Oh goody, an argument!
Originally posted by the.lights
And in the process put yourself at risk of STD'S through multiple sexual partners, the physical and mental stress of constantly moving from one woman
to the next, not settling down, not having a stable family life or home environment, drifting aimlessly... until... you are old, decrepit and clapped
out. And then, what are you left with...?
None of this is of any concern to nature, and it is nature which determines your existence and the purpose of it.
You, of course, are free to disagree with nature and choose to define your own purposes. Many people do - or rather, they think they do. Few realize
how little freedom of action nature permits us. The decisions we think we make for ourselves, believing them to be independent and rational, are
critically affected by our instincts - for it is instinct that shapes our desires, our motives and our actions.
The beauty of being intelligent and human is, you get to choose, and rise above the so-called 'norms' of the animal kingdom.
That is just a comforting illusion, like the illusion of free will. You, like everything and everyone else, are both the product and the subject of
physical determinism. The ambit of your freedom is woefully circumscribed.
And actually, much of the animal kingdom also follow the latter path, mating and partnering for life to ensure stability and happiness. The
whole sexual competition side of human life is quite tired, if you ask me.
All sorts of sexual arrangements exist in nature, from rampant promiscuity to mating-for-life (though adulterous behaviour is often observed, for
example among songbirds). Social animals tend to go for mate competition leading either to harem formation or to the mating of pairs of roughly
equivalent fitness and hence desirability. For humans, the common model is serial polygyny; this is a compromise between male and female mating
strategies. All this is pretty well-established, with plenty of evidence to substantiate it. Sexual competition may tire you, but nature isn't
interested in intellectual fashions; she sticks with the tried and tested.
There are those of us who don't live by, or subscribe to, this interpretation of life and mating laid out in these findings.
You may not subscribe to it, but you certainly live by it. As a member of the human species, you have no other option.
Human society is a much more multi-layered complex organism than this research gives credit for.
Would you be so kind as to substantiate this claim with a few facts? Thank you.
Those who take the path of stability tend to live to healthy, happy, ripe old age, whilst those outlined in this argument burn out, fall by the
wayside or end up dead through their behaviours.
First, nature does not care about your healthy, happy, ripe old age. You have not evolved to be happy or old; you have evolved to reproduce, propagate
your genes, and die to make way for the next generation.
There are good biological reasons as well as solid evidence for this, both of which have been presented and discussed on ATS often enough.
Second, the claim that sexually unadventurous men are happier, healthier and live longer is debatable. It is true that men who withdraw from mating
competition tend to suffer less stresses, diseases, etc., and so are likely to live longer. You will note how few such men are. Why is that? Because
they fail to pass on the genes for those traits.
Besides, if you yearn for a long life devoid of honour, adventure, glory and variety, all I can say is you're welcome to it. Living a hundred years
as a gloomy, unfulfilled, self-muzzled as-good-as-eunuch certainly isn't my idea of happiness. Cowardice and lack of initiative are not widely
reputed for making their possessors hapy.
Finally, the argument is moot in any event. Each of us occupies his own place in the male pecking order, high or lowly. Unreflective or poorly
educated men rationalize their position with fallacious arguments. Losers in the sexual competition vilify and try to make scapegoats of those more
successful than themselves. It is nature - yet again, nature - that determines our views on the subject for us. They are the fruit of our need for
status and self-justification, and determined by our personal selective fitness.
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
What if, what if, the media brainwashes women and all people to find certain characteristics as attractive and others as not. Don't you think that
would override true "evolutionary psychology" of finding 'the good genes'?
No, because it doesn't. There are numerous studies that demonstrate this. The belief that beauty and sexual attraction are culturally modulated is
based on anthropological research from the Sixties that focused on minor differences between cultures rather than the huge similarities that exist
among all human beings. Such research has long been discredited by subsequent findings in evolutionary biology and psychology.
You seem to be very concerned with 'media brainwashing'. Well, you're talking to someone who has spent most of his life in advertising and the
media. I've never seen any evidence of 'brainwashing' but it would be stupid to deny that various groups and interests use the media to try and
change people's attitudes and behaviour. That is what the media are there for in the first place.
If such persuasion (or brainwashing if you prefer the term) is to succeed, it must play on our deepest motivations, our most critical, often
unconscious, needs, fears, desires and guilts. It cannot hope to change them.
That is how the art of persuasion works. It doesn't compete with nature; it falls in line with her dictates.
'Media brainwashing' cannot alter or warp human sexual preferences. Even massive cultural instutions going back thousands of years, such as arranged
marriage, have not done so. Substantive changes in human sexual preference occur over evolutionary time, not from one fashion season to the next.
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
How can anyone think that we are really geared for countless casual relationships when we live such short lives?
Not countless. Remember, human mating strategies go back to the time when we lived in small hunter-gatherer bands. Within each band there was only a
handful of available females. This number was supplemented as often as possible by raids on other bands; the only time the band's low-order males
ever got laid at all was probably after a raid on somebody else's women. But nature has maximized our chances by making male reproductive investment
very small (often as little as a few hours' courting followed by a few minutes' sex) and easily repeated.
We start getting old at 23... then what Old man with young girl?
Yes, if the old man's status in the social group is high enough. That's his reward for having good genes, for winning out in the mating competition.
If his status is low, then it's the trashpile for him. Life is tough.
I think girls make us guys want younger and younger girls since at the young ages they always want to go for the older guys, then when they get
old they go for younger guy.
Men are attracted to young women because youth is a sign of fertility and easy childbearing, as well as indicating that the woman will live long
enough to care for the children until such care is no longer needed.
Young women are - heaven be praised! - often attracted to older men. You'll have noticed, though, that they're rarely attracted to poor old men, or
low-status males of any age. Women are attracted to high-status males, and older men who have achieved some status in life are sure bets. That's all
there is to it - they're not doing it specially to annoy you.
If we had children as many times as we had casual sex how could nature really keep up with all those children, let alone parents? or do we send
them all to uhm.. where?
You forget that, for a woman, a child is a massive investment. For nine months, she must carry a debilitating parasite in her womb; then, having given
birth to it in excruciating pain, she has to nurse it for eighteen months and take care of it for another twelve years or so. That's the limiting
factor, right there: the kids themselves. That is why female human mating strategy differs from the male; a woman seeks to attract the highest
possible quality of genes and then invests all her energy in nurturing a small number of offspring. As a result, women are less promiscuous than men
(though not, of course, any less prone to adultery).
Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
So, according to this paper too.. the old saying "there's someone for everyone" is not really true.
No, actually there is. What happens is that individuals eventually lower their expectations and mate with someone at their own level of status,
attractiveness and genetic fitness.
That's why the world is so full of unfit, ugly, stupid, immoral people.
And.. "the world needs love".. this isn't going to happen anytime soon either.
There's plenty of love in the world, never fear.
Originally posted by whaaa
Id like to point out that this isn't the jungle and those laws don't really apply anymore.
Hi, whaaa. It was never the jungle, it was the savannah and we are still the same creatures we were when we lived there. The laws still apply, in
Associative mating (people choosing mates of similar status and desirability to themselves) amply explains the addtional points you make in your post.