- Reaction score
- 8,250
Dude look at the language he used when he speaks about women then tell me he is not biased.
The Direct Descendants Of The Original Humans Dont Appear To Go Bald.
- Thread starter westonci
- Start date
Dude look at the language he used when he speaks about women then tell me he is not biased.
@Feelsbadman.jpg, lets just say that this whole Lizards and ducks theory is correct. the woman loves what the man can provide until he can't provide or she finds a better provider. the man loves the woman because she is beautiful (something actually only certain women can provide) until a certain point and then he stops loving her. how does that make women terrible and men not ? at least she is choosing what is best for her and her children according to Lizard theory. he loved the lady because she is beautiful ignoring how she will raise the child only to stop loving her when she is old. how is that better ? both are terrible human being in this theory.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
While I do actually agree with you on some points I disagree with some of your theory. In my opinion you have stopped short in explaining the man's position in this evolutionary hyperreductionism. I think we can take it one step further on the man's part, when you say men can actually love and feel attached to a women for her body based on her ability to produce healthy offspring I would argue your argument suggest men and women are completely the same and men's attachment is as artificial as womens. As you've stated men make attachments to women for their physical features and fall in "love" with the womans body and women become attached to men for their resources for better reproduction but another way to look at it is men don't actually "love" women for their bodies but for the resources an attractive female body can give them being healthy offspring. So basically men and womens motives are identical. I am male.
I think we have bred ugly women out of the gene pool for millennia. Men are said to be very visual when seeking a partner whereas women have traditionally prioritized looks and even age somewhere down the list and well below security. Personally I think it's true. I've seen a lot of beautiful women with homely guys with hair and without.
And, a recent theory says that a wide facial width to facial height ratio suggests greater testosterone levels in males, and that many women are attracted to masculinity. I think there could be some truth to it. Apparently Joan Jett said no way to multi millionaire Steven Tyler's advances. Tyler offers security to women but the dude looks like a lady? Or just low T perhaps.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 8,250
I think societal trends play a huge role also on what is attractive and what is not.
Example an *** and thighs like J Lo in 60s, 70s and 80s even part of 90s would have been seen as ugly.
Same can be said for Angelina Jolie lips--if you look at old classic films you never see white women (even attractive black women Lena Horn for example) with huge lips. This did not become a trend in fashion industry until late 70s early 80s and really became huge in 80s/90s etc.
Large breasts in 20s 30s and 40s was not deemed attractive (Jean harlow) , but then in 50s, 60s (marilyn manor) voluptuous became more of a standard. Athletic, active looking women became more of a trend in late 70s into 80s.
In cave man days--you guys would not have much choice it was probably mostly 'scent' (we did not shower back then we probably smelled musky male/female a good distance away and that probably triggered arousal in men at least)
And it was based on what we would consider in modern times as rape (i am using the word loosely but basically I doubt Caveman Bill was asking Cavewoman Jill if she wanted to procreate)
If you saw a woman you probably just took advantage of opportunity as it presented itself.
I doubt all these criteria was even important.
As we evolved as a society these things became more relevant...If anything I think its been our societal evolution that has contributed to our selective instincts.
If a caveman who was horny saw a 35 year old woman (old lady for those times) I really doubt he selectively said "Nah" I will pass she does not have a good waist to hip ratio and she has some wrinkles...He bent her over and fucked her and went on his merry way.
Other than tits and hips society has a huge role in what we deem as acceptable in attractiveness..
I think a lot of who we are attracted to has to do with our ego as well both men and women and how others will perceive and judge us based on mates.
Many men will f*** women in secret--even having great sex with them--BUT not deem that woman attractive enough to bring around friends or family for whatever reasons (ugly face, fat body, old, different race etc) because they don't want to be judged by that woman who they think society would believe is beneath standards and won't reflect on him well.
I am not saying women don't do this either but personally don't know any--but I know a lot of men over years who are friends who have done this and openly talked about it. I do know girls back in 80s who were secretive when f*****g outside race (In ny 80s this was really taboo) or same sex.
But seriously who knows--none of us are anthropologists who specialize in early man and mating practices to have an authentic unbiased outlook and I am sure even amongst people who devoted their life to this study--they cant even know for sure, they just have various hypothesis...I do know an anthropologist from years ago but I am embarrassed to ask her about this because how do I explain the context lol. 'I was on this mens forums and blah blah blah....'
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 3,150
There's an evolutionary reason for hypergamy and it's not really debatable. It exists is many other species and you do not have to be to knowledgeable on evolution to understand it.
Women have to commit 9 months to pass on their genes, men have to commit 5 minutes. Thus women are more selective in their mates, men will f*** near anything as it's zero commitment.
Women allow males to fight in the male dominance hierarchy and try pick the top from that. This is well documented and isn't some wild theory.
Women have to commit 9 months to pass on their genes, men have to commit 5 minutes. Thus women are more selective in their mates, men will f*** near anything as it's zero commitment.
Women allow males to fight in the male dominance hierarchy and try pick the top from that. This is well documented and isn't some wild theory.
- Reaction score
- 8,250
My debate is not that women don't select mates of course we do--but my issue is that they/we are considered 'sl*ts' for our selection process in modern times or somehow men are more ethical in doing this compared to women.
we both are 'shallow' (if you want to use that word, I don't particularly think of it as shallow) in our selection process.
Yes ive known guy friends and acquaintances who will f*** anything in a skirt so to speak. Lol typically high T males I think. For some of them sex is like getting a good back rub and little else. It's certainly not about intimacy or monogamy for some married guys I've known.
- Reaction score
- 8,250
its' a biological function and not about 'love'
To be honest most men i know who commit--its not that they met a magical woman who made them want to commit--its mostly been timing...they are at a stage of life where they want to get married and have kids...and yes they will select best/most compatible female they can to have a life with.
Love is about commitment and bonding over life experiences and some basic values on life, character. That initial 'attraction' that is hormonal fades or at least dulls a bit over time--I mean you can spice it up and have a different plateau if sex of you are both sexual people but you have to work at that (Hello Sting and Trudy probably have best sex life on planet for this long).
Even if you look like Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford--I mean two better looking people i doubt ever existed--they did not make it because of differences in outlook on 'life' he is a liberal buddhist artist, she is a conservative model-turned business person and science I think was her major in college if not mistaken.
I think their mental processing of information and outlook on life in general--how they would have wanted to raise a family--did not 'match'..but I am sure their physical attraction was very suited even when they broke up.
I really do not believe in this outlook of the other poster, most of what he says.
Love is about admiration. Lust is about body.
You need both to have successful relationships.
just let it go, honestly they are convinced that men are better than women and men are capable of love and women aren't. they are justifying men shallowness and criticizing women's. both sexes have their desires and both have their scum. they are talking about some lizard brain that is millions of years old, comparing humans to animals and survival of the tribe, thinking that it would be applicable to this age. they forgot that we have human brain, a culture , media and other things in life that influence our decisions. marriage may be a shitty deal (they forgot that there is 50% rate of success in the US ). what about those women around the world. A third world woman marrying a rich guy isn't a good deal for her. he could use her for pleasure and throw her away when he is bored, get another one and totally get away with it. she would still do it. the way I see it, money is attractive to both sexes. are they saying that men don't like money? human culture made it ok for women to consider it in relationship (it was even on men's list through history to be with married with equal standing or higher women) just like it made it ok for average looking men (even ugly men) to be with super models. I would marry a richer normal looking woman if I ever had a choice. she can be average looking to even ugly but not dis-configured or fat. am I gold digging? no, because I know if she happened to the latter I wouldn't actually consider it because I know I won't be happy. all this doesn't mean that women or men aren't capable of love. a child wouldn't love their parents, if they didn't provide for them.
K
karankaran
Guest
I am not the direct descendant.
I am highly evolved. My orthodontist told me that. Because I am one of those rare humans who have never got any wisdom tooth and I am missing one permanent tooth as well. I only had the max of 27 teeth ever.
I am highly evolved. My orthodontist told me that. Because I am one of those rare humans who have never got any wisdom tooth and I am missing one permanent tooth as well. I only had the max of 27 teeth ever.
- Reaction score
- 497
the woman and her body are the same thing
the man and his money are not.
sh*t man it's not quantum mechanics.
there is a natural selected need for men to get attached to a female, there is no need for a woman to get attached to a man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...term-men-NEVER-recover-researchers-claim.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...elationship-break-up-says-study-10450413.html
- Reaction score
- 8,250
But men who can have a lot of women don't actually get attached unless they want to and are ready for it. It's a choice they make. Men tend to want to marry once they accomplish certain things--not before. It's is rarely because they met the 'one'...The one is when they meet someone adequate and attractive comparable when they are ready for it and fit into their lives.
Only men who cant get a lot of women get attached when they get a woman (understandable she is not easily replaceable) OR a man gets attached to a woman who is out of his league normally not just because of her desirability to him but how it makes him look to the world.
He feels like 'more' of a man if his arm piece is better looking then him.
You are overlooking modern society and how it effect both men and women in selection process.
The women you would deem attractive by society standards is NOT the same woman Caveman Bill would deem attractive by his natural instincts.
Society has morphed both male and female selection.
- Reaction score
- 636
Also the survivability of the offspring then and now is based as much on social status (powerful tribe) than on genes which makes the whole discussion kinda obsolete.
Humans actually breeded to be weaker after better combat and hunting tactics decided if the tribe would survive.
Humans actually breeded to be weaker after better combat and hunting tactics decided if the tribe would survive.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
The man is not loving her body for the sake of loving her body though it's in your own theory he's actually trying to benefit from what he can ultimately get out of it. Also your use of love is actually just lust if you think that's the only attachment style I think psychologists would have to disagree. Could there not be more then one reason for attachment possibly? Take away the women's concioussness and would you love her still you have her body vice versa? Female sexuality and human psychology in general is still of very hot topic so I don't think that little video is the last word on it but if you don't want to get in a relationship or deal with women at all i actually would invite you to recite your theory word for word to the next women that feel like opening themselves up to sex or relations with you to exploit your money.
- Reaction score
- 8,250
Also so much of it for so many years was NOT women selecting men--I think women selecting men is new to the past 100-300 years.
If i was 16 year old peasant living in year 1300--I did to feel choose or select my mate..My Father would have.
Add to that if you were serfs or living in certain situations you were raped by men randomly.
this idea that women have been selecting their mates for centuries is ridiculous.
And even to some extent I would say men have not always been selecting women they marry and have children with also--this was probably something most parents had a say in as well and society.
- Reaction score
- 497
civilisation is a tiny part of the human history. the rules has not changed that much.
by definition the effective majority should behave like i described, ofcourse there is a minority of men that exists to impregnate women who are married to beta providers LOL.
the attachment i'm talking about is not necessarily marriage, it's a feeling that people call love, men have to love women.
men write poems about women, they fetichize and worship her body parts, and when they break up, some men never recover.
there is no love in species with high sexual dimorphism (the body of the male is bigger than the female and vice versa)
for example the dominant alpha baboon sometimes even kill the babies of the last dominant alpha male, and the women will still join his harem.
because that's where the protection and the food.
love as defined by humans only exist in species with sexual monomorphism (females and males look alike)
like a lot of birds. (that's why they say you two lovebirds instead of LoveBaboons).
women have always behaved like tournament species females, they seek always the man with the power, sometimes it's muscle
where there is no law, and sometimes it's money in civilisation. human females are by definition incapable of love.
- Reaction score
- 497
women are designed by nature to only f*** with the top 5% males if they can.
civilisation and traditionalism was forcing women to f*** with the average joe because he has wheat or rice.
with the welfare state women don't need to f*** with the average joe anymore. that's feminism for you.
stop pretending to love men, to marry them and divorce them and steal half of their sh*t so they can commit suicide.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 497
if you like to define it that way then let me rephrase that for you,
men should be with women that want to benefit from their bodies as well, instead of their money !
my golden rule is to never continue with a girl who demanads marriage, avoid her like the plague.
so unless she asks me to marry her she'll never hear me explain to her why she's incapable of love.
Last edited: