User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 104

  1. #71
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    Just a question (and sorry if this was already addressed- I didn't feel like reading back a few pages) how does the availability of birth control change these dynamics? Will some women, like some men, start going for quantity instead of quality?
    Yes.

  2. #72
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    Men have ability to have more babies than women
    which means that
    - Women go for quality
    - Men go for quantity
    This is the preference - with monogamy the norm (although I'd actually say it is a quasi-norm because there is an awful lot of cheating), these two things have influence, but are no longer the overall outcome of the mating scene. It's just an inclination that has ramifications.

    - They set the standard of the "desirable man"
    - The desirable men as a group show what is the kind of woman they prefer
    It isn't the men that set the desirable man, exactly... rather it is the traits themselves that make the male desirable to women, as a whole. The man is like a container of 'traits' that women want.

    Think of it through an evolutionary lens - the traits that women find desirable lead to that trait being passed more frequently to children, along with the desire of those traits. Likewise, traits that indicate better chance of survival tend to stay around to be noticed/found desirable.

    The popular men set the standard for what is desirable woman
    - If a man has to "settle for less" than the standard, is he unsuccessful?
    - Does the non-dominant male realize his place and "settle for less" automatically?
    Generally, speaking, yes. Guys do get rated on their mates a fair bit. However, any male that gets a female is successful, so the standard is a bit different.

    Even though males have an over-inflated sense of their mating worth, they do automatically adjust. It comes about naturally - if women think they can do better, they upgrade, leaving the male without a mate. This happens until a female agrees to be with the male.

    This also makes sense - a guy gains a lot by being overconfident (ie: it's a mate or lose situation for him!). It signals that he is 'dominant', he is expendable in the large picture, etc. Women, on the other hand, just want to optimize their mate.

    Role of a father is also important to consider
    - Why would a woman prefer a weaker man?
    - Are the non-dominant males doomed to be fathers of the dominant male's children?
    Generally, the logic would be that she cannot secure (or does not believe she can secure) a higher value male.

    Non-dominant males are not doomed to be fathers of the dominant males... it actually happens the other way around. The ideal strategy for a non-dominant male is to seduce dominant male's mate(s) and have the dominant male use his resources and abilities to raise the child (more successfully than a less dominant male). It also is effective because the female gains multiple genetic sources while preserving her status (and her children's status), and also can secure a second available mate if need be.

    Or so the theory goes, heh. Society makes reading our primitive tendencies rather... difficult.

  3. #73
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    Last I checked, Men still can't have babies.
    Heh, well, yeah. I don't know how I can say what I meant without the image of big-bellied Schwarzenegger popping in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    Women go for quality - they may go for it, but do they find it?
    In this case the quality means "a man that every woman supposedly wants". This isn't exactly what I personally think is quality, but in eyes of evolution it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    It is safe to assume in this and all other matters, that it is always harder for women.
    Why?

  4. #74
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Think of it through an evolutionary lens - the traits that women find desirable lead to that trait being passed more frequently to children, along with the desire of those traits. Likewise, traits that indicate better chance of survival tend to stay around to be noticed/found desirable.
    I think we can very narrow those traits down to being "successful" and something that the other women want. For example: Why would a young woman have a relationship with older man that has a lot of money. He has poor genes (older you get the less you have quality sperm) and the ability to make money is surely not up to genes anyways. There is (from evolution perspective) no reason for the girl to be with the man. (besides, old people are wrinkled ) So the man is successful, and that is the only thing that matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Non-dominant males are not doomed to be fathers of the dominant males... it actually happens the other way around. The ideal strategy for a non-dominant male is to seduce dominant male's mate(s) and have the dominant male use his resources and abilities to raise the child (more successfully than a less dominant male). It also is effective because the female gains multiple genetic sources while preserving her status (and her children's status), and also can secure a second available mate if need be.
    I really don't follow the logic here. The non-dominant has a reason to stick with the woman (he wouldn't have anyone else anyways) but the dominant is prone to go away hopping from bed to bed. Why would he want to secure someone else's children when he probably doesn't have time for his own children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hmm View Post
    You're right it doesn't however if someone feels attracted to many different types of mates then they may feel trapped and struggle within a commitment to just one type.
    Nah, I wouldn't worry about that. Sure many women can be pretty, but when youre with one you don't think about that until she leaves you..

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    This is called calculating concupiscence.
    You use such a hard vocabulary that I can hardly ever understand your point. Could you explain it with more simple words. (I actually checked the dictionary and I still find it very hard to get the meaning)

  5. #75
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolla View Post
    I think we can very narrow those traits down to being "successful" and something that the other women want. For example: Why would a young woman have a relationship with older man that has a lot of money. He has poor genes (older you get the less you have quality sperm) and the ability to make money is surely not up to genes anyways. There is (from evolution perspective) no reason for the girl to be with the man. (besides, old people are wrinkled ) So the man is successful, and that is the only thing that matters?
    There are two good reasons, though...

    1 - His success is likely related to his genes (ie: any success is a signal of good genes), even if age works against him

    2 - His resources ensure a high rate of survival for her children, allowing her genes to continue beyond her direct children.

    Keep in mind 'old' doesn't mean the same thing in evolutionary terms. When your life ends around 30, which may even be optimistic, "old" has a very different meaning! Sperm quality wouldn't of been a significant issue, most likely.

    All the male has to do is signal things that have worked in the past. The big two are money and status in the present, least in the long run. Younger males get away with being vastly overconfident (which in theory, signal future money and status, giving women the incentive to get them before they are 'out of reach')

    I really don't follow the logic here. The non-dominant has a reason to stick with the woman (he wouldn't have anyone else anyways) but the dominant is prone to go away hopping from bed to bed. Why would he want to secure someone else's children when he probably doesn't have time for his own children?
    Just to be clear - the goal here is to have the woman cheat on the dominant male so that the dominant male wouldn't know it wasn't his. That means the non-dominant male doesn't have to spend any resources raising the child, and the dominant male does.

    The reason why the equilibrium is reached is because if all males follow the 'sleep around' strategy, none can ensure their resources are properly directed to their children. It is always better for the high-resource groups to mate guard, and this always means that those without mates gain by poaching.

  6. #76
    homo-loving sonovagun anii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Enneagram
    9
    Socionics
    fuck
    Posts
    900

    Default

    "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf is a now classic that best addresses this issue.

    Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier. Just like Blacks and Latinos and just like _______ and _______.

    As long as there is a power differential and an inequitable distribution of power and wealth, marginalized groups will fight each other for resources.

    When they should really all just decide to join forces and fight the privileged group.

    Anyone for a Bloody Revolution?
    There's reason to be afraid, and reason to open your heart. ~ Seal

    Refreshment for your ears: www.kexp.org

  7. #77
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anii View Post

    Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at your arse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #78
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    1 - His success is likely related to his genes (ie: any success is a signal of good genes), even if age works against him

    2 - His resources ensure a high rate of survival for her children, allowing her genes to continue beyond her direct children.
    I can agree on number two. For some reason I find it very hard to believe that success is related to genes (in this world or the one we were evolved in). I can agree , though, that being unsuccessful can sometimes be because of bad genes. So I guess it is "playing it safe" to choose a successful mate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Just to be clear - the goal here is to have the woman cheat on the dominant male so that the dominant male wouldn't know it wasn't his. That means the non-dominant male doesn't have to spend any resources raising the child, and the dominant male does.
    Wait a minute. Isn't it like a statistical fact that men are the cheaters?

    Quote Originally Posted by anii View Post
    Women only compete with women for limited resources because they are on the bottom tier.

    As long as there is a power differential and an inequitable distribution of power and wealth, marginalized groups will fight each other for resources.
    Whoah... Good comment. You just took my mind off the genes and filled it with feminism. So, the question turns around into: How would the world be if women had the role of men in the society for, say, the last ten thousand years? Would the men now be obsessed with their looks (Does this "metrosexuality" thing imply that men have already lost their control )? Would it have been even theoretically possible for a society dominated by females to survive until this age? Are there any societies anywhere that are female-dominated?

    Damn, this conversation has been really something. I have had this revelation feeling for several times now.

    And, yeah, I'm up for a revolution.

  9. #79
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Oh no, ptgatsby trying again to understand how relationships work using logic, no no nooooo make him stop please

    This is true and why I pay no attention to what people say their preferences are anymore.
    Depends on how they have understood their preferences. Like if I say I like dark-haired girls because I've always liked brunettes so far, I am not creating an artificial preference, simply saying what my natural reactions are.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  10. #80
    Senor Membrane
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,190

    Default

    Oh, btw, what the fuck is this stuff:

    Similar Threads

    Cheer up! There are people worse off than you!
    The Artist's Worse Obstacle
    I just saw this in the bottom of this page. Those threads are not similar in any way... Who comes up with this stuff?

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] ENFP-When is it safe for Fi to come out?
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 11:06 PM
  2. [INFJ] Is it common for INFJ's to come out of abusive/neglectful homes?
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 09:27 PM
  3. Is it wise for a party to win this election?
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-16-2008, 11:54 AM
  4. Is it OK for a man to touch a woman's breast?
    By Sona in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-31-2007, 06:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO