Well for one thing I don’t see civilization as being apart of evolution since evolution implies a act in being apart of the enviromental symbiosis of nature which society clearly isn’t.
I would go out with a decent good looking waitress.
I have seen many wealthy men go out with decent working class females.
Who do you see in the media,magazines and social groups talking about the superior sex to go out with? Women!
Humans evolved long before civilization as we know it.
Evolution is a process that occurs whenever[list=a][*] A parents traits are passed on; and
The chance of an organism passing on its traits is affected by those traits.
There is good reason to believe that evolution still affects civilization.[/:m][]The traits that are selected for in women are not those that are selected for in men.[/:m][]The social expectation for women is not the same as the social expectation for men.* There is reason, given #s three and four, to expect men, however equally vain, to nevertheless select women on different criteria than women select men.[list][*]That men date working-class women more than women date working class men does not, then, refute the point that men are no less vain than women, and that your current criticism of half the populous is unfairly sparing the other half.
Nor does it detract from the fact that, ceteris paribus, richness is more attractive than poorness for both men and women.
[/:m][/list:u][/:m][]It will be interesting to see how sexual selection changes as women represent a greater and greater share of the income earned[/:m][/list:o]
That is called reproduction not evolution. Evolution is an effect of the enviroment.
The enviroment doesn’t affect people on whether they shall copulate tuesday or not.
Also it has been proven a dozens of times that just because one has a certain code of genetical sequences doesn’t guarantee their intelligence since such things highly depend upon expirience alone.
Examples?
K.
K.
K.
Emotional bias. I have numbers is my favors. What do you have beyond emotion?
Only because the naive,ugly and malicious accept such things to be truth.
There is the typical feminism we all know and love.
I think your misunderstanding evolution. Let’s take a hypothetical:
Suppose there are two men. One has a genetic disposition that increases the chances that he will have a heart problem (man F), the other does not (man S). Man F develops a heart problem. It costs him a lot of money to repair, and lands him in the hospital often. It makes him unable to work long hours. He therefor earns less money and spends more on his health, which, ceteris paribus (that old refrain), lands him less wealthy than man S. A woman meets both man F and man S at the same time, and is attracted to man S because he has more wealth. Here, the wealth is a result of a genetic defect, and, over many generations, the defect will be selected against due to man F’s (and his decendents’, should he have any) reduced reproductive success.
This is a hypothetical example of how evolution is still at play in modern times. However, my argument does not rest on current evolution, but rather on past evolution, and that is essentially undeniable. Past evolution has given the current generation an instinctual selection mechanism that seeks sexual partners on the basis of the potential for rearing successful (i.e. reproducing) offspring. We (humans) recognize that social influence (currently defined largely by wealth) entails better chances of successful offspring, so we are attracted to it. That makes sense, because humans have been social animals for millions of years: our instinct for picking mates based on social status has been long refined.
It’s true, women are attracted to men with power (strength), but this power doesn’t have to be financial. Women are often attracted to men who are strong in character; men who can take in whatever fortune throws their way and face it with dignity. This, of course, includes all the psychological, emotional weaponry that women throw at them (as a test).
The guy with the cigar and whiskey is a turn off. Sure, he might get the chick, but not for long. Sooner or later, she will get tired of his snobbery. As she gets to know him better she will find out just how insecure he is inside (and I am pretty sure this guy is insecure). Instead, she will probably divorce him and get half of his money.
To know what women are attracted to in men just read the romance novels. I know, I know, it sounds like B.S. to you, but many women seem to gobble it right up. And millions of women can’t be wrong, can they? The plots are usually psychologically complex, but in the end, the man conquers the woman (more so in psychological sense).
Whiny guys are a turn off, as well. If a woman feels like complaining, she can call her girlfriends (or, she would want a man’s shoulder to cry on). A woman doesn’t want to baby-sit a man, she would want a man of a strong character who (instead of sitting and whining) would go out there and get the problem solved.
So where is the diamonds? I came here looking for diamonds and see mere coal. Bloody hell Coal I got. It keeps me warm and safe it makes me smile because it burns just for me. In turn I keep it safe and warm away from the wet and cold. I work for it it works for me. It won’t ever be a diamond but, diamonds are not useful anyway they are just pretty little do nothing rocks. I do like to look at pretty things though, so where are the diamonds here?
Pandora, men need a shoulder to cry on sometimes, too. And they have their fair share of complaints, and it’s as valid for them to whine about them as it is for a woman.
I don’t think that what is attractive in one gender or the other is especially different. Rather, I think that society is set up so that men are expected to have certain attributes (wealth/strength) and women are expected to have others (fecundity/softness). A man raised to be strong has nothing much to gain from finding a woman who can brawl with the best of them. In terms of maximizing assets, a strong man should be expected to want a soft and caring woman (and that is what we find, at least in terms of testosterone vs. estrogen). But if women were raised to be strong, and men to be soft, it wouldn’t in the least be surprising to find men attracted to strong women.
All that proves is that if nature had it’s way the man with the heart problem should of died had it not been for modern medicine and as for your monetary exchange rift raft that is nothing more than a constructed manipulation.
Do you actually believe that money is evolutionally driven? That’s an insanity I have never heard of before. Good luck with that.
What? I don’t understand which part you disagree with. You assert that woman seem to be drawn to men with more money. I assert that there are cases where genetic defects affect how much money people have. Therefor, there are genetic defects that will hinder your ability to reproduce, meaning that they are selected against. That’s enough for evolution.
Sorry, was that supposed to be a response to something I said? It just sort of sounded like an insult that completely avoided my point. Maybe I’m missing something? Please explain.
Who we date is a personal choice (for whatever reason that choice may be based upon: it is still made).
I, personally, find it hard to date: as one is never sure why some-body is hitting on you (looks, status, physique, postal address, a one night stand…) the list could be endless, but unless we make a desicion to date (based on whatever criteria we choose at that time) we will be alone!
If a woman feels like complaining, she can call her girlfriends (or, she would want a man’s shoulder to cry on). A woman doesn’t want to baby-sit a man, she would want a man of a strong character who (instead of sitting and whining) would go out there and get the problem solved.
