posted June 08, 2015 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Odette,

"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.

Odette, I think you would love this amazing movie, for your interest in insects life
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/

---

posted June 08, 2015 10:07 PM            

Based on my spiritual beliefs, I think that everything that has a physical manifestation - likewise has a parallel "spiritual" manifestation. This includes all organisms, regardless of their level of complexity.
So when I'm imagining these very primitive life-forms, that were reproducing asexually (including bacteria for instance)... I'm not imagining them as being "purely" physical entities.
Because, I believe everything that has ever "existed" in physical form - also has a spiritual 'vibration'.

Leeloo... You said - "Once the eukaryote mechanism of reproduction was selected... etc."
- My question is more like - "How did the eukaryote, sexual mechanism- come about in the first place?".. or "What came before this?"... or "How did something asexual manage to evolve into something sexual?"

Is there any kind of scientific explanation for how this actually came about?

The closest thing I found to an explanation... is posted above:

quote:

---

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

---

^ So I guess the only explanation we have is.. "Well one day.. some bacteria started sharing DNA with each other.. and *voila* sexual reproduction was on its way! The End"

But then I have to ask.. "Why did this bacteria suddenly start sharing DNA with each other?"

posted June 08, 2015 10:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
C'mon bansheequeen, you know my argument kicked your argument's ass. You're just kicking sand at this point.

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.

Are you actually reading my posts? Or are you just in it to argue? Everything you're asking has been answered in my posts, I've driven the points home multiple times.

---

But you aren't really saying anything except "but but It's science." Most articles about "studies" done concerning attraction are sensationalist crap. I mean I've seen those shows on science for retards tv channel and popular science magazine and in the end it just feels like I got nowhere.

Oh my god. N matter how handsome someone is I'd be really creeped out if I went to what I perceived to be a safe place and was actually being looked at in a sexual way.

posted June 08, 2015 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
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!

---

Sorry quotes got messed up.

If natural selection selected for big boobs only... Why do small boobs even exist now? With animals less desirable traits die out fast. Why not with people? Why are we not s super race by now?

posted June 08, 2015 10:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bansheequeen:
[b]So don't think the city is a Mecca for dating.

---

posted June 08, 2015 10:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Maybe my question is confusing, because I'm not trying to -ask- about this from the POV of a hardcore physicalist scientist.

Based on my spiritual beliefs, I think that everything that has a physical manifestation - likewise has a parallel "spiritual" manifestation. This includes all organisms, regardless of their level of complexity.
So when I'm imagining these very primitive life-forms, that were reproducing asexually (including bacteria for instance)... I'm not imagining them as being "purely" physical entities.
Because, I believe everything that has ever "existed" in physical form - also has a spiritual 'vibration'.

Leeloo... You said - "Once the eukaryote mechanism of reproduction was selected... etc."
- My question is more like - "How did the eukaryote, sexual mechanism- come about in the first place?".. or "What came before this?"... or "[b]How did something asexual manage to evolve into something sexual?"

Is there any kind of scientific explanation for how this actually came about?

The closest thing I found to an explanation... is posted above:

^ So I guess the only explanation we have is.. "Well one day.. some bacteria started sharing DNA with each other.. and *voila* sexual reproduction was on its way! The End"

But then I have to ask.. "Why did this bacteria suddenly start sharing DNA with each other?"

^ My hypothetical (and non-scientific) answer to that "why" or "how" - was to say... Well maybe "attraction" came into the picture first.
Maybe not sexual attraction in the way we perceive it today.. but some sort of "primordial magnetism" - some sort of mechanism of attraction that was present on both a spiritual and physical level - and that *sparked* these asexual "things" to evolve into sexual things (...to have an impulse to share DNA with each other).[/B]

---

posted June 08, 2015 11:52 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.

---

That's what I thought we were discussing as well

posted June 09, 2015 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Maybe my question is confusing, because I'm not trying to -ask- about this from the POV of a hardcore physicalist scientist.

Based on my spiritual beliefs, I think that everything that has a physical manifestation - likewise has a parallel "spiritual" manifestation. This includes all organisms, regardless of their level of complexity.
So when I'm imagining these very primitive life-forms, that were reproducing asexually (including bacteria for instance)... I'm not imagining them as being "purely" physical entities.
Because, I believe everything that has ever "existed" in physical form - also has a spiritual 'vibration'.

Leeloo... You said - "Once the eukaryote mechanism of reproduction was selected... etc."
- My question is more like - "How did the eukaryote, sexual mechanism- come about in the first place?".. or "What came before this?"... or "[b]How did something asexual manage to evolve into something sexual?"

Is there any kind of scientific explanation for how this actually came about?

The closest thing I found to an explanation... is posted above:

^ So I guess the only explanation we have is.. "Well one day.. some bacteria started sharing DNA with each other.. and *voila* sexual reproduction was on its way! The End"

But then I have to ask.. "Why did this bacteria suddenly start sharing DNA with each other?"

^ My hypothetical (and non-scientific) answer to that "why" or "how" - was to say... Well maybe "attraction" came into the picture first.
Maybe not sexual attraction in the way we perceive it today.. but some sort of "primordial magnetism" - some sort of mechanism of attraction that was present on both a spiritual and physical level - and that *sparked* these asexual "things" to evolve into sexual things (...to have an impulse to share DNA with each other).[/B]

---

Ahhhh, that is one of THE questions, Odette, if you and I manage to answer that, see you in Sweden!

There seems to be engineering in the universe, and it doesn't depend on the individual, it is not a personal choice. My theory is that it is an initial encoded engineering; some call it God, overseeing things. What I believe is something similar to what you describe, a bit different though: I think the visible world is a progressive attempt to manifest (in real form) concepts, ideas. The perfect idea of something. An attempt to perfect manifestation.
We can see this astonishing engineering in nature, everywhere. Just think of camouflage/mimicry. The animals (butterflies for instance) don't see themselves (some species are even blind), however they manage (in million of years of course) to become perfect replicas of their environment. As if someone is watching, engineering them in the process.
http://www.boredpanda.com/animal-camouflage/

My guess is this principle of adaptation was encoded from the beginning, as a code print, a source code. Like a perfect initial software enabling constant mutation for adaptation.

The same thing happened with eukaryote reproduction. The initial method (division: making 2 out of 1) proved to be limited: it leads to the replication of the same DNA, consanguinity, a dead end. Making 1 out of 2 different fellows (union) is much smarter, however, because the possibilities for the end result are, as combinatorics, much more diverse, allowing for a "refreshment" of the DNA. This is, apparently, the reason for the spontaneous adaptative solution for sexual reproduction.

posted June 09, 2015 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
But you aren't really saying anything except "but but It's science." Most articles about "studies" done concerning attraction are sensationalist crap. I mean I've seen those shows on science for retards tv channel and popular science magazine and in the end it just feels like I got nowhere.

Oh my god. N matter how handsome someone is I'd be really creeped out if I went to what I perceived to be a safe place and was actually being looked at in a sexual way.

I don't think you're reading mine!

---

I've read everything you wrote, and laughed at most of it. Your logic is flawed. You even accused me of being sexist when I obviously never once gave any reason to think I am. Science isn't real? Hahahaha.

You're still stuck on the ideas of abstract theories. I'm not just saying "it's science". I'm backing it up with obvious, physical reasoning. You're just dismissing everything I'm saying and calling it mumbo jumbo while you don't have anything to prove your side. It goes both ways.

Most of the patients I scan are there because they're sick or something's wrong. They need help. I'm there to do a job and find things before they get worse. It's not a bar or a party, it's a f*cking hospital. First you say "not all men think about sex when they hit on you". Now you're saying that I have sexual thoughts when I'm looking for tumors in patients? You're contradicting yourself left and right. Which way is it then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Sorry quotes got messed up.

If natural selection selected for big boobs only... Why do small boobs even exist now? With animals less desirable traits die out fast. Why not with people? Why are we not s super race by now?

Since we're getting primal with this hehe.... Don't the people that support this theory also say that women are the lickers because of all our precious eggs and long gestation period and howhelpless our babies are and men are sperm machines? Then why is he focus on female attractiveness and what's more sexually viable and not the physical characteristics of men that make them look like a better fighter and provider? Seems like people in his forum get bent out of shape when a mans attractiveness is put into question...

---

Well, it's not that simple because we're obviously not purely animals. That's what separates us from all other species on earth.
Am I saying that only women with wide hips and big breasts are mating? No. Am I saying that women with smaller breasts are any less attractive or capable of bearing children in this modern day? No. Sure, the law of Darwinism can be applied to both animals and humans. But, again, humans are not purely animal. There's still a lot of unintelligent, lazy, and ugly people in this world right?

Compare our race to what it was when the first human-resembling beings appeared on earth. We are certainly more evolved and advanced than they are. In your words, a "super race".

posted June 09, 2015 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:

Yes a stronger, fighting, and protective man is more attractive to a woman on a primal level.

---

This does not explain why ever since I was a teenager I've had a thing for skinny guys like this:

I mean, sure, if a guy has a handsome face and sweet personality and is a bit heavier or more muscular I'd have no problem with dating him and could still find him attractive, but if I was being honest with myself about my ideal on a visceral level (read: what makes me want to rip a stranger's pants off), it would be the exact opposite of strong.

posted June 09, 2015 04:20 PM            

The guy is skinny, but he's handsome, tall, healthy. He's strong. I'm not talking meatheads on steroids or anything.

posted June 09, 2015 04:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
Weird, I was listening to Incubus today in the car.

The guy is skinny, but he's handsome, tall, healthy. He's strong. I'm not talking meatheads on steroids or anything.

I'm not telling people what they like and don't like. Everyone likes what they like. Sure, cultural and social influences play a role too. On top of everything else.

---

Right. And it plays the largest role, imo. Along with personal preference. I mean, the claim is that men like women with large busts and hips (a low hip-to-waist ratio) because it signals fertility and ease of childbirth. But this simply does not explain the large volumes of men who like ectomorphic, linear women with no a$$ and seemingly, very low estrogen. These men exist. And they're usually rich, too.

posted June 09, 2015 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

Right. And it plays the largest role, imo. Along with personal preference. I mean, the claim is that men like women with large busts and hips (a low hip-to-waist ratio) because it signals fertility and ease of childbirth. But this simply does not explain the large volumes of men who like ectomorphic, linear women with no a$$ and seemingly, very low estrogen. These men exist. And they're usually rich, too.

I just don't put a lot of stock into these quackpot evo-psych pseudoscience theories. I see the logic behind the theories, but real-world application directly contradicts it too much for me to do so.

---

Sure, in this day and age, I wouldn't argue with that. I'm not necessarily saying our primal desires are in the spotlight, but they simply exist alongside everything else.

Believe me, I know about preferences. I have long hair, some women are extremely attracted to me and others don't give me the time of day. I've shaved my head before and then everything gets reversed.

Maybe a lot of the rich guys are married to linear women. But who can say you can take that at face value? Some of them may have extra girlfriends on the side. They can afford it. Maybe they chose a low-estrogen partner for security. You never know. Sure, they may love them. And some of them may even be heads-over-heals for them. But, are they their physically ideal women?

posted June 09, 2015 05:24 PM            

In Japan the ideal male form seems to be a guy who is thin, though also well toned and graceful (the type of body most anime guys have). I believe this is because of their ancient history which was shaped by combat arts that emphasized grace and dexterity over raw strength (strength was useful but it only takes a pound of pressure to slit an artery or, if you're skilled enough, to stab through the heart even if your opponent wore armor). As a result such samurai and others of that nature came to dominate their society (they also had a lot of appreciation for beauty and flowers that would often be seen as "gay" or "hippie" for men in the West which you can still see influencing their fashion to this day) and thus succeed...and that is perhaps why they remain the ideal masculine beauty of today to contrast with the beefcake ideal of the West where strength was more important than grace and skill.

(Btw, fun fact, as strength took prominence in the west our ancestors used more armor and this is what led to the use of war hammers, maces, and the like, and also the very odd tactic of grabbing a sword by the blade--using a gauntlet of course--and bashing their opponent with the hilt as given the armor it was more effective for the one swinging and less damaging to the sword, but more importantly it was because they relied on strength rather than skill far more than the Japanese, though the Europeans did come up with tactics to get through grooves in armor as well, but not with anywhere as much grace so that the big, beefy, and strong men tended to be the ones at the top and both men and women in those societies came to idealize such as male beauty).

As for myself, well I can hardly speak for womankind given that I prefer women to men anyway, but I'm going somewhere with this. I was raised on books and movies in which the guys who prevailed were more clever or at least graceful in mostly fantasy (not the kind filled with muscular barbarians like Conan, at least not most of the time, it was usually bumbling wizards and clever rogues who were both the male love interest and hero of the story as they overcame great warriors and even epic forces) and scifi in which the role of women was different than in most other genres as were the men who tended to become romantic interests which often emphasized intelligence over brawn and in the books usually didn't bother to describe them much (you'll see plenty like that in Star Trek, Captain Kirk somewhat excepted).

And then at age 14 (even as I continued to read my preferred genres) I "pretend dated" a boy (whom I first met in the fantasy section of the school library) he was lanky and skinny and somewhat picked on for being so puny (though when I faked dated him he suddenly became a lot more popular in school), though he was dextrous and more graceful than most. Perhaps what sealed the image of "the guy I'd like if I were into guys" (and it showed in the 2 men I'd actually date seriously at 17 and 19, and I think if I were straight those would be the type of guys I'd go for) was my falling in love with the movie The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane and the love affair the heroine has with Mario (small and even had to use a cane to walk, but absolutely brilliant and charming).

posted June 09, 2015 05:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
Afterall, some would say the woman has more to lose getting pregnant and all.

---

I'm not sure what this means. What are they losing? If they "lost" something, we would be extinct. It's not like women get pregnant by themselves or for themselves.

Regarding your question, women have very recently started to "own their primal side", officially; they had been a dominated gender for a long time before that, and their "primal side" had been more or less forbidden, repressed or owned.

posted June 09, 2015 05:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I'm not sure what this means. What are they losing? If they "lost" something, we would be extinct. It's not like women get pregnant by themselves or for themselves.

---

I meant risk. Their own well being, the child's well being, the chance of the man deserting them, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Regarding your question, women have very recently started to "own their primal side", officially; they had been a dominated gender for a long time before that, and their "primal side" had been more or less forbidden, repressed or owned.

---

posted June 09, 2015 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
I meant risk. Their own well being, the child's well being, the chance of the man deserting them, etc.

---

posted June 09, 2015 05:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I'm sure responsible desirable blokes are as concerned about a woman's pregnancy with their child as she is.

---

Are you sure? Why are there so many single moms then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Of course, it's her job and interest to learn to distinguish those.

---

So, you're saying women are more selective (mental/emotional) in who they are attracted to?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I am however not sure what you meant to say, in the context

---

What are you implying here?

posted June 09, 2015 05:51 PM            

The repression was a historical observation.

In present times, and if they live in a society where they are free to choose, I think they are attracted to men the same way men are to women: depending on the goal, on what they are looking for. ONS, "primal side"-only relationships , life partner, potential father etc.

posted June 09, 2015 05:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
What are you implying here?

---

posted June 09, 2015 05:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Just throwing out an observation of mine on what females are attracted to.

In Japan the ideal male form seems to be a guy who is thin, though also well toned and graceful (the type of body most anime guys have). I believe this is because of their ancient history which was shaped by combat arts that emphasized grace and dexterity over raw strength (strength was useful but it only takes a pound of pressure to slit an artery or, if you're skilled enough, to stab through the heart even if your opponent wore armor). As a result such samurai and others of that nature came to dominate their society (they also had a lot of appreciation for beauty and flowers that would often be seen as "gay" or "hippie" for men in the West which you can still see influencing their fashion to this day) and thus succeed...and that is perhaps why they remain the ideal masculine beauty of today to contrast with the beefcake ideal of the West where strength was more important than grace and skill.

(Btw, fun fact, as strength took prominence in the west our ancestors used more armor and this is what led to the use of war hammers, maces, and the like, and also the very odd tactic of grabbing a sword by the blade--using a gauntlet of course--and bashing their opponent with the hilt as given the armor it was more effective for the one swinging and less damaging to the sword, but more importantly it was because they relied on strength rather than skill far more than the Japanese, though the Europeans did come up with tactics to get through grooves in armor as well, but not with anywhere as much grace so that the big, beefy, and strong men tended to be the ones at the top and both men and women in those societies came to idealize such as male beauty).

As for myself, well I can hardly speak for womankind given that I prefer women to men anyway, but I'm going somewhere with this. I was raised on books and movies in which the guys who prevailed were more clever or at least graceful in mostly fantasy (not the kind filled with muscular barbarians like Conan, at least not most of the time, it was usually bumbling wizards and clever rogues who were both the male love interest and hero of the story as they overcame great warriors and even epic forces) and scifi in which the role of women was different than in most other genres as were the men who tended to become romantic interests which often emphasized intelligence over brawn and in the books usually didn't bother to describe them much (you'll see plenty like that in Star Trek, Captain Kirk somewhat excepted).

And then at age 14 (even as I continued to read my preferred genres) I "pretend dated" a boy (whom I first met in the fantasy section of the school library) he was lanky and skinny and somewhat picked on for being so puny (though when I faked dated him he suddenly became a lot more popular in school), though he was dextrous and more graceful than most. Perhaps what sealed the image of "the guy I'd like if I were into guys" (and it showed in the 2 men I'd actually date seriously at 17 and 19, and I think if I were straight those would be the type of guys I'd go for) was my falling in love with the movie The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane and the love affair the heroine has with Mario (small and even had to use a cane to walk, but absolutely brilliant and charming).

I've known straight women who go for guys like that or for others who vary wildly from the standard attractions. There are some interesting theories others have on why that is which I think hold some water but one thing I've noticed among many of them is that they were typically raised on the same media (meant to include books) that I was, or alternately were very academic in their interests, rather than seeking pleasure in the endless romance genres (and related) in which the big (and often beefy) brave guy rescues the damsel in distress as well as being very protective of her which is how he shows he loves her. Though I don't know much of an effect it has I'm convinced there is some effect on learning what to be attracted to in youth which includes the media engaging the mind (not that it operates in a vacuum), though perhaps we enjoy the media that we do because we're already hardwired in some way we don't realize at birth, though contrasting the ideal masculine beauty between Japan and the West I'm inclined to think attraction is formed in childhood rather than we're born with it.

---

This was a dream to read. Thank you Pixie!

I agree with you, that culture and childhood will overcome genetics/evolution in most cases.

It would be interesting though, to see if certain personality traits/types equal more susceptibility to cultural/societal influences than others.

posted June 09, 2015 06:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
C'mon, I'm not implying anything, what are you? a lawyer?

---

Haha, no, but I am a Libra!

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I'm returning your question to you: why do YOU think there are many single moms out there? You seem to be implying something and I am curious what it is

---

I can only take a guess, but, people just aren't what they always seem. And we misjudge, a lot. I guess what I'm saying is, you can never really know for sure who someone is truly.

posted June 09, 2015 06:20 PM            

"I can only take a guess, but, people just aren't what they always seem. And we misjudge, a lot. I guess what I'm saying is, you can never really know for sure who someone is truly. "

And this is Libra diplomacy, right??

Just kidding! That was very deep, deep indeed

posted June 09, 2015 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Good, Libra is good, I have lots of Libra too

"I can only take a guess, but, people just aren't what they always seem. And we misjudge, a lot. I guess what I'm saying is, you can never really know for sure who someone is truly. "

And this is Libra diplomacy, right??

Just kidding! That was very deep, deep indeed

Nah, seriously now, there is truth in what you say, some single moms and single dads are single parents because of what you describe, somehow. Even so, they're much better without that person.
BUT many single parents are so because they chose to be; and many others because the marriage/partnership didn't work out and it's better this way, for everyone involved.
One mustn't assume single parents are people who were duped by someone that's an unrealistic stigma, IMO.

---

I've got Venus and Mercury conjunct Pluto in Scorpio, so I'm probably not your average Libra haha.

Good point about not always being duped. Perhaps not duped, but what I mean is people often don't show their true colors till way down the line. I feel the most for the kids that have to go through that.

I have a lot of friends who never met their dad or barely have a relationship with them. But of course, everyone's story is different.