d'Arthez Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 No, we cannot blame it all on simple biology. The biological makeup of humans has been pretty much the same since the Stone Age, but serial divorces only became common and widely acceptable in the Western world since the second half of the 20th century. Maybe the increased access to media has converted people into stupidity, with popular culture propagating ridiculously stupid ideals. On the last sentence we can pretty much agree. Serial divorces, were only possible in the modern era. Forms of social security, and the fact that women were finally allowed on the job market. Before, if they were unhappy in their marriage they HAD to stay. And in even longer ago, a divorce was something that was simply unattainable. I agree that merely a biological explanation won't do, but I disagree that not all the men/women go after the same partners. Why are Pamela Anderson lookalike women guy magnets, while plain Janes do not have hundreds of men chasing them? I've heard somewhere that a very select group of 5% of males are coveted by 95% of females, and vice versa. The only reason why people look elsewhere is that the small elite group is somehow inaccessible to them (most likely as those people are already taken). I am defective ... again! The women in whom I take are always beautiful to me. By today's standards, they are sometimes below and sometimes above average. I honestly don't know. I have never been one to make comments on the physical appearance of anyone. My friends even used to joke about me, that if they locked me in with a supermodel, the first of us two, who would grow desperate for some action would not be me. What a better place the world would be if that were true. But I've heard that it is encoded in the male DNA to find a partner who looks healthy enough to bear offspring (animal instincts again), hence the stereotypically male emphasis on female appearance. From this explanation, men are biologically conditioned to select a mate based on looks. But why can some men break the stereotype, and other men not? I don't buy this evolutionary explanation. Concepts of beauty have varied through the times. I even read somewhere (sorry for the lack of sources!) that in the beginning of the 20th century there were doctors trying to make medicines for women. With what purpose? To make them gain weight! And furthermore if a man wants offspring the only requirement that puts on a man is to have sex with as many partners as possible at the right time. Quality of partners is not important then. What sort of DNA testing are you suggesting here? Is it based on inherent personality or neurological characteristics, or based on which combination of genes produces the most healthy offspring? I wouldn't support DNA matching of couples for the latter reason, as throughout the entire thread I have opposed couples getting together based on purely physical factors. On the other hand, if it's the former, then I wholeheartedly agree - perhaps many incompatible marriages will be averted in the first place if the partners neurologically match. I am something of an Utopian. If you want to call it in a more religious way, I am a dreamer hoping for the messianic days to come. My 'proposal' was not serious in the nature, that I should want it. But serious in the way that I could see it happen in the far future. Of course it will depend on the political situation et cetera, what will happen, and if this will hapen. Of course institutions would have to change for all this. Concerning the inherent personality and neurological characteristics, there is no way that events happening in the life of a child don't influence the way it will develop. Sometimes these events are random. Like car crashes, some forms of cancer. These cannot be predicted beforehand. I've heard somewhere that for many people who are prone to having affairs, it's in their genetic makeup. Like they need a consistently high dose of lust chemicals in their bodies, which can be only experienced with the novelty of a new relationship, hence their behaviour. Perhaps DNA testing can be used to group-match these people for open relationships. At least there will be no expectations of monogamy or exclusivity in any of the parties. Even if this is true, it might be possible that cheating is an acquired addiction. With the dating rituals nowadays, and the fact that a lot of people start their sexual relationship with each other almost without having a real relationship, I dare not exclude the possibilities of that. Emopunk: by standardization of romance you are already killing it. In a few years time, people will be obsessed with 'rules of romance', killing the whole point. Romance is not mechanic. But spontaneous and truthful. Integer. That's why true romances are few.
emopunk Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 d'Arthez, I think you misunderstood me or perhaps I may not have explained my idea well. I'm not attempting to standardize romance. I was implying that romance is in the little everyday things you do. I just see society drifting further and further away from the idea that romance is an integral part of a relationship. That's all. Trust me, I am well aware that sponteneity is spice of life.
tokyo Posted March 3, 2005 Posted March 3, 2005 Emopunk, I liked your post That´s an interesting thread, but quite long (I´m really proud I made it till here ), so I´ll keep it short and sweet. I can only agree with CurlyIam on the false assumption that marriages in Non-Western societies are all peachy and nice, they are NOT. People are raised to be more committed and more faithful, especially women, but if they knew the freedom of a Western woman and had the choice, I´m sure many would happily head for a divorce. Non-Western relationships are not better, they look better, because the work and the chores are taken on the back of the women. It seems as if nobody ever looks at the price for the stability and peace in the Non-Western marriages. Non-Western societies are usually highly patriarchal with a lot less freedom, any woman who would like to enjoy their benefits is surely welcomed. Unless anybody would like to sacrifice his independence and freedom in order to make her/his relationship longer lasting, I suggest to stop worshipping the Non-Western marriage model. Some people get married, because a marriage will ensure a more stable relationship to raise children and have a family. And despite the belief that we are all so independent, marriages will also ensure a greater finacial stability. Two incomes are usually better than one when you have children.
d'Arthez Posted March 4, 2005 Posted March 4, 2005 Some people get married, because a marriage will ensure a more stable relationship to raise children and have a family. And despite the belief that we are all so independent, marriages will also ensure a greater finacial stability. Two incomes are usually better than one when you have children. Yes, marriages tend to ensure greater financial stability. But if both partners work, the emotional bonding with children might (I don't claim a thing!) also be less good, than when only 1 partner works. The question remains, is it worth it, if two full-time parents bond less with their children compared to the one parent works situation? Also most people have ridicilously bad spending habits. Some people make tons of money, and still don't earn enough. So when unemployment comes, these people will be in serious problems. And if you doubt it, I have described myself one time as a hopeless Romantic (19th century style) .
Author Fatal Femme Posted March 5, 2005 Author Posted March 5, 2005 Originally posted by moimeme Women were forced to remain in abusive marriages because decent people either were unable to believe that men abused women; in other cases, they figured the woman 'must have done something to deserve the abuse'. Women were also literally considered as chattels of men, meaning that they could be punished by men if the men so desired. And still, women who left were considered sluts. Social mores kept people in marriages, yes, but that was NOT a good thing. Sure, my aunt remained married to my uncle for the remainder of his life, but he drank every night and though, thankfully, he wasn't abusive, she lived in a chaste marriage all that time. Is that your idea of ideal society? No, but I think the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, where there are hardly any incentives or social mores to keep people in marriage these days. For example, women with alley cat ways are no longer considered skanks, but are admired for their attractiveness and pulling power. Originally posted by moimeme And your problem with that is? I was just using that as an example of a social role that Hollywood and the media sell in this society, that of a person with sexual prowess. If I have any problem with it, it's because I think that for many people, sex has been reduced to a performance art, more so than an expression of a deep connection between two partners. There appears to be an overemphasis on sexual prowess in Western culture, I don't know of too many 'ethnic' women who shop around for whoever has the largest penis. Originally posted by emopunk What humanity has added is the idea that someone's mind can be just as appealing to others. And appealing to someone's mind is far more difficult than the physical. I believe that at heart, most people can detect the superficial. They may not want to, but they are capable of it. Anyone can bulk up or tone down, learn new skills, dress a certain way, smell a certain way, own certain things... anyone can. Which is exactly why courtship based on those aspects is so utterly ineffective and prone to outright failure. And this is where most people go wrong: They believe they can love someone without knowing the person. How quickly can really learn of someone? It could take years, and probably will. The most lasting relationships I have ever encountered had their beginnings in friendship. These were people that could get along perfectly well with each other. They may have had differences and even conflicts, but they had the understanding to work through it. They had a basic love for each other that made communicating effective. The truth of the matter is that they were not in fact "opposites." Well said emopunk, the problem with how many people choose to date, is that they skip the 'friendship' stage of the relationship and build it on physical foundations from day one. After the novelty of that wears off, the couple discover they have absolutely nothing in common except lust. Originally posted by emopunk So I will close by saying that romance is no myth. If romance is a myth, then love itself is a farce. And love does exist. Love definitely has the potential to exist, but I think few people truly experience it. At least not until they've bumbled through a few relationships based on the rather flimsy foundation of lust. Originally posted by d'Arthez But why can some men break the stereotype, and other men not? I don't buy this evolutionary explanation. As for why some men can break the stereotype and others cannot, perhaps it's due to 'societal imprinting', which isn't successful on everyone, as you've mentioned in a previous post on this thread. From a biological point of view, it is very possible for someone to be genetically predisposed to something and yet turn out completely different. For example, if we have identical twins, and one of them is raised in an industralized, developed country while the other twin is shipped off to be raised in a Third World country, both of them would look different from each other as adults (not identical anymore), due to environmental influences. What I am trying to say, is that external factors can definitely affect the expression of genetic traits. Perhaps that is why men may be evolutionarily designed to seek a mate based on looks, but not every man conforms to this stereotype. Often, such men have been subject to outside influences such as religion or a decent upbringing that encourages a more respectful attitude towards women. Originally posted by d'Arthez Concepts of beauty have varied through the times. I even read somewhere (sorry for the lack of sources!) that in the beginning of the 20th century there were doctors trying to make medicines for women. With what purpose? To make them gain weight! Concepts of female beauty may have changed through the times, but the bottom line is still that men have a tendency to judge women based on appearance, even though the ideal appearance differs by era. Originally posted by d'Arthez And furthermore if a man wants offspring the only requirement that puts on a man is to have sex with as many partners as possible at the right time. Quality of partners is not important then. It has been theorized that it is in the male DNA to produce as many offspring as possible, so men select a partner who looks healthy enough to bear children, so appearance is important to them, I have already stated this. But while we're on the topic, if a man just wants to produce offspring, then he can just have sex with as many partners as possible at the right time - very true d'Arthez. Perhaps the drive to reproduce not only accounts for male selectivity in choosing a mate based on appearance, but also the stereotypically male urge to sleep around with as many women as possible? Some food for thought - men produce trillions of sperm in a lifetime, whereas women can only produce a few hundred eggs. For a woman, there has to be a gap of at least 9 months between each reproduction, with no existence of such a gap in men, and her reproductive life ends quite early compared to men. So perhaps men were not designed to deposit their sperm in only one woman's body. This is why it has been said that men are biologically predisposed to 'spread their seed' and women are predisposed to nurture the babies of one man. Which may explain why many men develop a 'wandering eye' and think about straying at some stage during a marriage or committed relationship, and why women are statistically less likely to cheat.
d'Arthez Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 I actually did a course on evolutionary psychology a couple of years ago; compared with the "always" faithful species men had larger balls, but compared to more "philandering" species men had smaller balls. This is all research on primates, and largeness of balls was measured in a ratio to body weight. Proof is inconclusive! Concerning appearance: yes, if men are attracted to attractive females, one would expect that the ideal of the attractive would not be a social construct. Therefore the drive to go for the attractive females, would not be as natural as it seems. But if societal imprinting is not succesful on everyone, you are already implying that societal imprinting takes place, to trigger the masculine stupidity. Love it when I can write that. Women cheat as much as men. Per definition, if you consider being an OW cheating. What seems to be true, is that relatively speaking more women seem to cheat before they are married, but once married the men cheat more. Of course it is next to impossible to get accurate statistics on cheating behavior. Nobody willingly divulges that kind of information truthfully, as that kind of information can literally ruin a man or a woman.
bluechocolate Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 So perhaps men were not designed to deposit their sperm in only one woman's body. This is why it has been said that men are biologically predisposed to 'spread their seed' and women are predisposed to nurture the babies of one man. from d'Arthez Women cheat as much as men. Per definition, if you consider being an OW cheating. According to Robert Winston in his book "Human Instinct" (and the accompanying BBC television series) women do indeed cheat just as much as men. And a surprising number of fathers are raising children that are not their own. ie. women will choose the man who is seemingly the best provider & parent to spend their lives with but will sometimes seek "better" genes from other men with which to reproduce. He 'reckons that there are tens of millions of men out there who are raising other mens children in the full belief that they are their own. Epidsode 2 of the series: Deepest Desires This episode explores the complex world of sexual attraction, investigating why men are more open to casual sex, what drives women to be unfaithful and what can ignite male sexual jealousy
moimeme Posted March 5, 2005 Posted March 5, 2005 I don't know of too many 'ethnic' women who shop around for whoever has the largest penis. I don't know of any non-ethnic women who do. Unfortunately, you're all enthused about your own anecdotal evidence. The case you hope to make has been made by others before you and research has been done on it. There are still a percentage (many say half) of marriages that last. All things considered, that's a pretty good proportion. A little too soon to declare society's gone entirely to hell, I think.
Thinkalot Posted March 6, 2005 Posted March 6, 2005 Geez - there has certainly been a lot of discussion happening in this thread since I last checked! I dont have anything much more to contribute- but it's interesting reading. Oh and Fatal Femme, you said Originally posted by Fatal Femme Then you're with a very unique guy Thinkalot, most guys I know do not like flowers and I think it would be especially embarrassing for them to receive them at work! Must be the whole 'macho' imagery. well, yes, I think I am with a unique guy, who is wonderful in many ways. He is by no means perfect, and neither am I, and we have been through some pretty bleak patches. But yes, he loves to receive flowers, and he helps with the washing, cleaning and he is a fantastic cook, and he plans romantic surprises on Valentine's Day (don't strike us down for acknowledging this heavily commercialised day). These things apparently set him apart from many other men ( or so my girlfriends tell me).
Recommended Posts