Conflicted about the war?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Girl gets pregnant and 9 months later PRESTO we have a kid and I pass out cigars.

Wait...are you saying that has something to do with sex? Man, am I confused

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

I've tried to understand how some women can both think that external appearance should not be all that important to guys,

Because they don't think that. Given a choice of 20% better looking or 20% smarter, male or female, most people would take better looking. It is more fun, people treat you nicer, and you get to do more fun stuff. Simple test - "Hello, would you like to be Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Supreme Court Justice) or Liv Tyler ?"

Most of the time when people describe someone as intelligent, they just mean "that person agrees with me".

You can only do so much about looks. However, short of being born truely mentally deficient, education and application can go a long way. I wouldn't want to be either of those ladies, though...

I describe someone as intelligent when they make me think and keep me on my toes...

[billvon 3,118]

>We're trying to stimulate your R-complex.
>Seriously.

Uh - why?

[Rebecca 0]

Well, basic physical responses include arousal, right?

I was actually thinking of something I read once, which theorizes about why, based on evolution & survival of the species & yadda yadda, we find certain characteristics attractive in the opposite sex.
It said that women's breasts used to swell when they were fertile, which clued men into when they could get some. Also, males looked for things like clear skin & eyes, full head of hair, good teeth, good posture as an indication of health, therefore able to bear healthier offspring...

---> all of this pointing to why many women choose to enhance themselves with make-up, plastic surgery, revealing clothing, perfume, whatever...

With men it's based less on looks, and more on their ability to provide (according to the study, NOT me! Although, that does seem to hold true in some cases...)

edit: spelling.

[happythoughts 0]

There is no "all women think... all men think...". There are many different women/men with different needs and moods.

A woman looking for fun this evening will look for the laughing, fun guy. Relationship? The best-dressed guy. A quickie? The muscular guy who is rude to them. Many moods, many women. The same woman may have different interests on a different day. Women of different ages have very different needs.

A guy may want the fun, wild girl to party with, but can't stand her for an entire weekend or doesn't want her around his friends. Different situations, same guy.

I haven't found the "one answer" that appies to everyone. However, a smiling person is almost always welcomed. Nice guys generally lose because they are boring.

Women may wear makeup, but how many guys would not go to a gym if women didn't like the nice body? Better than half I would guess. Women base it on looks too. Guys buy expensive cars, boats, toupees, suits... Guys primp a little too, not just the gals.

[billvon 3,118]

>Well, basic physical responses include arousal, right?

Hmm. So use of makeup etc is an unconscious attempt by women to make themselves more sexually attractive to men? And such behavior is essentially programmed by evolution?

[Rebecca 0]

>There is no "all women think... all men think...". There are many different women/men with different needs and moods.

True dat!


>Women may wear makeup, but how many guys would not go to a gym if women didn't like the nice body?

Oh, part of that study concluded that men should have a good physique, stand tall, run fast, also have the clear skin and eyes, good teeth, head of hair ---> all of which points toward health, strength, hence, ability to provide, ergo, attractiveness.

But that's, like, back in the mesopotamian, cradle of civilization times.

>A woman looking for fun this evening will look for the laughing, fun guy. Relationship? The best-dressed guy. A quickie? The muscular guy who is rude to them. Many moods, many women. The same woman may have different interests on a different day. Women of different ages have very different needs.
>A guy may want the fun, wild girl to party with, but can't stand her for an entire weekend or doesn't want her around his friends. Different situations, same guy.
>I haven't found the "one answer" that appies to everyone. However, a smiling person is almost always welcomed. Nice guys generally lose because they are boring.

We've had thousands of years to complicate the shit out of things. I guess the people who did the study figured they'd better go back to basics...

[Shark 0]

Quote

>Well, basic physical responses include arousal, right?

Hmm. So use of makeup etc is an unconscious attempt by women to make themselves more sexually attractive to men? And such behavior is essentially programmed by evolution?

animals do

[Rebecca 0]

I don't know about unconscious - it seems pretty conscious to me.
Essentially, yeah, it's programmed. I mean, for most of the species on the planet, the only imperative or drive is survival and procreation.

[putting on flame suit]

Now, before everyone gets their knickers in a bunch, it's like I said to happythoughts:
We've had thousands of years to complicate/ change/ evolve/ whatever. The basic Animal Kingdom rules just don't apply anymore. At least, not in many cases. There are lots of exceptions, lots of guys and gals who don't like/ need makeup or whatever, lots of gals who provide just fine for themselves thankyouverymuch, therefore look for other qualities in a mate, and so on...

But, there are the women who don't feel attractive without make-up, and there are the guys that think a hot car will help them pick up chicks.
Conversely, there are guys who think women look better with make-up, and there are women judge men by the cars they drive.

Why?

[Rebecca 0]

Animals wear make-up?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Animals wear make-up?

Yeah, and in the right dress and shoes they can look real purdy! See the thread about sodomy laws in TX.

[Shark 0]

Quote

Animals wear make-up?

Yep. Saw it on Discovery.

Oh, wait, that's another thread. They don't test on animals any longer....

[billvon 3,118]

>Essentially, yeah, it's programmed.

The question is - how much is 'genetic' (i.e. hardwiring from evolution) and how much is programmed from cultural programming? Things that change with time (i.e. fat used to be beautiful) would seem to be cultural programming, but things that don't seem to change would argue for hardwiring.

Then there's the stuff that we are programmed to do, but have to sublimate - which results in even more wierd behavior.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The question is - how much is 'genetic' (i.e. hardwiring from evolution) and how much is programmed from cultural programming? Things that change with time (i.e. fat used to be beautiful) would seem to be cultural programming, but things that don't seem to change would argue for hardwiring.

My guess would be that the desired effect is hard wired, the manifestation of how that is achieved is cultural. In other words, a woman wanting to be attractive in order to attract a mate is evolutionary. Putting on make up or losing weight in order to be more attractive according to the norms of society is cultural.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

>Essentially, yeah, it's programmed.

The question is - how much is 'genetic' (i.e. hardwiring from evolution) and how much is programmed from cultural programming? Things that change with time (i.e. fat used to be beautiful) would seem to be cultural programming, but things that don't seem to change would argue for hardwiring.

The whole "fat used to be beautiful" thing doesn't argue against hardwiring- in fact, it supports it.
In those times, there was a huge gap between the haves and have-nots. To be fat meant you ate, which meant you could afford food, which meant you would survive. To be thin (even though that's healthier) meant you'd probably starve a lot faster if food became super-scarce.
It wasn't the evolutionary hardwiring that changed, it was the socio-economic condition. Food was scarce, poverty was rampant, starvation was common- it bred a new aesthetic.

>Then there's the stuff that we are programmed to do, but have to sublimate - which results in even more wierd behavior.

Yeah, youse guys can't go around bashing us on the head and dragging us to your caves by our hair no more.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Rebecca 0]

What he said.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yeah, youse guys can't go around bashing us on the head and dragging us to your caves by our hair no more.

Man...life would be so much easier. Eric Cartman got it right when he said, "Hey, missy, get your bitch ass in the kitchen and make me some pie!"

[billvon 3,118]

>In other words, a woman wanting to be attractive in order to attract a
> mate is evolutionary. Putting on make up or losing weight in order
> to be more attractive according to the norms of society is cultural.

Not sure I buy that there's a direct link bewteen those two. It is very, very hard to evolve behavior, which is why the ability to learn is present (and is indeed essential) in so many animals. Even in humans the only inbred behaviors are the ones absolutely neccessary to perpetuate the species (fear of heights, fear of death, urge to copulate after a certain age, urge to nurse and care for children etc.)

So I would tend to separate the urge to copulate from the desire to conform to a certain cultural standard of beauty. If cultural standards can change (i.e. if it's something people can learn) then it's not programmed behavior, and it's not linked to an evolutionarily provided drive - although it can certainly be _related_ to such a drive. IMHO.

Also, hardwired drives can be bad in terms of reproduction. Even a slight change in them can lead to non-reproductive behavior (fetishes, homosexuality.) They can also lead to conditions that prevent individuals from functioning well (acrophobia, agoraphobia.) So it would seem like minimizing those drives would be a good thing evolutionarily (as long as you can learn enough to take up the slack.)

[billvon 3,118]

>The whole "fat used to be beautiful" thing doesn't argue against
>hardwiring- in fact, it supports it.

I think it argues against hardwiring for or against a certain standard of beauty based on weight. There's a pretty good argument that certain visual characteristics (symmetry, visible secondary sexual characteristics, clear skin) _are_ hardwired. Choose a mate based purely on those and I think you'd have a good argument that the choice was based on hardwiring.

However, we use all sorts of other criteria. Surely, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, copulating with a member of another religion is not a detriment - from a hybrid vigor point of view it can actually increase your offspring's chances of being healthy. We sometimes refuse to do such things because of societal issues. I think the same goes for many other characteristics - money earning potential, social standing, sense of humor, hairstyle - and most of those are learned, rather than hardwired. I would put the fat vs. thin thing in this category.

>Yeah, youse guys can't go around bashing us on the head
>and dragging us to your caves by our hair no more.

Right, instead we buy flashy cars and hang out in loud, smoky bars.

[PhillyKev 0]

Well, for example, you categorize homosexuality as being hardwired. Some people would argue that it is psychological (not trying to say which is right). Couldn't it be that it is a psychological trait that is spawned by some genetic cause? Couldn't there be a gene that causes a propensity in your psychological makeup that if left unaltered by social conditioning would manifest as your default psychological condition?

For lack of a better term, let's say there is a "homosexual gene", but the effect of this gene is not to cause you to automatically be homosexual. But rather it triggers a psychological condition that manifests itself in your being attracted to the same sex. That gene is permanently hard wired in you, but depending on your environmental conditions, the psychological condition could be repressed or even altered.

I would think the same kind of relation exists where there is a "procreation" gene which creates a psychological condition in which you desire to be more attractive. Depending on your environmental conditions, that desire to be attractive could be repressed (resulting in a girl being a no make up, baggy jeans and sweatshirt wearing tom boy) or if it's strong they would attempt to make themselves as attractive as possible according to their environment.

Decorating yourself with makeup or piercings or tattoos as a means of "being attractive to the opposite sex" as well as homosexuality are all present in every culture around the world, even those that have no contact with other societies. That leads me to believe that there is some human physiological trait that is common among humans related to "being attractive" but whereas some tribe in the S. Pacific may find a bone in their nose attractive, our culture prefers lipstick.