Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal attractiveness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
    And that, ladies and gentlemen is just one reason I like men in their sixties. (Experience, humor.)

    On a different note, unless Playboy has changed a lot, I don't remember those women looking like fashion models. The Playboy models were curvy whereas the fashion model is built in a way that showcases clothing. Maybe men are attracted to women they sense they have a shot at. It's the rare Woody Allen type that has the confidence to go after the "prettiest" woman in the room.
    Modern playboy and many other originators of modern pornography focus on fetishized women's bodies.

    If you look at some of the artworks of Tom of Finland (which highly influences homosexual art/culture/pornography circles), you see a clear fetishization of the male body in the images. Penises are oversized, for example.

    Similarly, drawn women in pornographic imagery tend to have over-large breasts and extremely small waists.

    With the advent of both the ability to photoshop and do plastic surgery, women with these more fetishized proportions have come to the fore as the standard of pornographic beauty.

    That being said, there is also a movement away from this (i don't know if Playboy is doing it, though) -- and a response via groups like the Suicide Girls and the like.

    So, in all reality, many media images of women all around are simply not good indicators of beauty, attractiveness, or health. But, we all do fetishize each other. And, what we fetishize varies person to person.

    What we fetishize culturally is largely dictated by who controls what media at what time.

    Comment


    • #47
      lol yeah the chemical companies won't sell no fake hair shit if that wasn't "hot."

      It always offends women deeply when I tell them my honest opinion about their fake hair. I've considered banging a dude with nice lady hair* LOL Half a mile away, you can see nice hair and your scrotum responds and your internal navigation systems find a reason to head that way. Somehow girls don't understand or appreciate this.


      *I thought it was a woman in the crowd. I gave up after I tapped on her/his shoulder and he turned and reveal his man'ness.
      "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

      Jack london, "Before Adam"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
        Your assessment does not account for the fact that most people do not have any contact whatsoever with this super-tribe that you are talking about; I live in an area that has a population density comparable to Hong Kong, but it is not rare to not know anyone in your neighborhood. You are still brought up through a small controlled population with internal dynamics (school), then you go to college or work and find new little tribes.

        I have 170 or so Contacts in my phone, but there are 1200 or so people just in my apartment complex. Most people's contacts lists roughly correspond to the size of a primal band.

        lol and yo this "leaders of the pack" mate availability thing is definitely theory and not experience. There is no proliferation of women willing to be some guy's every-third-night or anything, not in my class or neighborhood anyway. I don't know a single man that is in any kind of relationship like that. Teenagers too, are not generally aligned this way.

        And there is still a great stigma connected to relying on the State to provide for your children- in the middle and working and upper classes, women still seek a man that will feed and comfort them with luxuries and raise their children. In fact the scarcity dilemma makes this more pronounced and more dramatic, in my experience. I am calling it that by 2020, middle-class arranged marriages will be normal.
        I beg to differ on the role part. The vast majority of people are sheep because they live in such close spaces, and there's only so much room for sheepdogs. In the wild, you more naturally learn to be a sheepdog.

        As for the leader of the pack getting new women every third night, I've seen it. It certainly happens. But you not knowing it yet still seeing effects of polyamory (single women with babies) only further highlights my point: they are not all that common. Women can find them in particular places like bars or other places a man might assert his dominance (like an office or a sports field), but these men also have the option to find women as they go about their tasks.

        Comment


        • #49
          As for the leader of the pack getting new women every third night, I've seen it.
          no, I said that there is no proliferation of women who are content to be the third-night-in-the-rotation woman, as in, know that a man is with a bunch of ladies, and just think "that's cool- it's not like I can't get food stamps if I get knocked up." That is not happening.

          But you not knowing it yet still seeing effects of polyamory (single women with babies) only further highlights my point:
          that is no-amory...lol they are single. And tend to stay that way.
          "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

          Jack london, "Before Adam"

          Comment


          • #50
            I beg to differ on the role part. The vast majority of people are sheep because they live in such close spaces, and there's only so much room for sheepdogs. In the wild, you more naturally learn to be a sheepdog.
            No one ever lived in the wild...shamans maybe. People huddled together so close that we didn't have our own beds until the 20th century.

            You don't have to be some independent thinking, critical analysis existential philosopher to stand watch, to fetch berries or water, to put up shelters the way your granny showed you her granny showed her. Human population dynamics include very few people that you would probably call human.
            "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

            Jack london, "Before Adam"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
              no, I said that there is no proliferation of women who are content to be the third-night-in-the-rotation woman, as in, know that a man is with a bunch of ladies, and just think "that's cool- it's not like I can't get food stamps if I get knocked up." That is not happening.



              that is no-amory...lol they are single. And tend to stay that way.
              I think you're wrong. Tons of ladies would become groupies if they got the chance. Look at rock stars and pro athletes. Hell, look at what girls have done to Justin Bieber. But just as there's only so many of these true alphas, there's only so many ladies that they can choose, keeping in mind both time and social custom (if it were customary to be a groupie in our society, they would probably be fucking in the middle of the grocery store isles).

              No-amory is polyamory. It's sex without committment. The girl and the guy is free to have multiple partners. The only difference between a one night stand and textbook polyamory is: in polyamory, you have a more intimate relationship and you see them multiple times. So, hooking up is a short term polyamorous relationship as far as I'm concerned.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                No one ever lived in the wild...shamans maybe. People huddled together so close that we didn't have our own beds until the 20th century.

                You don't have to be some independent thinking, critical analysis existential philosopher to stand watch, to fetch berries or water, to put up shelters the way your granny showed you her granny showed her. Human population dynamics include very few people that you would probably call human.
                You can't deny that society nowadays demands more people for support roles, whereas once upon a time, most/all men had to be warriors. And the leader of this pack was the alpha of them, but all of those men were alpha compared to people in society today.

                Comment


                • #53
                  no way dude- most people were always support.

                  Sure they were probably generally more into machismo and shit, but that's because they were obeying the social systems maintained by the leadership of the shamans and chiefs.

                  And how many baby mama's you know?
                  "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                  Jack london, "Before Adam"

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    also pre-historic man was not a "warrior." There are whole continents with no evidence of making war-weapons. Fighting is expensive and risky and trade and diplomacy is easier and cheaper. In the absence of central authorities, if a guy has beef with another one, he is going to be fighting that guy himself. If I tried to get involved, my wife would yell at me and say to mind my business.

                    you should read Bury My Heart at Wounded KNee
                    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                    Jack london, "Before Adam"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                      no way dude- most people were always support.

                      Sure they were probably generally more into machismo and shit, but that's because they were obeying the social systems maintained by the leadership of the shamans and chiefs.

                      And how many baby mama's you know?
                      Dude, no way. Tribal warfare was the #1 priority for their lifestyle. That meant men must be ready to fight at any moment, to protect the women, children, and themselves. That's pretty alpha compared to Joe Beerbelly with slippers on getting the newspaper in the morning. Both examples represent the mean average for males in these two societies.

                      That was physical power, physical leadership. If you want to get into the mental game, realize that very few can win that one. A hierarchy will always develop in a capitalist system, and the rich will get richer. Thus, the alphas will gain more power leaving less and less for their support. The support, or the sheep, will grow massively large if the food supply supports it, but they will be subservient to the political (mental warfare) alpha boss.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Wilton, I think you're making textbook "just so" arguments. I'm not going to deny that we have alpha/beta dynamics but human societies are so complex that you can't draw straight-line conclusions from it.

                        Comment


                        • #57


                          Pretty fit dudes
                          well then

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                            Wilton, I think you're making textbook "just so" arguments. I'm not going to deny that we have alpha/beta dynamics but human societies are so complex that you can't draw straight-line conclusions from it.
                            My conclusions are not meant to be black and white. I accept deviations from the norm and draw conclusions from the averages.

                            I'm not even discussing alpha vs beta. You know there are far more in that paradigm, right? Omega for example. Alpha is just a descriptor of leadership, both mental and physical. Someone must be a leader in a situation, right? Someone must win, someone must lose. That is the black and white backbone of this discussion that I think is acceptable as a straight-line conclusion.
                            Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-15-2013, 02:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
                              also pre-historic man was not a "warrior." There are whole continents with no evidence of making war-weapons. Fighting is expensive and risky and trade and diplomacy is easier and cheaper. In the absence of central authorities, if a guy has beef with another one, he is going to be fighting that guy himself. If I tried to get involved, my wife would yell at me and say to mind my business.

                              you should read Bury My Heart at Wounded KNee
                              I don't believe that at all. There's been war in every society I have ever studied. Some have less frequent war, some more frequent. There are environmental reasons for this. At its core, war (mental or physical) is simply intraspecies competition, the intensity of which is directly in proportional to the need and benefit to compete.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                                My conclusions are not meant to be black and white. I accept deviations from the norm and draw conclusions from the averages.
                                I'm not sure it's the norm. What you're sketching out isn't entirely wrong but it's not entirely right either. The building isn't the blueprint (probably why Mark entitled his book as such). And we're only theorizing about the blueprint anyhow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X