Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [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 06-10-2013, 09:05 PM
 
5,472 posts, read 7,591,948 times
Reputation: 5793

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Amazing how men that really, really dislike women are able to rationalize via pseudo-science (the above is not fully accurate, I say this having studied human behavior on an academic level for many years) in order to continue to want what they want...but demand that women want them although they have little to offer, or else the woman in question is just a b*tch.

You can always tell the men who deep down seriously dislike women when you read what they write on this forum.

For the record, biologically speaking, women don't just need to worry about the man being "a good provider," they need to worry about that child's future when that child is an adult and self-supporting too. *Biologically* we want the physically fittest, tallest, most symmetric (read: handsomest), smartest male in order that our offspring have those same traits and have their own best chance at survival once sperm-daddy is dead/has wandered off somewhere/has kicked them out or whatever. Hence, yes, we do drool over the hot-looking guys. Biologically speaking, a woman does not find much merit in her children growing up to be chunky, slow-moving putzes who whine to get what they want and somehow have come into some (possibly very temporary...it does disappear, after all) money.

Now on the other hand, if they can have a bit of confidence that their children will grow up to be strong, fit and attractive enough to pass on their genes eventually, then the mom will have done her biological job.

It is societal that women think of all the short, fat, bald, fugly rich men as "good providers," not biology. In the wild, pulling out your Capital One card isn't going to do a great job of fending off an angry boar.

So the whole "women have a choice, for men it's biological" stuff is just that, unscientific, erroneous B.S. that makes some men feel better about demanding gorgeous young hotties when they themselves are non-go-getting, non-handsome, non-tall, non-fit, non-winning-type men.

Good lord, educate yourselves, people...well, unless you don't want to because it's so much easier to rationalize why you should be able to pound your fists on your thighs like a pizzed three-year-old while demanding that the thing (or person) you want be fabulously evolved and non-shallow. (rolling eyes)
Haha...its actualy you who is throwing a 3 year old like temper tantrums. Must not like the truth that I clearly showed you in my post. Nothing you wrote refutes what I said and the reasoning behind why looks are more important to men rather than women, as it should be. You dont have to agree with the evolutinary theory, but dont accuse me of not being educated on the subject, because youre completely in the dark. Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:09 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,923,411 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascension2012 View Post
Haha...its actualy you who is throwing a 3 year old like temper tantrums. Must not like the truth that I clearly showed you in my post. Nothing you wrote refutes what I said and the reasoning behind why looks are more important to men rather than women, as it should be. You dont have to agree with the evolutinary theory, but dont accuse me of not being educated on the subject, because youre completely in the dark. Thanks
Everything in my post refutes that, did you not even read the post?

Biologically speaking, fit, tall, strong, young, vigorous, intelligent men with leadership capabilities are the better bet in a woman's opinion and hence those are the men who really do turn us on, and who always will.

Stumpy little guys with no hair up top and poor musculature (a sign of a lack of activity/fitness/hardiness) are not.

Again, biologically speaking.

It is only society that makes things somehow different (using currency rather than actual survival skills) and that is a relatively new concept in the history of mankind. Hence we women are forced to go against our biology to find "good providers" in today's society.

Again. Did you read the post? At all?

The bottom line: you can make as much money as you want, but we are still inwardly going to turn to jello when that cute young guy walks by. And that's biology and not "a choice" as you stated.

Just like you.

Go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:11 PM
 
4,500 posts, read 12,308,232 times
Reputation: 2901
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Aww come on, LOL, you're a cool dude, Viking, I'm sure there must be something to ya!
Well I do have that highly sought after ex-con look going on.

But no, my wife is far more attractive than I am, and I'm completely ok with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:12 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,923,411 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85 View Post
Well I do have that highly sought after ex-con look going on.

But no, my wife is far more attractive than I am, and I'm completely ok with that.
Cute post, I am glad you guys are happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:30 PM
 
Location: moved
13,607 posts, read 9,642,269 times
Reputation: 23388
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Biologically speaking, fit, tall, strong, young, vigorous, intelligent men with leadership capabilities are the better bet in a woman's opinion and hence those are the men who really do turn us on, and who always will.

Stumpy little guys with no hair up top and poor musculature (a sign of a lack of activity/fitness/hardiness) are not.
This is an interesting idea... namely, that biology changes much more slowly than society, so our Neolithic brains struggle to behold the radically different survival-needs of the present, where the fat bald CEO has more "survival value" than the strapping young hunk who's unemployed and dropped out of high school. I think however that some innate preferences persist more than others. If we all ran around naked and threw spears to bring down quarry, the broad-shouldered muscular guy would presumably be as much in demand as the tall lankly long-legged one. But that is not the case. Many threads on this Forum provide at least anecdotal evidence that women prefer male height over muscles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:40 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,923,411 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
This is an interesting idea... namely, that biology changes much more slowly than society, so our Neolithic brains struggle to behold the radically different survival-needs of the present, where the fat bald CEO has more "survival value" than the strapping young hunk who's unemployed and dropped out of high school. I think however that some innate preferences persist more than others. If we all ran around naked and threw spears to bring down quarry, the broad-shouldered muscular guy would presumably be as much in demand as the tall lankly long-legged one. But that is not the case. Many threads on this Forum provide at least anecdotal evidence that women prefer male height over muscles.
Male height is a significant biological advantage to humans, who stand on both legs to see far distances, which best suits tracking purposes. Their legs are longer and therefore can cover more area more quickly in order to actually hunt down the prey. He can also run away from danger more quickly (in general). That's very physical and very biological. Height is directly linked to survival in human biology, particularly in males. (It's not true in every species but in ape species the males tend to overall do more hunting/tracking -- or in non-human apes, more frequently, scavenging -- due to a longer infancy period requiring the female to be tied to the offspring for very long periods of time and due to an overall smaller size of the females.)

Because longer legs are such a significant advantage in a continuously upright species, yes, taller will definitely be seen as better. You'll notice that in other apes -- for example, gorillas -- the leg span may be the same or even less, it's the physical bulk and the arm span that count in the male, because gorillas in general aren't spending all their time on their legs trying to see out farther and run faster; they are meant to see short distances (through trees) and overpower rather than run toward or away.

But that's not the case with humans, who left the trees and went onto more open spaces and needed more height and a longer gait. I'm sure you know all this but I'm just putting it all together for anyone who is curious.

However, just height alone is not what's doing it in the case you've listed above. In your example, the tall, lanky guy has significant ability with a spear, apparently on par with the more muscular guy. He isn't "just" a tall guy who's wimpy. He has significant strength and ability, he has more than just height.

Now if you're comparing that to modern society, I haven't seen a huge amount of very, very short, very, very muscular men. So I don't really know what to make of the comparison. In modern society when very few actually are very fit, yes, height and lack of muscle will win out over shortness and lack of muscle.

I'd have to actually meet and know well a short, very muscular guy to actually know how many women he attracts v. how many a tall, unmuscular man attracts. I will say this: Sly Stallone is only 5'6", AFAIK, and yes, he has (or had, anyway) a significant looks/attractive advantage over taller, non-muscular male stars of his day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:47 PM
 
135 posts, read 137,302 times
Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
I'd have to actually meet and know well a short, very muscular guy to actually know how many women he attracts v. how many a tall, unmuscular man attracts. I will say this: Sly Stallone is only 5'6", AFAIK, and yes, he has (or had, anyway) a significant looks/attractive advantage over taller, non-muscular male stars of his day.
Stallone vs Schwarzenegger

is a more fair comparison to non-muscular tall men. With that said, a tall man has the ability to be even stronger than the short man, as determined by the strong man competition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:54 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,923,411 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
This is an interesting idea... namely, that biology changes much more slowly than society, so our Neolithic brains struggle to behold the radically different survival-needs of the present, where the fat bald CEO has more "survival value" than the strapping young hunk who's unemployed and dropped out of high school. I think however that some innate preferences persist more than others. If we all ran around naked and threw spears to bring down quarry, the broad-shouldered muscular guy would presumably be as much in demand as the tall lankly long-legged one. But that is not the case. Many threads on this Forum provide at least anecdotal evidence that women prefer male height over muscles.
You know, interesting that you should say that...I believe this is partially a result of our developing/changing societally much faster than our instincts and actual biology (which hasn't changed significantly in the last 50,000 years, give or take). But I also think it's because we innately realize that having survival value based on currency is at best a very temporary situation. The money could go at any time, literally. A mother can't pass money down into her children's genes. However, she can pass height, intelligence, speed and agility down in her genes.

I think no matter how much society changes, we realize how possibly temporary financial "success" is v. genetic "success." So I think that's another factor. It's more than just our bodies not having caught up with our brains yet. We may never view money in as innately attractive a way as biology because of this simple fact. That would only make sense.

If all the lights go out tomorrow and one woman's "mate" is busy setting up a secure shelter, using his brain to figure out tactics and is jumping head-on into the fray to wrestle an invader down, while another woman's "mate" is huddling behind his now-blank computer screen holding onto his now-useless checkbook, well, you can guess the results. And of course we realize this, from a biological standpoint.

Women may temporarily/situationally/circumstantially be "attracted to" wealth in current society, but biologically I can't help but see how this will always be seen as way, way less of a sure thing and certainly not as something that can physically be handed down in one's genes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 09:56 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,923,411 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyGuy View Post
Stallone vs Schwarzenegger

is a more fair comparison to non-muscular tall men. With that said, a tall man has the ability to be even stronger than the short man, as determined by the strong man competition.
Exactly. You're now comparing two hyper-fit men...but one does have more of an advantage...he is not only super-powerful, he's much taller. Of course the latter is (physically) going to win, so to speak.

And this would still be true if they were both poor non-celebrities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 10:04 PM
 
Location: moved
13,607 posts, read 9,642,269 times
Reputation: 23388
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
I think no matter how much society changes, we realize how possibly temporary financial "success" is v. genetic "success." So I think that's another factor. It's more than just our bodies not having caught up with our brains yet. We may never view money in as innately attractive a way as biology because of this simple fact. That would only make sense.
An alternative view is also possible: the fellow who's amassed a large fortune is displaying the evolutionary advantages of intelligence (to get the money), tenacity (to not fritter it away) and self-defense (to preclude others from taking it). The guy who inherited his money may not have evinced any of these qualities himself, but presumably his parents did - so again, it's a kind of genetic marker. So, rich --> has the genetic advantages bespeaking proclivity to become rich. What is therefore attractive isn't the money itself, but the implication that the guy is money-capable.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > Relationships
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top