone knows what men find attractive. If you have any doubts, flip open a men's magazine. It's not exactly a secret. 3. Where do you get the idea that the desirable waist-to-hip ratio varies between cultures? Everything that I've seen suggests that it's pretty consistent across cultures. 4. Why do you say that supermodels don't have hourglass figures? Pretty much all of them have a waist-to-hip ratio of .7, which is quoted is numerous studies as the ideal. 5. I'm pretty confident that most kpop idols have waist-to-hip ratios very close to .7 as well. 6. In every culture that I'm aware of, men tend to be attracted to women who are young, healthy, with symmetrical features and waist-to-hip ratios near .7. This is biology at work.
1. Less so, and because of body weight and fat %. 2. Read the actual post before you post. He says exactly that models have a specific body type that all men find unattractive, and his proof is that it doesn't fit the hourglass form. He's beginning with his answer in mind and trying to connect data to make it work. 3. This is wrong. Singh's study was flawed when he made it, and its publicizing is even worse because he never made the exact universal claim about .7.
Female waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is widely cited by evolutionary psychologists as an example of an evolved male preference. Although many studies have found men prefer a low WHR, almost all have been conducted with college students. We tested men in a foraging society and found that they preferred high WHRs. We interpret this as a preference for heavier women, which we think should be common where there is no risk of obesity. Based on these results and others, we suggest that WHR preference varies with ecology.
As in Yomybato, males from Shipetiarigrouped female figures by weight and thenby WHR, preferred ‘overweight’ figures,and considered high-WHR females to behealthier (Fig. 2). However, Shipetiari malesconsidered low-WHR females to be moreattractive and more desirable as spouses(Fig. 2). Note that Shipetiari males didnot consider the healthiest females to bethe most attractive or the most desirablespouses, suggesting that WHR preferencesmay be changing
4. They don't, they've actually steadily risen from .6 to now .7+. You can actually track the rise through Playboy models since the 60's, where "ideals" like Monroe and Welch were much more severe than .7 (closer to .6), to today where it's getting clser to .8. Women like Megan Fox and Kate Upton are perfect examples of it. There's variation all over the place regarding today's most attractive women and their hip-to-waist ratio, which gets to the next point:
6. Further research finds that hip-to-waist ratio also isn't very important at all.
Two purported cues to perceived female physical attractiveness are body mass index (BMI) and body shape as measured by the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). This study examined the relative contribution of both cues in several culturally socioeconomically distinct populations. Six hundred and eighty-two participants from Britain and Malaysia were asked to rate a set of images of real women with known BMI and WHR. The results showed that BMI is the primary determinant of female physical attractiveness, whereas WHR failed to emerge as a significant predictor. The results also showed that there were significant differences in preferences for physical attractiveness along a gradient of socio-economic development, with urban participants preferring images of women with significantly lower BMIs than their rural counterparts.
...
It is also not the case that the relative ranges of BMI and WHR values in these studies are unequal, as whenTovee et al. (2002) used images of female bodies where the range of BMI values was strictly controlled, WHR still failed to emerge as a strong determinant for attractiveness
These findings suggest that one simply does not need to be very sensitive to shape cues. Tove´ e et al. (2002) have argued that the linkage of WHR with fertility is far weaker than that of BMI and fertility, and this may be one reason why WHR is a poor predictor of attractiveness. For example, there is a considerable overlap in the WHRs of populations of normal women and anorexic patients (Tove´ e et al.,(1997). The latter group are amenorrhoeic, and so a woman with an effective fertility of zero can have the same WHR as a woman with normal fertility. Past research supports the finding that shape cues are not a salient factor in female physical attractiveness—the ‘ideal’female body in Western society, as depicted by fashion models, has become thinner and less curvaceous over time
He goes on to posit that preference in BMI (which is significantly more important than waist-to-hip) varies most predictably by level of modernity and socio-economic status.
‘ideal’female body in Western society, as depicted by fashion models
This is what happens when people conflate transient social status with ingrained biological attraction, and when they conflate publicity with commonality.
For example, there is a considerable overlap in the WHRs of populations of normal women and anorexic patients
Obviously the data will be skewed towards BMI if you are rating the attractiveness of WHR of a starving woman....
the fact that saying someone is superficial is a pretty negative remark should give you a hint. people are not that simple, though they can live that simply. there's a lower level routine, and a higher level routine. they can both exist.
edit: yes, by seeing what's superficial as 'natural' behavior, you remove that stigma. but that's a different but interesting story
On February 22 2013 04:02 slappy wrote: it depends... it's like I want a woman who is going to do a good job raising my children and has qualities that are beneficial in that regard. Naturally, a woman will want a man who can provide, that's kind of the flip side of that coin.
I never really looked at it that way before. What you're saying makes sense, though I think that if money or looks alone are the sole deciding factors for a relationship, then that is "shallow" and "superficial."
‘ideal’female body in Western society, as depicted by fashion models
This is what happens when people conflate transient social status with ingrained biological attraction, and when they conflate publicity with commonality.
Wow...you really hit the nail on the head there with that sentence. This is what jars me about everything Jibba is talking about to do with society shaping your tastes. Also, fashion models aren't supposed to be ideal beauty, they are supposed to wear clothes well.
On March 03 2013 17:04 rusedeguerre wrote: This is what happens when people conflate transient social status with ingrained biological attraction, and when they conflate publicity with commonality.
No, this is what happens when you don't follow the conversation and his argument about models of all generations displaying the same biological characteristic (even though it's not true.)
And you still haven't shown how ingrained biological attraction is measured. Assuming there is both an ingrained biological attraction and a socially instilled attraction, how would you distinguish the two? The only studies we have pursue a single, unified "attraction" and they've found that it is not universal across cultures. Could it be that socially instilled attraction, obviously derived from different cultures, overrides the ingrained biological attraction that's universal to everyone? It's possible, but how would you isolate that?
The only studies they've done have involved showing people silly pictures, often hand drawings rather than real photographs, and asking for their preference. Tovee's study found that the different hip-to-waist ratios didn't help them predict which picture was viewed as most attractive. In other studies, they found it was helpful for prediction but only within a single culture. So really, we don't have data to suggest that men judge attractiveness based on fertility or even perceived fertility.
All of this is based on Singh's study's finding of .7 among Western college students at that time. It may turn out that a hip-to-waist ratio of .7 and a certain range of body fat % produce most optimal fertility, but we haven't shown a universal preference of hip-to-waist nor a universal preference of BMI (which isn't exactly body fat %, but close enough for the discussion.) We only have evidence to the contrary.
Obviously the data will be skewed towards BMI if you are rating the attractiveness of WHR of a starving woman....
So you didn't actually read it, but decided to post anyways.
I will give evolutionary psychology credit for having more merit than astrology,.^
On March 03 2013 09:06 Jibba wrote: Oh? Please explain. Because breast size isn't an impediment to the amount of milk a woman can produce, and in many animals, such as chimps, they're relatively small. In humans, large mammaries can also be extremely disadvantageous depending on one's life style such as within nomadic tribes. They're a secondary sex trait that doesn't actually reflect reproduction and they don't serve a functional purpose, outside of attracting more attention in certain cultures. It could be evolutionary within a single culture, but there isn't a biological basis for it being attractive.
You're right that the size of a mammary gland is not a large factor in its potential maximum milk production rate, and that they serve no additional function while adding weight and consuming resources. The extra weight on the front of the torso is even more detrimental for humans than for other animals because we walk upright, and our spines and lower backs are placed under more strain than ideal as a result. This begs the question as to why they are so much larger in humans (as a proportion of total body mass). Large breasts, as with low waist-hip ratio, are an indicator of a high estrogen: androgen ratio, which usually means higher fertility. Other indicators of health and fertility include:
-Clear skin: Androgens stimulate production of sebum, which increases acne, and growth of thick hairs (as opposed to "peach fuzz").
-Fat distribution away from waist, towards breasts and hips. This, along with body fat percentage, is a major contributor to a low WHR. It also helps that being attracted to women with low WHR reduces the chances of her already being pregnant. Note that the WHR of a woman with genes causing such a fat distribution would still increase if her body fat increases, because the decreasing volume: surface area ratio makes it highly impractical to maintain WHR.
-High voice pitch: Androgens cause development of the vocal chords, lowering pitch.
-Facial structure: I'll quote my previous post: Men on average have a taller and wider masseter, more angled jaw, wider cheek bones and eye sockets, bushier eyebrows, larger noses, more sloping forehead, more prominent brow ridges, and squarer chins. Once again, this is effected by androgens while in the womb, very early childhood, and in puberty.
-Symmetrical features: The brain is responsible for creating and maintaining symmetry in development, and symmetry is a reliable indicator of a healthy brain. Intelligence and symmetry are positively correlated. Further, since about half of all human genes play a role in the brain's development, symmetry indirectly demonstrates the absence of harmful mutations or unfavorable genes.
While not perfectly reliable, as demonstrated by conditions such as AIS, it was only possible to determine fertility through superficial means, so that was the best option. Men that prefers a low WHR, for whatever reason, will have higher average fertility than those who prefer high WHRs. If genetics has anything to do with WHR preference, then the male population will, over time, start to favor low WHRs, and this process has been going on for a very long time, longer than culture has existed. This applies to any of those features considered universally attractive. Unless you can show that genetics has an extremely weak or nonexistent connection with what a man finds attractive, your position on this topic is tenuous.
I won't comment on the fertility of models because they vary quite a bit in WHR, bust size, etc, but I noticed you used Kate Upton as an example - her WHR is her weakest point as a model, but she compensates for that with her other attributes, and the same could be said of Megan Fox. These two examples do not make a dataset, and all else held constant, it is likely that the majority of men would prefer a low-WHR version of Kate Upton/Megan Fox. But of course, this is only true assuming men prefer low WHRs.
I already addressed the variation in WHR preference due to socioeconomic status. The brain treats money the same way it treats food, so people with less money consume more food and prefer women with more body fat. Women who accumulate fat more easily are more likely to survive and provide enough sustenance for offspring in utero when resources are scarce. This is why poor people are more likely than average to be overweight/obese, and rich people are less likely to be (the rich sate this urge by buying things). Since body fat accumulates disproportionately around the waist for most people, a small change in body fat causes a large change in WHR.
Furthermore, the ability to reproduce depends on many other social factors besides fertility, which is why women with wider waists (who may be less fertile) tend to do better in countries where women have economic independence.
This is a little ambiguous. Do you mean that they do better than high WHR women who lack economic independence, or better than low WHR women when both have economic independence? I'm fairly certain you mean the former, in which case the disparity is easily explained by the fact that men losing the economic advantage means they lose a major advantage the sexual economy, which forces them to be less selective. So all women have a better chance when they have economic independence. Of course, nowadays, being successful in dating does not mean you are reproductively successful, but that is a topic for another discussion.
You're basically saying "men find hourglass figures most attractive, therefore supermodels, who don't have an hourglass body shape can't be attractive," when really what you should be thinking is that "men today no longer find hourglass figures most attractive." Look at this very site and the Kpop idols people fantasize about.
Read the actual post before you post. He says exactly that models have a specific body type that all men find unattractive, and his proof is that it doesn't fit the hourglass form. He's beginning with his answer in mind and trying to connect data to make it work.
That is not what I meant. I was saying that models are not selected by popular vote, but by a process that does not necessarily reflect the preference of the majority. For that matter, they are not selected purely on their looks. So you cannot take for granted that models are an example of ideal beauty in this culture. I was also not speaking in absolutes, and I hoped you would infer that I mean "most" or "on average". Obviously, not all models have androgynous and overly thin bodies, and not all men prefer low WHRs. Typing that out every time becomes cumbersome. Swami and Tovée also make the assumption that models represent ideal beauty in this study, which you previously linked. In any case, going from the data charts showing BMI vs attractiveness ratings, the results are fairly similar (all groups ranged from 20.79 and 22.78 in peak preferred BMI), and the differences are consistent with what you would expect based on the food=money effect mentioned earlier. Another problem with their study is that the people were rating attractiveness based on black-and-white photographs. It has been found that when looking at women, men focus more on the face and bust when they're still, and on WHR when they're moving. And in photographs, people weigh faces disproportionately. There is a weak correlation between an attractive face and low WHR, so it is not surprising that the correlation between WHR and rated attractiveness is very low. In contrast, body fat affects the full body, strongly affecting facial attractiveness, and produces aromatase, which converts testosterone to estradiol. This might seem beneficial to fertility, but body fat outside the 17-25% range leads to the storage of too much estrogen to ovulate normally.
A woman with an hourglass figure may be more fertile, but that doesn't mean she's more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce or inherently more attractive to a given culture.
It does mean she's more likely to survive and reproduce, unless she's living in a environment with resources so scarce that a woman who puts on fat more easily is at an advantage.
There is no doubt that culture arises from circumstances, which is why it's impossible to say there is an inherent, ideal form of beauty that's universal to all cultures, as sunprince tried to say. That is not to say biological factors were never a factor, but often times, especially in modern societies, they have been overridden by cultural norms.
I do not agree that there is a single universal standard of beauty either, because not all cultures are the same in this respect (and what are the odds that they would ever be?). I suspect that culture merely influences the standard of beauty one way or another from a sort of "starting point" or "range," determined by the genetic makeup of the beholder. Cultural influence is also not homogeneous, so its effect varies on people, too, resulting in greater variety. Genetics' significant role in perceived attractiveness is probably the reason why the diseased, old, obese, significantly asymmetrical, outrightly deformed, or handicapped have never been the ideal beauty standard. If culture could somehow, independently of genetics, favor any of those attributes, and actually override innate preferences, it might have happened before. In any case, don't think overriding is the right word. Do you have any particular examples of culture overriding genetics in mind?
I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.
I always thought women were gold diggers (not talking about the ones that come from poor backgrounds wanting a better life for their kids but the actual gold diggers that come from upper middle to upper class backgrounds and sleep around with rich guys) because it was actually more socially acceptable to do so. If a girl wants to tell her friends about the guy she's with, the fling she's having, and her friends happen to be well to do, she wouldn't be able to show her face if she told her friends she just got with a janitor with a really nice personality, or a garbage man with a great sense of humor, or a even a really hunkalicious guy that she met at McDonald's. Imagine if Kim Kardashian's "friends" and anyone for that matter found out she got knocked up by her mailman. She's be a slut. But if she is dating football players, or is having Kanye West's baby, no one thinks much of it.
It's pretty sad, because this is where we get the celebrity marriage stupidity where they are basically socially pressured to marry other egotistical people and it's a miracle when they last longer than a "Kardashian" (72 days if I'm not mistaken).
I always thought women were gold diggers (not talking about the ones that come from poor backgrounds wanting a better life for their kids but the actual gold diggers that come from upper middle to upper class backgrounds and sleep around with rich guys) because it was actually more socially acceptable to do so. If a girl wants to tell her friends about the guy she's with, the fling she's having, and her friends happen to be well to do, she wouldn't be able to show her face if she told her friends she just got with a janitor with a really nice personality, or a garbage man with a great sense of humor, or even a really hunkalicious guy that she met at McDonald's. Imagine if Kim Kardashian's "friends" and anyone for that matter found out she got knocked up by her mailman. She'd be a slut. But if she is dating football players, or is having Kanye West's baby, no one thinks much of it.
It's pretty sad, because this is where we get the celebrity marriage stupidity where they are basically socially pressured to marry other egotistical people and it's a miracle when they last longer than a "Kardashian" (72 days if I'm not mistaken).
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.
seems like you're the stupid pleb. most of these 'evolutionary theories' relating evolution to other aspects of our life are about as scientific as astrology.
Everything about humanity has been determined by evolution. It is pretty dumb to suggest it has nothing to do with our lives...
The reference to astrology is quite ironic.
Standard psychology plays a way bigger role than Biological psychology in modern times.
The human brain is just way too complex for us to be simply driven by evolution.
On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote: I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.
They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race.
Thanks for posting these studies Jibba, they made for interesting reading. I was planning to write a lengthy response, but Demonhunter has made a much more thorough reply than I would have. I'll just limit myself to a few points.
Your studies seem to show that there is some variation (presumably for cultural reasons) around the supposedly ideal .7 waist/hip ratio. But how much variation is there really? Between .6 and .8? I would suggest that that's a pretty narrow band. Of course if you go outside modern societies and look at foraging societies where there is no reliable supply of food then you get some more extreme numbers. But to me this is the exception that proves the rule, because what it illustrates is that the variation is not due to cultural reasons but due to evolutionary logic. W/H ratio is a pretty good proxy for health in modern societies, and a different W/H ratio is a different proxy for health in foraging societies. The ratio changes because of dramatic changes in the environment. Even if this did undermine the significance of W/H ratio, it seems to just reinforce the role of evolutionary psychology in determining what's attractive.
I thought this part of your post was really interesting. Speaking about models/supermodels and their W/H ratios, you said the following:
4. They don't, they've actually steadily risen from .6 to now .7+. You can actually track the rise through Playboy models since the 60's, where "ideals" like Monroe and Welch were much more severe than .7 (closer to .6), to today where it's getting clser to .8. Women like Megan Fox and Kate Upton are perfect examples of it. There's variation all over the place regarding today's most attractive women and their hip-to-waist ratio, which gets to the next point:
I would be really interested in the source for this. It certainly doesn't fit with my personal observations. In thinking about my response I looked at a lot of images of the women you referred to, and I really just don't see it. This article says that Marilyn Monroe had a ratio of 7.0. This site states that Megan Fox's measurements are 32-22-32, which gives a ratio or .6875. This article says Kate Upton's measurements are 36-25-34 implying a W/H ratio of .735. I guess these numbers are not static since a person's waist size can change pretty easily; but the pattern that you're describing is not apparent from what I've seen.
On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote: I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.
They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race.
Pale(er) skin, maybe. It seems pretty universal, however, to have clear skin.
Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote: Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
I dunno how things are in the Netherlands, but farmers, fisherman, and construction workers see a lot of sun here in the States.
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.
seems like you're the stupid pleb. most of these 'evolutionary theories' relating evolution to other aspects of our life are about as scientific as astrology.
Everything about humanity has been determined by evolution. It is pretty dumb to suggest it has nothing to do with our lives...
The reference to astrology is quite ironic.
Not everything. There is a degree of randomness involved in events which influences evolution but is not influenced by it. Self-awareness has changed the game up a bit, too, allowing humans to do things counteracting their instincts. Funny thing is, if current theories on the origin of life on Earth are correct, then evolution was initiated and driven by the weather to a good extent.
Predisposed to a fatal disease? Born with an extra finger? Forever bronze?
Blame the weather
PS: Astrology does not involve the scientific method. Evolutionary psychology does. There's a vast gulf dividing the two in terms of validity, even if evo psych were less scientific than other branches of science.
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote: Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
The trend towards tanning only really applies to people who are white to begin with. Since very few women do manual labor now, being pale doesn't reveal much except that you burn up in the sun more easily. Pale skin is still considered more beautiful in every other culture, and for that matter, Caucasian women were rated more beautiful than those of any other race in studies, while there was no statistically significant preference for any particular hair color (the researches expected blonde hair to be preferred). This is one of those traits I was referring to when I said that some preferences are mostly experientially determined.
On March 04 2013 10:14 fatfail wrote: I believe there is no universal standard of beauty. However, is it not true that most cultures tend to prefer pale skin? Having studied a bit of history, the plethora of skin whitening products and methods since ancient times and across cultures seems quite interesting. Take the Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.
They tend to prefer paler skin, at least. Women are on average paler than men of the same race.
Pale(er) skin, maybe. It seems pretty universal, however, to have clear skin.
I know. I addressed that near the beginning of my wall of text on page 27
On March 05 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote: I dunno how things are in the Netherlands, but farmers, fisherman, and construction workers see a lot of sun here in the States.
Indeed, thats what I ment. Outdoor jobs tend to be poor man's jobs in a lot of countries (And most definalty were in the old days). Hence having a tan = low class.
In western Europe however having a tan is considered more healthy and beautiful. I argue that this is due to the fact that most jobs are indoors, having a tan equals a more richer lifestyle (Traveling etc).
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
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
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.
On March 03 2013 00:12 Jibba wrote: 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.
Citation needed. It's rather obvious that you're arguing based on what you believe should be true, rather than what actually is.
On March 03 2013 00:12 Jibba wrote: 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.
Citation needed. A number of my posts have included empirical evidence to support them. The same cannot be said for your claims.
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:
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.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable.
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.
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.
This is a willful misinterpretation of the quote's context:
"In another study testing first impressions in 56 female and 17 male participants at University of British Columbia, personality traits of physically attractive people were identified more positively and more accurately than those who were less physically attractive. It was explained that people pay closer attention to those they find physically beautiful or attractive, and thus perceiving attractive individuals with greater distinctive accuracy. The study believes this accuracy to be subjective to the eye of the beholder."
The accuracy with which a person pays attention to attractive individuals is subjective. That does not have anything to do with physical attractiveness being subjective.
Regardless, the point you're trying to make is still wrong. Just because a few people may find old, fat hags to be attractive does not change the fact that the vast majority of people find them to be sexually repulsive. The existence of granny or BBW porn are the exceptions which proves the rule: that most men are attracted to youth and health, and the other men are outliers.
On March 03 2013 00:49 xM(Z wrote: "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.
The "beautiful-is-good effect" has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. All this means is that people have a biased view towards people they find attractive, a point that I've already brought up in this thread, but which has no relevance here.
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
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
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 ?
It's not the same.
Men don't have the nagging thought of having to lose half a decade, to a decade of their lives career wise if they want to raise a family.
Women make that monetary sacrifice.
That is such a generalization. I know plenty of women who are the breadwinners married to stay at home dads. So if a male want to start a family and be at home with the kid just as much as the female partner or even more then why is it any different?
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
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action".
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
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action".
I understand now but ... "as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children." ... is very unclear since many men have to be the primary caretaker in their families.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
While some of the general points you've made are semi-accurate, I don't think you have an understanding of basic evolution to properly support your statements. For instance, you assume that women have evolved to see money as a defining characteristic of men that can be linked to proper offspring care. Additionally, while men may be physically attracted to a female, its not necessarily because he is biologically wired to relate having sex with the production of attractive/fit offspring (and eventually offspring of their own). I wish I had time to go in-depth in my explanation but you should take a look at the wikipedia article for secondary sex characteristics in mate selection as a starting point.
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
Women being the primary caretakers of children is a statement of fact, in nearly every past and present society. This is an empirical statement, and does not imply that it is a "women's job".
But of course, go ahead and rely on implications of chauvinism instead of actual rational arguments.
What women are the primary caretakers of children? Maybe you should add something like "In general" or "usually".
I don't think you understand what the word "primary" in "primary caretakers" means. In this sense, "primary" means predominant, i.e. "men are the primary victims of workplace casualties" or "african americans are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action".
I understand now but ... "as men do not have to deal with menopause, surviving childbirth, or being the primary caretakers of children." ... is very unclear since many men have to be the primary caretaker in their families.
On an evolutionary timescale, the vast majority of primary caretakers in that sense were women. So regardless of how you choose to interpret it, my meaning should still make logical sense in the context of my post.
But yes, my mistake for choosing ambiguous wording, hope that's clear now.
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
While some of the general points you've made are semi-accurate, I don't think you have an understanding of basic evolution to properly support your statements. For instance, you assume that women have evolved to see money as a defining characteristic of men that can be linked to proper offspring care.
Women didn't evolve to see money as a defining characteristic. Money pays the bills, the food, the house, the car, puts the kids through school. Money is just a determining factor towards what you are able to have in this world.
10 000 years ago it was the guy that constantly brought home the meat and knew how to survive best in the wilderness. The female that lived with him was constantly clothed with animal skin, fed sufficient nutrition, and her kids had the highest chances of survival.
There are many characteristics that obviously go before money. What I'm saying is why is it wrong to have money as "one" of the characteristics.
Additionally, while men may be physically attracted to a female, its not necessarily because he is biologically wired to relate having sex with the production of attractive/fit offspring (and eventually offspring of their own). I wish I had time to go in-depth in my explanation but you should take a look at the wikipedia article for secondary sex characteristics in mate selection as a starting point.
No but being very physically attracted to a female has a lot of biological benefits in terms of more sex. More sex leads to more offspring.
This thread has been simply about the biological side of all this, but I'm very sure when I say that there is more to look at than just biological. A lot of the biological look we have is circumstancial, and neglects other sides of why money is attractive. The biological side seems to be very popular here, but cognitive reasons and cultural (societal too) reasons also have an enormous effect. For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money). Furthermore, from a cognitive standpoint, there are other reasons to be attached to a male that makes money, such as percieved ability or other things that women find attractive in men. This isn't all about ensuring off spring, and, in a lot of cases for attractiveness, what humans find attractive has changed so immensely from the times that the biological ideas make sense that I don't know if we make more of them than we should.
On March 05 2013 21:45 docvoc wrote: For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money).
In my OP I was talking about money / wealth. Money in today's society is "paper", but money in the other societies can be jewels / gold / large amounts of farm land / a lot of live stock.
It's the same concept. The guy with 1000 cows is obviously "wealthy" in a society where money doesn't exist. His assets produce milk / meat. He can trade his milk, meat, cows (this is what money does) for whatever material possessions he can afford in such society.
I have a hard time believing a guy that owns 1000 cows in that society wouldn't be "attractive".
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote: Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
and pale skin makes u less attractive simply because a more tanned skin colour gives you a better natural and healthier look, because you look like you work and do stuff outside.
Women that like men with money are much more superficial than men are. Sure men are attracted to good looks, but some women are attracted to good looks AND money. They're lazy want to leech off the success of a man. If you want a good lifestyle, put the effort in to get a good job to support it - just like men have to. It's one thing to be attracted to a man that is passionate about his career and has a drive to be successful in life. It's another thing to be attracted to a guy for his money.
can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
On March 05 2013 21:45 docvoc wrote: This thread has been simply about the biological side of all this, but I'm very sure when I say that there is more to look at than just biological. A lot of the biological look we have is circumstancial, and neglects other sides of why money is attractive. The biological side seems to be very popular here, but cognitive reasons and cultural (societal too) reasons also have an enormous effect. For instance, in societies that don't have money, women can't find men who have more money attractive, so therefore something must be there too (or societies that had existed without money). Furthermore, from a cognitive standpoint, there are other reasons to be attached to a male that makes money, such as percieved ability or other things that women find attractive in men. This isn't all about ensuring off spring, and, in a lot of cases for attractiveness, what humans find attractive has changed so immensely from the times that the biological ideas make sense that I don't know if we make more of them than we should.
Money is hardly the only thing women are attracted to. I don't think anyone here was arguing that. And the rational reasons for choosing someone with money should be obvious . As I said earlier, the brain subconsciously treats money like food, so this trend applies to societies that don't have money, since they must have resources of some kind. What you say about perceived ability is true, but women almost universally prefer men who appear to have the ability to gather resources, protect her, and/or provide good genetic material. Our vastly changed environment has only superficially changed what people seem to prefer.
You're also right that this isn't about ensuring offspring. It never is. It's about what makes people happy, and thanks to evolution, people who find happiness in anything detrimental to their fertility rate are selected against, reducing both genetic predilections towards counter-reproductive behavior and the environmental effect of parents who could educe such behaviors out of their offspring.
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote: can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote: can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one.
a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +
The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be.
how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist).
oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
I like having money so I don't see why a woman wouldn't like it.especially cause a lot of women don't want a career, they want to be home makers. those types of women will like to know that they can stay at home and still have a comfortable lifestyle.
I think the problem is when the women only like the money rather than the man. If she likes the man because he is successful that is different than disliking him but tolerating him for the money.
On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
no i want a pretty woman because ugly isn't nice to look at but pretty is. fuck other guys and what they think. if I think she's hot than I don't care what anyone else thinks about it.
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote: can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one.
a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +
The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be.
how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist).
oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme.
I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge.
Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures.
That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so...
I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense.
On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
no i want a pretty woman because ugly isn't nice to look at but pretty is. fuck other guys and what they think. if I think she's hot than I don't care what anyone else thinks about it.
Magpie's argument (the first one) is pretty common, but thoroughly invalid because it doesn't address what makes someone pretty. The definition of pretty/attractive itself dismantles that argument.
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote: can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one.
a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +
The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be.
how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist).
oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme.
I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge.
Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures.
That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so...
I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense.
- you said brain affects symmetry, i said it doesn't. let's leave it at that. - good DNA -> symmetry -> pretty, bad DNA -> asymmetry -> ugly a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry would also ruin the DNA apparently; which, in turn, would make you unfit for evolution. go figure. there is a whole cult full of miths surrounding pretty/beautifull people. now, i'm not saying that pretty doesn't exist, i'm just saying that it doesn't mean much at all.
95% - 98% of our DNA is identical with ape DNA. can you find 1.618 in apes?, as far as proportion go. (and nope, you don't get to say that the golden ratio is in those other 2% - 5% ) (the premise is: 1.618 is hard coded in the DNA else there would be no way for us, humans, to recognize it, to like it, to strive to achieve it)
On March 05 2013 03:43 Tunedbeats wrote: Pale skin has been 'preferred' throughout history (And in some cultures, still) because it represents success/wealth.
Pale skin = you don't work out in the sun all day i.e. farmer, fisherman, construction etc ('low' jobs).
This is why generally in most western countries having a tan is considered beautiful, because it represents success (More free time to be out in the sun )
Its funny how perception of beauty changes with the lifestyle a skin colour represents during a certain time.
and pale skin makes u less attractive simply because a more tanned skin colour gives you a better natural and healthier look, because you look like you work and do stuff outside.
This is something I always found funny, personally.
Tanned skin = baked and destroyed cells != healthy.
The look of a "healthy tan" is impossible. Of course I know what you mean, but it's cute to me that people might actually think that any sort of a tan is actually healthy.
On March 06 2013 03:47 xM(Z wrote: can someone link me a study that talks about the causation between 'good DNA' and facial/body symetry(pretty people)?. oh wait, there isn't one. not only that but it's a known fact that facial symmetry improves or degrades over time based on stress factors.
if being pretty would be a goal of evolution, we'd all be prettier by now. 200.000 years is a pretty long time.
everything done so far as far as studies/tests go, show correlation but not causation. even so, if i were to say that there are no control groups to work with, i'd be right. + Show Spoiler +
"Kowner(1996) has reported that faces with normal levels of asymmetry are more attractive than perfectly symmetric versions of the same faces. Similar results have been reported by Langloiset al.(1994)and Samuels, Butterworth, Roberts, Graupner, and Hole (1994). Together, these studies suggest that symmetry is not attractive in faces. Other results, however, suggest that facial symmetry is attractive. In particular, natural variations in symmetry appear to covary with attractiveness. (Grammer&Thornhill,1994; Jones&Hill, 1993, for some ethnic groups;Zebrowitz,Voinescu,&Collins,1996; but see Jones&Hill, 1993, for other ethnicgroups; Langlois et aI., 1994)"
my 5 cents: beauty is in the culture -> culture is in the environment -> the environment alters the DNA. it will never be the other way arround. 1.618 without context is nothing.
The degree to which someone is symmetrical is controlled by the brain during growth, so approaching symmetry is a reflection of normal brain function. Perfect symmetry is not only practically impossible to reach, but it doesn't make sense to have true symmetry since the two halves of the brain are different, and each half is responsible for the other side of the body. If you were truly symmetrical that would reflect some strange neurology lol. If you take images of people who are highly symmetrical and ask people to compare those to images of people who are not, then you will find that the symmetrical people win out on average in terms of attractiveness. Stress obviously reduces superficial symmetry, but it doesn't alter bone structure (stress fractures do that )
Why are you assuming that we're not pretty? We've changed a lot in appearance from our ancestors.
And where did culture come from? Evolution and DNA have been around a lot longer. Consider how universal something like theism is - it developed in every culture - and it fulfilled people's need to know the unknowable. Religion was the cornerstone of almost every culture, yet its inception was due to our natural thinking styles and desires.
DNA is not a description or a number. It is a set of instructions. Your analogy at the end there is not valid. Besides, there is plenty of context and environmental influence in the absence of culture.
the vast majority of people have a dominant half of the brain and that, by your logic, would make asymmetry the norm, not the other way arround. the DNA + envinonmental factors are responsable for symmetry, not the corresponding side of your brain. fracture = environmental stress as are virus infections for example. - as far as religion goes, i differentiate between biologic environmental needs and psychological environmental needs. - as far as my analogy goes, it was just one causal thing that could change DNA, not the only one.
a random explanation by pretty people worshipers as far as DNA goes: + Show Spoiler +
The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on. However, as groups migrated, some of these switches were “turned off”, largely by interbreeding in particular environments. The DNA “switches” that did not maximize chances of survival in particular environments were “turned off” after several generations. So each race represents a DNA permutation in which some switches have been turned off. The more switches are turned off, the more “hyper specific” the genetic representation of the appearance of a person in that race. When it comes to beauty, hyper specificity is bad. The more hyper specific a phenotype, the fewer “switches” are turned on, and thus, the less attractive that person appears to be.
Hyper specificity is the opposite of a genetic average. People with more of their ‘appearance switches’ turned on, are said to be more “genetically average” than others. People who are more genetically average tend to be more beautiful. So when we say that someone is “average” looking, the word ‘average’ in this context is a misnomer. The word “average” in gene science insinuates total inclusiveness of all genetic components to some degree – not the frequency of the recurrence of specific components (which is what produces the phenomenon we call ‘race’).
Therefore scientifically speaking, the more genetically average the components of someone’s appearance, the more beautiful they are perceived to be. The less genetically average the components of a person’s appearance, the more hyper specific they are, and thus the less beautiful they are perceived to be.
how the fuck can they just claim that shit?, even thow i admit it, it's pulled right out of their asses. "The original “race” of human beings had every DNA switch turned on." really?, the original 'race' of human beings was the ape race. it had the switches for the ape race turned on (that is, if switches for race even exist).
oh and they also writte that if you are killed by someone pretty is better then when you get killed by someone ugly.
Brain dominance does not in itself affect development of one side. If that was the case, then psychopaths would be physically very different from the rest of the population, because their brain is organized completely differently. It's the difference in the halves that's important, and yes, I said that the ideal is not true symmetry, it's a degree of proximity to symmetry that's attractive. Absolute symmetry and significant asymmetry are both less attractive. Almost every trait peaks in attractiveness in a certain range rather than on one extreme.
I didn't know you were considering all types of stress. Well, a hammer to the face counts as environmental stress that reduces facial symmetry. How does that even contribute to the discussion? People undergoing stress are less attractive on average, that's common knowledge.
Differentiating between the biological and psychological is very tough once you really get into details, because you see how everything is interconnected and it's hard to draw a line defining black and white when everything's gray. My point about religion was that it developed in every culture, usually with little to no knowledge of other cultures.
That random explanation is pretty strange. But you can find people arguing almost anything, so...
I was talking about the analogy "1.618 without context is nothing." Is that the one you are talking about? Because what you just said doesn't make sense.
- you said brain affects symmetry, i said it doesn't. let's leave it at that. - good DNA -> symmetry -> pretty, bad DNA -> asymmetry -> ugly a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry would also ruin the DNA apparently; which, in turn, would make you unfit for evolution. go figure. there is a whole cult full of miths surrounding pretty/beautifull people. now, i'm not saying that pretty doesn't exist, i'm just saying that it doesn't mean much at all.
95% - 98% of our DNA is identical with ape DNA. can you find 1.618 in apes?, as far as proportion go. (and nope, you don't get to say that the golden ratio is in those other 2% - 5% ) (the premise is: 1.618 is hard coded in the DNA else there would be no way for us, humans, to recognize it, to like it, to strive to achieve it)
Being hammered in the head does not alter the DNA they would contribute to reproduction. If it kills the person, it does not mean they are unfit for evolution, it just makes them unlucky. If being struck in the head with a hammer was a common occurrence, then the people most likely to avoid it or survive the impact would be considered more "fit", but that doesn't mean that they will survive such an event. Having something bad happen to you does not by any means demonstrate that you are unfit.
97% of our genes are shared with mice, so if such a small portion of our DNA can make us that different, how does your argument show anything? We only have about 300 genes that mice don't. Much of our shared DNA is inactive, but I think in discussing our differences we lose sight of how much we have in common. The reason we can distinguish between so many human faces, for example, is because we are programmed to do so. Look at a herd of sheep and they all look pretty much the same because we aren't programmed to distinguish sheep.
I never discussed the golden ratio, but here are some links with info about the golden ratio's appearance in nature:
a hammer to the head that would ruin the symmetry ...
no one talked about killing someone. it just just a gross exaggeration since the whole post was rather sarcastic. from your links:+ Show Spoiler +
The Golden Ratio in Nature You won't find Fibonacci numbers everywhere in the natural world -- many plants and animals express different number sequences. And just because a series of numbers can be applied to an object, that doesn't necessarily imply there's any correlation between figures and reality. As with numerological superstitions such as famous people dying in sets of three, sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.
Disregarding that individuals are individuals and so have individual preferences; and accepting that the general pattern described in the OP is true:
I agree. People sometimes try to twist it into having cultural explanations. Such as claiming obesity was attractive because it implied wealth. I think such arguments are completely off the mark. They always explain themselves in the last part of the sentence. In the previous example, wealth was the attractive quality - not obesity. I agree that people can be attracted immensly by symbols. That is, you may find yourself attracted to someone because they are wearing a particular outfit that has some meaning to you.
But men's attractiveness towards females has been studied. And the results are not surprising. There's a good article on wikipedia about this. I encourage everyone to give it a read.
Basic conclusion and agreement with OP: what's called superficiality has a, somewhat, simple biological basis and no one is really to blame. If I could chose however, I would prefer to get rid of it. I think it creates a lot more problems than it gives pleasure...
EPT
Oh, wait, I'm gay... nevermind.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4DYs1X4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/Super_2nd_Chance/39dc8afc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MaleMessageDistributionByIncomeBright.png)
