Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal attractiveness

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

  • Re the OP- human beings are hardwired for men to desire women with an hourglass figure (a little padding on the bottom is good for baby bearing) and women to desire men with the classic V shape. So I think what we naturally find attractive now is what they would have found attractive then...because it's been proven that the body shape we are naturally attracted to (as a general rule- I'm not going to address homosexuality or BBW, etc) was the body shape that was most fertile for baby making.
    High Weight: 225
    Weight at start of Primal: 189
    Current Weight: 174
    Goal Weight: 130

    Primal Start Date: 11/26/2012

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EagleRiverDee View Post
      Re the OP- human beings are hardwired for men to desire women with an hourglass figure (a little padding on the bottom is good for baby bearing) and women to desire men with the classic V shape. So I think what we naturally find attractive now is what they would have found attractive then...because it's been proven that the body shape we are naturally attracted to (as a general rule- I'm not going to address homosexuality or BBW, etc) was the body shape that was most fertile for baby making.
      But if you go back a hundred years or so in western history, the hour-glass shape was NOT the most desired shape in women. The pear-shape was.

      I don't think it ever boiled down to a body type that was specifically attractive for the human race as a whole. This is probably something that is at least partially influenced by ideals of other people. If a lot of people start wearing converse for example, even more people will catch up on it. If a lot of skinny chicks end up portrayed as the ultimate body type, people are going to start thinking that skinny chicks is the hottest thing there is. There are aways trends, and I just wish I didn't just compare the human body with clothes... but there is probably some sort of connection.

      Comment


      • Wilton really? Women are not more emotional, it is simply more acceptable for women to express their emotions in our society. My ex was far more emotional than I am and my fiancee and I are equally adept at controling and appropriately expressing emotion. Ie not crying yelling etc.

        Almost 40% of women make more than their husbands. Women traditionally didn't have as much success in the career world because society gave them the job of taking care of the family/kids. Now with the options of not having children or outsourcing the care women are becoming as successful as men. I work in the male dominated feild of investments and I am a top performer. I am in my twenties and make six figures. I have always excelled at math and sience and been very competitive. I think you have a very antiquated few kof women and society in general.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by foodiegoneprimal View Post
          Wilton really? Women are not more emotional, it is simply more acceptable for women to express their emotions in our society. My ex was far more emotional than I am and my fiancee and I are equally adept at controling and appropriately expressing emotion. Ie not crying yelling etc.

          Almost 40% of women make more than their husbands. Women traditionally didn't have as much success in the career world because society gave them the job of taking care of the family/kids. Now with the options of not having children or outsourcing the care women are becoming as successful as men. I work in the male dominated feild of investments and I am a top performer. I am in my twenties and make six figures. I have always excelled at math and sience and been very competitive. I think you have a very antiquated few kof women and society in general.
          No, I think the modern, politcally correct view that all sexes (among other things such as races) are equal is a bunch of daisies. Cute but zero strength behind it. I believe in human achievement, progression, evolution, growth from point A to point B, the Ubermensch, the over-man... People that believe all things are equal are applying Marxist thought that squashes all growth in its path.

          I'm of the belief that there should be equal rights of course. That is a bit modern, you might say, but it's really in the spirit of the constitution. There's a difference between equal rights and equal abilities or attributes. The government should not be there to guide humans in all that they do, again as the Marxism camp tends to desire. The government is to prevent anarchy by ensuring the protection of certain liberties against enemies foreign and domestic. I'm getting way off track now.
          Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-18-2013, 03:55 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
            I'm getting way off track now.
            "Getting"?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
              "Getting"?
              You have to flesh all of these details out when you're dealing with dualities. If you're not specific, people will argue all day with one side's argument not truly even contradicting the other.

              It's like someone says "I like cow"
              Someone goes: "milk is bad for you!"
              Another says: "but beef has tons of nutrients!"
              Another says: "cows smell horrible"
              Another says: "they're very sweet to me when I pet them"
              Another says: "I love bullriding at the rodeo"
              Another says: "my family has raised cows for 4 generations now, and I don't plan on stopping any time soon"
              Another says: "cows contribute to too much carbon waste in the air from their flatulence"
              Another says: "if you ferment their dairy, it's healthy and tasty"
              Another says: "I read their hormones can be absorbed by humans, so it's bad in all forms"
              Another says: "but the high quality fat is still great"
              Another says: "milk is really good after a workout because it raises insulin which sends nutrients to the muscles"
              Another says: "but milk makes your teeth rot"
              Another says: "my experiences with cows have been that they're always ornery"
              Another says: "they mow my fields for me, so I like them"
              Another says: "I feel bad for all the factory farmed cows, so I don't support those companies"

              Where exactly have you gotten with this argument??? Language is a huge limiter of conversation if one is not careful.
              Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-18-2013, 04:05 PM.

              Comment


              • To the newcomers to the OP's point, I still say a healthy male does not care about how a female looks. As long as she is reasonably healthy, he will mount her. This choicey look at female looks has more to do with a culture obsessed with monogamy and making money off female insecurities.

                It's the female who will care about how the male looks because that's one factor in determining the genetic makeup which she is choosing for her kids. The male's genetic continuity is virtually inexhaustible in a primitive setting (the one our brains are most evolved and geared to) because he can have as many wives as he's able to achieve, basically.

                In a monogamous setting, the male has to consider which female he will choose to best continue his genes. This is because he is now investing in just one egg basket (literally). This is not a natural choice for him, so he's less evolved to make that decision.
                Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-18-2013, 04:12 PM.

                Comment


                • You're such a romantic wilton.

                  I don't know how old you are, but you come across as fairly young in your posts, and certain that you know much more than everyone else.

                  In a primitive setting men didn't even know that they were fathers. At the end of the day, it only really matters if you consider your children or your partner to be your property.
                  Last edited by magicmerl; 03-18-2013, 04:30 PM.
                  Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                  Griff's cholesterol primer
                  5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                  Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                  TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                  bloodorchid is always right

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                    In a monogamous setting, the male has to consider which female he will choose to best continue his genes. This is because he is now investing in just one egg basket (literally). This is not a natural choice for him, so he's less evolved to make that decision.
                    From an evolutionary standpoint he'd have a better chance staying with his kids and making sure they don't die like flies... or that the female kill it off for that matter, which was probably not such an unlikely outcome if she didn't have the necessary support to rear it.

                    There's also the fact that there's a limited amount of women in a tribal setting. Women gossip for a reason you know - if a man becomes a dad and ditch his offspring, his chances with the ladies have subsequently diminished. Not to mention that he might as well get everybody against him if he knock up their daughters and sisters without taking on the expected responsibility. Just saying, today people can just disappear in the crowd of cities and never have to meet again, but that wasn't quite as easy when you needed the support of a tribe in order to survive. Just switching tribes would've been a risky affair, too.

                    It's not that you are entirely wrong in everything you say - it's just that it's all a wholly lot more complicated than the point you are trying to prove. For serious.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                      You're such a romantic wilton.

                      I don't know how old you are, but you come across as fairly young in your posts, and certain that you know much more than everyone else.

                      In a primitive setting men didn't even know that they were fathers. At the end of the day, it only really matters if you consider your children or your partner to be your property.
                      Romance is defined as breaking a rule and going your own way (as Romeo and Juliet loved despite their warring families), so I'll take that as a compliment. Every man fears the day he loses that energy and dangerousness to do so. I'd much rather stay young and romantic (even though you said it jest) and dangerous! And get wiser.
                      Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-18-2013, 11:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Reindeer View Post
                        From an evolutionary standpoint he'd have a better chance staying with his kids and making sure they don't die like flies... or that the female kill it off for that matter, which was probably not such an unlikely outcome if she didn't have the necessary support to rear it.

                        There's also the fact that there's a limited amount of women in a tribal setting. Women gossip for a reason you know - if a man becomes a dad and ditch his offspring, his chances with the ladies have subsequently diminished. Not to mention that he might as well get everybody against him if he knock up their daughters and sisters without taking on the expected responsibility. Just saying, today people can just disappear in the crowd of cities and never have to meet again, but that wasn't quite as easy when you needed the support of a tribe in order to survive. Just switching tribes would've been a risky affair, too.

                        It's not that you are entirely wrong in everything you say - it's just that it's all a wholly lot more complicated than the point you are trying to prove. For serious.
                        Well, I've read a decent amount about the tribal lifestyle. The consensus is that parents do not raise kids. The whole tribe raises the kids. Since they don't have our concept of property, everyone is going to get the same food and health care too.

                        -There were no deadbeat dads because there is nowhere to go for the father, and the whole tribe is supporting that mother anyways.
                        -There's also no need to make sure your kid doesn't die like a fly. If the kid is weak and frail, the father can't do much anyways.
                        -I don't see kids being killed very frequently. They didn't have abortion, so you're telling me a woman is going to live 9 months with this parasite and eat all the extra food and invest all the extra time in order for her and the baby to stay healthy....and then just cast it aside without a legitimate cause? My understanding is that pregnancy is extremely exhausting, and women get attached to their babies on top of that. There are some examples of infanticide in tribes, but that was a rare cultural thing found in a few places. Furthermore, take into account the infant mortality rate in a tribal setting. It's so high that any excessive infanticide would surely mean the end of your tribe.
                        Last edited by wiltondeportes; 03-18-2013, 11:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          When I said wild, I was referring to tribal living. When I say sheepdog, I refer to responsibility of self, ethical responsibility of others, and non-ignorant awareness of the world, not anything requiring complex thought (although that COULD be something a sheepdog does).

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Reindeer, you have my permission to be a moose.

                            Wilton, grow up. Get the hell out of your head and experience the world. There's more to the world than what you read in a book (and this is coming from a literature major).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Primal Moose View Post
                              Reindeer, you have my permission to be a moose.

                              Wilton, grow up. Get the hell out of your head and experience the world. There's more to the world than what you read in a book (and this is coming from a literature major).
                              What is growing up? Is it learning of ethics? Learning of how the world works? Please define so we can discuss.

                              Comment


                              • I'd define it as gaining wisdom.
                                Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                                Griff's cholesterol primer
                                5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                                Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                                TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                                bloodorchid is always right

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X