posted June 07, 2015 10:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

I wasn't getting the results I wanted in the suburban town where I grew up. The culture there wasn't really conducive to dating the "different" girl. So I moved. To a nearby large city, where there were a ton of people, knowing that more people = more opportunities to meet someone who WOULD be willing to seriously date me. I moved at 20 years old. I didn't sit in the same buttf**k small town in the middle of nowhere and complain about the men for years on end. That would have made me a dumb@$$.

---

Well if you never did anything about it and continued not having results, you would have been able to blame a whole gender for years on end. Aww maaaan you missed out

posted June 07, 2015 10:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonWitch:
Actually, bigger breasts only have more fatty tissue than smaller ones. Breast size is irrelevant when it comes to producing breastmilk

---

posted June 07, 2015 11:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

I didn't sit in the same buttf**k small town in the middle of nowhere.

---

posted June 07, 2015 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:

No,
Actually I'm very nice and friendly with almost everyone I meet in real life and I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. So are women psychic? Because that's what alot of women keep implying. Funny thing is these same women contradict themselves when I bring up the jerks and bad boys they seem to love. They say " I didn't like his jerky behavior. I didn't know he was a jerk! he seemed so nice in the beginning!" See that? Women admit they don't sense the a**hole under the nice exterior of the guys they date. So how is it that they fall for jerks every single time and never learn their lesson but supposedly they can sense my cynicism towards female nature? Are women psychic or not? If they can't sense the ******* 's nature under the superficially nice exterior they can't sense my cynicism. You can't have it both ways.... Unless you want to admit that women are also picking up on the jerks true nature but choose to ignore their intuition and date them anyways. If that was the case it would prove that women are incredibly biased in all the wrong ways. No matter how you choose to spin this it would not reflect well upon women. What do I think? I don't believe any of this is true. I think all the people that say I'm single because of my attitude are just grasping at straws and failing at it.

---

Well listen here, you are telling this to an actual real life woman right now, who doesn't fall for jerks, doesn't ignore her intuition, and who can indeed sense your 'cynicism.' So please, if you're going to make sweeping generalizations, leave me out of the woman category altogether. I guess all of the women on this forum who have given good arguments refuting your constant harping on the opposite gender do not really count. That sexist site you've mentioned here is obviously the only reliable source for understanding a woman's motivations and values. Of course, all of us actual women are totally wrong about ourselves as women and our experiences as women, and we really just need to see the light. And so we definitely need a guy to tell us how things really are.

posted June 07, 2015 11:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:

Yeah in the city seems like the ideal is more hipster or alternative while in small towns and suburbs the ideal is someone that lives in Abercrombie.

---

posted June 07, 2015 11:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
[b]
I didn't sit in the same buttf**k small town in the middle of nowhere.

---

I've seen you imply that I live in butt f*ck Egypt several times so let me clear something up. I live 15 or 20 minutes outside of a city that has a population of over 180,000 people and there are over a million people in the metropolitan area. The county I live in has a population of over 120,000. I also live just outside the most visited national park in the whole country. Furthermore I'm only a few hours away from other large cities such as: Charlotte, Nashville,Lexington, and Atlanta. So to say I'm in buttf*ck Egypt couldn't be further from the truth. The reality is my current location is prime real estate because I'm so close to so many big cities. The only places I would really be exposed to more people in the U.S would be in cities like New York,LA,Chicago etc. And I wouldn't fare any better in those places because people in those cities are more liberal and materialistic. [/B][/QUOTE]

So in other words, you live in a suburb. Much has been written about suburbia (see: ArcadeFire's "The Suburbs", Green Day's "Jesus of Suburbia," "American Beauty," etc.) and its particular soul-crushing qualities. 15-20 minutes outside of a large town may as well be a village. Anyway, you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you wouldn't fare better in places that have more women (large cities on the east cost have a more female-heavy sex ratio) because the people are more open-minded. Right.

posted June 07, 2015 11:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

So in other words, you live in a suburb. Much has been written about suburbia (see: ArcadeFire's "The Suburbs", Green Day's "Jesus of Suburbia," "American Beauty," etc.) and its particular soul-crushing qualities. Anyway, you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you wouldn't fare better in places that have more women (large cities on the east cost has a more female-heavy sex ratio) because the people are more open-minded. Right.

The logic is strong with this one.

---

posted June 07, 2015 11:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
I actually majored in a science science is a way for us to decode and understand the world around us. Sometimes we don't code it right because you get the wrong information, or we don't get enough information but it seems like there is enough. The theories are constantly changing as we learn more,make breakthrough discoveries, and find new contradictory or supporting evidence. Sociology, psychology is at best a soft science . You're attempting to scientifically deduce WHY people act a certain way but even with all the evidence we think we can wring out of random **** , humans are too variable in and of themselves, and our capability to reason and have free will kinda makes us impossible to scientifically measure. Our minds that is.

---

Judging by your posts, I find it hard to believe you know much science, let alone, majored in it. Yes, maybe trying to figure out the workings of certain cancers or creating the mechanism to clone humans are very theoretical and still in its infant stages. In other words, "theory but not proven". Science is so broad, you can't just lump everything into one category and say "science is not real". What about the science that was put into creating your computer so you can write your responses on this discussion? Is that not real either? What about the capability of surgeons to transplant organs and save people's lives? A lot of science certainly is real and is being put to real tangible use.

Anyway, I think you've missed the whole point of the primal thing. It's not social or psychological. It's downright animalistic instinct. Animals are smart, perhaps better in certain areas than we are. They don't think because they don't have to. You ever watch wild male birds do a mating dance to woo a female? He's certainly not doing it for recreation!

I agree with you about the human mind being a factor and responsible for free will. But, you cannot discount the primal instinct in us either!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonWitch:
Actually, bigger breasts only have more fatty tissue than smaller ones. Breast size is irrelevant when it comes to producing breastmilk

---

I've scanned a lot of breasts in ultrasound and we spent an entire month studying every pathology and anatomy known in breasts. Bigger breasts contain more lactiferous ducts. These ducts are one of main parts susceptible to cancer. Fat itself, does not develop tumors. Fatty tissue in breasts is actually good, and degenerates in age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Also they have a greater chance of breast cancer. So unhealthy and biologically unfit for matings!!

---

Which proves my point about larger breasts having more ducts to provide more milk. Also, the greater chance of developing breast cancer is irrelevant to mating preference. Before modern medicine, life expectancy for humans was way shorter, not long enough to develop cancer. The boobies served their purpose once all the children developed enough to eat on their own.

Like I said, I don't personally care about breast size. A lot of hot women have small boobs!

posted June 08, 2015 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bansheequeen:
[b]

Yeah in the city seems like the ideal is more hipster or alternative while in small towns and suburbs the ideal is someone that lives in Abercrombie.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

I've lived in both for extensive periods of time. Hipsters aren't just one kind of hipster. It's a loose term I'm usin to describe people that are concerned about their image but they want to be different rather than follow what's popular and will make them fit. Omgg I live in the city currently and I rarely see that shaved hairstyle. Yeah you might see it a lot of Instagram and stuff lol. But Instagram isn't an accurate representation of city folk.

You hate everything. Oh my god just be more accepting of people. I don't like peircings on men or sleeves or colored hair but if he was a great guy he would be attractive to me regardless. And please please don't try to say these kinds of people all have certain types of personalities because they don't.

posted June 08, 2015 12:33 AM            

Maybe you're only used to applied science? But things like sociology fit more into the theoretical science category. And personally I'd have a hard time calling this crap "science." You can't put the way human organs function and the way we behave into the same category!

Yeah. Instincts helped us when we were animals. But so they help us that much right now? When we hear loud noises do our senses become blided by adrenaline and make us act like a scared dog? No, well not usually. And if it does, psychologists call that a disorder. Can you smell a woman in heat and when you do, do you get a hard on. Please don't say yes. Animals have magic trituals that are instinct. Human mating rituals are socially constructed. I mean, if we really were animals wome would just like.. Bend over whenever we saw a hot guy Lol. If we really were animals we wouldn't even have the mental capability to feel aesthetically attracted to the way someone looks. Because that's like., a visual appreciation for someone that translates into attraction. Animals don't know why or how they find another one attractive, they just do.

Isn't it like... A huge thing for these biological evolution theorist guys to say visual indicators of health are a biggest part of what we find attractive? So if bigger rests are less healthy, why are they more attractive?

posted June 08, 2015 12:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
So don't think the city is a Mecca for dating.

---

posted June 08, 2015 12:47 AM            

And I've never had a woman complain during or after an exam. I've saved lives and been told I'm handsome. Nothing creepy at all.

posted June 08, 2015 01:37 AM            

I have a feeling no one will answer them, but -meh- I'll ask anyway.

Actually, first I'll post some excerpts from wiki...

quote:

---

Sexual reproduction is the primary method of reproduction for the vast majority of macroscopic organisms, including almost all eukaryotes (which includes animals and plants).

Prokaryotes reproduce through asexual reproduction but may display processes similar to sexual reproduction (mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as bacterial conjugation, transformation and transduction

---

quote:

---

A eukaryote is any organism whose cells contain a nucleus and other organelles enclosed within membranes.

---

quote:

---

Almost every organism you can see without a microscope -- and some microscopic organisms as well -- are examples of eukaryotes.

---

quote:

---

All animals -- humans, house cats, arthropods, whales and fish -- also belong within the eukaryotes.

---

quote:

---

Sexual reproduction is widespread among present day eukaryotes, and evidence suggests that it is a primordial and fundamental characteristic of eukaryotes. Based on a phylogenetic analysis, Dacks and Roger proposed that facultative sex was present in the common ancestor of all eukaryotes

---

On the Evolution of Sexual Reproduction:

quote:

---

The evolution of sexual reproduction describes how sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants and fungi) evolved from a common ancestor that was a single celled eukaryotic species.

---

quote:

---

The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle because asexual reproduction should be able to outcompete it as every young organism created can bear its own young.

---

quote:

---

The first fossilized evidence of sexual reproduction in eukaryotes is from the Stenian period, about 1 to 1.2 billion years ago.

Biologists studying evolution propose several explanations for why sexual reproduction developed and why it is maintained.

Maintenance of sexual reproduction has been explained by theories that work at several levels of selection, though some of these models remain controversial.

---

---

And now.. for - The definition of sexual attraction..

quote:

---

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

---

quote:

---

Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation

---

quote:

---

Sexual attraction & pleasure evolved to give a strong incentive to reproduce, and so those traits became amplified through the generations.

---

posted June 08, 2015 01:37 AM            

- There seems to be a lot of attention given to sexual attraction in humans, and not much at all in animals (including insects) or plants. My impression is (though I could be wrong) that there is an assumption that “sexual attraction” is primarily a human “thing”.
Do you guys know of any sources – discussing sexual attraction in insects or plants?

- If sexual attraction evolved for the purpose of giving incentive –for- sexual reproduction… then presumably, it should have evolved in ALL organisms that reproduce sexually.
If science claims that some organisms that reproduce sexually… (for instance some plants).. are unable to experience any form of sexual attraction, or derive sexual pleasure --- then, this begs the question, WHY did “sexual attraction” evolve in humans and some animals?
Because, if certain species can continue to reproduce sexually, in the absence of any form of sexual attraction – this leaves open the matter of whether sexual attraction is at all necessary in reproduction.

- Assume for a second (I know it’s a big assumption.. but go with it!) .. that all species (absolutely all species… all eukaryotes) that are able to reproduce sexually, on this planet – also – experience, some form of sexual attraction. Maybe not a form that would be recognizable to us, but some “sort” of attraction.

I’m curious about – what this^ might tell us re: sexual attraction – and the history/evolution of attraction.

This is from an article discussing how/why sex evolved:

quote:

---

For most of Earth's history, organisms were asexual. To reproduce, cells would simply divide, cloning the former as a near exact copy. Any mutations within cells would be passed along incrementally to be tested immediately within their environments. But this process was slow, and many potentially helpful mutations were lost because they occurred in the wrong time or place.

(Presumably at this ^^ stage in evolution, the concept of 'sexual attraction" was entirely meaningless and non-existent)

However, some bacteria developed the ability to exchange genetic material with each other. This sharing of DNA is thought to have functioned as a crude precursor in the evolution of sexual reproduction within species.

(Could this bacteria ^, exchanging genetic material - also have been the beginnings of sexual attraction?
We don't normally think of bacteria as able to experience "attraction" - but I guess that depends on ones' definition of attraction. Does an organism truly need to have higher order mental processes, to experience an "attraction"?)

Sexual reproduction established a way to combine and mix genes between members of a population. This aided their evolution in a variety of ways. Individuals now carried genes from each parent, allowing them to use code from either if there was an adverse mutation in one. But more importantly, it allowed much larger variation within the population

---

So I’m trying to wrap my mind around all this, making use of my visual imagination faculties… And I’m imagining a world where all “beings”/”entities” were for billions of years, reproducing asexually.
At one point, for whatever reason, a “single celled” eukaryotic organism evolved… the organism that appears to be the common ancestor of all eukaryotic species.
Somehow this very early ancestor – began a process that, over time, gave rise to ALL sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms, as we know them today (all the animals, plants etc)

Now – when it comes to sexual attraction… we can well devise theories that say – it came about as a result of the advent of sexual reproduction (as we always have!).
So we can say, as above – that sexual attraction evolved to give incentive to reproduce, or perhaps to facilitate/speed-up the process of reproduction.

^^ If this is the case, -sexual attraction- would indeed be closely related to sexual selection, and its primary purpose would be - enabling reproduction.

However… And this is my main question (if you made it this far down my post lol)… Do you think this could just as well be a… ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’ –type riddle?

My question is… Do we have any actual scientific proof that sexual attraction evolved later (or after) the advent of sexual reproduction?
Would it not be possible to claim the opposite? That attraction came first? And sexual reproduction came about as a result of a pre-existing (primordial) attraction?

posted June 08, 2015 03:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
I've never had a preference for older men, aside from the odd crush.

---

posted June 08, 2015 06:00 AM            

"sexual attraction- would indeed be closely related to sexual selection, and its primary purpose would be - enabling reproduction. "

Once the eukaryote (sexual) mechanism of reproduction was selected, a mechanism of selecting the best/most suitable genetic partner became necessary. This is the origin of mating chemistry, rituals, behavior (sexual attraction being part of it).
There is also the fact that pleasure is associated in animals with necessary behavior (for species survival) such as mating, eating etc. and pain/fear with dangerous behavior/stimuli. Of course, to experience those, you need nerve cells, which developed from very simple to complex (human brain). The more complex the nerve cell structure, the more complex behavior becomes.

posted June 08, 2015 07:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
You ever watch wild male birds do a mating dance to woo a female? He's certainly not doing it for recreation!

---

Ooh I don't know, this cool bird would have to disagree!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw

posted June 08, 2015 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
[b]
So in other words, you live in a suburb. Much has been written about suburbia (see: ArcadeFire's "The Suburbs", Green Day's "Jesus of Suburbia," "American Beauty," etc.) and its particular soul-crushing qualities. Anyway, you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you wouldn't fare better in places that have more women (large cities on the east cost has a more female-heavy sex ratio) because the people are more open-minded. Right.

The logic is strong with this one.

---

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted June 08, 2015 07:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonWitch:
Actually, bigger breasts only have more fatty tissue than smaller ones. Breast size is irrelevant when it comes to producing breastmilk

---

I can attest to this! (A-B cup - breastfed for 2 mths, expressed for 1mth - no problemo)

posted June 08, 2015 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
I can attest to this! (A-B cup - breastfed for 2 mths, expressed for 1mth - no problemo)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MoonWitch:
Yeah, before I got pregnant I was an A-B (they grew enormously during pregnancy but that happens!) and I breastfed mine for 18 months with no issues. I think it's a pretty common misconception.

---

No one's debating that you can't breastfeed with smaller boobs.

posted June 08, 2015 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
No one's debating that you can't breastfeed with smaller boobs.

---

Hmm, perhaps not.

I suppose we were responding to the notion that smaller breasts = less (physical) evolutionary attractiveness, due to being perceived visually as less able to nourish and support a baby.

posted June 08, 2015 06:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Hmm, perhaps not.

I suppose we were responding to the notion that smaller breasts = less (physical) evolutionary attractiveness, due to being perceived visually as less able to nourish and support a baby.

At least, that's what I thought we were responding to.

---

Keep in mind that back in the primal days, breast milk was the only food babies had. They didn't have formula, gerber, etc.

Considering that the environments back then were not sterilized or nearly as clean as what we have now, building a baby's immune system was a life-or-death objective. Only way to do that was with mother's milk.

And having many children back then was the norm!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jo B:
Ooh I don't know, this cool bird would have to disagree!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw

---

Haha ok Jo B, maybe he's the exception!