Look I am tired of the bullshit of love folks and the fake wishy washy conceptions surrounding it.
They say love transcends beyond all barriers but we all deep down inside know that to be a lie or complete utter bullshit.
Personally I think the female’s disposition of love is somthing on the lines of attraction to financial success or the foundation of men with wealth and power.
( Don’t even ask about my full beliefs about women. You don’t want to know them because as soon that I may speak of them a feminist will be right there out of nowhere blabbering off about sexism.)
At first in history females were attracted to the strongest men who could survive amongst nature but as soon nature’s influence over human beings came to a end women went to more civic transformations of being attracted to those with the largest currency.
Until I see women getting married to more of these:
It’s not a book, it is an essay - on this very site.
Survival, yes. If we go beyond individual survival, we come to genetical survival. Now I ask you again: why should women want to be rich rather than poor?
Joker, let me first clarify that I’m not a feminist, though I am going to rail on you for your portrayal of women. Why? Because it’s blinkered and uninformed. You focus on women as though their selection of mates who have greater survival value is any different from how men choose. The bum in that picture looks diseased, ill fed. It’s logical, evolutionarily, for a woman not to scorn a man like that, just as a man scorns a homeless woman. Money is power, my friend, and power can buy a lot of things, including a near guarantee that ones offspring will be well fed and successful in turn. That’s what mating is all about.
I’m fine with your rejection of love; I think a large part of love is instinctual piquing of evolutionary appeal. But you seem to take it unfairly out on women, when everybody’s game is the same. Why?
All I can say is this: you seem to have very specific views of love, which really aren’t universal. To say the least I am a university student: I have NO money (considerable debt actually), am overweight, critical, lazy, loud, angry, prejudiced and most of all getting a philosophy degree (woo-hoo job market, here I come); I have nothing of the classical (or modern) virtues to offer someone of the opposite sex, yet women seem to fall in love with me to no end. I have NO power, NO money, NO influence… about the only thing I do have is B.O. And yet, to all definitions of what most people have for love, women still fall for me. Strange no, given your massive generalizations about them?
Is it so strange to believe that women may have similar motivations to men, and if they don’t it is a socially-based issue? What is your basis for deciding that women are so fundamentally different than men? And on that basis, what is the reasoning behind your skewed realization that women are only interested in money… plenty of economically-challenged people get married, it certainly isn’t for money.
And what are your views on feminism. It is rare to see someone hostile to it in general.
I think your claim is factually untrue. While rich people have greater evolutionary value than poor people, ceteris paribus, that doesn’t mean that poor people don’t acquire women. The bus-boys in the bow-ties probably get tons of tail.
The way you tell it, we should expect anyone making less than 200K to die lonely, but we don’t see that. Apparently, you’re just citing personal anecdote, and as such your claim has already been called into question by BlueChicken’s competing evidence. I’m sure if it were necessary, someone could call up demographic information that shows that poor people aren’t having any trouble breeding, but I don’t think it’s necessary.
Since the Psych forum is often somewhat of a group therapy session, I don’t have qualms asking: is there anything in particular that makes you feel this way, or that you want to talk about? (I’m serious; you seem hostile towards women, and I recall a post you made about a love interest not too long ago. . .)
Could it be the lost art of true love that modernized females have lost?
[b]No… That can’t be right…Could it?
It is amazing that our primitive brethren can show such un-conditional love in comparison to our hideous insidious modern counterparts.
Oh I am sure we will have our modernized primates come here trying to show some so called logical conclusions in explaining exactly why differentiating alternatives exist to protect themselves and their modernity from looking so ugly as it is.[/b]
You have a lawyer who is considered more higher on the social ladder in civilization in comparison to a bus driver.
Here is the catch:
The bus driver is a alot bigger and muscular in comparison to the lawyer.
The same bus driver goes hunting and camping all the time in the wilderness knowing how to survive amongst nature.
Our lawyer on the other hand only knows what is on sale at the local grocery store having no survival capabilities beyond the public status quo.
If our lawyer and bus driver was marooned in two different isolated wilderness locations, who has the greater evolutionary value?
( I can’t wait to see your answer Carleas.)
( I’ll give you a hint Carleas modern women and indeed all of society often times confuses quality with quantity even though they are seperate circumstances.)
You really don’t want to know my form of thinking in how I see most modern women as parasitical enterprises.
That is a door I am betting that you don’t want to open.
I will say that I don’t dislike all women as I have far more respect for women in primitive communities in comparison to contemporary vain women of modernized locations.
( I would even go to say that women in primitive communities are stronger, largely because they have to be.)
What does your lawer/bus driver example really show, though? How many people do you know who have been marooned in the wilderness? I don’t know anyone. Clearly, there is very little selection pressure favoring those who can survive in the wilderness. There is great selection pressure, on the other hand, favoring those who can feed a family, and in modern society a lawyer can do so better than a bus driver.
You still haven’t said why you’re singling out women. Do you think that a rich woman is less appealing than a poor one (again, ceteris paribus)? Are men any less vain when it comes to choice of mates?
“Spoken like a true woman”? More like a true evolutionary psychologist, regardless her gender.