posted June 09, 2015 11:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
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.

---

posted June 11, 2015 10:51 PM            

You've been defining your physical biogolical evolutionary whatever theory for this long, why are you suddenly saying that humans are more than their animal desires? Doesn't that like kinda contradict what you're saying. Or are you proposing the radical theory that humans are a sum of nature and nurture, of their instacts and mind?

You say there is evidence. Yeah, most of these studies are done by surveying the very representative group of like 100 people on college campuses these sxientists just graduated from or something. But even that.. You can honestly say WHY they like what they do. You can't. Ever. Big boobs are in vogue right now. And believe it or not, a curvy figure is as well. If you asked this in the1920s do you think you'd have the same answer? What about in Ancient Greece?

Yeah but you actually said that women flirted with you and called you handsome during the exams blah blah blah.

And why do you automatically assume men with rail thin wives are cheating on them with a "more ideal" woman. You do know that skinny women can have the same or even better waist to hip ratio than a woman that you see are more ideal right? So how do you know that some men see these types of women as their ideal? Because if one type of woman was the ideal, then yes, we would have created your super race of perfect women by now. Because according to you men deep down just prefer one thing and they don't have emotions or care another mating for other reason but to get their dick into the most "ideal" woman they find.

posted June 11, 2015 11:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
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.

---

What I say might be blamed for being too abstract by some people but I think that our preferences are very largely societal. Well in a way. Because we have had the capability to reason and at this point, our greatest evolutionary advantage is NOT our primal instincts or gut reactions, but it's our mind and its flexibility. Our attraction to the gender of our choice (not simply opposite because many people are attracted to the same gender) is in a higher aesthetic level. If we were more primal we would simple be attracted to primary sex characteristics in a mate that was in heat. But because we developed the ability to reason, we are able to be more abstract inour physical visual attraction.

Different things are considered the epitome Of masculinity or femininity in different cultures. So in a way we are conditioned to believe that a certain type is the ideal masculine or feminine. Like in Japan girls might be saying go eachother oh wow that slim guy is so hot he is like the ultimate man. And the men there will be swooning over tiny girls with small breasts and hips and porcelain skin, seeing them as the ideal feminine type. so there, a woman that's attracted to meatheads would be the rebel, the one that other girls are like "wow, him? Really. Eh ok then..."

posted June 12, 2015 05:32 AM            

As an example of how crap evo-psych is, a few American scientists found that American men experience more sexual jealousy over the thought of infidelity whereas American women experienced more jealousy over the thought of emotional infidelity/betrayal, and concluded that there are biological reasons for this. What they didn't do was test other cultures. The exact opposite results were found in Germany and China than those found in Japan and the US: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sex-jealousy-and-violence/. The association is actually indicative of attachment style (which is linked to our childhood development) rather than our gender, just like PixieJane implied.

posted June 12, 2015 06:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Careful, if ag sees you say that he may accuse you of being brainwashed by feminists.

---

posted June 12, 2015 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
No,
I've explained this over and over. I do not disagree with that statement. I have an issue with how statements like that contradict what women on this forum keep telling me. When I bring up how women frequently choose jerks it's "he tricked me! He seemed so nice in the beginning!" But when it comes to me women are rejecting me because I'm bitter towards women and they sense it. You can't have it both ways.... That's what I have been saying for years. Women are either psychic or they aren't. If they can't sense a jerks true nature under his friendly exterior they cannot detect my bitter/cynicism under my friendly exterior either. Saying "women are rejecting you because you are bitter" is just a cop out that makes as much sense as me telling a woman that is angry about being cheated on that her man cheated on her because she is bitter.

---

I myself never said that women are rejecting you because they sense your bitterness and cynicism. It's possible that you DON'T come across as being the misogynist that you actually are, but that you are simply charmless. I mean, I've never met you. Maybe you're just really, really awkward. Or maybe you continually shoot out of your league because you refuse to accept or recognize what your league is.

posted June 12, 2015 12:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Cosmic phuz,
Don't even waste your time arguing with these people. I mean we are talking about a group of people (this forum) who seriously think that gender differences are a result of societal conditioning.

---

I never said that there are no differences, only that any differences are likely very nuanced and we can't be certain exactly what they are, since it's impossible to extract the individual from their culture and upbringing. I've already provided numerous examples of how evo-psychs have been wrong when they made sweeping gender extractions before by looking at meta-analyses of more groups than just the handful of college students typically used in US sociological studies from which huge conclusions are often drawn. One was that it's erroneous to say that women in general prefer slightly older men when meta-analyses show this to be true only of women until they are about 30, at which point their preferences reverse. So perhaps what was taken as a true preference (drawn from studying only 20-year-old college women) was simply an orientation for the most attractive men, who are disproportionately clustered in the 25-30 age group, and thus would have been slightly older.

Similarly, I've shown that women do not experience more emotional jealousy vs. men experiencing comparatively more sexual jealousy; this is specific to certain cultures; In Europe, the reverse is true, for example.

posted June 12, 2015 02:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
I never said that there are [b]no
Similarly, I've shown that women do not experience more emotional jealousy vs. men experiencing comparatively more sexual jealousy; this is specific to certain cultures; In Europe, the reverse is true, for example.
[/B]

---

posted June 12, 2015 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
[b] I never said that there are [b]no
Similarly, I've shown that women do not experience more emotional jealousy vs. men experiencing comparatively more sexual jealousy; this is specific to certain cultures; In Europe, the reverse is true, for example.
[/B]

---

posted June 12, 2015 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Cosmic phuz,
Don't even waste your time arguing with these people. I mean we are talking about a group of people (this forum) who seriously think that gender differences are a result of societal conditioning.

---

Personally... I'm not debating whether gender differences are a result of conditioning and/or biological factors.

What I'm saying (and have always said) is that whatever differences there are between two members of the same species (regardless of their sex or gender or conditioning) are relatively minor, and not very significant in the scheme of things.

posted June 12, 2015 07:52 PM            

Imagine trying to write a comprehensive *text* on the similarities between people in general (of any gender) - similarities in their behaviour, appearance, overall life experience, psychology and so on.
It would end up being an entire encyclopaedia, with 10+ volumes.

But I guess not many would be interested in reading that because it wouldn't be very contentious or taboo.
People LOVE having things to debate and argue over. It keeps them entertained. That's the only reason - these statistics and research on gender differences are so popular, and receive so much air-time.
It's just like political and religious issues.

If you're a bit bored and want to strike up an argument - sex, politics and religion - are the perfect topics!
Everyone will have their piece to say. Always!

^It's --> *Human nature!*

posted June 13, 2015 01:16 AM            

I never said humans' desires are nothing more than their animal instincts. I said that primal instincts are one piece of the puzzle. Read my posts carefully, I'm not contradicting myself. I even gave an example that big breasts aren't a deal breaker for me. Do they make me turn my head and go "shwing"? Sure, I can't help it.

Also, if a woman tells me I'm handsome, I'm pretty sure she's not creeped out.

And I also am not saying that rich men are necessarily cheating on their linear wives. But it's possible. All I'm saying is that you can't take everything at face value. I mean, c'mon, 50% of marriages end in divorce. That means not every couple you see walking down the street is happy/content/satisfied. You will never know what is exactly going in anyone's mind except your own.

Aquacheeka, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Everything is NOT cultural/learned/nurtured. What do you think the first humans did to survive? They relied on primal instinct. There was no culture to follow. Women chose strong males as partners for protection because there weren't laws/USA/Japan/cops/rules/etc back then! Just because you prefer Brandon Boyd from Incubus doesn't prove anything. Or perhaps it does. Why don't you have a thing for Mike Einziger, the shorter, smaller statured guitarist? He's thoughtful, smart, seems gentle.

posted June 13, 2015 01:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Cosmic phuz,
Don't even waste your time arguing with these people. I mean we are talking about a group of people (this forum) who seriously think that gender differences are a result of societal conditioning.

---

It is. Gender is actually described as the traits society determines as masculine or feminine. Maybe you're thinking about sex, what physically makes us male or female?

Without society would men try to bulk up their wicked muscles and would women curtesy demurely? Think of all the words you can to describe masculinity and femininity. Then see if it would make sense to apply those words to the sexes outside of societal context. This is like, sociology 101.

posted June 13, 2015 01:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:

Haha!
Seriously? Women are the worst about emotional cheating. If I had a dollar for every chick with a boyfriend I have seen attention wh*ring on the dating sites I'd be rich and have a palace full of concubines already. The average American woman has no qualms about getting attention and getting their egos stroked by other dudes on the side. If women are really jealous about men doing the same thing it's just another in their long line of double standards.
As far as Europe being the opposite... There's a very simple explanation for that. Prostitution is legal in some European countries and the men don't have to put up with female bs to get laid. Men in the U.S don't have that option and the dating scene is a total joke so sexual opportunities are hard to come by. So it should be easy to understand why women in Europe are more concerned about sexual cheating and American women aren't.

---

Is that really why? And how do you know sexual opportunities are that hard to come by for other men in America? A lot of foreigners seem to think Americans are easy.

You say "put up with female bs to get laid" like men are entitled to stick his **** into women without putting up with their "bs." So what, we should just lay there with our legs open so men can just **** us whenever they wNt, regardless of if we actually WANT to or not?

posted June 13, 2015 01:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
Well, Bansheequeen, if I must repeat myself again, what's another time, right?

I never said humans' desires are nothing more than their animal instincts. I said that primal instincts are one piece of the puzzle. Read my posts carefully, I'm not contradicting myself. I even gave an example that big breasts aren't a deal breaker for me. Do they make me turn my head and go "shwing"? Sure, I can't help it.

Also, if a woman tells me I'm handsome, I'm pretty sure she's not creeped out.

And I also am not saying that rich men are necessarily cheating on their linear wives. But it's possible. All I'm saying is that you can't take everything at face value. I mean, c'mon, 50% of marriages end in divorce. That means not every couple you see walking down the street is happy/content/satisfied. You will never know what is exactly going in anyone's mind except your own.

Aquacheeka, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Everything is NOT cultural/learned/nurtured. What do you think the first humans did to survive? They relied on primal instinct. There was no culture to follow. Women chose strong males as partners for protection because there weren't laws/USA/Japan/cops/rules/etc back then! Just because you prefer Brandon Boyd from Incubus doesn't prove anything. Or perhaps it does. Why don't you have a thing for Mike Einziger, the shorter, smaller statured guitarist? He's thoughtful, smart, seems gentle.

Aquaguy, all I'm gonna say is good luck man. People are gonna believe what they wanna believe. At least we tried.

---

But listen to what you're saying. You're telling me not to take anything at face value yet you are doing it yourself. And you kind of only defend the part about primal instincts and how we're just trying to satisfy that part of ourselves over other factors...

Well that was then, and this is now. We needed instruct to survive but we've evolved. We developed really awesome hands and brains that are capable of really complex reasoning. Primal instincts are like a vestigial organ. Except yeah out insincts still come into play. But they're not what shaped our evolution into what we are now, because if they were, we would still be living like animals. Make sense? Do we rely of our sense of smell or eyesight for catching prey and protecting from predators? No, our senses are really dulled and pretty crappy now. Do we rely on animalistic mating urges to get laid?

posted June 13, 2015 02:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
But listen to what you're saying. You're telling me not to take anything at face value yet you are doing it yourself. And you kind of only defend the part about primal instincts and how we're just trying to satisfy that part of ourselves over other factors...

---

Like I said, read my posts carefully. I've given mental/cultural/emotional factors of attraction as much credit as primal. And what am I taking at face value?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Well that was then, and this is now. We needed instruct to survive but we've evolved. We developed really awesome hands and brains that are capable of really complex reasoning. Primal instincts are like a vestigial organ. Except yeah out insincts still come into play. But they're not what shaped our evolution into what we are now, because if they were, we would still be living like animals. Make sense? Do we rely of our sense of smell or eyesight for catching prey and protecting from predators? No, our senses are really dulled and pretty crappy now. Do we rely on animalistic mating urges to get laid?

---

So you agree with me that humans have evolved? Because before, you were asking why we weren't a "super race", right?

Yet, humans are certainly still animals today. Just because we live in houses, drive cars, wear clothes, and have governments doesn't mean we have no animal at all in us. People are still killing eachother, fighting over land, fighting over power, greed, raping eachother, competing for the best mate, backstabbing at the office, etc. right?

Ever read the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?

posted June 13, 2015 02:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
So you agree with me that humans have evolved? Because before, you were asking why we weren't a "super race", right?

Yet, humans are certainly still animals today. Just because we live in houses, drive cars, wear clothes, and have governments doesn't mean we have no animal at all in us. People are still killing eachother, fighting over land, greed, raping eachother, competing for the best mate, backstabbing at the office, etc. right?

Ever read the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?

---

posted June 13, 2015 02:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Because using the biology is king logic, evolution would have selected for certain traits over others, and by that logic it doesn't make sense that humans are so so diverse. Because if yo look at species of animals, they aren't diverse at all... because evolution was driven strictly by animal instincts and physical ability to survive and mate. If that was true for people, we would all be the same. If these theorists were right, we would all be huge breasted, huge hipped super sexy people. And who's to say attraction is what drove evolution. Not necessity? How can they be sure that attraction didn't come to be after we developed the ability to reason? Because do animals feel attraction and appreciation for the attractiveness of their mate like humans do or do they just sense an urgency to mate? What I'm saying is that society is what took the wheel of evolution after biology ensured that we survived long enough to get our big brains.

---

Like I said before, bansheequeen, we are not entirely animals. That's why humans are different. We are capable of thought.

As far as what is "taking the wheel" of evolution, that is very subjective and I don't think you or I are capable of determining that. It may even differ from individual to individual.

I appreciate your debate and fire, but all this repeating I'm having to do for you is getting exhausting.

posted June 13, 2015 02:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CosmiqPhuz:
As for the argument that the Japanese have entirely different attraction principles due to culture, you must also be aware that caucasians and asians have slight genetic differences. Slight, but enough to create different biological traits. As do Africans and so on.

While I am not dismissing the fact that culture plays a large part, a lot of it stems from a biological difference.

---

Yeah but the point was that they also have different cultures that find different traits attractive, even when exposed to all sorts of humans. The point is that one type is not universally attractive and feminine across the board. Sure you might argue "but but hips and boobs schwing right?" But that's just the western-male centered view on it. Even when exposed to other cultures, Japan still prefers the slim graceful man and soft faced small bodied woman. Westerners still prefer the muscular sharp facial featured man and curvy (but slim curvy) with defined facial features woman. And yeah. Asians are smaller with softer features and Europeans are larger with defined features. So did culture evolve to say that the people we are exposed to are attractive, or did people get like that because we biologically selected for those traits that we found attractive through instincts? Chicken or egg? Did they develop simultaneously, side by side? Who knows man.

posted June 13, 2015 03:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bansheequeen:
Yeah but the point was that they also have different cultures that find different traits attractive, even when exposed to all sorts of humans. The point is that one type is not universally attractive and feminine across the board. Sure you might argue "but but hips and boobs schwing right?" But that's just the western-male centered view on it. Even when exposed to other cultures, Japan still prefers the slim graceful man and soft faced small bodied woman. Westerners still prefer the muscular sharp facial featured man and curvy (but slim curvy) with defined facial features woman. And yeah. Asians are smaller with softer features and Europeans are larger with defined features. So did culture evolve to say that the people we are exposed to are attractive, or did people get like that because we biologically selected for those traits that we found attractive through instincts? Chicken or egg? Did they develop simultaneously, side by side? Who knows man.

And you are arguing that biological preference is what drives attraction and the picking of a mate, so other races biological differences directly correlate to their different preferences.

---

Yes exactly, I think the different biological predispositions would affect the natural primal preferences in attraction. Almost like, you have to treat the different ethnicities as different species in a way. Due to the natural habitat and food available in Asia, especially when it was still isolated, a man would rarely develop the bone structure and muscle mass equivalent to a man living in Europe with different climate and foods.

So in turn, the biological differences helped influence the cultures' development. And culture has evolved and changed.

And with the world becoming more of a melting pot, people mixing races, having different foods available to them that their ancestors didn't have, living in different environments, more cultures being discovered, it's a wonder anyone can pinpoint the main factor in attraction.

So, if there is one point I am trying to drive home after this long grueling discussion, it's that there is indeed a primal instinct in our attraction along with everything else.

To say that a primal instinct doesn't exist is ignoring thousands of years of evolution before culture or civilization. And to claim that culture is the main factor in attraction is only speculation.