Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have the laziest jobs going. They seek 'explanations' but don't have to look too far or too deeply. Any old paradigm will do as long as it sells a book that meets people's preconceived ideas.

Have you ever wondered why 'nature' didn't evolve capable human females who could provide for themselves? Why haven't these guys explained that?

It managed with many other species alright. Lionesses seem to get by hunting for themselves and no one messes with them (except other lionesses).

It evolved pack-rats too and magpies. Thieving little gits. And hyenas who scavange.

The explanations of the two profs above simply excuse, not explain. It countenances human behaviour with fancy pseudo-blessings. They lock men into the subserviant, protector, provider role and whack men around the ears as well in misandric fashion at the same time with 'rationales' for sowing wild oats.

Frankly, the laziness of these 'thinkers' dismays me. No real brain power is needed, as most people - even here on this board - just take what they say and agree.

It isn't even science as Popper's requirements for disprovability aren't even tried.

Some 'professions' are intellectually dishonest. I guess they have to start somewhere but these two are akin to 13th C medicine.

Quote from TERA

The dimorphism is also found in our behaviors. David Barash puts it so: "Males tend to be selected for salesmanship; females for sales resistance." Females have a great deal invested in any act of copulation: the limited number of offspring she can carry, the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, the increased nutritional requirements, the danger from predators...all serve to make the choice of a mate an important consideration. Males, on the other hand, can and do walk away from the consequences of copulation. Note, for example, the tendency of male frogs to try to mate with wading boots: As long as some sperm gets to where it should, the male is doing alright.

Some of the work of serious evolutionary psychologists is good. But this old saw about "females have a great deal invested" Is cowshit. They have to turn away from observed behavior to recite such nonsense.


Blessings

Bob

Quote from TERA

Sociobiologists an and evolutionary psychologists say that they have evidence to support the idea that males are attracted to females basically for sexual purposes, while women are attracted to men for basically purposes of financial security, and that this exchange theory is based on the survival of our genes.

Takes a special job title to work this out!!

We bounce these ideas around in this forum all the time. It's often noted (and frequently with great disdain) that women are only after a man's money, or interested in his social status, while men seem to be pre-occupied with women only to the extent that they can sleep with them.

Not really that true these days as women often have their own money and want "attentive" partners who will listen to them whining about their made-up jobs and feed the cats..

Men want someone who will let them move in and play on the computer all day and jerk off over porn..

The evidence that researchers have amassed that support these ideas stays consistent across most cultures worldwide.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Primate poo!!

Quasimodo, for all his decency, had a hard time getting dates.

Come on Sarah Brightman is well sexy!!

We are also attracted to certain people for less "logical" reasons, such as the degree to which they have strong masculine or feminine physical -- and behavioral -- characteristics. Women prefer men who are taller, with broad shoulders, a square jaw.... Men prefer women who are shorter than themselves, softer, rounder...
.

No, I like big muscle-women who look like men, but then I am wierd that way!!

Having said that, I suppose all my breeders are still between 3 and 15 inches shorter than myself!!

These differences between the sexes is known as sexual dimorphism, and the process that leads to these differences is called sexual selection. Small functional differences between the sexes can become large nonfunctional ones over many generations. If female birds are instinctively inclined to prefer colorful males -- perhaps because colorful males have served to distract predators from ancestral females and their chicks -- then a male that is more colorful will have a better chance, and the female with a more intense attraction to color a better chance, and their offspring will inherit their colors and intense attraction to colors and so on and so on... until you reach a point where the colors and the attraction are no longer a plus, but become a minus, such as in the birds of paradise. Some males cannot even fly under the weight of all their plumage.

So, I guess under than reasoning my male descendants will eventually have dicks so huge that..

"His knob when at ease, hangs down to his knees, and tickles his chin when it rises!"..

The dimorphism is also found in our behaviors. David Barash puts it so: "Males tend to be selected for salesmanship; females for sales resistance."

Bollocks. Women sell pussy like its going out of fashion!!

Females have a great deal invested in any act of copulation: the limited number of offspring she can carry, the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, the increased nutritional requirements, the danger from predators...all serve to make the choice of a mate an important consideration. Males, on the other hand, can and do walk away from the consequences of copulation. Note, for example, the tendency of male frogs to try to mate with wading boots: As long as some sperm gets to where it should, the male is doing alright.

I often wear wading boots, or wellingtons when mating, but usually not with other humans..

Anyway, if women are so fussy, why are they routinely plastered with cum on the internet and in such classic movies as "65 guy creampie"..

Women are duplicitous creatures sexually, human females behave very differently to animals in that they dont indicate when they are fertile quite so readily as other animals do and hence they "trick" men into thinking they are worth pumping with baby gravy by with bodies, cosmetics, etc that make them look permantently fertile in order to dupe men into looking after then or "giving them attention"..

Women are actually so rarely fertile these days especially with contraband etc, that the chances of finding one on heat are pretty rare for the untrained sperm poisoner..

(You can spot women likely to eventually showing the outward signs of sperm poisoning in the next few months (morning sickness etc) by the fact that they act even more stupid when fertile than the rest of the time!!)

So females tend to more fussy about who they have relations with. They are more sensitive to indications that a particular male will contribute to their genetic survival. One of the most obvious examples is the attention many female animals pay to the size and strength of males, and the development of specialized contests, such as those of antlered and horned animals, to demonstrate that strength.

Rubbish!! I have yet to see women getting all gaga watching trumpet players competing.. Though I must admit my housekeeper is a good cornet player and my nurse does have a super "arse antlers" porn star tattoo on her lower back.. And that does rather arouse the housekeeper who has serious problems with attractions to the same gender..

Most women must want to mate with the government in that case anyway as the government is what gives the useless spunk buckets their abilities to survive!!

There are less obvious things as well. In some animals, males have to show, not just strength, but the ability to provide. This is especially true in any species which has the male providing for the female during her pregnancy and lactation -- like humans! Sociobiologists suggest that, while men find youth and physical form most attractive, women tend to look for indications of success, solvency, savoir-faire. It might not just be a cultural fluke that men bring flowers and candies, pay for dinner, and so forth

Bollocks! Women pay for dinner, and cook it, and clean up afterwards!!

I just pay for the batteries for their rampant rabbits so they stop hassling me so much when not on their breeding cycles!

Further, they suggest, women may find themselves more interested in the "mature" man, as he is more likely to have proven himself, and less interested in the "immature" man, who presents a certain risk. And women should be more likely to put up with polygyny (i.e. other wives) than men with polyandry (other husbands): Sharing a clearly successful man is better in come cases than having a failure all to yourself. And, lo and behold, polygyny is even more common than monogamy, while polyandry is found in perhaps two cultures (one in Tibet and the other in Africa), and in both it involves brothers "sharing" a wife in order not to break-up tiny inherited properties..

It helps if you choose lesbians to staff your home I have found, they are more likely to share the expenses of keeping a lazy arsed old fart like me happy!

Taking it from the other direction, males will tolerate less infidelity than females: Females "know" their children are theirs; males never know for sure. Genetically, it matters less if males "sow wild oats" or have many mates or are unfaithful. And, sure enough, most cultures are harder on women than men when it comes to adultery. In most cultures, in fact, it is the woman who moves into the husband's family (virilocality) -- as if to keep track of her comings and goings.

Not sure, so many men move into the homes of the newly empowered women who get em free or thanks to made up high paid jobs!!

And so many men these days seem to accept their bitches cheating that it sometimes makes me wonder what is the crack these days?

Is the cuckhold lifestyle the new thing or something?

What happened to cracking their skulls with chunks of paving slabs like they do in some countries?

From our culture's romantic view of love and marriage, it is interesting to note that in most cultures a failure to consummate a marriage is grounds for divorce or annulment. In our own culture, infertility and impotence are frequent causes of divorce. It seems reproduction is more important than we like to admit.

Horse shit!!

The main reason for divorce is that the slags get a pay out when they want to "find themselves"..

Even the Polish Model I was pummelling a few years ago was finally divorced by her dickless hubby for adultery, he did not want the shame of everyone knowing he only married her to hide his gay catholic lifestyle!!

It was worth a few grand though!!

There was once an expression "say Shibboleth"which has fallen into disuse.

It refers to this episode in the Bible.

"4Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim: and the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, because they said, Ye Gileadites are fugitives of Ephraim among the Ephraimites, and among the Manassites. 5And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
6Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. "




What the expression means is that certain words and how you say things betrays where you are comming from.



I have generally assumed that it is lesbians who make the assertion that women are "attracted"to men in positions of wealth and power. Simply because a lesbian cannot fathom what else might be attractive in a man.



If a woman makes that assertion in my presence...I say "Oh really? Tell me, are lesbians attracted to women in positions of wealth and power?"


If I get the look that boils water in response then I know I have struck a nerve.


Immagine for a moment girl talk between two women;


Joan..."what do you think of Mr X?"


Jane..."He's fat and frumpy and talks like Elmer Fudd"


Joan..."oh but did you know he is wealthy and has a position of power"


Jane..."Really!!! (Jane bites her lower lip and puts her hands between her crossed legs..she is obviously uncomfortable) ...excuse me Joan, I'm going to have to go home and change out of these wet panties"


Terra, gold digging is not a function of hormones or pheramones.

Quote from MAUS

Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. "

I heard that peter andre was pretty miffed when it was reported that

"Over the past four years, no fewer than 700,000 Iraqis are believed to have entered Jordan"...

What I like about evolutionary psychology is that it provides "scientific" counter-arguments to cultural marxist social constructionism. Fighting one modern viewpoint with another. Religion is useless against secular humanism.

Humans are animals, so why not look at how our behaviour is similar to other primates, ancient and contemporary? Just because we're sterilizing ourselves does that mean that prehistoric mating behaviours disappear?

I have to agree...gold digging is not a biological instinct...it seems to me it's a learned behavior.

There are many critics of sociobiological/evolutionary psychology theories. Other psychologists, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and other researchers say that evolutionary/biological theorists fail to take into account cultural influences, learning, reinforcement, and other ways that human beings learn these types of behaviors. It might surprise you to know that feminists don't like evolutionary theories, either. They believe that people learn most of what they display by direct observation and socialization.

An excerpt from my social psychology text (copyright 2007):

"A third argument (against evolutionary psychology theory involving attraction) is that differences typically found between the sexes are small compared to the similarities. This is an important point. In Buss's original cross-cultural study, both men and women gave their highest ratings to such attributions as kindness, dependability, a good sense of humor, and a pleasant disposition (physical attraction and financial prospects did not top the lists.) In fact, research shows that women desire physical attractiveness as much as men do when asked what they want in a short-term casual sex partner (Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan & Berschield, 1997)."

"The evolutionary perspective offers social psychologists an interesting but controversial perspective on relationships. The approach continues to draw criticism that the results are weak, limited, or explainable by non-evolutionary means (Harris, 2003; Hazan & Diamond, 2000; Pedersen et al., 2002). However, it also continues to generate new ideas."

I usually ignore these studies. While at times interesting, they tend to be used largely to justify bad behavior. It's not our fault if we __________ because 2 million years ago Homo erectus.......

We all know what human tendencies are....I like to think of them more as temptations than as pre-determined biological behaviours. Human beings are self-aware and they have choice. If I cheat on my husband with some guy with a lot of money and bigger muscles it's not because of an 'inherent need to create offspring with the most powerful and successful male', it's because I'm immoral and selfish and don't place much importance on key values such as honor, integrity and self-control.

Quote from Kim

I usually ignore these studies. While at times interesting, they tend to be used largely to justify bad behavior. It's not our fault if we __________ because 2 million years ago Homo erectus.......

We all know what human tendencies are....I like to think of them more as temptations than as pre-determined biological behaviours. Human beings are self-aware and they have choice. If I cheat on my husband with some guy with a lot of money and bigger muscles it's not because of an 'inherent need to create offspring with the most powerful and successful male', it's because I'm immoral and selfish and don't place much importance on key values such as honor, integrity and self-control.

I agree that we have free will. Modern social science tends to portray humans as passive receptors of influence, rather robotic.

I would suggest that awareness is the key: those who choose ignorance tend to follow predicatable patterns of behaviour, such as sociopathology. In other words, when we deny our humanity we tend to act like animals.

I would suggest that awareness is the key: those who choose ignorance tend to follow predicatable patterns of behaviour, such as sociopathology. In other words, when we deny our humanity we tend to act like animals.

Well said, BT.

[quote=TERA;75882]An excerpt from my social psychology text (copyright 2007):

"A third argument (against evolutionary psychology theory involving attraction) is that differences typically found between the sexes are small compared to the similarities. This is an important point. In Buss's original cross-cultural study, both men and women gave their highest ratings to such attributions as kindness, dependability, a good sense of humor, and a pleasant disposition (physical attraction and financial prospects did not top the lists.) In fact, research shows that women desire physical attractiveness as much as men do when asked what they want in a short-term casual sex partner (Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan & Berschield, 1997)."

[quote]

Short-term casual sex partner. That's the operative phrase there. What does the research show that women desire in a long-term mate?

I think it's a little of both nature and nurture. I have no idea of the percentage of each - maybe even close to 50? Until relatively recently, women pretty much had to look at the financial potential of men when choosing a husband. Since we've been able to "make our own destiny", so to speak, that part isn't as important. Except, of course, for the golddiggers. This behavior I think can be attributed to the "nurture" side - we acted in certain ways according to our choices in society.

But "nature" plays a role as well. Agricultural society hasn't been around long enough, evolutionarily speaking, for us to have developed different instincts than our ancestors. A woman can still only carry one child at a time. A man can still have his seed growing in many women at the same time. Women are physically smaller and weaker than men. We also have more fat reserves. So physically, and instinctively, a woman will look for a man who has proven he can provide. A man will look for a woman who can bear and care for healthy children, and the more "hourglass" a woman's figure, the more hormonally predisposed she is to nurturing, and she'll presumably have more room to push a baby through.

Again, though, social conditioning plays a huge part in our expectation of monogamy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all curvy women are nurturing and all flat women are not. There's no accounting for mental illness...

Quote from Kim

I usually ignore these studies. While at times interesting, they tend to be used largely to justify bad behavior. It's not our fault if we __________ because 2 million years ago Homo erectus.......

We all know what human tendencies are....I like to think of them more as temptations than as pre-determined biological behaviours. Human beings are self-aware and they have choice. If I cheat on my husband with some guy with a lot of money and bigger muscles it's not because of an 'inherent need to create offspring with the most powerful and successful male', it's because I'm immoral and selfish and don't place much importance on key values such as honor, integrity and self-control.

Yes, these animal based theories are all well and good and humans are animals indeed.

But, we have the choice to give in to our animal natures or do something a bit more constructive and useful with out lives..

Its hard to know which is best these days..

[QUOTE=KellyMac;75908][quote=TERA;75882]An excerpt from my social psychology text (copyright 2007):

"A third argument (against evolutionary psychology theory involving attraction) is that differences typically found between the sexes are small compared to the similarities. This is an important point. In Buss's original cross-cultural study, both men and women gave their highest ratings to such attributions as kindness, dependability, a good sense of humor, and a pleasant disposition (physical attraction and financial prospects did not top the lists.) In fact, research shows that women desire physical attractiveness as much as men do when asked what they want in a short-term casual sex partner (Li & Kenrick, 2006; Regan & Berschield, 1997)."

Short-term casual sex partner. That's the operative phrase there. What does the research show that women desire in a long-term mate?

I think it's a little of both nature and nurture. I have no idea of the percentage of each - maybe even close to 50? Until relatively recently, women pretty much had to look at the financial potential of men when choosing a husband. Since we've been able to "make our own destiny", so to speak, that part isn't as important. Except, of course, for the golddiggers. This behavior I think can be attributed to the "nurture" side - we acted in certain ways according to our choices in society.

But "nature" plays a role as well. Agricultural society hasn't been around long enough, evolutionarily speaking, for us to have developed different instincts than our ancestors. A woman can still only carry one child at a time. A man can still have his seed growing in many women at the same time. Women are physically smaller and weaker than men. We also have more fat reserves. So physically, and instinctively, a woman will look for a man who has proven he can provide. A man will look for a woman who can bear and care for healthy children, and the more "hourglass" a woman's figure, the more hormonally predisposed she is to nurturing, and she'll presumably have more room to push a baby through.

Again, though, social conditioning plays a huge part in our expectation of monogamy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all curvy women are nurturing and all flat women are not. There's no accounting for mental illness...

Some good points Kelly. But in the post-birth control world I wonder if these old behaviours are relevant? Isn't the present situation in the West more comparable to aristocrats, who bred at whim rather than from necessity? If sex is now only for fun, then men & women will choose partners for selfish reasons rather than for breeding yes? I mean, Western women have passed the job of childbearing to the poorer women of the world haven't they?