MrsNoelEdmonds Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 You think we're somehow better than other animals? We are more complex than other animals. To make broad generalisations about women 'choosing' partners on the basis of ' natural selection' is pretty demeaning actually. Or maybe some of you here actually think that us wimmin are mere animals?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 We are more complex than other animals. To make broad generalisations about women 'choosing' partners on the basis of ' natural selection' is pretty demeaning actually. Or maybe some of you here actually think that us wimmin are mere animals?!! Humans are animals that have been forged in the unforgiving crucible of evolution no more or less than any other. Do you seriously contest the above general fact, irrespective of whether or not you would take issue with specifically anything else posted here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Yes, but billy joel is rich and famous and creative. Tonnes of women with ugly rich guys. The ones i posted perplexed me as the women are the 'breadwinners' I think Billy Joel went bust from suing his manager, and she still has to work for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsNoelEdmonds Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 If you wish to take a different position then show logically specifically where you think my posts on this subject are erroneous. Provide an alternative explanation. I am all ears. Why would you think that I think your posts were erroneous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsNoelEdmonds Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Humans are animals that have been forged in the unforgiving crucible of evolution no more or less than any other. Do you seriously contest the above general fact, irrespective of whether or not you would take issue with specifically anything else posted here? So you don't think that human relationships are any more complex than other mammals? That us wimmin are merely at the mercy of pheromones and whether or not you big, strong men can 'provide' for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Why would you think that I think your posts were erroneous? See your earlier post, below.... It always fascinates me how closet misogynists invoke 'darwninian selection' in order to shore up their spurious claims..... I took "spurious" to be synonymous with "erroneous". if it helps your understanding I will rephrase the question. Where specifically do you consider what I have posted on this thread to be spurious? What alternative explanation do you have for the statistically observed facts of human male/female relationships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 So you don't think that human relationships are any more complex than other mammals? That us wimmin are merely at the mercy of pheromones and whether or not you big, strong men can 'provide' for us? You seem to have some issues here that are all your own judging by the rather childish use of the word "wimmin" and the generally adolescently indigant tone of the rest of your post. I have not made any statement that could in any way be construed in the silly fashion you describe. If you believe I have, then please point it out. If you can't then you really do need to try and post in a more adult fashion. Better still, provide an alternative explanation of the statistically observed facts of human male/female relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 You think we're somehow better than other animals? Yes. Superior, in fact because we're not animals. I hope you didn't get a runny nose from running around in your fabricated wetsuit as you tried to save that terminally ill whale who just wanted to die on the beach. And then to have to drive home to mummy in your lemon yellow internal combustion car while listening to the Hallelujah Chorus on the second hand stereo system (you switched over from the weather report) and wait for the central heating to warm up mummy's tiled kitchen. The trials of nature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Yes. Superior, in fact because we're not animals. I hope you didn't get a runny nose from running around in your fabricated wetsuit as you tried to save that terminally ill whale who just wanted to die on the beach. And then to have to drive home to mummy in your lemon yellow internal combustion car while listening to the Hallelujah Chorus on the second hand stereo system (you switched over from the weather report) and wait for the central heating to warm up mummy's tiled kitchen. The trials of nature! How on earth do you connect the above to an assertion that humans are not animals? Are you a creationist? What do you think humans are if not animals? To be honest, I can't actually believe in an educated population in the beggining of the twenty first century, the above question needs to be put. Actually I can believe it. It's just rather depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I think you should look round more at the people you know rather than the vacuous rich and famous! Most blokes are no matinee idols, and the women aren't calendar girls either! Most people look "pretty much OK", and aren't living with their partner either their for looks or money! I personally would prefer an ex-model brewery heiress! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I think you should look round more at the people you know rather than the vacuous rich and famous! Most blokes are no matinee idols, and the women aren't calendar girls either! Most people look "pretty much OK", and aren't living with their partner either their for looks or money! I personally would prefer an ex-model brewery heiress! What constitutes power and wealth will vary considerably according to the economic and cultural context. In short, money is not always the metric of power and wealth. As for looks, again this is context bound. Within any given pool of potential mates humans will, all other things being equal, tend to choose mates that most closely match their own percieved level of physical attractiveness. Additionally, as I mentioned up thread, looks tend to figure more highly in men's calculations than they do in women's. "Looks" being an indirect index of reproductive fittness. Let me put it another way. If reproductive fittness in women was indirectly physically indexed by goofy teeth, a huge nose and severe acne, then men would tend to find these physical attributes extremely attractive. As it happens, reproductive fittnesss is indirectly indexed by wide hips, large breasts etc. Thus men, on the average, tend to find these attributes extremely attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anorthosite Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 How did this: Get this: ? With the ability to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jy0YmvGc6o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 With the ability to do this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7Jy0YmvGc6o Because this http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7Jy0YmvGc6o is exchangable for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 What constitutes power and wealth will vary considerably according to the economic and cultural context. In short, money is not always the metric of power and wealth. As for looks, again this is context bound. Within any given pool of potential mates humans will, all other things being equal, tend to choose mates that most closely match their own percieved level of physical attractiveness. Additionally, as I mentioned up thread, looks tend to figure more highly in men's calculations than they do in women's. "Looks" being an indirect index of reproductive fittness. Let me put it another way. If reproductive fittness in women was indirectly physically indexed by goofy teeth, a huge nose and severe acne, then men would tend to find these physical attributes extremely attractive. As it happens, reproductive fittnesss is indirectly indexed by wide hips, large breasts etc. Thus men, on the average, tend to find these attributes extremely attractive. Very true. This is why the local hard man quite often has a stunner for a bird too. He may not be rich, but he is powerful, and the surrounding males and females know it. Hence he is more attractive to the local females. I also don't understand why so many birds take offence when you point out that many go for power in men ? It make sense. If I were a bird I would probably do the same. I don't see why it is a cause of argument/anger ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Yes. Superior, in fact because we're not animals. I hope you didn't get a runny nose from running around in your fabricated wetsuit as you tried to save that terminally ill whale who just wanted to die on the beach. And then to have to drive home to mummy in your lemon yellow internal combustion car while listening to the Hallelujah Chorus on the second hand stereo system (you switched over from the weather report) and wait for the central heating to warm up mummy's tiled kitchen. The trials of nature! We're not animals? So we're not covered in hair, give birth to live young and feed them with milk made by the mother's body? That's what mammals do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reck B Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 We're not animals? So we're not covered in hair, give birth to live young and feed them with milk made by the mother's body? That's what mammals do. or nestlé Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 We're not animals? So we're not covered in hair, give birth to live young and feed them with milk made by the mother's body? That's what mammals do. OK. That's the positive definition. What about the negative - what is is that mammals don't do that humans do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 OK. That's the positive definition. What about the negative - what is is that mammals don't do that humans do? There are no positive and negative definitions. Mammals have those characteristics. We have those characteristics. Therefore we are mammals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 OK. That's the positive definition. What about the negative - what is is that mammals don't do that humans do? This is obfuscatory silliness and is akin to asking wht is it that lions do that mice don't as if whatever differences that may be pointed out somehow demonstrate that mice (or lions) do not belong to the same genus. What exactly are you getting at? If it is that humans have a particularly large brain, then of course this is so. In what way do you think this magically removes us from the genus of mammals, or more generally, from the kingdom of animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Relationship with ugly man = not so ugly woman or vice versa does surely indicate BIG differences with each other but we must understand that they have reasons why they stick with each other. The differences are not so great if you understand them in terms of the man and woman merely pursuing different strategies in order to achieve the same objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 We are more complex than other animals. To make broad generalisations about women 'choosing' partners on the basis of ' natural selection' is pretty demeaning actually. Or maybe some of you here actually think that us wimmin are mere animals?!! Well derek always calls his missus, Racquel "A silly mare" Horses for courses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Nobody has come up with the idea that if the woman is way out of the man's league then she gets all of the power in the relationship because the man knows that if he leaves her he will probably never get a woman as attractive again . No - the male thought process: "If I can bang this one I could well bang her tidy pal with the massive chebs - she has always been gagging on me" The above is not a joke. Us lot actually think this way. I hope this is not some magic circle and I have released all the secrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Nobody has come up with the idea that if the woman is way out of the man's league then she gets all of the power in the relationship because the man knows that if he leaves her he will probably never get a woman as attractive again . Firstly, I am personally reluctant to talk of power differentials in male/female relationships unless there are distinct and unambiguous cultural practices evidencing this (of which, of course, there are many in a number of cultures). The reason I say the above is down to the fact of why men and women are attracted to one another in the first place. Statistically, at least, in the end it fundamentally comes down to reproductive success. If each of the sexes involved in a given relationship achieve that fundamental objective then each has, in a sense, excercised an equitable degree of power. Of course, humans (alongside some of our primate cousins) also engage in sexual relationships for bonding purposes that are not directly implicated in reproduction. Although, this is a fascinating aspect in itself of our behaviour as a species, I would still argue that it is ancilliary to the central underpinnings of long-term matings except insofar as it help to keep those relationsips cemented and, in doing so, help to maintain those matings during the rearing of offspring. In this sense, non-reproductively driven sexual behaviour is still indirectly implicated in reproductive success. As for circumstances where the woman is overtly and obviously out of the league of a given man, I would like to un-pick this a little. By "out of her league" we need to establish whether we are talking about physical, psychological or material factors. I would suggest that if we were to strip away the material and pychological and leave only the physical in a given man and endow the woman with all three of these factors, she is faairly unlikely to engage in a long term mating with such a man. Or, at least, if she does, it is unlikely to be stable because of all the reasons I have previously posted. I think we both know that the observational evidence shows that whilst the above type of relationship is pretty uncommon, when the sexes are reversed, it is not so uncommon at all. Having said all of the above, I am quite happy to report myself as being something of an exception to the statistical rule. Give me a sexy mind any day (as long as she doesn't look like my mum or sport a moustache). Though, I am bound to admit, if I'm honest, that big curvy hips and breasts are always a bonus... In any event, the looks will always fade, in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Wow. I really thought that the men who were batting well out of their league would realise this and that's why they stay with mental girls who are fit. No - they stay with mental girls simply because they are shit scared of them and what they may do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 This is obfuscatory silliness and is akin to asking wht is it that lions do that mice don't as if whatever differences that may be pointed out somehow demonstrate that mice (or lions) do not belong to the same genus. What exactly are you getting at? If it is that humans have a particularly large brain, then of course this is so. In what way do you think this magically removes us from the genus of mammals, or more generally, from the kingdom of animals. No, it's perfectly logical. Oh wait - mammals don't do logic. Other things that mammals don't do: speech, music, art, technology. And this above all - love. Return to your dung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.