Sex, Evolution, Women, and Society

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Caution: This post is incredibly sexist, so what? It’s true isn’t it? You have been warned.

  1. Women first and foremost care about physical attraction in a guy, and this is the main deciding factor when women are looking for a partner.

  2. Women who say otherwise are usually lying. They might have even possibly tricked themselves into believing that they “value personality over looks” - However, this is not true.

  3. Since nobody wants to admit that this is the case, everyone likes to believe that anyone who claims that “people only care about looks” are just whining and complaining.

  4. Traits such as being powerful, ‘popular’, and influential are valued secondary to physical attraction by women.

  5. Women claim that they want men who are “Compassionate, considerate, generous, nice and loving” - However, most women ironically find men such as that to be annoying and unattractive. In truth, women want men who are all of those things in addition to them being attractive and powerful/influential.

  6. Although women may convince themselves that what they truly want is a “nice, compassionate, considerate, generous, loving guy”, this value is abandoned whenever the opportunity comes along to get an attractive guy (even if he is none of those things she claimed she wanted).

  7. Women often have children with attractive men who are attractive, powerful, and influential, but then the man ends up leaving her. This is probably because they never actually liked each other’s personality in the first place and couldn’t stand each other, but also because the guy is inconsiderate and self-centered (this is what women are attracted to, after all) and he doesn’t want to raise a baby and stay committed to one girl.

  8. The pregnant women then look for another guy (If they still desire to have an attractive guy who is an asshole, the vicious cycle repeats again) and this time the guy is usually less attractive. Why do the women look for a guy who is less attractive than the first guy they got pregnant with? Because this less attractive guy isn’t really chosen because he is less attractive, but he is chosen because he is willing to be a providing husband and a father of her kid(s).

  9. If the second guy leaves (which, believe me, is more than often), then she keeps systematically going through guys, lowering her standards each time, until she finally finds a guy who is willing to stay with her and raise her kids.

  10. Men may realize “what’s going on”, but there desire for sex overrides their better knowledge and they have sex with the girl anyways.

  11. Unattractive men keep clinging on to the idea that “There is a girl out there for me! A girl who wants a guy like me, a guy who is considerate, loving, faithful, compassionate… A girl who will love me for who I am!” their entire lives until finally (if he is lucky enough) a girl comes along (who by this time has had multiple kids with men who she actually finds attractive) who coincidentally “falls in love” with the man and tells him “Where have you been all my life?” (although she fights back laughter while saying that, because she knows exactly where he has been all her life - he has been waiting for years like a dumb oblivious moron for a girl to come along). All the attractive men and women had been telling this unattractive man his entire life that “personality is what counts! you’ll find the right girl some day!”

  12. The women only have sex with these unattractive males as little as they need to in order to make sure the male won’t leave. The unattractive guy raises the woman’s children, and in turn the woman gives the unattractive guy periodic use of her vagina for sex.

– Take a moment and appreciate the utter ridiculousness of this giant square-dance which takes place in the lives of the overwhelming majority of the human population; Attractive men have sex with attractive women, get them pregnant, and then leave. The females then have the unattractive males raise the illegitimate children of the attractive males. The really unattractive males, the ones who are so ugly that girls don’t even want them to raise their illegitimate children, just end up waiting around their entire lifes for a girl that is never going to appear- these ones end up becoming rapists and pedophiles in their middle ages.

This poorly illustrated diagram will help explain it:

The red circles represent males, and the blue circles represent females.
As you can see, the process allows for a beneficial effects towards a stronger, more beautiful human gene pool over time - this successfully eliminates the possibility of humanity “de-evolving” since the weak/ugly don’t have children.

So thats it, thats the process; A small fraction of men are “attractive men”, and they spend their entire lives going from girl to girl, deposting their semen, getting the girl pregnant, then moving on to the next girl. Then the unattractive men (the much larger fraction of all men) raise the attractive men’s children.

Q. Why does it happen this way?
A. It’s natural selection. “Only the strongest survive” and only the strongest reproduce. A few select attractive males are the only ones having all the sex they want, while the ugly males raise their kids. This way, the human population filters out the weak and expendable and maintains the strong and beautiful - it prevents us from de-evolving.

Q. Wouldn’t these unattractive males who end up raising the women’s children end up eventually getting the woman pregnant and have children of their own? Wouldn’t this produce weak/ugly babies?
A. Sometimes this happens, but usually the attractive female partners up with the unattractive male so late in age, that the potency of his semen has dropped significantly to an almost negligible level.

Q. If it worked so simply, why don’t people realize that it’s happening?
A. People believe what they want to believe. Some people do realize that its happening, but they don’t care - Besides, what can they do about it? Also, most people don’t like to admit that it’s happening. And if an unattractive person ever suspects that it is happening, and they end up asking an attractive person about it, they are told that they are wrong and that “I am with ______ for their personality”. And if an attractive person becomes aware of the whole process, they don’t care -why should they care?; it doesn’t negatively effect them. Never underestimate the power of denial - people don’t like to admit that they are a bad person.

2

Wouldn't it be much better if you were simply getting laid right now, instead of thinking and drawing diagrams about who gets laid and how much and with whom?
I mean, there are people who have sex, and then, there are people who think about other people who have sex.

It's kind of sad and funny at the same time, but mostly sad.

3

Not necessarily true; rape is about dominance, not sex. Many rapists/serial killers were considered attractive.

People who were raped/molested as children are the most likely candidates for becoming rapists/pedophiles themselves.

Many rich people in power are ugly. Women flock to them for money and comfort. This counterbalances the alphamale gene pool and keep shit genes going strong.

4

… It’s a philosophy forum. I think the GTFO bus has arrived

5

You are defending this?!

This is very sad you guys. Very sad. :confused:

6

but which one is cause and which one is effect?
Is the fact they are thinking too much about other people having sex causing them to not get laid?
Or is the fact that they aren’t getting laid causing them to think too much about other people getting laid?
The problem with me is not that I’m not having sex, its that the people I’m having sex with leave me once a better looking guy comes along.

7

What made you think rape is about dominance? To me it seems that the “Rapist” demographic consists of ugly middle aged men who never had sex but really want to.
I don’t think that its accurate that people who were raped/molested as children are more likely to become rapists/pedophiles themselves - from what I’ve heard, it makes them less likely to want to have sex. They associate having sex with the negative memories of being sexually abused in their youth, and avoid sex as a result. Some become so psychologically damaged that they avoid physical contact with others altogether. How exactly would having a negative experience during childhood cause you to want MORE of that negative experience as an adult?

I was in a psyche ward once, and there was a person in there who was sexually abused so badly during childhood that they wouldn’t let anybody get close to them. They would freak out if anybody tried sitting next to them, giving them a pat on the back, bumping into them accidentally, etc… ANYTHING would set them off and make them feel extremely uncomfortable.

The amount of rich people in positions of power (the upper class) having kids is drowned out statistically by middle class and lower class (who make up the majority of people).

8

Once a mere social dichotomy, it has now become a denial woven into our cultural fabric … for now.

There’s a youtube video I once posted on here a while back, I’ll try to find it and see if we can’t explore this dichotomy a little further.

9

Say they weren’t claiming to be a victim, and weren’t in any way asking for any special treatment. Say they were just casually making reference to it in conversation.

yeah, they are still “up there” as far as qualifications. I guess it didn’t ocurr to me until re-reading it that it seemed like I was suggesting that those qualities don’t matter - I wasn’t trying to aim for this. They are still very important qualities that play into attractiveness.

I’m sorry if I seemed as if I was boiling down these matters into black and white - I do not wish to seem that way. There certainly are incidences where a man can be both attractive and generous/compassionate. But there is a certain type of personality that some men have that can only be described as “pussy-ish” where they constantly make sure everything is fair, going out of their way to be a gentlemen, overly moral and uptight, etc - women typically find such men annoying and unattractive.

There are always exceptions - but wouldn’t you agree that “married for 30 years, never cheated, never had sex with another women” is a scarcity these days? Not to mention, people who have illegitimate sex are in much greater numbers and reproduce quicker (because there isn’t all the moral obstacles that must be jumped over to have sex, they can just cut straight to the sex after a couple of dates)

Anything I didn’t reply to was either because I agreed with you or you seemed like you were being sarcastic/funny - which is alright, because I didn’t really take this thread too seriously either while writing it.

It’s easy to dismiss something as a dichotomy or a generalization, especially if the person who wrote it could just be going “wahh wahh life is hard feel sorry for me wahh wahh”, or if he is accusing a large group of people of a wrongdoing, like, say, the entire human population, but is it happening?
Its hard to test something such as this experimentally – or is it?
I’ll conduct an experiment!
There is this hot blonde girl named Alexis who I went to high school with. I’m going to have my 270lb friend Arnold ask her out on a date, see what she says, then have my 180lb muscular friend Jake ask her out on a date, and see what she says. Arnold is a really nice guy who says he will do anything to make a girl happy – and Jake is a dickhead whose motto for women is “put out, then get out”… Who will she choose?

I’ll report back with the results! This is bound to be interesting - I don’t know what the outcome will be!

I have another experiment in mind too: I’m going to go to the mall, and look for couples. I’m going to tally how many couples are skinny/attractive people who are coupled up with other skinny/attractive people. Then, I’ll see how many couples are fat/ugly people coupled up with other fat/ugly people. Finally, I’ll see how many couples are fat/ugly people paired up with skinny/attractive people. I’ll record my results and share them later!

10

Well Peachy, while I do find this particular subject fascinating, I try to hold off on the overgeneralizing aspect. I especially like it because of the dichotomy involved (I think this is the most important aspect of your argument, for me at least). I found the clip I was talking about and I’d like you to pay attention to what the girl says at the very end of the segment. Compare what she says with her actual reaction. Actually the segment producers do a great job of juxtaposing what she says (her disgust) to what she actually does.

Now, I want you to consider that both responses are correct (both what she says and how she reacts). How can that be? Maybe you can tell me. Okay, here’s the video:
youtube.com/watch?v=azKzSFbi3cI

You really don’t have to experiment on your friends. This subject is not entirely arcane.

11

Basic psychology

People who want sex get hookers or watch porn.

According to statistics, it is accurate. I’m not pulling this out of my ass.

Btw, reading that blue type almost burned my retinas out

12

Perhaps things that are disgusting are also fascinating to look at? :-k
There really isn’t any other explanation other than that… I think she was lying out of nervousness because of the camera in front of her.

13

Can you show me those statistics? Anyone I’ve ever known who was raped/molested (which is only about 4 people) became very uncomfortable when other people tried to get close to them. Some times, it produced flashbacks for them. I can’t imagine that their adamant stance against rape would suddenly flip a 180 and make them want to rape other people. I’m sorry, but could you please explain the exact psychological process involved with your theory? Not just “It is accurate. I’m not pulling it out of my ass.” explain it to me for the sake of my understanding.

14

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

“There is no single theory that conclusively explains the motivation for rape; the motives of rapists can be multi-factorial and are the subject of debate. Researchers have attempted to explain the motivation of a rapist in terms of anger, power, sadism, and sexual gratification. Some argue that the capacity or propensity to rape is adaptive in the sense that historically, men with genes which increase their propensity to rape may have had more children, furthering the spread of those genes.
The research on convicted rapists has found several important motivational factors in the sexual aggression of males. Those motivational factors repeatedly implicated are having anger at women and having the need to control or dominate them.[1]”

As good a theory as any. Heres some others:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia … ity_traits

Lol, is that your favorite show?

Ok, apparently now the theory is being disputed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexu … #Offenders

Causal factors of child sex offenders are not known conclusively.[118] The experience of sexual abuse as a child was previously thought to be a strong risk factor, but research does not show a causal relationship, as the vast majority of sexually abused children do not grow up to be adult offenders, nor do the majority of adult offenders report childhood sexual abuse. The US Government Accountability Office concluded, “the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established.” Prior to 1996, there was greater belief in the theory of a “cycle of violence,” because most of the research done was retrospective—abusers were asked if they had experienced past abuse. Even the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood, but studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentage of such offenders who had been abused, from 0 to 79 percent. More recent prospective longitudinal research—studying children with documented cases of sexual abuse over time to determine what percentage become adult offenders—has demonstrated that the cycle of violence theory is not an adequate explanation for why people molest children.[119]

from the 119 gov’t report:
gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96178.pdf

"We identified 25 studies that provided quantitative information relevant to the question of whether persons who were sexually abused as children were at heightened risk of becoming sexual abusers of children in adulthood. Of these studies, 23 were retrospective—that is, they began with a sample of known adult sex offenders of children and sought to determine whether they were sexually abused themselves during childhood. Only two studies were prospective. These began with samples of sexually victimized children and tracked them into adulthood to determine how many became sex offenders.
A number of the retrospective studies found that a substantial percentage of adult sex offenders of children said they had been sexually abused as children. However, a majority of the studies found that most offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood. These studies varied in terms of their estimates of the percentages of such offenders who had been abused, from zero to 79 percent, partly because of differences in the types of offenders studied and in how childhood sexual abuse was defined and measured. In general, because they had several methodological shortcomings, these studies offered insufficient evidence that being sexually abused as a child led directly to the victim’s becoming an adult sex offender. The two prospective studies employed analytic methods that were better suited to establishing such a link than were the retrospective studies. Respectively, about 7 percent and 26 percent of sexually abused children in these studies were found to be sex offenders as adults. However, the various design and measurement problems of the prospective studies precluded the drawing of definitive conclusions from them as well. "

This is one of the reasons modern empirical research has become a joke. Studies contradicting studies and pulling up whatever bullshit theory is the next flavor of the week.

15

heres a more recent study with alot of subjects.

bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/482

basically, abused people aren’t far more likely to become abusers, but a a great degree of abusers were abused as children

16

Hmm. Why do you automatically assume he’s better looking than you? Perhaps he has a more enlightened view of women? I mean, based on your writing, I assume you reject “superficiality” and are completely honest with the people in your life, therefore you must have shared these disparaging views with the women in your life. Even if you succumbed to societal pressure to hide your true feelings, they have a way of making themselves known. If I may generalize (hey, when in Rome), women have a knack for picking up on those misogynistic attitudes. So it may not be a lack of physical attractiveness.

Just sayin’…

Hey sangrain. What’s new?

17

Oh, hey Anita, how long have you been sitting there?

Good to see you. Everything going well?

Not much new on this front, just a little meditation and introspection.

What do you think of this subject? Just wonderin’…

18

Because she admitted that he was more attractive than me…

She also claimed that she would never cheat on her boyfriend with me because she valued loyalty, but when I offered her to have a threesome with me and my friend (a guy who she had never met) she wanted to and actually seemed enthusiastic about it because I told her that he was an attractive guy.

You see, whenever I become good friends with a girl or date a girl, I tell her “You can always honestly tell me how you feel about something. As long as your being honest, I’m perfectly fine with you telling me when you think other guys are ‘hot’ or more attractive than me.” and if I am dating them I also tell them “I don’t mind at all if you talk to other guys, as long as you are honest and tell me about it. I also don’t mind if you talk dirty to other guys or even sleep with other guys as long as you tell me about it.”
The reason I used to tell girls this was to resolve the confusion in my mind of whether or not girls actually value personality over looks. Most girls were reluctant to be honest at first; but eventually after they realized that I enjoyed it when they were being honest, they began to openly tell me all the time about guys they found attractive, what their fantasies were with those guys, how they talk dirty to those guys on the phone, etc.
I really don’t need to search for any truth about the deceptive nature of the psychology of women, I know it through experience because they have admitted it to me.

Whenever somebody becomes sure of the idea “Hey, women only care about looks! And they actually aren’t the ‘fair and innocent’ girls that they claim to be!”, people are quick to shoot him down by claiming things like “You probably just had a bad experience with a girl and she probably didn’t like you because of your attitude towards women!” or any other excuse they can think of to make him doubt his conclusion. I’m sure that if we had this conversation in real life, and you realized that my attitude towards women is completely friendly and considerate, then you would probably drop down a level to the next logical excuse of explaining why she left me like “You probably just weren’t her type” or “some people just aren’t meant to be”…
The truth is completely apparent to me.

19

I think there are enough people around for everyone. If you really REALLY wanted to have sex you would've found a way by now.

Don't know, most of the attractive guys I've came across in my life were also simple. I've also met some rather short guys with very vibrant and memorable personalities.

20

Women “admitting” something does not, by any means, suggest that her statement is honest. In fact, the more honest an admission seems, or the more a person insists upon it, the more you can rest assured she is buttering up the real honesty by masking it with carefully selected language.

The deal is this, and I will be frank, your attempts to penetrate the psychology of women have exposed more about you than you will probably ever be able to in regards to them. Women are raised to play this game - they are defending themselves against the advances of random boys/men from the time they are early teens. You’ve made it fairly obvious with your posts that you have actually learned little to nothing about women through your various attempts; in fact, you seem downright discouraged and possibly more confused than you began. Women are learn value placement in regards to men the same way we learn about women. However, instead of valuing the obvious, superficial aspects of the other - thus making our motives and intentions all but transparent - women place value on characteristics of a man’s personality. This not only puts pressure on the act of displaying one’s personality in a positive way, but also makes female motives and intentions much harder to read – they are less physical, more emotional, and arguably more methodical for that reason. Every decision has an emotional drive, which seems to often lend a certain resentment or air of retaliation to their actions, specifically in regards to men. Here is what I can tell, just from your post above…

You seem to habitually devalue yourself in the face of these women simply through failure to acknowledge your own pride. Pride is a huge component of ‘ego’, which, I would argue, is the drive that assures one’s supposed “confidence” is constantly on display. Women, admittedly and quite obviously, find vast amounts of value in “confidence” - foremost even to some women. The louder the “confidence”, the bigger the ego, the more value you command. You, much like me, seek acceptance of your values rather than actively trying to sell yourself. Bottom line though is that women value “confidence”, thus keeping a man’s illusion or drive to power in extremely high regard, and a woman’s mind is every bit a devious as that of a man. A display of pride is an act of power, the persistence of your act shows how persistent your underlying drive is. By simply encouraging the discussion about other men you are giving her opportunity to consider other mates while downplaying the strength of your character - in her eyes anyway. The more value you command, the more “confidence”, and thus power, you display. Even things like jealousy and anger, while publicly regarded as “negative” traits in a man, are obviously quite the opposite to a woman. These are emotional displays of pride and insistence upon the advancement of one’s ego - interpreted into “confidence” and thus power. Women value confidence and power so highly because they ultimately seek protection and comfort in a man. The difference is that a man who protects or comforts a woman in spite of herself is a “friend” (ex. giving advice, reassuring, speaking honestly), while a man who protects a woman from the external world is a “mate” (physical protection, financial, etc.).

If you were a woman, what would your opinion be of a man that allows his woman to f**k around on him, compliments other men (other potential suitors), and encourages open discussion about it? That’s either a good friend, or one hell of a push-over, no?

Do you want to hear the graphic details from your male friends about who they want to have sex with and how/why? I certainly don’t. So, why give women special treatment on the subject? You should demand the same respect from a woman that you seem to be desperately trying to give them as if it was a gift. They need to earn that right just like any other acquaintance in your life - people are not to be trusted in full until they have earned that kind of respect.

The funny part is that you probably think I am some douche bag talking out of my keister, when, in reality, I relate more than you can fathom. I contemplated suicide because I believed nobody could love me, until I realized that people don’t seek to give out love or respect the way we would often want - we have to take that reverence with authority. It was not until I literally became consumed with anger - to the point that it poured out of my actions - that I began to notice some level of female attraction toward me. I had almost a manic confidence, one built upon rage, that I walked and felt the ground crumble beneath my feet. Do these new found women “friends” see that rage? Highly doubtful; my guess is they see the projection of confidence. This, my friend is why so many women seek men of detestable character - they are too infatuated with the utter confidence to consider the real source (which is often insecurity, but, in my case, was indescribable rage). I did not scream obscenities or openly pick fights during this period either, all i did was stop caring. I treated women like human beings, just as filthy as the rest. My display of supposed “confidence” via anger and jealousy in conjunction with denying women special treatment (which they’ve come to expect) actually gave off some air of power. I cannot think of a worse way to interpret “confidence” or power than how it has been in my case, and the sudden attraction showed me just how unhealthy the object of a woman’s desire can be. It was never meant for me, I just hated myself until I stopped caring - what a mind f**k.