Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal attractiveness

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
    .... Wow. LOL.

    I don't know what world you live in. I don't even think i want to know.
    We are all kings or pawns.

    We are all sheepdogs, wolves, or sheep.

    Apparently you choose to be a pawn and a sheep.

    Comment


    • #92
      LOL Wow, I don't know what woman screwed you over but seriously get over it. You shouldn't make generalization on an entire gender based on a few of them. I have known plenty of men that were complete bastards but I don't blame all men for them being wastes of human beings.
      Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
      For a serious cliff notes to my previous post: women don't figure crap out because they don't have to.
      Last edited by suzyq; 03-16-2013, 05:23 PM. Reason: spelling fail

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
        We are all kings or pawns.

        We are all sheepdogs, wolves, or sheep.

        Apparently you choose to be a pawn and a sheep.
        But... but... what if I want to be a moose? :< I think moose are much cooler than sheep. Are you discriminating against the moose?! > That's racist!

        Pal, I'm sorry to say this but you sound like your main parental figure in life was a book about the Game. I really don't mind you living in that world if you so like it. But please don't take it to the world of personal insults with people you don't know. This discussion is heading into the realm of the distasteful.

        Comment


        • #94
          The women's experience of this instinct would never or rarely draw them to do anything technological, creative, experience-oriented, or even physical fitness-oriented. This is why men attain success more than women do.
          ? Are you serious? Now that women have been offered the opportunity,they are excelling in creative and technological fields. Sure they may not compete directly with men athletically, but many women also seek achievement in that endeavour.

          I think this is the first era historically where 1. women don't have to have children, and 2. we can outsource child care which means this is the first time women have been able to shape their own lives, and they are electing to be capable at it. I realize that men are at the top in many fields, but women are nipping at their heels in many fields.

          I figure crap out all the damn time. I problem solve and troubleshoot in a male dominated field. I fix their mistakes, LMAO.

          http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
          Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
            I figure crap out all the damn time. I problem solve and troubleshoot in a male dominated field. I fix their mistakes, LMAO.
            I used to have a job where I spent a lot of the time at the copy machine. I ended up training a few male PhDs to use the advanced features of the copy machine, like two-sided or collation.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
              This discussion is heading into the realm of the distasteful.
              Heading there? I think the bus arrived at the terminal somewhere around page 5.
              be the hair that knots with my hair
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              primal since oct. 1, 2012

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by little vase View Post
                Heading there? I think the bus arrived at the terminal somewhere around page 5.
                That was more airing of personal opinions. While many were IMO horribly limited and misaligned, that doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. People are entitled to personal opinions. For example, my personal opinion is that mr. Alpha complex have managed to come across as a major jerk, but it's within his right to be one if he so wishes. If nothing else it made for an interesting discussion.

                However, it's not within his right to make personal insults which is where we are currently heading. Don't even go there.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                  ? Are you serious? Now that women have been offered the opportunity,they are excelling in creative and technological fields. Sure they may not compete directly with men athletically, but many women also seek achievement in that endeavour.

                  I think this is the first era historically where 1. women don't have to have children, and 2. we can outsource child care which means this is the first time women have been able to shape their own lives, and they are electing to be capable at it. I realize that men are at the top in many fields, but women are nipping at their heels in many fields.

                  I figure crap out all the damn time. I problem solve and troubleshoot in a male dominated field. I fix their mistakes, LMAO.
                  You are talking about a change though. From primeval to early agricultural to early urban to early industrial to modern urban... The quantity of the population was a limited number such that each person must use their skills most efficiently for the entire group to succeed. If you have 30 people and 15 are women, yes...maybe all 30 could hunt. That's not a successful strategy though. The separation of duties has dictated that women do different jobs most of the time. It's only in very, very recent history that we've had such an incredible amount of technology in many fields which support far more jobs than the world has ever had. Now, to extend the metaphor, maybe 5 of those women get to be hunters. If the human race lives with this advanced technology for thousands of years, then I would agree that the roles will totally shift.

                  Men and women share genes. If men develop a trait that makes them fitter, there's a good chance women will show that trait too if they have the same chromosome. Genetically, could females technically all rise to as much power? I couldn't answer that scientific question. I can only speak empirically of history in which women, as a whole, have not succeeded even a fraction as much as men in the fields which men succeed at.

                  The basic difference that makes men different from men is their role in human social structure and how they rise to power within it.
                  Men rise for different reasons that women rise. If a woman rises using the same strategy that a man does, that to me is male behavior. It's mostly just not witnessed in females. That is my empirical definition, not a definition of genetic potential.

                  Maybe there is a genetic reason men are more powerful via creativity and competence. I have issued my rational thought path for how that could have come about. But that is only a hypothesis. The empirical experiments for the genetic basis are just beginning. It's only been a few decades so far in which technology has overridden the need for efficient social structure.
                  Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-16-2013, 07:17 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
                    But... but... what if I want to be a moose? :< I think moose are much cooler than sheep. Are you discriminating against the moose?! > That's racist!

                    Pal, I'm sorry to say this but you sound like your main parental figure in life was a book about the Game. I really don't mind you living in that world if you so like it. But please don't take it to the world of personal insults with people you don't know. This discussion is heading into the realm of the distasteful.
                    You should read Nietzsche sometime. His ideas are naturally going to be heretical to a bunch of Marxists.

                    Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
                    That was more airing of personal opinions. While many were IMO horribly limited and misaligned, that doesn't bother me as much as it probably should. People are entitled to personal opinions. For example, my personal opinion is that mr. Alpha complex have managed to come across as a major jerk, but it's within his right to be one if he so wishes. If nothing else it made for an interesting discussion.

                    However, it's not within his right to make personal insults which is where we are currently heading. Don't even go there.
                    Personal insults? Sorry that you feel offended by the truth. Go ahead and be an ostrich. Put your head in the sand...
                    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-16-2013, 07:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by suzyq View Post
                      LOL Wow, I don't know what woman screwed you over but seriously get over it. You shouldn't make generalization on an entire gender based on a few of them. I have known plenty of men that were complete bastards but I don't blame all men for them being wastes of human beings.
                      I'm not saying all women are this way. I'm saying that is the difference on average. The trend.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cierra
                        Wait, I thought this thread was supposed to be about how modern culture has changed our ideas of what is attractive versus what it would have naturally been, in the Paleolithic era/way back when.... not a discussion about feminism, female capacity, or anything of the like... I am honestly confused. Are all of you saying that now that women are becoming more culturally and socially equivalent to males in our society, they are becoming less attractive? More attractive?

                        And for the record, I disagree with the statement earlier about people being able to freely choose their role in society. There are some circumstances when you are destined -- by family, financial situations, or environmental surroundings -- to just be stuffed into the role of an alpha, or even stuffed into the role of a beta, or omega, what have you.

                        As far as the original topic goes, I believe in what someone said a bit earlier in the thread: the most difficult status to achieve is always going to be the most attractive. Right now, with the obesity "epidemic" going on, the majority of the population strive to be unnaturally thin, with muscles that cut like knives. However, decades back, whenever the majority of the population had to work day in and day out to sustain themselves, a soft, pale body was ideal.
                        I don't know if anyone has ever seen the movie "Phat Girlz" (yep, with Mo'nique, a super cheesy chick flick) but it was about this group of girls who were large, obese even. They struggled to maintain a poor body shape, at best, while their stick thin, physically fit cousin got any dude she wanted. But one day, they went on a cruise, and met these doctors from another culture, who were very much interested in a woman with curves. They traveled to this place (somewhere in Africa?) and they were idolized by all of the most prestigious men in the city, while the stick thin girl was treated much like a servant, and often ridiculed for her "boyish" body. It just goes to show you, that even in modern times, people seek what their specific culture is taught to think what the most beautiful and desirable woman/person is. Or.... maybe I'm just rambling. :P
                        Social equivalence does not make women less attractive to me. That's part of what I said about accepting feminism as good.

                        I don't get what you mean about people being free to choose their role in society. Who said that? In any case, humans have a capability to do whatever they want as sentient beings. Whether they choose to overcome all obstacles on that path or not is another discussion.

                        I think you're off base that the most difficult status to achieve is the most attractive. You're looking at a pure correlation, not a causation. As I said earlier, the vast majority of women are attractive to me. I am generally not choosing to be with a female or not depending upon their looks. The personality ends up being the deciding factor. Females have many suitors available. They are mainly weaving through them for power (alpha status) as the attractive force. Girls may like sweet guys, but that's not attraction. That's just friendship.

                        I agree that people are easily swayed by culture though. This can totally override any natural instinct. The above paragraph is more concerned with what the natural instincts are.

                        Comment


                        • Beauty is only skin deep. But ugly goes clear to the bone.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            You should read Nietzsche sometime. His ideas are naturally going to be heretical to a bunch of Marxists.



                            Personal insults? Sorry that you feel offended by the truth. Go ahead and be an ostrich. Put your head in the sand...
                            Nope! I'll just be a moose instead!
                            I have read Nietzsche. I don't, however, understand why he's relevant to what we're even talking about.

                            And I agree, this discussion have gone way out of hand. Personally I agree with the idea that the most difficult body type will be the most attractive one. It suggests a different upbringing from the masses - if workers are hardy and stringy, a noble would have a comparably soft body. In medieval Europe, obesity and paleness was trendy because this was something a working class person could never achieve, while nobles could strive toward this ideal. If you look at old paintings of high-ranking people you'll notice an absence of scars, marring and grit, which was 'reserved' for the commoners and the working class. Today the 'gritty' look is becoming popular among movie characters and pop stars and whatever have you, for many reasons beside this one.

                            Comment


                            • The basic difference that makes men different from men is their role in human social structure and how they rise to power within it.
                              Men rise for different reasons that women rise. If a woman rises using the same strategy that a man does, that to me is male behavior. It's mostly just not witnessed in females. That is my empirical definition, not a definition of genetic potential.
                              I think it is more about culture then genetics, and probably always has been. Completely depends on the culture regarding what is valued.
                              I do see where women with valued looks can rise quickly in a society....but they fall mighty fast when the looks fade. To keep power, they need to back it up with other attributes.

                              http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
                              Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

                              Comment


                              • Just one mans perspective- the woman 99% of the time picks the mate and why she makes that choice is a mystery to all men.
                                Raise grass fed bison all natural. trying to gage this comunity to see if their is any intrest?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X