[QUOTE=Marley23]
I think you are starting from some mistaken assumptions - like the idea that nature has goals, and the idea that there is a preferred outcome. If the species survives, it survives: when people need more children, they have them.
“Should” and “wrong” in terms of what?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not indulging in a naive anthropomorphism when I refer to mother nature. By mother nature’s goals, I am referring to the observed tendency of life to grow in complexity and numbers while evolving to occupy all the niches available to it. Each species may or may not survive based on its adaptability, gene variety (monocultures are bad for that reason) and efficiency. Survival is nature’s goal and, as a species, we like having babies so that humans don’t go extinct. Call it instinct, call it nature, whatever. It is possible that life might all be a meaningless, very complex chemical reaction with a tendency to continue slowly burning everything in its path, much like fire.
Should and wrong in terms of what their innate taste skews towards. For instance, I hate shrimp and most seafood because they just don’t taste good to me. I, however, recognize that fish is healthy and shrimps , lobsters and crabs could have easily been delicious for me and, if I could, I would most certainly have been much happier liking them. For others, it may be lactose intolerance or loving the taste of harmful foods, etc.
Again, remember that I’m just talking about our instincts. Most of us still find all insects icky and are scared by spiders/wasps/cockroaches/ad infinitum, though the insects remaining nowadays most certainly are not the threat they might have been long ago. I’d probably be better off finding them delicious looking (the ones that are healthy to eat) and if tomorrow, insects were the only viable source of protein, future me will be very pissed that he can’t help but finding them disgusting looking and eating them with reluctance. And insects are a bad example, our ancestors have eaten them in the past so our instincts are not that powerful. The urge for procreation, on the other hand, is as old as life itself and is the first instinct a “new species” has.
[QUOTE=steronz]
Is this even true? Serious question. While my wife is attracted to men of all ages, by far the majority of guys she swoons over (myself excluded, of course) are older, often much older. Even a guy 20 to 30 years older doesn’t automatically set off “eww, he’s old” alarms. However, a guy 5 years younger almost always sets off “eww, he’s a kid” alarms. While there is indeed the occasional Stella Got Her Groove Back moment, her tastes definitely skew towards older men – Brad Pitt, Pierce Brosnan, etc. I think it was only 10 years ago or so that the likes of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery were the cream of the crop.
Of course, the old guys still have to be attractive and not fat, but I think women are much more forgiving in those areas.
[/QUOTE]
We agree.
There are many women who like older guys just fine. This is consistent with the trend in nature for human mothers (and most females of other species) to prioritize their offspring’s survival over their own and a man’s age does not seem to affect the quality of his sperm (and genes) much, despite the extra years the testicles were exposed to natural radiation.
As a lifelong bachelor, slacker, cynic, and (largely frustrated) lover of women, this topic of discussion makes me want to get roaring drunk and throw things at the walls.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
I think your assertion that women don’t actually feel attracted to ORUP is flawed. Most women I know tend to find men more (or less) attractive, physically, based on their non-physical characteristics (sense of humor, ambition, etc.). Sure, some will settle for a millionaire grandpa they’re repulsed by, but just because you or others don’t find someone obviously attractive doesn’t mean their SO is fooling herself.
I’m also not on board with your criteria. Strong? Have you seen any skinny hipsters lately? Attractive? Okay, symmetry, but there are quite a few joli-laid celeb men out there. Young? Not if you look at these stats (though I don’t doubt this will change as women become more financially iindependent. Older woman-younger man couplings may be more common now – I have no idea – but it’s my impression that the women are looking for a fling, not a babydaddy).
[/QUOTE]
So, the school president and the class clown get laid more than the football team?
That may be a bit unfair, I’m sure that, as women grow older and more experienced, they form more associations (ex bf was great and skinny and previous one was big and mean? maybe she’ll find skinny guys more sexy afterwards, even though the two traits are not necessarily related). I’ve never said instinct was everything. I’m just saying that the clear tendency is for it to be wrong in the current human environment.
If nature has an aim, it’s variety, so everybody should be getting some nookie.
Helen Fisher wrote something to the effect that divorce stats from many cultures reflect a “four year itch.” That is, divorce rates seem to peak at that point. One inference is that when we were more primitive, it took about four years for the child to become weaned, ambulatory, etc. and then daddy was outta there.
By that logic, the guy doesn’t have to be a young buck. Unless a man looks like he’s ready to croak in the next four years, he can stick around long enough to protect his “investment.” Of course if he knocks her up again in a couple years he’ll be around longer.
[QUOTE=Gozu]
I’ve never said instinct was everything. I’m just saying that the clear tendency is for it to be wrong in the current human environment.
[/QUOTE]
Even if I lay aside my previous objections to your approach, it still looks illogical to me. If we say that all women “should” make the choices that lead to the most offspring and the greatest chance of those offspring living long enough to produce offspring, modern society has neutralized the differences. Advanced countries generally guarantee everybody the basic needs for survival. Hence personal wealth won’t affect survival one way or the other.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I do not believe that any such attraction exists. Some urges are difficult to control, but there are none that people have no control over.
[/quote]
Well, I have no control over which women I feel immediately attracted to. And most people are like me. I said clearly I wasn’t talking about dating and relationships. Of course a loving husband thinks his wife is prettier the way a mother thinks her baby is gorgeous.
Wow. I don’t think anybody is going to buy that. Way to insult Bill Gates though The possible reasons are manifold. hehehe. That’s a good one.
I know all about all humans. Either that or I was talking about significant trends and never claiming there was no variation or exceptions. Generalizing is ok sometimes. Cats like milk. Dogs like bones. Women think Brad is sexy. I just mean it’s more likely than not, ok?
[QUOTE=Gozu]
So, the school president and the class clown get laid more than the football team?
[/quote]
I would guess that football players’ traditional success with women comes in no small part from the fact that football players enjoy a lot of status and prestige.
[QUOTE=Gozu]
There are many women who like older guys just fine. This is consistent with the trend in nature for human mothers (and most females of other species) to prioritize their offspring’s survival over their own and a man’s age does not seem to affect the quality of his sperm (and genes) much, despite the extra years the testicles were exposed to natural radiation.
[/QUOTE]
The higher-status thing I think has less to do with the quality of his genes than the amount of his status. Since human fertilization is concealed, women can get fertilized with genes of the young strong stud, thereby maximizing the quality of her child’s genes, and then she can pair off with the older, higher-status male to maximize the family’s security. Keep in mind these tendencies developed before proto-humans were fully aware of the fact of heredity, so a woman mating with multiple partners probably did not have the same consequences as it can now.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
[…]Nonetheless, you are trying to lecture women about why they should want certain men, so it ought to be clear why many women would be insulted by this sort of thing.
[/quote]
(I’ve already answered some of your claims in my previous answers so I’ll focus on the unanswered ones.)
No, I’m not. That is your erroneous interpretation. I’ve never even claimed that life, evolution or having lots of offsprings were good things.
No, there isn’t. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
If nature has an aim, it’s variety, so everybody should be getting some nookie.
[/quote]
Wrong. If you, as a man, are not obviously pulling some weight in life, you’re not going to be bundling up with anyone you can’t pay off by the night.
[QUOTE=lobotomyboy63]
If nature has an aim, it’s variety, so everybody should be getting some nookie.
Helen Fisher wrote something to the effect that divorce stats from many cultures reflect a “four year itch.” That is, divorce rates seem to peak at that point. One inference is that when we were more primitive, it took about four years for the child to become weaned, ambulatory, etc. and then daddy was outta there.
By that logic, the guy doesn’t have to be a young buck. Unless a man looks like he’s ready to croak in the next four years, he can stick around long enough to protect his “investment.” Of course if he knocks her up again in a couple years he’ll be around longer.
[/QUOTE]
Good points. I agree with what you said about nature. And that’s some fascinating info about the 4 years.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
The higher-status thing I think has less to do with the quality of his genes than the amount of his status. Since human fertilization is concealed, women can get fertilized with genes of the young strong stud, thereby maximizing the quality of her child’s genes, and then she can pair off with the older, higher-status male to maximize the family’s security. Keep in mind these tendencies developed before proto-humans were fully aware of the fact of heredity, so a woman mating with multiple partners probably did not have the same consequences as it can now.
[/QUOTE]
Holy cow. That’s fascinating. So a woman should have children from many different father to ensure variety yet hide the parentage so that the male wouldn’t kill those who aren’t his (why waste resources on someone else’s genes?).
Don’t certain species of birds do something similar? Put “alien” eggs in another bird’s nest?
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
The higher-status thing I think has less to do with the quality of his genes than the amount of his status. Since human fertilization is concealed, women can get fertilized with genes of the young strong stud, thereby maximizing the quality of her child’s genes, and then she can pair off with the older, higher-status male to maximize the family’s security. Keep in mind these tendencies developed before proto-humans were fully aware of the fact of heredity, so a woman mating with multiple partners probably did not have the same consequences as it can now.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you suppose that sexual jealousy is so universal in human nature? Seems to me that humans are aware of the problem you describe at a deep instinctual level.
Seems to me that a high status man who is very possessive of his woman is more likely to leave offspring than one who doesn’t care if she sleeps around.
[QUOTE=Gozu]
Holy cow. That’s fascinating. So a woman should have children from many different father to ensure variety yet hide the parentage so that the male wouldn’t kill those who aren’t his (why waste resources on someone else’s genes?).
[/quote]
Not exactly. It’s nothing to do with variety. Reproductive strategy is about the best ways to ensure that your own genes get passed onto future generations, and that has everything to do with fitness. Humans are not aware of variety at the levels where it makes any difference, but fitness is readily observable. The biggest, strongest, healthiest… and yes, also the status, because social ability and dominance also has a genetic factor. The best strategy for a woman is to find the genetically fittest mate who is also of high status and also a good nurturer. Failing that, since a woman has internal fertilization, she can try to mix and match for best results.
That is not to say there are not benefits in genetic variety, just that the factors that most influence it do not really enter into mating and courtship. People can’t really tell about the variety of the important genes at a macroscopic level, and in fact as social beings we evolved to shun those not like us for tribal reasons.
That is one example of cuckoldry in nature, and there are numerous others. It’s not a very original strategy.
[QUOTE=Beware of Doug]
Wrong. If you, as a man, are not obviously pulling some weight in life, you’re not going to be bundling up with anyone you can’t pay off by the night.
[/QUOTE]
some nookie…
Religious celibates aside, most people do get laid during their lifetime.
Most people do have children, although the pill etc. have provided control over it.
What is desirable or not, genetically, is subject to change. The gene for sickle cell anemia, for instance, probably survived because carriers have resistance to malaria.
Number of partners, frequency, offspring vary. But everybody plays.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
Why do you suppose that sexual jealousy is so universal in human nature? Seems to me that humans are aware of the problem you describe at a deep instinctual level.
[/quote]
Not at all. Many animals compete for sexual access to females with no idea whatsoever why they’re doing it. Do you think rams fighting over a female know they’re fighting over whether it’s their genes getting passed on instead of the other’s? Do you think gorillas get suspicious if their mates suddenly get pregnant? Of course not. The behavior is there because it helps genes get passed on, but that doesn’t mean anyone was aware of it until modern times. So sexual attitudes could have been looser in the past and probably were.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Also we should note that there’s no evidence that a woman’s genome affects who she’s attracted to.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. At the very least, we do know that women are attracted to men who are immune to different stuff, as shown by differences in their MHC, a genetically-coded protein complex.
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief]
The behavior is there because it helps genes get passed on, but that doesn’t mean anyone was aware of it until modern times. So sexual attitudes could have been looser in the past and probably were.
[/QUOTE]
But, as you note, there is no need to be aware. If the behavior confers an advantage, it should tend to be present. Males can be expected to attempt to impose strict sexual standards long before they have any cognitive awareness of what’s really happening. (To put in in brazil84’s terms, the awareness is instinctual).
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
If we say that all women “should” make the choices that lead to the most offspring and the greatest chance of those offspring living long enough to produce offspring, modern society has neutralized the differences.
[/QUOTE]
But today’s women are descended from women who made such choices - and from the men they chose.
