U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-23-2008, 04:43 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,265 times
Reputation: 173

Advertisements

are men and women shallow? is "shallow" bad?? I dont think so.this debate of course could ahve gone in relationships, but because of the evolution aspect, sybconsious thoughts ect i thought it would be more appropriate to put it here and get some intelligent feedback

I may make some generalizations and you can correct me on this, but what i have seen is men like shorter (shorter than them), skinnier (not super skinny but healthy) and with larger thighs.

if you look at history, men were the protectors. and this may seem far fetched, but protecting a women also meant seeing over her head. when walking in the forest, being aware of whats aroung you is imporant. of course seing behind a taller women is harder, thereofre making it more dangerous, and therefore more likely that taller women will be killed.

Larger thighs means an easier birth, and of course in the past child birth was an extremely dangerous time for women. anythign that made this easier would probably mean a higher chance of suvival. therefore men are attracted to these women (because it means subconsiously that they will probably survive ).

Women wanted a man who could nurture and protect them. looking after them and thier children was #1 (even if it was a consious or subconsious descision) this could possibly explain some womens attractive to fit men, as well as rich men.

any thoughts?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2008, 07:55 PM
 
274 posts, read 545,860 times
Reputation: 89
I've heard of this theory before...

How do you account for people who have no interest whatsoever in reproduction?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 05:20 AM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,265 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyez02403 View Post
I've heard of this theory before...

How do you account for people who have no interest whatsoever in reproduction?
umm actually, everyone has intrest in reproduction. the only extreme cases i can think of are rape victims or people like that who create an aversion to touch. other than that, everyone i can think of is intrested in reproduction.

the fact that you use a condom or take birth control means nothing. your body wont respond to that by subconsiously saying "oh this wont ahve a baby".

your body only responds to the act of sex, which it is too stupid (or jsut doesnt have the ability) to know if impregnation is being hindered in some way.

was that your point though? reproduction as in the family whos like "oh we dont want kids ever" or as in the fact of people who just dont want to have sex ever? like a nun?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,119 posts, read 12,713,147 times
Reputation: 7205
I don't think "thigh" size has a thing to do with having babies--"HIPS" may, but not thighs!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 10:41 AM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,392,137 times
Reputation: 47449
interesting post. your reasoning is ok, but it predates firearms. size is no longer the issue.
there might be some primal instincts still going on but its just that left over genetics.
cavemen had no use for nerds.
we in the 21st century do. our prisons are evidence that caveman behavior does not work any more. of course if you are talking about the bahavior of women and me wanting it to make sense ah now i am in big trouble.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,265 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb at sea View Post
I don't think "thigh" size has a thing to do with having babies--"HIPS" may, but not thighs!

sorry your right, im handicapped, i meant hips. for some reason i confused the two
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,265 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
interesting post. your reasoning is ok, but it predates firearms. size is no longer the issue.
there might be some primal instincts still going on but its just that left over genetics.
cavemen had no use for nerds.
we in the 21st century do. our prisons are evidence that caveman behavior does not work any more. of course if you are talking about the bahavior of women and me wanting it to make sense ah now i am in big trouble.
i dont understand your point about firearms? human evolution and history wise, fire arms have only been there a very very very small percent. the oldest found homo-sapien bones and fossils date back almost 2 million years old. europeans have only had firearms for about 600 years, and thats not long enough to cut out any sort of instinctual man-women relationship. i still cant really see your point though.... and size of what??

cavemen had no use for nerds?? whats your point? nerds is just a name we give people who "play computer games all the time or are computer programmmers.. yet again i still cant see your point.. a "caveman baby" taken through time, and raised in our society would probably be the exact same as anyoen from this time frame.. can you explain your point better?

what caveman behavior?? at the time they didnt have the same social and cutural structures we do now. humans werent more "inherently violent", its just the live or die factor was there all the time. and although now adays for us the most important thing may be "working out to lose that little extra fat", theres was protecting the women, hunting food and looking after the tribe..

prisons arent just for violent offenders.. but still i still dont understand anything you are really trying to say..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 06:03 PM
 
274 posts, read 545,860 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
umm actually, everyone has intrest in reproduction. the only extreme cases i can think of are rape victims or people like that who create an aversion to touch. other than that, everyone i can think of is intrested in reproduction.

the fact that you use a condom or take birth control means nothing. your body wont respond to that by subconsiously saying "oh this wont ahve a baby".

your body only responds to the act of sex, which it is too stupid (or jsut doesnt have the ability) to know if impregnation is being hindered in some way.

was that your point though? reproduction as in the family whos like "oh we dont want kids ever" or as in the fact of people who just dont want to have sex ever? like a nun?
Well, both---like what if individuals believe their careers are more important than a relationship and aren't looking for one? And what about homosexuality then?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,265 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyez02403 View Post
Well, both---like what if individuals believe their careers are more important than a relationship and aren't looking for one? And what about homosexuality then?
your trying to insist that an "important career" and "not looking for one" gets rid of sexual urges??? of course not and to even say that is silly.

and homosexuality?? people still go through the sexual acts. ( dont think i ahve to explain what a guy has to do to to potentially create a baby)

its clear the body isnt smart enough, to differentiate sex a man having sex with a women or sex with a man. the body responds to pleasure resulting in the man.. yeah....

people have sexual urges. the ultimate goal for a man is to impregnate a women. a women it is to get impregnated. whether two people engage in actuall "sex" is irrelevant. the body responds to pleasure and thats what finally triggers the man. for your homosexual arguement you might as well say "oh how can a guy finish a women just uses her hands". yet again the body isnt smart enough to figure out it wont result in a pregnancy, the fact is that it will under the right circumstances.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 07:45 PM
 
274 posts, read 545,860 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by leangk View Post
your trying to insist that an "important career" and "not looking for one" gets rid of sexual urges??? of course not and to even say that is silly.

and homosexuality?? people still go through the sexual acts. ( dont think i ahve to explain what a guy has to do to to potentially create a baby)

its clear the body isnt smart enough, to differentiate sex a man having sex with a women or sex with a man. the body responds to pleasure resulting in the man.. yeah....

people have sexual urges. the ultimate goal for a man is to impregnate a women. a women it is to get impregnated. whether two people engage in actuall "sex" is irrelevant. the body responds to pleasure and thats what finally triggers the man. for your homosexual arguement you might as well say "oh how can a guy finish a women just uses her hands". yet again the body isnt smart enough to figure out it wont result in a pregnancy, the fact is that it will under the right circumstances.
Not everyone has sexual urges...and to assume THAT would be silly.

In your original post, you were talking in terms of attraction. I was asking in the case of homosexuality, how you would account for a man being attracted to a man or woman to a woman. You accounted for very strict gender roles in the OP, which does not explain homosexual attraction.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top