[just_a_guy]

Funny, I thought you were mocking yourself. Your sentence structure sucks.

LOL. Yeah, they skimped a little on the liberal arts when I was getting my engineering degree, and I did drop out of high school, so take it for what you will. Still, I make it a point to read entire posts (and even linked artiucles) before responding.

Also, I have no desire to engage in flame wars, especially those directed at my gender.

[nbdx0645]

Finally, a post that is succinct. Hooray!

[auralpoison]

*coughcough* MWET *coughcough* Whimpster. *coughcough*

Anybody wanna hate, feel free. But my vast gut is right nine times out of ten.

[nbdx0645]

Funny, I thought you were mocking yourself. Your sentence structure sucks.

[just_a_guy]

Can I get a summary of this in 2 sentences? I'm not following.

Yes, but I'm doing it in metaphor form:

1) Saying that a person who wants to get somewhere more quickly is likely to use the most advanced applicable transportation method available is not the same as saying all people are hopelessly and innately compelled to drive Ford Mustang convertibles.

2) While the specifics of what type of transportation is popular/cutting edge over time, the tendency to use such in order to achieve your objective is biologically innate.

ps- I don't mean to pick on you in particular nbdx0645. I decided to add a link to a new blog I started in my signature since the last blog post I wrote about was how, as a society, we are trending toward increasingly accepted misuse of the English language, and an unwillingness to read something in its entirety and decipher it for ourselves. Your quote of me using "a bunch of words" and wanting the reader's digest version just made me think of it.

[nbdx0645]

<A bunch of words>

Can I get a summary of this in 2 sentences? I'm not following.

[just_a_guy]

Oh gosh, I am SO happy this topic came up, even though we're getting a bit outside the theme of this forum. This is one of my hugest pet peeves: the pseudo-scientific bs that is known as "evolutionary psychology".

Guy, I respectfully and strongly disagree with your views about supposedly "hard-wired" gender differences in mate selection. Evolutionary psychology is a field that is increasingly discredited as better science and unbiased perspectives debunk its flawed basis; it has been all along a bunch of unprovable "theories" created to justify the prejudices of its originators. Just because someone calls themself a "scientist" doesn't make their personal opinions "science".

I've been uncomfortable with the crap that comes out of this field since I was in college 30 years ago. But - all things come to she who waits - finally in the last several years the tides have turned against it.

Guy, and anyone else who either buys this stuff or doesn't buy it but can't quite figure out why, check out this awesome article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-...eep-around.html

There's also a book out (I haven't read it yet) called "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", that sounds similar in perspective...and sounds like a hot and fascinating read. If anyone's read it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Just to be clear, Guy, this is not a slam or attack on you at all - I really respect your mind and since you obviously give things a lot of thought, I'm guessing you also are open to questioning your own views.

Definitely an interesting article to read. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, I was talking about the discussions I've had with biological and social anthropologists,which are separate sciences.

I agree that blaming our pre-programmed biology on modern behavior is ridiculously pseudo-scientific. It doesn't take into account nurture at all, and study after study have shown how strongly developmental influences affect our impulses and behaviors.

I still don't think this invalidates my argument because of the broad strokes I am using. I'm not saying let's forgive rapists they're hardwired that way, just like I'm not saying that all men like toyotas. I would however suggest that all human beings are genetically designed to be able to do three things: protect themselves (and their offspring), feed themselves (and their offspring), and create the aforementioned offspring. Because of this I would think that as technology advanced humans who were more likely to usehorses, wagons, and cars, or improving weapons to move farther faster, protect their families better, and hunt more effectively would have been more likely to survive long enough to procreate.

So by my argument no behavior is ok because it's pre-programmed, I'm only suggesting that our evolutionary imperative has an impact on how our developmental exposure to the world shapes our personalities. I'm not saying all men are attracted to 36-24-36 bodies, I'm saying that men are more likely to be attracted to the body type that nurture has taught them is most likely to help them produce viable offspring. I'm also not saying that all women are gold-diggers, I'm saying that a woman will try to seek out the best available mate to ensure her children are protected and fed.

I don't think women are dependent on men (although historical subservience is hard to argue against in most cases), I think it's a symbiotic relationship: men look for good physical qualities for their offspring, and women look for successful personality characteristics. Both of these are needed for survival and one is not more important than the other.

The major failing of evolutionary biology (aside from the lack of scientific method, and independent peer review, of course) is in its lack of account for how the manifestations of those traits are affected by nurture. What I find attractive today is not the same as what was considered attractive in 15th century England by virtue of the fact that I have had vastly different influences on my development. There is no one objective perfect beauty or perfect personality, we are all just betting on which is going to be the most successful in the next generation. All I'm saying is that women prefer evolutionary poker, and men prefer evolutionary black-jack.

[nbdx0645]

Strongirl, I agree with you. My college psych classes were NOT based in evo psych for that reason. I get frustrated when my friend's friend puts on sunglasses so he can check out all the babes on the street.

"I can't help but look at women. I'm a man." Congratulations, buddy. Needless to say, we fought it out.

You're still going to gawk creepily at women when we are hanging out? I hate it when men don't look me in the eye because they're staring at ANOTHER WOMAN'S BREASTS. It makes you wish they were attached to YOU, so they would be looking at A PART OF YOU. Then you hear how large breasts are ideal because <x, y, z> and you really start to wonder if something is medically wrong with you. Am I a part of Evolution's Divine Plan, or not?

Also, why doesn't evolutionary psych cater to the whims of women? Evo psych makes women sound sexless, overly-emotional, subservient, and utterly dependent on men.

[strongirl]

Oh gosh, I am SO happy this topic came up, even though we're getting a bit outside the theme of this forum. This is one of my hugest pet peeves: the pseudo-scientific bs that is known as "evolutionary psychology".

Guy, I respectfully and strongly disagree with your views about supposedly "hard-wired" gender differences in mate selection. Evolutionary psychology is a field that is increasingly discredited as better science and unbiased perspectives debunk its flawed basis; it has been all along a bunch of unprovable "theories" created to justify the prejudices of its originators. Just because someone calls themself a "scientist" doesn't make their personal opinions "science".

I've been uncomfortable with the crap that comes out of this field since I was in college 30 years ago. But - all things come to she who waits - finally in the last several years the tides have turned against it.

Guy, and anyone else who either buys this stuff or doesn't buy it but can't quite figure out why, check out this awesome article:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-...eep-around.html

There's also a book out (I haven't read it yet) called "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality", that sounds similar in perspective...and sounds like a hot and fascinating read. If anyone's read it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Just to be clear, Guy, this is not a slam or attack on you at all - I really respect your mind and since you obviously give things a lot of thought, I'm guessing you also are open to questioning your own views.

[just_a_guy]

guy: Maybe I'm just a big weirdo (it's in fact more than a little probable) but all my BFs have been dirt poor and I really am turned off by guys who are drawn to money/status/possessions and designer clothes that are made in the same sweat shops by the same 9 year old girls as the shit that ends up in K-mart.

You may completely disagree with this, but I don't usually find that poor guys who are bright and charismatic usually have a hard time finding women. And the women who don't want to date them because they take the city bus, instead of drive a Beamer....fuck 'em, I say.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, charisma and intelligence are traits of a high-status male. I'm not saying that all women have the same set of standards, just that women tend to place more weight on personality traits than they do on physical attributes when selecting a long-term mate. Men look at personality as well, but they place more importance on physical indicators of health than women do.

ps- girls that won't date a guy who doesn;t drive a Beemer here in LA are a dime a dozen, and I say exactly the same thing: fuck 'em. Whether you drive one or not, you want to put a bullet in your head after hearing some of these people talk for longer than 30 seconds.

[koffeewitch]

guy: Maybe I'm just a big weirdo (it's in fact more than a little probable) but all my BFs have been dirt poor and I really am turned off by guys who are drawn to money/status/possessions and designer clothes that are made in the same sweat shops by the same 9 year old girls as the shit that ends up in K-mart.

You may completely disagree with this, but I don't usually find that poor guys who are bright and charismatic usually have a hard time finding women. And the women who don't want to date them because they take the city bus, instead of drive a Beamer....fuck 'em, I say.

[just_a_guy]

Seriously! I could get over all the objectifications of women if it existed equally in the genders. Awhile back I went on a search to see if there were any women's mags whatsoever (with the exception of Playgirl, of course) that had male pictorials in them, like the men's magazines have of women, no matter what the topic.

None. Zero.

@SG - I'm all for the speedos, but I think you'll have an easier time convincing rugby players, rather than the wimpy football players here who insist on wearing pads

I also think that women enjoy looking at attractive men, and that men should take pride in their appearance in the same way that many men expect it of women.

@karategrrl - I agree that the acceptability (and thus the market for a product that fulfills the need) is limited at least partially by accepted social roles.

I will say that there are definitive differences between how much value the different genders place on aesthetics when selecting a mate. All the evidence I've looked at (unless a biological anthropologist in here wants to disagree with me) suggests that this is hard wired due to historical roles that men and women have taken on both in terms of familial and tribal/social responsibilities:

-Men look for women who are healthy enough to bear children and attractive enough that the children they bear have a better chance of finding a high-quality mate

-Women pay more attention to social status and ability to provide because ten-thousand years ago the higher up your mate was on the social ladder the less likely you and your children would starve to death, or some other guy would come along, take you from your husband, and kill your kids.

Frankly, our brains haven't changed that much in ten-thousand years.

[strongirl]

Honestly, I think we women have to take a lot of the blame for that. I don't buy the whole "guys are just more visual than girls" thing - I know I am VERY visual when it comes to looking at men. I think women buy into the whole conditioning that looks matter more for women than men, and we shouldn't. We should let men know we care about how they look, compliment them on things we like, enjoy and appreciate the shows of male pulchritude that we do get, and demand more!

In part, I have to thank my mother and her mother and sister for this - they all enjoyed looking at handsome men and were not ashamed to share this pleasure with me as I was growing up.

I intentionally chose to use the word "Speedo" because it's a hot button for this issue. I've read and heard discussions with women and how they feel about men in skimpy swimwear and definitely more than half the time the reaction is negative. There are even women who say it is too close to just looking at a man's "thing" and they don't like that either! I just can't relate to that at ALL. That is a type of sexism that we women can stop perpetuating, and we'll have more fun if we do.

And I do think men are just as exhibitionistic as women. I know there aren't mainstream mags except for Playgirl but if you look on Adult Friendfinder or any of those type of sites, guys love to take pics of their man-stuff and show it off!

[karategrrl]

Guy, you and I differ there, dude - I LOVE football!!!

And I'd be AOK with the chicks football thing IF:

1) There was a variety of body types as previously stated.
2) The NFL guys played in Speedos. And nothing else.

In my dreams...literally.

Seriously! I could get over all the objectifications of women if it existed equally in the genders. Awhile back I went on a search to see if there were any women's mags whatsoever (with the exception of Playgirl, of course) that had male pictorials in them, like the men's magazines have of women, no matter what the topic.

None. Zero.

[strongirl]

Guy, you and I differ there, dude - I LOVE football!!!

And I'd be AOK with the chicks football thing IF:

1) There was a variety of body types as previously stated.
2) The NFL guys played in Speedos. And nothing else.

In my dreams...literally.

[karategrrl]

but at the same time why do women keep feeding into this crap?? we women are perpetuating it by participating in it! they can't do "lingerie football" without women willing to wear the lingerie! I wish we would stop being our own worst enemies and start respecting ourselves so that men will!

AMEN, sistah!!!!! I SO feel you. Seriously, no wonder men learn this kind of crapola is okay. And yes, it wouldn't be so offensive if at least there was more body variety. (I wonder if implant rupture is s concern among the players, snicker...)

It does look like many of the women are playing the game seriously, but wearing THAT? It boggles my mind that many of these players, I suppose, really think they are showing women's empowerment. I mean, there's totally nothing wrong with being body-proud, but for a rough sport like football to be played in bras and hotpants, it's such an obvious gawk show it's ridiculous. Compare that to female professional volleyball players--they're just about as naked, but the nature of the sport dictates totally restriction-free gear. (Not to mention they're not all gussied up with sparkles and eyeliner.)

[just_a_guy]

To be completely honest, I'm so-so on the lingerie, but I hate the football. Boring as shit as far as I'm concerned. I do wish that they'd select a wider variety of body types though. I mean, if we're going to objectify can we at least get a little variety

[buttercups]

but at the same time why do women keep feeding into this crap?? we women are perpetuating it by participating in it! they can't do "lingerie football" without women willing to wear the lingerie! I wish we would stop being our own worst enemies and start respecting ourselves so that men will!

[buttercups]

ughhh, that makes me so mad!

[karategrrl]

Arrrrgh, just what the world needs--another vehicle for the objectification of women.

http://www.lflus.com/