FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 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. Disagree. Fertile is very attractive and important, YES. But again, two fertile women, one is hot and one is okay. Which do you pick? And past the fertility age, again, you will pick the smartest, most intelligent etc.... but if you had a choice of the same woman but either an okay one or a hot one? Exactly, you would pick the hot one.
jobaba 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 Lol. The fabled 'diamond in the rough'. My theory based on experience is that all such cute women who have low self esteem are extinct by the time they are 22 or so just from getting so much male attention. In high school, such girls definitely exist. And in college, there were a few really cute girls I remember who lacked confidence in themselves. Nothing like a few dozen drunken a-holes hitting on you to pump up your ego.
verhrzn Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Well, at least it's nice to know that whole "personality matters" "confidence is sexy" "guys totally like different types of girls" thing has been acknowledged and thrown out the window, if we're regulating all the fatties and uggos to their own dating websites. We should all probably be sterilized for the good of the planet anyway.
PhillyDude Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Lol. The fabled 'diamond in the rough'. My theory based on experience is that all such cute women who have low self esteem are extinct by the time they are 22 or so just from getting so much male attention. In high school, such girls definitely exist. And in college, there were a few really cute girls I remember who lacked confidence in themselves. Nothing like a few dozen drunken a-holes hitting on you to pump up your ego. I may go on there looking for a "UGLY BETTY" type of girl lol
Disenchantedly Yours Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I loved that show. It was so campy and cute.
Hetzer 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 love how women casually throw around theories of evolutionary psychology and social darwinism when they are talking about why they only find 1% of men attractive. But what happens when you get these "natural selection" theories and apply them to women? Uh oh, trouble/war! Women have on average , lower spatial intelligence, produce few to no geniuses, and historically have embodied mediocrity. The modern civilization as we know it today was masterminded by men, with women doing all the tedious and easy work . According to evolutionary psychology, then, women should stick to baby making and cooking. Women should also be married between 16-25 where they are at their most fertile, and women with small breasts should commit suicide or get plastic surgery, etc etc. But of course, Darwin's girls never look in the mirror, in the 21st century MeMeMe culture (a lot of you are the children of baby boomers too, which makes it even worse and more shallow than my early 20's generation) people love to dissect others and make their lives impossible (especially if they're men), but get gravely offended when it's their turn.
angie2443 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. Natural selection doesn't give a darn about the "best" genes. Any person who produces children and has them survive is continuing their genetic line. There are tons of people that people with your attitude would think of as ugly who manage to reproduce. There are tons of people who are not what many "full of themselves" people would think of as intelligent. They manage to reproduce- a lot. Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know. I just know it's true. Fustrated Standards, you are going to be one bitter person in a few years if you don't change some of your ideas here.
angie2443 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 (although certainly not a factor to be discounted). Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld actually (The Wink - ): 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. I posted my last post before I read this, but I like the way you put things. Also, the statement "it's just a blind, impersonal process that selects for certain traits and against other traits depending on the environmental context at the time" is important to remember. What helps one survive now, may be less important in the future. This is true in reverse. People shouldn't get so hung up on what others think the ideal person should be like.
FrustratedStandards Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Natural selection doesn't give a darn about the "best" genes. Any person who produces children and has them survive is continuing their genetic line. There are tons of people that people with your attitude would think of as ugly who manage to reproduce. There are tons of people who are not what many "full of themselves" people would think of as intelligent. They manage to reproduce- a lot. Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know. I just know it's true. Fustrated Standards, you are going to be one bitter person in a few years if you don't change some of your ideas here. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said uglies can't or don't reproduce. I never said their genetic lines will not continue because they aren't attractive. I simply said that the more attractive individuals have the advantage. Plain and simple. I don't understand why so many people need an explanation for something so obvious, self explanatory and easy to understand.
Hetzer Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 You're putting words in my mouth. I never said uglies can't or don't reproduce. I never said their genetic lines will not continue because they aren't attractive. I simply said that the more attractive individuals have the advantage. Plain and simple. I don't understand why so many people need an explanation for something so obvious, self explanatory and easy to understand. Because all the women and pick up artist hustlers I know lie and say looks don't matter. When men realize that not only do women care about looks, but maybe care about them more than men, they become paralyzed and don't know what to do.
mickleb Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 I'd be careful with what you say, someone quite infamous used this very same reasoning to catastrophic result. Sorry, I'm one of the stoopid ones. Who is this person you're talking about?
Author FitChick Posted March 18, 2012 Author Posted March 18, 2012 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. You need to see the black comedy IDIOCRACY starring Luke Wilson (DVD). It's our future and not so far off. 1
threebyfate Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 For the love of people on the Internet never reading or comprehending Darwin's theories. Evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with the most attractive, the most intelligent, the strongest, the most anything beyond genetic mutations that ensure for survival through adaptation. The longer you survive, the more likely you'll breed and often. It's that simple.
kaylan Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 The kid isn't hers. She's a stepmom. Double fail. " In December 2009, Bündchen gave birth to a boy in Boston, named Benjamin Rein Brady; his middle name is in honor of Bündchen's maternal grandfather Reinoldo" Gisele Bündchen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recommended Posts