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.
My views--and pointing out Sexual Selection--were no more liked than when Galileo pointed out the earth revolves around the sun. Nonetheless, the evidence from Sexual Selection (even among anthropologists is overwhelming--and anthropology is study of humans).
"Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which some individuals outreproduce others of a population because they are better at securing mates.[1] The concept was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, is a significant element of his theory of natural selection."
I don't think men are more willing to sleep with "loser" women. My aunt will be considered as a "loser" woman because she doesn't even have breasts anymore. Her husband is a computer IT guy who makes six figure a year. He is also a cancer survivor. Are they both losers? I think not.
They are just madly in love because they are connected with pain, suffering, and trauma.
Looks is only very small part of the relationship. You don't need to beat the dead horse anymore.
Just for the record, I never stated anything negative about your aunt or her husband, I don't even know them. And one of my aunts died of cancer and another aunt survived breast cancer.
I also put the word "loser" into quotes (on post #17) to signify it is a subjective view. And I was actually thinking of a thread on this very board where the title was something like "Women with loser men." Something like that.
But one can replace the term loser with omega or whatever they like.
Post #17 basically states my views with respects to the Original Post #1.
You post I'm quoting above goes off topic to talk about your aunt and her husbands cancer in response to my comment in post #17 that men in general are less discriminating than women. That is to say men will "date down" or more accurately have sex with what some would phrase as "almost anybody." Whereas women as a rule of thumb are more selective.
Just for the record, I never stated anything negative about your aunt or her husband, I don't even know them. And one of my aunts died of cancer and another aunt survived breast cancer.
I also put the word "loser" into quotes (on post #17) to signify it is a subjective view. And I was actually thinking of a thread on this very board where the title was something like "Women with loser men." Something like that.
But one can replace the term loser with omega or whatever they like.
Post #17 basically states my views with respects to the Original Post #1.
You post I'm quoting above goes off topic to talk about your aunt and her husbands cancer in response to my comment in post #17 that men in general are less discriminating than women. That is to say men will "date down" or more accurately have sex with what some would phrase as "almost anybody." Whereas women as a rule of thumb are more selective.
Well, I was just wondering to be completely honest. If you think Jade Pinkett is below average looking in the black community, I was wondering what would you be thinking about my aunt - a woman without her breasts?
I was only making a valid point: Even a woman like my aunt (considered by many men as "loser") can find somebody genuinely love her. But then again, her new husband had cancer too. So neither one of them dated "down".
Originally Posted by Supine
My views--and pointing out Sexual Selection--were no more liked than when Galileo pointed out the earth revolves around the sun. Nonetheless, the evidence from Sexual Selection (even among anthropologists is overwhelming--and anthropology is study of humans).
Your reply to my above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
"Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which some individuals outreproduce others of a population because they are better at securing mates.[1] The concept was introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, is a significant element of his theory of natural selection."
I never insinuated it was my view, as in I was the author of the idea. In fact in post #17 I provided a link to Berkely (a respected university) on Sexual Selection. I stated Sexual Selection falls under the Theory of Evolution. So, it would be impossible for me to have birthed the idea.
But Sexual Selection is one of the views (plural, with a s at the end) I subscribe to. I don't know that everything in Sexual Selection is correct, but certainly some of it offers a lot of explanatory power. And as I stated before, anthropologists subscribe to the views of Sexual Selection. Anthropology being the study of human beings.
Biology is my major so it is reasonable to assume the life sciences will have some impact on how I think and view things. (But I think it impacts my views a lot less than Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennette.)
Well, I was just wondering to be completely honest. If you think Jade Pinkett is below average looking in the black community, I was wondering what would you be thinking about my aunt - a woman without her breasts?
I'm not a breast man. Traditionally, generally speaking, White-American men were breast men and Black-American men have been butt men. You are confusing ethnic Black-Americans for the history of what many if not most White-American preferred.
My understanding is that some Amerindians tribes of Brazil have women that typically have small breasts. Small breasts but round, plump, butts. Lots of women in Brazil get breast implants but the images of very small breast Brazilian women with round butts is very appalling to me. I like large, well shaped breasts too. Very much. But I'm not what one would call a "breast man," so, if a woman has a nice shaped butt that appeals to me, and some curvy hips, she could literally have a chest as flat as a board and I would not care. Literally.
Quote:
I was only making a valid point: Even a woman like my aunt (considered by many men as "loser") can find somebody genuinely love her. But then again, her new husband had cancer too. So neither one of them dated "down".
You raise the hand to insinuate I introduced that term/phrase out of nowhere into this thread. I was merely using the language the person in the Original Post #1 used when asking the questions.
Here is post #1 and the phrase "date up" highlighted in red and placed in bold. The opposite of "date up" would be to "date down." I suppose one could say "date equally" contradicts "date up" as well. But Both "date up" and "date an equal" seems to imply their are those below (not just above) equals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raena77
Now hear me out. Men(not all)think they are better looking than what they really are. This is why they date up. Women on the other hand tend to think they are not all that. That's why some settle. Do you agree?
Settle placed in blue bold seems to suggest women can and do date men beneath them ("date down") rather than just dating equals.
Here is post #1 and the phrase "date up" highlighted in red and placed in bold. The opposite of "date up" would be to "date down." I suppose one could say "date equally" contradicts "date up" as well. But Both "date up" and "date an equal" seems to imply their are those below (not just above) equals.
I guess we have to agree to disagree at this point because the whole theory of "dating up / down/ equal" does not make ANY sense to me whatsoever.
Now hear me out. Men(not all)think they are better looking than what they really are. This is why they date up. Women on the other hand tend to think they are not all that. That's why some settle. Do you agree?
No because a friend of mine just married someone overweight and unattractive which proves he doesn't think highly of himself
Now hear me out. Men(not all)think they are better looking than what they really are. This is why they date up. Women on the other hand tend to think they are not all that. That's why some settle. Do you agree?
While I agree to some extent that men are more confident or less harsh on their appearance than women, I do not believe it is the primary reason they desire to 'date up.' Rather, I believe men are conditioned by Hollywood to believe that any man can bag a good looking woman as long as he has the right kind of charm. Leonard from Big Bang theory, George Costanza from Seinfeld, 40 Year Old Virgin, any Kevin James character, etc. You never see teenagers with 2.5 gpa's angsting in the Education forum that they didn't get into an Ivy League school because it's well understood that elite Universities are only for the smartest students. Sadly Hollywood creates an unrealistic portrayal of the world in which ugly men being with beautiful women is far more common than it really is.
A tall woman has to be extremely thin to make up for her height, if she's tall (and usually by tall they mean 5'6 or so) and average or even fat? No chance at all.
Tall and average weight does not seem to be a problem, quite the contrary. Im tall and average weight (might even be 5 pounds overweight) and being tall is actually an ADVANTAGE. Your weight is better distributed. Ten times better being tall and chubby than short and chubby.
Im 5´9 and i ve always seen it as an advantage, not something that needs to make up for. I actually rather be my height than shorter! I was admired and envy by men and women for my height. Being tall is an advantage.I know you are waay to tall and maybe its not the case for you or is not your experience. But from my experience, and all the other tall women i know, and even what i see on tv and society, being tall for a women is an advantage as having a pretty face or beautiful eyes. It is something positive!!!
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.
