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.
I suspect the human personality, male and female, has changed little since 5000 BC although outward attitudes change on a regular basis.
Slightly OT but the women of ancient Greece and Rome were considered property whether they were single in their father's household or married in their husband's house.
They had no legal rights of their own, they were literally "owned" by men.
That's why Menaleus was so determined to completely demolish Troy. Paris had stolen his most valuable piece of property and even though he never got Helen back, he had his revenge for all the ancient world to see.
Whether high or low born women were essentially slaves in Greece and later Rome.
You are right. Thank you for pointing that out.
Has there ever been a time in history until very recently that women were not considered property, I wonder. Are we still considered property? Not to go too OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Twist
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. All show and no go, etc. We can be highly attracted to someone, but learn what we want (at least until the fascination wears off) is not what we need.
Yes, I agree. That's why I think this topic is interesting to explore.
That which tastes and looks so yummy isn't necessarily the best for us. Like we crave sugar because in 5000 BCE we needed this high caloric intake. In 2021 if we eat sugar every time we want, we'll get obese. Our caloric needs have changed, though our cravings haven't.
if your belief is that premise of the OP is incorrect, then the idea then is to state the reasons it's incorrect.
I did. You said that you didn't want to imply that the members of sexes/genders all think alike, and then went on-- in the same sentence-- to say you wanted to discuss the idea that the members of sexes/genders all think alike.
And I didn't say it was "incorrect;" I said it was contradictory. Same as if I started a thread to say, "I don't want to say the sky is blue, but let's talk about the sky being blue."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formerly Known As Twenty
"....nobody is competent in everything, everyone specializes..."
Regarding the above, I tend to agree with Robert Heinlein, i.e., "specialization is for insects." A grown human being should be capable of doing at least the basics of adulting plus a few "extras" that are more specific to that person.
What I've sought in partners outside of general attraction and indeed, what I do find attractive, is a person who is competent in most ways; able to stand on his own two feet without needing a partner to help him to "adult."
One would think that people of any gender feel that way, but if this forum is any indicator or society at large, I'd say that a fair number of people don't then wonder why there are so many holes and general dissatisfaction within their relationship with their partner(s). To quote Heinlein once more, "never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
Precisely this. Now, some people are into extreme gender roles-- the man can't cook or do laundry to save his life, the woman wouldn't know how to pay the bills or mow the lawn, etc. But I think most people these days don't want to be with the person of yesteryear who would be completely lost if their partner died/left and they had to live and run a household on their own...
I mean, in every relationship chores might be divided. One partner can't balance a checkbook to save their life so the other pays the bills, but the first one is the only one that can get the edging on the lawn looking good or buy the perfect gift for Grandma. But I certainly hope that when push comes to shove, both know how to and can pay the bills, vacuum the floor, keep the grass mowed, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholomar
Women are born with value though...men have to earn it. It's a plain and simple truth.
What "value" would that be? Are we referring to looks (what about the ones who aren't pretty?) or the ability to make babies (which you assume makes them automatically attractive to men-- and what if they don't want kids?)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
Not exactly true. While many women do seem to have an interest in true crime stories, the My Favorite Murder podcast is not at all about glorifying men who commit violent crime. It's quite the opposite.
And, what kind of women? Not the mature well-adjusted ones I know. (It's always interesting when someone takes an outlier, especially one that would be considered unhealthy or strange, and tries to make it represent all women everywhere.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formerly Known As Twenty
For me, one of the reasons why I opted out of dating men who were living at home for the long term (either "still" or "again" for no real reason such as caring for a parent or a temporary financial set back) was because the few times that I did, there was always the slight pressure from either the guy himself who was itching to get out from under his parents' roof or the parents who were seeing the possibility of finally getting that empty nest. No way that I'd consciously take on that sort of liability, let alone yoke myself to it.
In some cases this also applies to men who haven't lived much or any life as a single person... some go straight from Mommy "taking care of" them to having a wife do it. Some think they don't/shouldn't have to do their own cooking/cleaning, and some wouldn't know how even if they tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moongirl00
Also, sporting events. Women are aroused by athletes. Aren't sports and Olympics basically a way for men to exhibit their physical prowess? The strongest and most capable win the competition, and get the women? Many of these women don't even care if he sticks around. They just want the seed, to pass the strong genes to their offspring. I'd say that's the modern equivalent of the most brutish men getting the lady.
An awful lot of women are simply turned on by a man who's good at something. He's a good athlete, he's a good musician, he's a good surgeon, he's a good writer, etc. Sure, for some it's about "wants to date a doctor because he's got money" or "wants to date a guy in a band because he's famous," but for plenty it's "wants to date a doctor because he cares about people and saves lives" or "wants to date a guy in a band because he's really good at playing guitar." And for some, I'm sure there's some kind of "wants to date a guy because he has some kind of physical prowess," but for plenty it's "wants to date a guy because he's good at something that just happens to be physical."
I did. You said that you didn't want to imply that the members of sexes/genders all think alike, and then went on-- in the same sentence-- to say you wanted to discuss the idea that the members of sexes/genders all think alike.
And I didn't say it was "incorrect;" I said it was contradictory. Same as if I started a thread to say, "I don't want to say the sky is blue, but let's talk about the sky being blue."
Precisely this. Now, some people are into extreme gender roles-- the man can't cook or do laundry to save his life, the woman wouldn't know how to pay the bills or mow the lawn, etc. But I think most people these days don't want to be with the person of yesteryear who would be completely lost if their partner died/left and they had to live and run a household on their own...
I mean, in every relationship chores might be divided. One partner can't balance a checkbook to save their life so the other pays the bills, but the first one is the only one that can get the edging on the lawn looking good or buy the perfect gift for Grandma. But I certainly hope that when push comes to shove, both know how to and can pay the bills, vacuum the floor, keep the grass mowed, etc.
What "value" would that be? Are we referring to looks (what about the ones who aren't pretty?) or the ability to make babies (which you assume makes them automatically attractive to men-- and what if they don't want kids?)?
And, what kind of women? Not the mature well-adjusted ones I know. (It's always interesting when someone takes an outlier, especially one that would be considered unhealthy or strange, and tries to make it represent all women everywhere.)
In some cases this also applies to men who haven't lived much or any life as a single person... some go straight from Mommy "taking care of" them to having a wife do it. Some think they don't/shouldn't have to do their own cooking/cleaning, and some wouldn't know how even if they tried.
An awful lot of women are simply turned on by a man who's good at something. He's a good athlete, he's a good musician, he's a good surgeon, he's a good writer, etc. Sure, for some it's about "wants to date a doctor because he's got money" or "wants to date a guy in a band because he's famous," but for plenty it's "wants to date a doctor because he cares about people and saves lives" or "wants to date a guy in a band because he's really good at playing guitar." And for some, I'm sure there's some kind of "wants to date a guy because he has some kind of physical prowess," but for plenty it's "wants to date a guy because he's good at something that just happens to be physical."
I agree. It's an exhibition of skill, which is appealing. Whether it's physical, mental, or just high empathy like the doctor who saves lives but works in a third world country for free, so money isn't the driving factor. Would I be attracted to a doctor who lives in a mud hut in Papua New Guinea yet saves lives every day? Heck yes.
It all comes down to, this is a highly adaptive trait. This person has something which contributes to the greater good, and, I want that for my offspring so I want to mate with him.
But that's me speaking as a woman and tapping into my cave woman psychology. My cave woman psychology wants to mate with a man who is strong, smart, and kind.
Last edited by moongirl00; 03-28-2021 at 02:36 PM..
I doubt if cave dwellers had a lot of options on mates. I think it took a long time for there to be big selections of partners. When people traveled by foot or horse they wouldn't be searching great distances. Villages were small. Upper classes wanted to marry within upper classes. It was more difficult to class jump. Many people probably settled for what they could get. I suspect people didn't expect life to be all sunshine and roses. For most it was a lot of work.
Now with the internet people can search the world. Some even think they are in love with people they've never met. Many seem to be unable to find a person they feel suitable even with the vast choices offered by online dating.
This is not meant to generalize or stereotype either gender, but more to explore the idea that either gender has a certain psychology which influences who they find attractive.
Supposedly women are attracted to men who exhibit success, ambition, confidence. Because in the psychology of women, they want a man who can provide and protect her, in the dangerous jungle of lions and tigers, which is basically the world we live in whether it's the jungle of Brazil or New York City.
Cave women of 5000 BCE needed a strong protector in order to successfully raise and provide and protect her and her children, so it was in her best interest to find the strongest and best provider she could, as she was unlikely to be able to survive on her own, and remnants of this DNA/psychological makeup still exists in the modern woman.
Supposedly men are attracted to women who exhibit physical attractiveness, submission (deferring to his decisions), nurturing, loyalty, honesty, and outward signs of high fertility (breasts, curves, youthfulness), and is also unlikely to be unfaithful to him, as being a cuckhold and wasting all his time and investment is probably one of the worst fates possible for many men. Equivalent to a woman being impregnated by a man and then abandoned to raise and provide for herself and a baby alone in the dangerous jungle.
In order to achieve this, the psychology of men developed to crave power, succeeding in competition, the feeling of winning a trophy as a reward for all his hard work, and a partner who is fully devoted to him and able to provide him with pleasure and comfort, as well as an assortment of casual partners for sexual variety, because the competition and the seeking of new conquests is never over. The drive to accumulate more and better is always there.
So to sum up:
Female psychology: wants strong ambitious man to provide and protect
Male psychology: craves power, necessary competitive drive to attract women, wants most attractive, honest, loyal woman to provide pleasure and comfort to him and only him, as well as sexual variety with no strings attached
Do you think these differing psychologies of the genders, and how it influences who they find attractive in dating and relationships, has some merit to it, or are these myths?
Has some of this been bred out of us, as it's no longer 5000 BCE and civilization has gone through a range of changes during the past few millennia.
Personally I'm usually attracted to somewhat effeminate men, men with a sensitive side, like artists and creative types. Yet the guys I've been involved with do tend to be competitive, possessive, jealous, territorial, so there is definitely that cave man DNA/psychology showing up there. I am guessing it's not coincidence that I always date guys with those traits. It probably shows investment, so my cave woman DNA senses he will stick around to provide and protect me and our children.
Do you relate to any of these ideas on the psychology of each gender and how it affects who you are attracted to, or are you an exception, and if so, in what ways?
This is me 100%. I am hyperfertile (technically called hyperovulation) & I have always been attracted to aggressive, powerful men. In my case, I think biology is playing into my psychology. I've tried to change it but I can't. The reason I have tried to change it, is because some of the traits I find attractive aren't compatible with modern, "polite" society ... I've never had a serious relationship with a man who wasn't a tough guy. And these aren't your common criminal/thug types either; anyone who has been around since the 1990s have seen two of them on national news. Both white-collar & otherwise. But I was always financially competent myself & these men always SAID they liked that about me but at some point my independent trait would become problematic for them.
Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong century.
I'm late responding, and I haven't read all 3 pages. But men are visual and women are more intuitive (I'm envious!) and care more about stability, laughter, and confidence. Men can and will compromise on a few things with a woman if they're very attracted to her. I find it doesn't work the other way around. Big lesson.
We can say there is some truth to that today as well. It's men who are sent off to war to fight and die.”
Not really, That’s a patriarchal attitude that insists women can’t fight and serve but slowly it’s changing , but there are some countries where women are expected to serve their turn in the military. The problem is you are applying a generalized truth(your perception of it) to gender across the board but there are huge cultural differences that shape gender roles. Which country are you talking about?
All this analysis about minds, roles, preferences etc...Id go insane dating, Moon.
I think most would!
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.
