[Split] A discussion about evolution and relationships etc.

Post Reply New Topic

Psychology is really a part of biology, because it's all to do with your brain and your brain is a biological organ. 'Tis all biology anyway.

So now, all of a sudden, most women don't care much for height, for whether a man is financially secure, and so on?

Well, true, most won't care for such factors above if they see other qualities that indicate high security and status. But at the end of the day, most women are quite alike when it comes to mere sexual attraction.

Do you want a wimp to be your husband? If not, then you're not as unusual as you may think you are.

God, I cannnot bear to read such insult anymore!

I am sorry for my blasphemy if you are a Critistian....

I am not a slave to biology either. Have any of you reading my posts carefully? Or everybody just have read his quotation????

I have never have stereotypes to any of you. Why I have to suffer various, numerous sterotypes from all of you now?

Plese have a little bit consideration to others.

Thank you very much for if you would like to do so, madame.

I would not date a man if he is not rich enough and successful enough...These two can prove many things....

I definitely prefer Jean-Jacques Rousseau than Grimm or Diderot. Despite that the last two may more wealthy than Rousseau. Many capitalists can lack of romantic thoughts, have no interest in literature, do not think to much in facsinating philosophy... I would not even mention any more obscure things like linguistics, bibliographile, etc, because I would hardly imagine that they can do so. Especially typical US capitalists. I may feel a little bit cloyed when I trying to imagine such things. Although many experts can criticise Rousseau and we can state that he has many defects also, but he is always my favourite one.

But the conflict between idealism and reality then comes. It is not easy for me also. I have had such opinion before. But now I can see no harm to accept some universal value. I think the human nature, somehow,could apply to all.

Human being are all able to enjoy high thinking. Therefore, I can hardly state that all wealthy people must have lack of all these above. I would not accept merely 'a billionare industrialist' except that he would spiritually love me first. However, I can imagine that wealthy people may have not got too much emotions to spend, for all their attentions may on their job and they may not share attentions in thinking in-depth, concentrating on details, meditating, etc..
Wealth and social status can prove many things. It is a universal value which I cannot deny. Most things that we find simple now were great inventions in human history. Including Capitalism. I have never say that it is admirable. But I hope that we would be able to see it in different ways...

I have never want to have a debate with you. Debate itself is merely futile.

Anyway, I said my heart should be first in my concern. But everybody seems ignored it.

The last essential thing, to clear your opinion, I have never beg anybody and I will never beg for things. I would just let them go, to things that I cannot control. Or find a solution for things that I am willing to achieve. Beg itself is always useless in my opinion.

And I have not see the light of thinking from you yet. Emotion, Enthusiasm...Where has mutual understanding gone? Therefore, it is not my pity.

I can understand it is too fast and unreal, so such thing would hardly apply..I would not say more on this point, although I have many many more opinions. It should be private, but I cannot see the point to speak to you in private either.

I have much more to say then these. But I would not say anymore. It is already too long for anybody's patience. I think.

Adieu.

we probably have a different idea of what constitutes a wimp.

we are not quite alike in what constititues sexual attraction, or there would be cloned movie stars (Alan Rickman and Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt are nothing similar) and we would be fighting for the same man. and more than one type of man gets married.

financially secure? also open to debate. most people (women AND men) do want a partner who can take care of their own finances one way or another. that doesn't equal wealthy.

most women would be hard pressed to even FIND a man who was shorter than them, as on average men are much taller. personally i have never had the opportunity to date a shorter man, as they are rare. Nicole Kidman did, though.

high security and status is also open to debate. considering the high number of men who do eventually get married or have a long-term relationship, i supposed that every single one of those men must have high status and high potential security. the proof is in the pudding - most men pass on their genes, regardless of whatever factors you think are involved in mate selection.

A woman who chooses to marry someone doesn't mean she's primarily attracted to him above all others. But most of the time, the woman has to end up settling for someone she could have a good future with for the rest of her life (with her and with any potential kids).

In fact, a woman might marry someone she is not sexually attracted to in any way, just that he's a good partner willing to support her and her kids and do what she desires for her and the family. So she logically chooses to marry him. Not saying this is the case all the time, but it happens.

However, with all this, the subconscious doesn't go away. The prime attraction to men of high status will still be there, just that a woman doesn't necessarily feel she has to act upon it.

And high status can be manifested through many ways. It doesn't have to be through physical looks or money all the time. But there has to be some high status perceived in the man in order for women in general to be attracted to him.

So what am I arguing in the long run?

Don't know. Just that I'm making notes and expressing what I've learned and observed just for the sake of it.

Generally speaking:

A woman who chooses to marry someone doesn't mean she's primarily attracted to him above all others. But most of the time, the woman has to end up settling for someone she could have a good future with for the rest of her life (with her and with any potential kids).

In fact, a woman might marry someone she is not sexually attracted to in any way, just that he's a good partner willing to support her and her kids and do what she desires for her and the family. So she logically chooses to marry him. Not saying this is the case all the time, but it happens.

However, with all this, the subconscious doesn't go away. The prime attraction to men of high status will still be there, just that a woman doesn't necessarily feel she has to act upon it.

And high status can be manifested through many ways. It doesn't have to be through physical looks or money all the time. But there has to be some high status perceived in the man in order for women in general to be attracted to him.

So what am I arguing in the long run?

Don't know. Just that I'm making notes and expressing what I've learned and observed just for the sake of it.

Funny no matter what women say men define what women are attracted to....

This may sound shallow to you fellows but the first thing I'm going to notice is what he looks like then all falls into place though when it comes to looks, I'm not exactly as picky as you men.

Well I better. Got a job to do that makes a little extra pocket money requiring me to feed their animals and clean their house. Ba bye.

There's a lot of truth in MCalavera's words though:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... h-man.html

In 1970, 28% of wives in this age range had husbands who were better educated than they were, outnumbering the 20% whose husbands had less education. By 2007, these patterns had reversed: 19% of wives had husbands with more education, versus 28% whose husbands had less education. In the remaining couples -- about half in 1970 and 2007 -- spouses have similar education levels.