TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- evolutionary nonsense
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

evolutionary nonsense

quote:

SCIENTISTS say they have carried out the first study that confirms that evolutionary pressure - the drive to have more children, in short - is what causes the typical age gap among couples. Researchers explored the theory that men go for younger, sexually attractive women in order to boost their chances of reproductive success, while women prefer older, successful men to provide the resources and security that increase their offspring's chance of survival. The investigators trawled through a Swedish population database, covering 11,500 men and women born between 1945 and 1955, to see at what age these individuals became parents. Among couples who stayed together, the most children were born in households where there was an age difference of four to six years. When couples split up and mated again, they each opted for partners who were younger than the first. That was especially so for older men, who went for women who were much younger. Women looking for a new mate generally chose a male who was slightly older than herself. "The age preference for the partner increases the individual reproductive fitness of both men and women,'' say the authors, who speculate that this trait has been acquired through millennia of evolution. The study, which appears in the British journal Biology Letters, is written by Martin Fieder, an anthropologist at the University of Vienna, and Susanne Huber, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna.

bullshit. we go for younger mates coz theyre hotter and firmer with everything still in the right place.

cor version: Men like to fcuk young girls.

yeah um i wanna know what kind of guys they were using in that study

Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hotter and firmer

... = healthier = capable of having more children. Usually.

...or so the reasoning goes.

Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles ... = healthier = capable of having more children. Usually. ...or so the reasoning goes.

So.............. hot = healthy?

Sheeeit. I'm immortal.

Re: Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael So.............. hot = healthy?

Supposedly the physical characteristics considered "hot" (clear skin, facial symmetry, good skeletal and muscular development, facial features neither very big nor very small) also indicate relatively good genetics and health. The famous waist to hip ratio in women is another example; low ratios are considered attractive by men pretty much universally, while high ratios (in both men and women) can indicate obesity or a tendency to develop heart disease.

Re: Re: Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Supposedly the physical characteristics considered "hot" (clear skin, facial symmetry, good skeletal and muscular development, facial features neither very big nor very small) also indicate relatively good genetics and health. The famous waist to hip ratio in women is another example; low ratios are considered attractive by men pretty much universally, while high ratios (in both men and women) can indicate obesity or a tendency to develop heart disease.

that theory is completely undermined by the transient nature of concepts of beauty throughout history. there certainly wasn't any "universality" until modern media.

If you can find a culture where facial symmetry, clear skin, statistically average facial features, and women with a waist-hip ratio of about .7 are considered unattractive, I'd be interested to know.

There are superficial things that have changed: types of clothes worn, body piercings, tattooing, skin tone (although it's very common for cultures to prefer that women be lighter-skinned, even among those who have had little contact with Westerners), and some less superficial ones like preferences for thinness or fatness. But other things have stayed pretty much the same, as far as I know.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If you can find a culture where facial symmetry, clear skin, statistically average facial features, and women with a waist-hip ratio of about .7 are considered unattractive, I'd be interested to know. There are superficial things that have changed: types of clothes worn, body piercings, tattooing, skin tone (although it's very common for cultures to prefer that women be lighter-skinned, even among those who have had little contact with Westerners), and some less superficial ones like preferences for thinness or fatness. But other things have stayed pretty much the same, as far as I know.

Cultures in colder climates have been known to prefer larger women. Take Mongolia circa 1300, for example. Skinny women would have been considered gross and unhealthy.

It coincides with your statement about evolution determining sexual preference for an area or time period, and also coincides with the fact that there are different strokes for different folks.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Cultures in colder climates have been known to prefer larger women. Take Mongolia circa 1300, for example.

Or Europe during the Renaissance, which happened to coincide more or less with the "Little Ice Age":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Just a coincidence? Who knows.

I've been dying to know why I can't get off to fat chicks.


cure for cancer, wait your turn.

Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN bullshit. we go for younger mates coz theyre hotter and firmer with everything still in the right place.

that response makes u come off as a typical male pig, not that u care of course.

Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ not that u care of course.

precisely. my "net rep" means absolutely nothing to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If you can find a culture where facial symmetry, clear skin, statistically average facial features, and women with a waist-hip ratio of about .7 are considered unattractive, I'd be interested to know.

I think a lot of it comes down to how much porous minds soak up the bombardment of advertising and media which depicts the upper median as being the standard which others are judged. In some cases, the upper absolute median being the only desirable mate for people who tend to be material, peer-centric and unable to distinguish or haven't the type of personality to differentiate between what might fit a cultural and social acceptance, rather than any actual purpose.

Re: Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael So.............. hot = healthy? Sheeeit. I'm immortal.

usually. fat and full of herpeps does not = healthy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that theory is completely undermined by the transient nature of concepts of beauty throughout history. there certainly wasn't any "universality" until modern media.

Would you say that, historically, on the average, it was the upper class elite or the lower class proles known for producing 10-15 children per household?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Cultures in colder climates have been known to prefer larger women. Take Mongolia circa 1300, for example. Skinny women would have been considered gross and unhealthy.

Did men generally prefer excessively hefty women back then or was being slender, young and healthy still attractive? How would we even know? The majority of recorded history from time periods where the division of the classes was so large (not that it has ever been small) was, of course, well-documented by the wealthy. They determined history.

MrJiveBoJingles, himself, once had a quote in his sig that said something to the effect of History is a graveyard of aristocracies. I think this is a pretty literal example of this concept.

Our concept of beauty may change from time to time, but healthiness will, in general, always be a very potent component of attraction. I'd say it always has been and probably always will be. I think that what changes the most, however, is our standard of what it means to be 'healthy'.

Re: evolutionary nonsense

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN bullshit. we go for younger mates coz theyre hotter and firmer with everything still in the right place.

http://men.msn.com/staticslideshow....umentid=4879931

I would bang Diane Lane into oblivion. Seriously ... no atoms left.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Did men generally prefer excessively hefty women back then or was being slender, young and healthy still attractive? How would we even know? The majority of recorded history from time periods where the division of the classes was so large (not that it has ever been small) was, of course, well-documented by the wealthy. They determined history. MrJiveBoJingles, himself, once had a quote in his sig that said something to the effect of History is a graveyard of aristocracies. I think this is a pretty literal example of this concept. Our concept of beauty may change from time to time, but healthiness will, in general, always be a very potent component of attraction. I'd say it always has been and probably always will be. I think that what changes the most, however, is our standard of what it means to be 'healthy'.

Well, I'm not exactly sure that a culture of horse farmers would have similar documentational "issues" as the roman-catholic mired europeans... but I do agree that history is never exactly what it seems, since we record poorly and with bias; we're also incapable of capturing the essence and milieu of an era and locale with texts... for that we must soak up lots of different sources, and hope they're broad enough to bring together that constellation of information into a united conceptualization.

But, there are certain interesting clues that are fun, and if anything I'd say that what we perceive to be "natural" to us now, would not have in another era or the future. Take fun little clues like the Venus of Willendorf, which for all we know was ancient pr0n. lol

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Take fun little clues like the Venus of Willendorf, which for all we know was ancient pr0n. lol

Are you saying she's not hot now???

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Did men generally prefer excessively hefty women back then or was being slender, young and healthy still attractive? How would we even know? The majority of recorded history from time periods where the division of the classes was so large (not that it has ever been small) was, of course, well-documented by the wealthy. They determined history.

what?

quote:

Our concept of beauty may change from time to time, but healthiness will, in general, always be a very potent component of attraction. I'd say it always has been and probably always will be. I think that what changes the most, however, is our standard of what it means to be 'healthy'.

I think good genes and a well-balanced diet are constant factors when determining whether one is healthy or not. 'Beauty' is completely different and biased, i believe in evolution. Intelligent design is bullcrap...

She is hot!



and she is fit!!




what else could you ask for?

I bet she's got real tight hemoroids too

Beauty does play a part in evolution.

They did a study a few years ago on about 40 odd faces in random order and they ask people all over the world to rank 1 to 40 how attractive they are, 1 being the most beautiful.

Guess what 97% of the people who took the test had the same exact arrangements from 1 to 40. I cant be bothered to search for the documentary, but its out there somewhere.

A sharp nose shows that the potential mate has good inhalation and that is important to a newborn. A bald guy would mean the boy would be bald at a much younger age and a mother would want the best for her boy.

Taller men means taller children. Its been proven taller people have better jobs in general compared to shorter folks.

List goes on and on..

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.