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.
Pardon the turgid alliteration in the thread-title! My aim was to entice readership.
The question is what difference, if any, we feel in attraction towards a potential partner, depending on whether our aim is reproduction, or merely a relationship. By “reproduction” I mean having kids with that person, and by “relationship” I mean something long-term, possibly marriage, but specifically without aim or interest in having kids.
The point is that some traits in a potential partner are desirable from the viewpoint of improving the genetic makeup of one’s progeny. To what extent are these traits also “attractive”? Maybe there is a difference? For instance, raw intelligence is appealing for both purposes, as presumably one wishes to have a smart partner for good conversation and shared-interests, and also to have smart children. But educational attainment might not be so important for reproductive purposes, since that is not in itself a genetic trait and would not be conveyed biologically to the next generation.
To give crude examples… Are men attracted to women with large breasts because of the reproductive value, or merely the conditioned aesthetic value? Are women attracted to men with certain physical characteristics because of genetic benefits to their children, or simply because of the physical attraction? Are these things at all separable?
I ask this question not as an academic exercise, but in attempt to tease-out normative judgments made by child-free daters vs. the broader population.
Do people actually make that distinction in their head when getting to know someone? Is there a checklist of desired traits that they are marking off?
I don't know. I have never had a big interest in reproduction, and I knew before I started dating my husband that there would be no biological children. I guess that allowed me to get to know and see him for who he is, not what genetic traits he would throw into the mix.
To give crude examples… Are men attracted to women with large breasts because of the reproductive value, or merely the conditioned aesthetic value?
Well that's easy enough to answer. Just look at cultures where large breasts are considered unattractive, or ones where breasts are not considered sexual.
I ask this question not as an academic exercise, but in attempt to tease-out normative judgments made by child-free daters vs. the broader population.
Wish I were smart enough to really comprehend what you're saying...
sounds kinda' like the virgin/whre duality thang (having one's cake & eating it, too).
I've never wanted children, so any considerations I take into account with a potential partner
are based solely on "do I want someone like this in my life ?"
instead of "but what about the children/family ?".
Men are attracted to women with large breasts mainly due to hormones. Studies show that when men's testosterone starts subsiding, after 40, they become interested in women with smaller breasts. So maybe that parallels what the OP is saying; after 40 men aren't driven to mate so much as they are when they're younger. idk.
I am asking myself, if I wanted kids, what traits would I look for?
Well, I want the smart and happy guy, as long as he is past his early 20s (and thus out of the woods as far as schizophrenia).
I might be biased towards the semi-tall (not too tall), slender and handsome guy, because being attractive has significant advantages in life -- though one can not be sure fashions will not change by the time our kid grows up.
I want the kind and patient guy who loves to play, and to teach, and to cuddle and loves kids, and is not icked out by changing diapers, because he will make for minimal childhood traumas for our kid.
So far, other than the looks stuff, it sounds like what I want for myself anyway.
Pardon the turgid alliteration in the thread-title! My aim was to entice readership.
The question is what difference, if any, we feel in attraction towards a potential partner, depending on whether our aim is reproduction, or merely a relationship. By “reproduction” I mean having kids with that person, and by “relationship” I mean something long-term, possibly marriage, but specifically without aim or interest in having kids.
The point is that some traits in a potential partner are desirable from the viewpoint of improving the genetic makeup of one’s progeny. To what extent are these traits also “attractive”? Maybe there is a difference? For instance, raw intelligence is appealing for both purposes, as presumably one wishes to have a smart partner for good conversation and shared-interests, and also to have smart children. But educational attainment might not be so important for reproductive purposes, since that is not in itself a genetic trait and would not be conveyed biologically to the next generation.
To give crude examples… Are men attracted to women with large breasts because of the reproductive value, or merely the conditioned aesthetic value? Are women attracted to men with certain physical characteristics because of genetic benefits to their children, or simply because of the physical attraction? Are these things at all separable?
I ask this question not as an academic exercise, but in attempt to tease-out normative judgments made by child-free daters vs. the broader population.
what an intelligent question, and lots to say about this topic.
if i wasn't in the "sill want kids" mindset, i would still like to date someone 15-20years younger than me if i could. divorced women with children are a difficult challenges, as much as divorced men with children i'm sure.
as far as physical features, i still want a thin women who is cute enough to give me a oral pop. not much more needed for this guy, aside for lots of chuckles and good times.
Reproduction is driven by instinct, which is unconscious. The minute we start thinking about it, we make it conscious and interfere with what is naturally supposed to happen, and it doesn't go quite as smoothly. These things are supposed to remain unexplainable.
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 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.
re duality thang (having one's cake & eating it, too).
