Losers, Cheaters, Love & $ - split from da Eggy thread

[seven]

Well, I'm not an MPA, but your assertion is totally ludicrous, if you think an MPA would transfer her motivation for working onto an outside relationship, then you completely baffle me.

Who do you think would have a better chance at a serious relationship with a hot-looking MPA, you or Bill Gates? Still baffled?

Of course you do, but it's not your job. It's not not how much you have in the bank. It's not not the contents of your wallet. It's not your your fuckin' orange pants and if you truly believe it is these things, then you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake; you are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. *

*Adapted from Fight Club without permission

This line of thinking begs the question of why either of us aren't dating a hot-looking MPA. I know it's not by my choice. How about you?

There is no doubt some truth to that, assuming that needs and balances cover all variables and factors. To me love is something that can, in fact, be rationalised and broken down into such things as a selfless caring, even though that selflessness will in turn reflect on our own sense of well being. However, it may also include sacrifice. It is very much about an appreciation of subtleties in the other person and seeing them as an individual, rather than the priority lying in their relation to ourselves.

Did you just get laid???

I agree in large measure with Huxley. See below.

• 
  We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in
  all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into
  the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try
  to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain.
  By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in
  solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies--all these are private
  and, ex- cept through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can
  pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves.
  From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.
  
  Huxley

My take on Huxley's quote: we can't see or experience anything for what it really is beyond ourselves, so any emotions that might seem transcendental, like love or spirituality, are really just futile attempts at something more borne of a desperate need to make life seems a little less empty. In the end, just like the lovers locked in an embrace or the martyrs who go hand and hand into the arena, we are alone in both life and death.

How does quoting Huxley advance your theory of love and sacrifice to that end? What would be the point of that, if what Huxley is saying is true?

 

[Thousand]

Thousand,
I'd say you are right that the majority of men, are attracted to looks initially, but looks alone are virtually irrelevant and become secondary, long term, and in many cases even short term. Mannerisms, demeanour, personality and other subtleties can and do effect a persons physical appearance and value; either enhancing or negating to varying degrees. How would one go abt judging, from an outside perspective, the percentage of people who value looks over other qualities anyway. By the standard we are brainwashed with by the media ? It doesn't take much observational skill to look around and realise that not everyone has the same idea as to what is a primarily valuable personality trait or what is perceived as physically beautiful. I don't doubt there are many women, who value money as a factor when seeking out a mate and it may come into play in their attraction, but there is much more to "supporting" someone than money and I think those assets are far more valuable to many women.

Many attractions of men to women are based on looks alone, and it forms the initial foundation of a relationship. For example, if you don't find a woman attractive, you wouldn't go up to her and try to pick her up in the first place or that you wouldn't continue to see her with the expectation of a relationship. So what I am trying to point out is that there is a relationship hierarchy in which looks form the basis(for men), and then comes the later qualities.

I'm not sure how to really answer this, because in "my world" most women do not seem to care too much about a mans money or ability to make money. I'm not really interested in stats, societies programming or what the media dictates to be reality. I tend to think that the importance of $ would vary,with some cross over, of course, between social groups and people of different upbringing, programming and / or social status. Not everyone buys into the Ikea nesting instinct and I think that many who do, are trying to compensate for lack of other real needs being fulfilled. There are a lot of unhappy, bitter, lost people who are well supported financially.

I don't think any women would out right tell you that they want someone with money earning quality. I guess what they would say is that they want someone who is smart, intelligent, and is a good conversationalist. Now put yourself in a woman's perspective and think why you would want someone with the above qualities, and then try to justify how they aren't related to money. Anyway, what you will find out is that you would see that these qualities(which are really money-earning qualities) that would ensure that she would have a family with enough resource to raise her children.

 

[Thousand]

You completely lost me on this one, I'm afraid. I can't imagine being attracted to someone based on such a notion. It sounds like some futuristic Aryan race type motivation. I think we are confusing attraction and actually seeking out a partner to some degree in this whole issue. The bottom line, as I alluded to earlier, is that we will end up with someone we are attracted to rather than what we seek and then the rest falls into place. At that point, if we feel the need to procreate, as such, all we would want is to have healthy and happy children.

As sad as it may seem, we human are really just machine made up of organic materials. Our emotions are really the results of our biological makeup. What we do, how we do, and even how we feel are dictated by our DNA. And in turns, our DNA help us evolve into what we are now. It is evolution (suvival of the fittest) that cause us to do the things we do, and love the things we love. For example, the main reason why men would love women with natural-looking large breasts is not because they add pleasure to the penis in sex, it's because the subconscious/primative portion of our brain believe women with big breasts will provides for our infant better and in turn enhance the survival rate. What we believe to be superficial with our conscious minds might actually be a crucial quality in our subconscious primative minds.

For the sake of "bantering" [ : ) ] lets assume we do seek out partners that will produce "better" offspring. Wouldn't we seek out intelligent, caring, chemically balanced partners that would give our children a more secure chance in life, despite all the odds that society places on us.

Absolutely, but we also want to seek a partner who would produce offsprings that are healthy and disease-free, and the way we(and many other living organisms) tell is through the physical appearance. This is why it form the foundation in the relationship hierarchy, in which other qualities are build upon.

As I said, in another thread recently I wish someone would tell one of my favourite MPA's who retired and married a client that she wasn't supposed to fall for him. It does happen, and some of those relationships work out while others, obviously would not.

Could I assume that the client whom the MPA married make enough money to support her lifestyle?

Of course most women / MPA's would expect a certain level of income to come from a partner, but it cannot be a primary factor, if any at all, in most cases. It seems that people have an extremely skewed perception of an MPA's income and standard of living.

Yep, it wouldn't be a primary factor, because if you were able to go out with the MPA and spend at her spending level (like fancy dinner and shopping at Yorkville), then it wouldn't matter much to her, because you are already at her income level. If you aren't, you won't have the financial resources to go out with the MPA enough to build the relationship in the first place.

I agree that not all MPA's earn a high level of income and has a high standard of living, but I am assuming that those whom clients fall in love with are those attractive MPA's who have a lot of clients and are earning a high level of income.

I also think that many of us will view all this, not from an objective standpoint, but through our own bias in how we learned to see the world and, in particular, insecurities. No big revelation, I know.

My point of views are from science (evolution), social science, psychology, and business knowledge acquired. However, nothing is without a flaw.


Thousand

 

[Thousand]

Hell, I have met SPs who have graduate degrees, CAs and CFAs! I am sure some of the clients don't even got these qualifications.

Yep, I've met a dancer who is a law student. I just don't know if she was lying or not.

Thousand

 

[Fay]

My point of views are from science (evolution), social science, psychology, and business knowledge acquired. However, nothing is without a flaw.


Thousand

Carefull, though. You are delving dangerously into the realm of A&E junkfood pop-science. Everything I think and do is dictated by DNA? My responding to this thread is pre-determined by DNA? Can I commit a random crime and then say "Woops, sorry, damn genetics!" Thing is, the whole "everything we do, everything we're attracted to, everything we think and feel is because of genetics and evolution" theory is often based on a whole pile of convenient interpretations while omitting a whole lot of data that tears the theory apart. It looks cool as a headline in Metro, and it makes sense while you're half-asleep on the subway on your way to work reading it in a magazine, and it does seem to conveniently in one easy swoop explain why everything is the way it is in your world. But it relies on shaky, insubstantial argument.

If attraction were based on DNA, then wouldn't we all be attracted to the exact same people? You seem to think that all men are attracted to large breasts because you're attracted to them, and yeah this particular society in this time and place does place alot of value on them in the mainstream. I guess all those guys who prefer smaller breasts must be messed up aberrations. I wonder why natural selection hasn't taken care of them? There certainly are a lot of them, you'd think there would be some sort of natural process that weed them out. I wonder why some men love skinny women, some love large women, some love muscular women, some love soft women? I wonder which ones are the real participating members of the race towards betterment of the species and which ones are just aberrations? Why do both big penises and little penises exist? If one is so much more genetically superior, then why the variety, why wasn't either variable phased out? I could go on with so many examples, but there isn't the space for it all. Point is, physical attraction is not universal throughout time and/or geography. It can't be reduced to the handful of characterstics and variables that modern western society has decided contitutes beauty.

That aside, if it really did all come down to DNA, can we at this stage, or any stage, presume with confidence to know the formula? Can we talk like "God's" best friend who's in the know and speak with authority on what is predetermined and how "nature" works from the inside out?

-F

 

[seven]

Evolution and genetics.

I would like to say that I agree with Thousand. Most of our feelings and actions throughout life are DNA predicated. The complex nature of many genes acting in unison sometimes fools us and creates the powerful illusion that we are freer to decide our fate than we actually are.

Everything I think and do is dictated by DNA? My responding to this thread is pre-determined by DNA?

DNA gives you powerful tendencies that you can't break free of over a long term perspective/range. I wouldn't say DNA forced you to respond to this thread, but it made you the type of person who would respond to this thread.

Can I commit a random crime and then say "Woops, sorry, damn genetics!"Thing is, the whole "everything we do, everything we're attracted to, everything we think and feel is because of genetics and evolution" theory is often based on a whole pile of convenient interpretations while omitting a whole lot of data that tears the theory apart.

People need to believe in the concept of choice otherwise they feel helpless to deal with their emotions. In terms of crime, more men are perpetrators of violent crime compared to women. The difference between a man and a woman is the Y chromosome (genetics). Before someone pipes in and states that I haven't isolated the environmental factors, then consider that many men in jail have an extra Y chromosome that makes them significantly more aggressive due to higher testosterone levels. That is just one quantifiable variable (gene) that can be easily measured to test against violent tendencies and isolates the effects of environmental factors when observing behaviour. Environmental factors just set genes in motion like input variables in a computer program (the DNA). It doesn’t, however, change the program.

If attraction were based on DNA, then wouldn't we all be attracted to the exact same people?

No, we all have individual weaknesses in our DNA and we need to overcompensate for what we lack. There is a subconscious element at play (attraction is subconscious itself) that influences what we find attractive based on our reproduction instincts and what Thousand said.

I wonder which ones are the real participating members of the race towards betterment of the species and which ones are just aberrations?

We all are. That's why every guy on this board feels the need to bury his beak in a gorgeous young girl. It's his instinct that he can't overcome. The very fact that men are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money for sex shows that we are driven in large part by instinct and not by choice. Science has done studies to show how high levels of testosterone and the need to reproduce override any other primary needs at the time, and evolution has built those factors into man otherwise we would not have survived as a species. Even women have these powerful instincts engrained into them. During ovulation women will choose the man with the most rugged powerful features (so offspring is more 'fit') to have sex with, but when selecting a partner they will choose the man with the softer features (easier to control and seen as more intelligent and productive/rich.)

Why do both big penises and little penises exist? If one is so much more genetically superior, then why the variety, why wasn't either variable phased out?

In humans the alpha male isn't the only one that gets to fuck and relationships are compromises since most of us aren't the alpha. Women are more attracted to large penises though, because the men who have large penises are seen as more virile and strong. The common theme or instinct for women, when predicting their mating behaviour, is giving their offspring the best chance for survival and providing an environment conducive for that (the "nesting" instinct).

That aside, if it really did all come down to DNA, can we at this stage, or any stage, presume with confidence to know the formula? Can we talk like "God's" best friend who's in the know and speak with authority on what is predetermined and how "nature" works from the inside out?

No one lays claim to understanding the formula only that it is very complicated and past our present understanding.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

Macho men, this is girl talk.

I like to touch my feminine side.

No one lays claim to understanding the formula only that it is very complicated and past our present understanding.

Therefore isn’t focusing on DNA an oversimplification? Is it; genetics, environment, individual experiences, our individual phychological make up or the society we live in, which plays the most important role? Or is it all combined in some big complicated mélange? Does one element play more of a role than another?

Main Entry: love
Pronunciation: 'l&v
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lufu; akin to Old High German luba love, Old English lEof dear, Latin lubEre, libEre to please
1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b : an assurance of love <give her my love>
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING -- often used as a term of endearment (2) British -- used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God
5 : a god or personification of love
6 : an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR
7 : the sexual embrace : COPULATION

or biological chemical love brought about by the mating instinct with often becomes confused and morphs into a possessive desire. [Right all you NYE clones?] Just drop a tab of E! You might get the idea of the power of chemicals, natural or otherwise.

We can only love based on what we individually know about love; instinctively, intuitively, subconsciously, consciously, rationally, analytically ...

The highest form of love is unconditional, but that can’t just be given away to anyone. One must protect self, and also if one does not unconditionally love one's self one cannot unconditionally love another. And yet like Huxley so astutely observed, the love WE FEEL only exists on our island.

What does your love look like? Do words fail? They should!

How do you describe a feeling? In shades of red or purple or blue; or tones of music or words or dance or actions or ...

... again on your island.

As far as rationalizing it , you should not have to rationalize something so beautiful and wonderful . And the Psychologists are right if you have never loved or been loved you dont know what it is . Its taken me my whole adult life thus far to have finally found it . >>>>Misty

 

[Dorm201]

Seven - If DNA/biological makeup is used to determine the mating habits of women, then why is there a moderate frequency of experimentation in high school/college for women? Why the partying and screwing around with the "bad boy" and getting into situations they know they shouldn't? Wouldn't the deterministic nature of instinct tell them immediately to look for the ideal balance of a financially stable alpha male?

I don't argue you that the effect of our biological make up is a strong factor in determining attraction, but ultimately there are many factors which we can not yet explain. I'm going to have to go with Poolie (wow... you *are* a romantic) here. There's a whole number of things which cause attraction, physical, mental, emotional, smell-imal! I can't see how every one of those factors are determined by DNA. Were that the case, then identical twins would react the same in almost every situation, and we know there are enough identical (not fraternal) twins that are vastly different to discount that theory. In my opinion, environment plays a heavier role in our decision making process than biology does. But that's just me and my scientific nature.

 

[pool]

energiser B so wisely posted :Is it; genetics, environment, individual experiences, our individual phychological make up or the society we live in, which plays the most important role?

All of the above.

To the naysayers who think we do not have real choices in life, the ability to reprogramme ourselves and everything is governed largely by genetics alone, you need to get your heads out of those books and go out and live life. Not the prefab life, complete with blinders, that fits what your idea of what life is all about, but real people interacting within a structure with many dynamics.

At the very least question what we learn from the text book assessments from others and realise that it is just that. Throw a dash of philosophy into the mix of guidelines you already have. That may help you to think outside the box and realise that we can change our thinking, control/modify our emotions, to an extent, and that we do have choices. Humans do not all necessarily act on predefined instinct and we can overcome most of what is perceived to be primitive instinct with the ability of thought. To a large extent it is only how we are conditioned, and only an extension of instinct. Conditioning can be averted, modified and overcome.

I won't deny that our individual chemical balance does have a large effect on who we are, but everything we absorb from the time we are born leads to the actual result.

According to your take on humans, I should go and tell my best friend, that he should dump the girl he loves, because she doesn't fit any typical preconceived conception of physical beauty and that her mannerisms and smile that make your heart melt are all just an illusion. Not to mention the fact that she shouldn't be with him either, because he's unemployed. He should return to his old gf, who he dumped much to her dismay, and although model hot was shallow and materialistic to the point it was sickening. Not to mention her annoying and embarrassing absolute text book "intellect". I should also tell my other friends wife that she should go back to her old bf, because he was loaded and she'd feel more secure, which she presently does not, despite the fact he only saw her as a trophy and had no interest in who she was, whereas her current husband, although not so well off, actually does see her as a person. I should tell my neighbours son that his gf, although she seems to be a very genuine and down to earth person, is far from being Jessica Alba or Britney Spears or whatever look should take his fancy (small or large breasted, thin ot curvaceous etc ) and that he could do much better with his Justin Timberlake like good looks. Not to mention she may produce genetically inferior offspring and her body type may not be optimal for child bearing.

I know these aren't good examples to use as statistics, as none of you know these people, but that's the point. They are real people in "my world".

Picky, I wasn't implying that our good friend Aldous backed up my view. It's just another aspect of my view. I actually agree with his analysis and do believe that in essence we are individuals and alone throughout life except for the limited abilities and senses we have to connect to another human being. To me, that cannot be argued and in the end we are all alone, but it doesn't mean we can't feel a strong bond and connection to another human being. You may see this as contradictory, but humans are contradictory, even though I don't believe I am being contradictory in this case. You do realise he wrote that under the influence of mescaline, I assume.

Take 2 hits of acid and call me in the morning :þ

I'm not finished yet. I'll be back as soon as I get a chance. Oh to hell with it, I have a time to kill.

 

[pool]

Seven,

seven: Who do you think would have a better chance at a serious relationship with a hot-looking MPA, you or Bill Gates? Still baffled?

I think you will always baffle me to some degree, picky : )

Interesting question and I'm not really surprised you'd pick someone like Bill Gates. Celebrities are not good examples to use in real life scenarios. I don't know that much about the fellow myself, as I don't have much interest in such people, but lets see. Bill ; some really rich nerdy computer dude, with what is either a bad hair cut or a taupe. I really don't know what he's like as a person, but your asserting that his $ would be the major factor in his ability to attract an MPA. ... uuuuh, ok , let me think ... Bill or me ? ... me, of course :þ


But seriously, I'm sure our chances, in getting into a serious relationship with an MPA would differ depending on the individual MPA. How serious could a relationship be though which is founded on her attraction to his money. If someone were attracted to me, even in part, by my $, which they wouldn't be and never have been coz I've never had much of the stuff, I wouldn't take the relationship or them too seriously. By the same token they obviously don't take me seriously either.

Lets turn it around for a minute. Who would have a better chance in a serious relationship with an MPA between old bill and yourself. With my previous points taken into consideration, personally I'd pick you with out a second thought over old Bill M$. You have a lot of endearing qualities and ya really aren't half bad looking. Trust me. Your only downfall may be your outlook on life with specific regard to $. You'd either have the poor girl climbing the fuckin' walls or she may see your outlook as just being a part of you (aaaaw). Many times when we fall for someone, we appreciate and value traits that we may not agree with and some may consider flaws.

seven: This line of thinking begs the question of why either of us aren't dating a hot-looking MPA. I know it's not by my choice. How about you?

Why would you assume it's not by choice. I thought the reason many of us see MPA's is because we don't want a real relationship. I think your point is whether or not we have the choice if we were in fact drawn to an MPA. I don't see why it's so far fetched, knowing you and me. Granted it's not that likely, but not impossible either.

 

[The Shake]

As usual, Picky's underlying logic is fairly sound, but his overall argument is undermined by his tendency to think in absolutes.

When it comes to attraction, love, and lust, THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES. Not just from woman to woman, but within an individual woman's life experience and context.

There also seems to be some confusion between pure lust, social dating, and "serious relationships" in this discussion. Although its common for the three to occur in that sort of sequence, they are not always (or necessarily) linked.

Sometimes women, like men, sleep with someone because they are horny and/or find their paramour to be really attractive. Sometimes women, like men, are in relationships simply so that they won't be bored, or because the person can offer them an exciting/extravagant/interesting lifestyle. And sometimes women, like men, view their date/lover/fuck as a potential mate with whom they want to have a serious relationship. The reasons why a given relationship falls somewhere on that scale are as varied as the people who are in them.

 

[Fay]

Speaking of attractive qualities....

(Fay fans herself with her hand all girly-like and bats her eye-lashes) Whew! My goodness, all this conversation, is it getting warm in here? (Fay whips off her loin cloth, tosses it over a fig branch, and dashes into the forest, shouting over her shoulder) who's off with me to create some superior progeny?!

In all seriousness, I don't have time to delve into the nature/nurture debate any longer because I can't type so fast and I have so much other stuff to do, so I'll only say this and then move on to some fluffier matter. As far as I know, the study on the frequency of XYY chromosome criminals had been revisited and reviewed, and the original results and "conclusions" were either entirely dismissed or otherwise had to be altered with a huge "but" clause, something to do with the way the study was carried out, the actual comparative sample, some kind of careless analysis. I'm all vague about it because (apologies) I can't actually find the source on what I'm saying! That's convenient, eh? But I do know that there has been signifigant discussion surrounding the results of that study which suggest that they were, in fact, inconclusive in terms of proving anything behavioural about the Y chromosome. I dunno, look it up if you're ever interested, I'll probably forget to. I'll bug one of my profs about it one day.

One of the things that can't be escaped, as mentioned above by a few people, is that knowledge is a social product. Science, scientific knowledge, the interpretations, the conclusions, are social products. It can be wondered fairly how many times we seek specific data and specific interpretations to support a model we've already accepted because of social inclination. Rather than seeking to figure out if something is (and if so, to what extent) biologically determined, it seems that often we've already kind of assumed or internalized the belief that it is and it only remains to prove it and explain why. Does that makes sense? I think it's early yet, based on what little we have, to assign essential behavioural characteristics to any group based on shared physiology, and even speaking in tendencies is sometimes kinda tricky.

 

[EnergizerBunny]

Holy FUCK! Fay you are getting to be almost as garrulous as Poolie!

Ok ok Poolie, loquacious. Yeah we agreed it was "loquacious".

 

[Fay]

Okay, now fluffy things:

Love? Love is this weird thing that happens that makes this little grain of light inside me that I didn't even notice was there gradually swell over time, and then finally it gets to this point where it strains against my ribs and the muscles around my torso, and it bursts out of my diaphragm and lips and toes and fingertips, breaking through like the sun through heavy clouds, and suddenly I feel like I'm breathing more fully than before, followed by feelings of wanting to give, to make happy, to help, and in general a new stimulus added encouraging me to be a better person all around.

That's me so far. I'm sure my definition of it will be added to and altered as I mature and experience more in life. Much like with attraction, whenever I think I have some basic rules down for "the way things are" in life, I'm gradually and constatnly being proven wrong, redefining things and reshaping my feelings and beliefs.

 

[Fay]

Holy FUCK! Fay you are getting to be almost as garrulous as Poolie!

Ok ok Poolie, loquacious. Yeah we agreed it was "loquacious".

(Fay blushes) Oh for shame! You're forcing me to go for my dictionnary to look those words up! LOL!

 

[Thousand]

Carefull, though. You are delving dangerously into the realm of A&E junkfood pop-science. Everything I think and do is dictated by DNA? My responding to this thread is pre-determined by DNA? Can I commit a random crime and then say "Woops, sorry, damn genetics!" Thing is, the whole "everything we do, everything we're attracted to, everything we think and feel is because of genetics and evolution"

I understand where you are getting it. This is quite a controversal subject. I mean, if we all believe that DNA dictates what a person will do, then wouldn't government just weed out all those criminal when they are young? Anyway, I have to say science is not without its flaw. It does a poor job at explaining any exceptions, especially if the research have shown that exceptions are insignificants.

theory is often based on a whole pile of convenient interpretations while omitting a whole lot of data that tears the theory apart. It looks cool as a headline in Metro, and it makes sense while you're half-asleep on the subway on your way to work reading it in a magazine, and it does seem to conveniently in one easy swoop explain why everything is the way it is in your world. But it relies on shaky, insubstantial argument.

Theories are based on many years of researches and findings. In order for a theory to be widely accepted (such as evolution), it has to go through, and defend all the challenges that arise. Even if the theory are widely accepted, it is not fact.

If a theory is rely on shaky, and insubstantial argument, then I believe people wouldn't accept that theory as a theory anymore.

If attraction were based on DNA, then wouldn't we all be attracted to the exact same people? You seem to think that all men are attracted to large breasts because you're attracted to them, and yeah this particular society in this time and place does place alot of value on them in the mainstream. I guess all those guys who prefer smaller breasts must be messed up aberrations. I wonder why natural selection hasn't taken care of them? There certainly are a lot of them, you'd think there would be some sort of natural process that weed them out. I wonder why some men love skinny women, some love large women, some love muscular women, some love soft women? I wonder which ones are the real participating members of the race towards betterment of the species and which ones are just aberrations? Why do both big penises and little penises exist? If one is so much more genetically superior, then why the variety, why wasn't either variable phased out? I could go on with so many examples, but there isn't the space for it all. Point is, physical attraction is not universal throughout time and/or geography. It can't be reduced to the handful of characterstics and variables that modern western society has decided contitutes beauty.

One of the most important part of evolution is variation. Without variation, there won't be evolution. The reason being is that evolution exist because there are variations in the gene pool. When the environment changes, those genes that are best fit in the environment have better chance to replicate and dominate the gene pool and the environment. Evolution does not eliminate any "weak" gene. All it does it minimize the number of "weak" gene relatively to the "strong" gene.

That aside, if it really did all come down to DNA, can we at this stage, or any stage, presume with confidence to know the formula? Can we talk like "God's" best friend who's in the know and speak with authority on what is predetermined and how "nature" works from the inside out?

Ofcourse not, but we could try to explain it with theory that had stand the test of time.

Thousand

 

[Thousand]

At the very least question what we learn from the text book assessments from others and realise that it is just that. Throw a dash of philosophy into the mix of guidelines you already have. That may help you to think outside the box and realise that we can change our thinking, control/modify our emotions, to an extent, and that we do have choices. Humans do not all necessarily act on predefined instinct and we can overcome most of what is perceived to be primitive instinct with the ability of thought. To a large extent it is only how we are conditioned, and only an extension of instinct. Conditioning can be averted, modified and overcome.

Sure, we human have choices, but as you know, human are basically made up of DNA. There isn't any part of our body that doesn't contain DNA. To an extreme, we are DNA. If we made any choices, I wouldn't say it is not influence by DNA. For example, if you are hungry, the choice of foods you would want to eat would depends on what your body (stomach, mouth, tongue, etc) desire.

According to your take on humans, I should go and tell my best friend, that he should dump the girl he loves, because she doesn't fit any typical preconceived conception of physical beauty and that her mannerisms and smile that make your heart melt are all just an illusion.

I think how each person perceive as beauty varies. Also, appearance is just what gets the relationship going. What keeps it a relationship going are the partner's qualities.

Not to mention the fact that she shouldn't be with him either, because he's unemployed.

I am assume that she believe in him and that one day he would be a successful person?

I should also tell my other friends wife that she should go back to her old bf, because he was loaded and she'd feel more secure, which she presently does not, despite the fact he only saw her as a trophy and had no interest in who she was, whereas her current husband, although not so well off, actually does see her as a person.

Her old bf does have the money, but I don't think he would be a good provider to her, especially if he see her only as a trophy.

I should tell my neighbours son that his gf, although she seems to be a very genuine and down to earth person, is far from being Jessica Alba or Britney Spears or whatever look should take his fancy (small or large breasted, thin ot curvaceous etc ) and that he could do much better with his Justin Timberlake like good looks. Not to mention she may produce genetically inferior offspring and her body type may not be optimal for child bearing.

Well, beauty is in the eyes<DNA Inside> of the beholder. An important thing she got is youth, which give our subconscious mind the perception of good health and an optimal child bearing ability.

Thousand

 

[Thousand]

Re: Speaking of attractive qualities....

One of the things that can't be escaped, as mentioned above by a few people, is that knowledge is a social product. Science, scientific knowledge, the interpretations, the conclusions, are social products. It can be wondered fairly how many times we seek specific data and specific interpretations to support a model we've already accepted because of social inclination. Rather than seeking to figure out if something is (and if so, to what extent) biologically determined, it seems that often we've already kind of assumed or internalized the belief that it is and it only remains to prove it and explain why. Does that makes sense? I think it's early yet, based on what little we have, to assign essential behavioural characteristics to any group based on shared physiology, and even speaking in tendencies is sometimes kinda tricky.

So, would you say scientific knowledge is less reliable than general knowledge that we have and was acquired through experience?

A related question is, isn't general knowledge also a social product in which we seek specific data and specific interpretation to support what we believe in?

Thousand

 

[seven]

Poolie,

I don't believe you. How can you not think the two most important attributes for a guy in determining his level of desirability are looks and socio-economic status?

For a hot-looking MPA to actually choose one of us over Bill Gates it would mean that we would have to captivate her interest to such a degree, that she would actually consider giving up all the fancy cars, fine dining, shopping sprees with unlimited credit, weekend getaways to exotic destinations, huge mansions with hired help, etcetera, etcetera, that computer geek boy would inevitably enchant her with. Do you really think you are that good in bed?

Me and you are definitely not doing it on the money angle, so the only thing left is our looks (uh oh). If you aren't going to provide for them financially then you have to give them fantasy sex (you don't expect them to be all altruistic and shit when you're only going after their bod, right??). Now remember, hot-looking MPA's have had lots of pretty boy, muscle bound studs in their past. It's hard for them to come down from that standard (read: there has to be financial incentive). I mean if you were fucking model hot chicks all the time, would it really be possible for an ordinary girl to capture your attention? She could probably set herself on fire and you still wouldn't notice her.

Most everyone is shallow Poolie, whether they like to believe it or not, and to date "perfection" you need to be highly desirable yourself and just being nice doesn’t cut it. At least that’s the way it works in my world.

 

[seven]

More answers.

originally posted by Dorm201

Seven - If DNA/biological makeup is used to determine the mating habits of women, then why is there a moderate frequency of experimentation in high school/college for women? Why the partying and screwing around with the "bad boy" and getting into situations they know they shouldn't? Wouldn't the deterministic nature of instinct tell them immediately to look for the ideal balance of a financially stable alpha male?

The “bad boy” is usually perceived as stronger, and more genetically viable than his counterpart/competition. Income isn’t a factor yet, only the potential for realizing it (because the guys and girls are in high school/college). I’m not saying girls are completely bound by primary instinct either or just by those two factors alone (reproduction and nesting instincts). Attraction is a complex set of genes/DNA acting on the subconscious, and I just oversimplified it to illustrate a point/advance a theory.

originally posted by EB

What does your love look like? Do words fail? They should!

Heidi Klum.

originally posted by Fay

In all seriousness, I don't have time to delve into the nature/nurture debate any longer because I can't type so fast and I have so much other stuff to do, so I'll only say this and then move on to some fluffier matter. As far as I know, the study on the frequency of XYY chromosome criminals had been revisited and reviewed, and the original results and "conclusions" were either entirely dismissed or otherwise had to be altered with a huge "but" clause, something to do with the way the study was carried out, the actual comparative sample, some kind of careless analysis. I'm all vague about it because (apologies) I can't actually find the source on what I'm saying! That's convenient, eh? But I do know that there has been signifigant discussion surrounding the results of that study which suggest that they were, in fact, inconclusive in terms of proving anything behavioural about the Y chromosome. I dunno, look it up if you're ever interested, I'll probably forget to. I'll bug one of my profs about it one day.

The XYY chromosome link was/is just one factor acting in combination with many other genetic influences. For instance, the frontal lobes in the brain of violent men tend to be smaller than average, and that’s where your feelings of emotion and empathy are derived from. I could go on, but I would have to do a google search, and I’m feeling kinda lazy right now.

Anyways, nothing in this universe can operate outside the law of physics. Like Thousand said, we are a physical entity, made up solely of DNA (a physical structure) which by extension is bound by the laws of physics, to which end we have to act in accordance with because the alternative is impossible. If the human genome was fully understood, behaviour would be easily predictable.

originally posted by Fay

Love? Love is this weird thing that happens that makes this little grain of light inside me that I didn't even notice was there gradually swell over time, and then finally it gets to this point where it strains against my ribs and the muscles around my torso, and it bursts out of my diaphragm and lips and toes and fingertips, breaking through like the sun through heavy clouds, and suddenly I feel like I'm breathing more fully than before, followed by feelings of wanting to give, to make happy, to help, and in general a new stimulus added encouraging me to be a better person all around.

Hahaha. To me I would call that estrogen overload.


PS Poolie – You can’t get something for nothing, and love is a commodity just like anything else. If you one day woke up looking like Brad Pitt, do you think you would still date the same girls? I remember having this conversation with a highly enlightened female, and to touch and expand on her perspective, looks and perceived wealth are like a dating currency with which you buy the objects of your desires. If you have a high level of currency, dating an ordinary girl would be like driving around town in a Geo Metro when you could upgrade to a Ferrari. Too tempting even taking into account this fanciful notion called love.