FitChick Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Most of us are sick of "the usual suspects" at LS whining about how attractive people have an unfair advantage when it comes to dating. They, on the other hand, are just too short, too fat, too ugly to ever find love and they get ignored or worse on the well known dating sites. Here is the perfect website where you will meet others just like yourself. Let love blossom!
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. 1
Red Arremer Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Most of us are sick of "the usual suspects" at LS whining about how attractive people have an unfair advantage when it comes to dating. They, on the other hand, are just too short, too fat, too ugly to ever find love and they get ignored or worse on the well known dating sites. Here is the perfect website where you will meet others just like yourself. Let love blossom! Cool idea, although there's a small bit of NSFW in the ad in the lower right corner in case people are worried about that sort of thing. It looks like an ad for breast augmentation (hah), so nothing pornographic (and it's also pretty small within the ad) but it's there.
Anela Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. And what if the smartest and/or kindest people aren't the hottest? I think that the best genes include those personality traits. I don't remember reading any memos from Mother Nature, stating that "uglies" aren't welcome.
kaylan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 yikes...haha...I lol'd at the website. Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. Meh...Ive seen ugly people produce a good looking kid and vice versa...so I really never bought into the whole genes thing when it came to just looks.
jobaba Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 yikes...haha...I lol'd at the website. Meh...Ive seen ugly people produce a good looking kid and vice versa...so I really never bought into the whole genes thing when it came to just looks. Especially mixed! White + Asian = Black + White =
wavering_radiant Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. Natural selection doesn't "want" anything; it's just a blind, impersonal process that selects for certain traits and against other traits depending on the environmental context at the time. When you consider the large number of ugly people in the world, if so many ugly people manage to successfully reproduce, there's got to be something more to getting laid and having babies than just physical beauty (although certainly not a factor to be discounted). Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld actually (The Wink - ): Elaine: So basically what you're saying is 95% of the population is undateable? Jerry: Undateable! Elaine: Then how are all these people getting together? Jerry: Alcohol. And why is the process of natural selection necessarily fair just because it is a natural one? No ugly or beautiful person did anything at all to be born with the genes they carry. So how is it fair when nature renders someone lonely and unable to find a mate just because of the genes they inherited? If anything, natural selection, while something that's real, is something quite indifferent and cruel. Edited March 17, 2012 by wavering_radiant 3
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Natural selection doesn't "want" anything; it's just a blind, impersonal process that selects for certain traits and against other traits depending on the environmental context at the time. When you consider the large number of ugly people in the world, if so many ugly people manage to successfully reproduce, there's got to be something more to getting laid and having babies than just physical beauty. Well a common issue here on LS is that people who aren't attractive do not have the confidence or means to get an attractive mate, so they settle for a less attractive one. THATS why. It's difficult enough as it is as an attractive person to find an equally attractive one to mate with. So the numbers are on the decline. Very average individuals have no problem finding an equivalent. Above average individuals have a harder time. Look at all these hot and attractive celebs. Most of them don't have babies: Jen Aniston, Charlize Theron, George Clooney, Natalie Portman, Giselle Bundchen... Yet the ugly looking ones already popped out a few: Steve Buscemi, Tori Spelling, Ozzy Osbourne...
kaylan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Especially mixed! White + Asian = Black + White = Correction. Black + Asian = Blasian kids are freaking adorable. Well a common issue here on LS is that people who aren't attractive do not have the confidence or means to get an attractive mate, so they settle for a less attractive one. THATS why. It's difficult enough as it is as an attractive person to find an equally attractive one to mate with. So the numbers are on the decline. Very average individuals have no problem finding an equivalent. Above average individuals have a harder time. Look at all these hot and attractive celebs. Most of them don't have babies: Jen Aniston, Charlize Theron, George Clooney, Natalie Portman, Giselle Bundchen... Yet the ugly looking ones already popped out a few: Steve Buscemi, Tori Spelling, Ozzy Osbourne... Lol fail. Giselle Bundchen is married to Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and they have a child. Also Natalie Portman had a kid last year and got married this year. And if George Clooney wanted to, he could easily find a woman on his level to start a family with. He stays a bachelor by choice, not due to circumstance. Also, its quite possible for an average person to be seen as hot with the right physique and style...at the end of the day though, beauty is def subjective and the media has a helluva lot to do with what we deem attractive. Its a mixture of nature and nurture Id say. Edited March 17, 2012 by kaylan 2
ascendotum Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. I think it is unfair, but you are right its just nature and nature can be unfair..cute little gazelles get their head chewed off by lions. The best of breed prosper. Its in the best interests of mankind that intelligence also flourish so its not strictly looks when its comes time for children.
oaks Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. You tripped up slightly by anthropomorphizing natural selection, but apart from that I agree.
Disenchantedly Yours Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I always find it funny when people on a message board complain about what is being discussed. 99.1% of topics are recycled. They might have a little twist here and there but we all basically talk about the same thing. If you are "sick" of certain things, avoid those threads when you can. This is something else a lot of people do. *They* whine about how they are sick of the "whining" of others, yet they still show up in those threads! They even might comment! And for the comments that creep up in other threads..here is a novel idea........... ignore it. But the dating site IS interesting.
Professor X Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. As far as natural selection goes, it has nothing to do with physical attributes, it was never and never will be humanity key aspect. Humans never were the strongest, fastest, biggest animals out there, but they were the smartest ones. So, as for your statement, apart from it being completely ridicolous and an insult to science, I will add and say that the key for the survival of humanity was always its intelligent. Natural selection you say? Than the smartest ones are the ones to reproduce more and more, and in fact, that's exactly what happens. Beauty on the other hand... has not. Definition of natural selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Being beautiful helps you reproduce and survive? No. Being smart does? Yes. Edited March 17, 2012 by Professor X 3
SJC2008 Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Attractiveness is not an unfair advantage. Natural selection wants the best genes to be reproduced, not the ones of uglies and unattractive. So it's not unfair. It's nature. Then why won't anyone ask you out? 1
Ross MwcFan Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I tried the website, but it doesn't really seem to work properly. Whenever I do a search, none of the profiles which come up have pictures.
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Edited March 17, 2012 by FrustratedStandards
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Lol fail. Giselle Bundchen is married to Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and they have a child. The kid isn't hers. She's a stepmom. As far as natural selection goes, it has nothing to do with physical attributes, it was never and never will be humanity key aspect. Humans never were the strongest, fastest, biggest animals out there, but they were the smartest ones. So, as for your statement, apart from it being completely ridicolous and an insult to science, I will add and say that the key for the survival of humanity was always its intelligent. Being beautiful helps you reproduce and survive? No. Being smart does? Yes. It's true we are the smartest (although I have my doubts given all the stupidity I see in the world) but looks play a huge part. In nature, it's about dominance, the strongest or most attractive male/female attracts the opposite sex. Just because we are the smartest of all species doesn't mean we are exempt from this rule. Why are alpha males always flocked to by women? The pheromones, the physical looks. Why do men flock to gorgeous women? Cuz of their looks. Nature made attractiveness for a reason. Why are we attracted to certain things and not others (physically)? It's how we evolved. We evolved to favor certain physical aspects than others. That's why we find them attractive. The rest of it has nothing to do with intelligence but social construct. "Does he have a job? Is she loyal? Is he supportive? Will she be a good life partner?" If it really was about intelligence, the world would be MUCH smarter. I don't see nerds or geniuses (that aren't rich) with wives and families and having tons of kids (generally). Oh no, I see the "sluts" and the average women spreading their seeds. As many men have said on here, they know tons of gorgeous women who are always single. Initially, the first thing that always attracts someone to you is looks, not intelligence. Because you can't tell how smart someone is by looking at them (unfortunately, most of us save a lot of time if we could). So natural selection has made us attracted to attractive people. This DOES play a role in reproduction, because these people will always be the first choice. Whether or not they measure up in other aspects is a different story. But they do have the advantage.
mickleb Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 As far as natural selection goes, it has nothing to do with physical attributes, it was never and never will be humanity key aspect. Humans never were the strongest, fastest, biggest animals out there, but they were the smartest ones. So, as for your statement, apart from it being completely ridicolous and an insult to science, I will add and say that the key for the survival of humanity was always its intelligent. Natural selection you say? Than the smartest ones are the ones to reproduce more and more, and in fact, that's exactly what happens. Beauty on the other hand... has not. Definition of natural selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Being beautiful helps you reproduce and survive? No. Being smart does? Yes. I wish this did apply to humans. The world might be a little less chavtastic, if that were true! Of course, in many animal species, the fattest of the pack gets the harem.. I think, when it comes to natural selection, humans have re-written the rules. It's one of our achievements, or failings, depending how you look at it. In my opinion, it's waaaaay too easy for humans to reproduce. Including the mean, stoopid and fugly ones! If we were truly the most intelligent species, we'd have figured out how to use birth control effectively, I reckon. Love that website, though. And do agree that it removes the excuse to moan about one's physicality. And removing excuses is a good thing! 1
Professor X Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 It's true we are the smartest (although I have my doubts given all the stupidity I see in the world) but looks play a huge part. In nature, it's about dominance, the strongest or most attractive male/female attracts the opposite sex. Just because we are the smartest of all species doesn't mean we are exempt from this rule. Why are alpha males always flocked to by women? The pheromones, the physical looks. Why do men flock to gorgeous women? Cuz of their looks. Nature made attractiveness for a reason. Why are we attracted to certain things and not others (physically)? It's how we evolved. We evolved to favor certain physical aspects than others. That's why we find them attractive. The rest of it has nothing to do with intelligence but social construct. "Does he have a job? Is she loyal? Is he supportive? Will she be a good life partner?" Initially, the first thing that always attracts someone to you is looks, not intelligence. Because you can't tell how smart someone is by looking at them (unfortunately, most of us save a lot of time if we could). So natural selection has made us attracted to attractive people. This DOES play a role in reproduction, because these people will always be the first choice. Whether or not they measure up in other aspects is a different story. But they do have the advantage. You are confusing personal preference to natural selection. All animals, with the exceptions of humans, are driven by physical attributes alone. So, the peacock with the biggest feathers always wins the female, the strongest lion always wins the lioness, etc etc. Does the strongest man always win the woman? No. This is the point where personal preference comes in, or in other words, human psychology. What I find beautiful, you will not (or maybe you will too, who knows) and vice-versa. I think the best example I can give is of my friend and I: He likes the women petite/skinny, I on the other hand, like em' curvy. Do you think some lioness in nature will follow the weaker lion? Will breed with him? P.S. Nature did create "attractiveness" for a reason, but humanity rewritten it a long long time ago.
Professor X Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 In my opinion, it's waaaaay too easy for humans to reproduce. Including the mean, stoopid and fugly ones! If we were truly the most intelligent species, we'd have figured out how to use birth control effectively, I reckon. I'd be careful with what you say, someone quite infamous used this very same reasoning to catastrophic result.
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 P.S. Nature did create "attractiveness" for a reason, but humanity rewritten it a long long time ago. You are absolutely right with this point. But I think that our primal carnal instincts are still the same. We are still very much attracted to physical beauty, only unlike animals, we have social constructs that help us manipulate who we chose. But like you said, you are attracted to what you are attracted to (curvy girls) and you won't mate with the most attractive curvy girl you see, but she WILL be your first choice, and if it doesn't work out, you will STILL mate with a curvy girl (as long as she meets your other criteria). That's the point i'm trying to make, attractive girls (attractive in the sense that she is liked by a certain type of man as opposed to women who are altogether ugly) have the advantage. They have the first choice. Let me put it this way. There is one woman who is very attractive, and another who is somewhat attractive. Right off that bat you will approach the more attractive one. ADVANTAGE. However, let's say she is dumb. You will then approach the second, less attractive one but you will choose her because she is very intelligent. But what if the first one was just as intelligent? You wouldn't have given woman #2 a chance, because you didn't need to. There are plenty of great people out there, but the most attractive great people will always be chosen first. After all, if someone said you can meet your perfect woman, but you have a choice of two physical looks, clearly you will pick the more attractive one.
Untouchable_Fire Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 As far as natural selection goes, it has nothing to do with physical attributes, it was never and never will be humanity key aspect. Humans never were the strongest, fastest, biggest animals out there, but they were the smartest ones. So, as for your statement, apart from it being completely ridicolous and an insult to science, I will add and say that the key for the survival of humanity was always its intelligent. Natural selection you say? Than the smartest ones are the ones to reproduce more and more, and in fact, that's exactly what happens. Beauty on the other hand... has not. Definition of natural selection: The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Being beautiful helps you reproduce and survive? No. Being smart does? Yes. Natural selection doesn't care if you are smart, pretty, strong... ect. It's more about luck than anything. How do you naturally select for luck? Besides... Intelligence is out the window too. The guys who work their asses off go to college and have nice jobs can't afford to have more than 2 or 3 kids. Why? Because they pay 33% of their income in taxes to support brokedick *******s who have 10. So... I think that today we have Reverse Natural selection at work in the human population.
Untouchable_Fire Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Let me put it this way. There is one woman who is very attractive, and another who is somewhat attractive. Right off that bat you will approach the more attractive one. ADVANTAGE. However, let's say she is dumb. You will then approach the second, less attractive one but you will choose her because she is very intelligent. But what if the first one was just as intelligent? You wouldn't have given woman #2 a chance, because you didn't need to. There are plenty of great people out there, but the most attractive great people will always be chosen first. After all, if someone said you can meet your perfect woman, but you have a choice of two physical looks, clearly you will pick the more attractive one. You are assuming that mate selection throughout human history was done by selecting strangers at a bar. Attractiveness in females is a display of fitness to bear children. That's it. Once you cross that bar of attractiveness... then you are competing on other levels, intelligence, personality... ect. Get it? There isn't some universal ranking system where every girl gets in a damn line and guys just pick from the top down. Take the movie star out of the movie and wipe her makeup off... you wind up with a normal woman. 1
jobaba Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I tried the website, but it doesn't really seem to work properly. Whenever I do a search, none of the profiles which come up have pictures. I have tried it too. Several times in the past. Doesn't work. Hey. Judging from some of the pictures on the outside, it's more people who are decent looking and think they are unattractive than decent looking and think they are god's gift to the opposite sex. Give me the former any day. Any time I can get a good person at a discount, I'm all over it.
PhillyDude Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I wonder if there is a female on that ugly site that has no clue she is a cutie because of her low self-esteem?-lol
Recommended Posts