Blind dating that really is in the dark
Mxsmanic
It's interesting to see how many people are not happy when the lights come up,
which demonstrates how overwhelmingly important looks are in relationships. I
note also that the prettiest people object to it the most (because they have
the most to lose).
August Pamplona
You're really hung up on this, aren't you!
August Pamplona
--
If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
- Stephen Colbert
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
ThePuttKing
I see loads of unattractive men with girlfriends. I also see
overweight men with nice looking women. You can't say that looks are
the only thing that matters.
Mxsmanic
> You're really hung up on this, aren't you!
Not really, but I'm reminded of it with each interaction with others, so it's
hard to ignore.
Mxsmanic
> I see loads of unattractive men with girlfriends. I also see
> overweight men with nice looking women. You can't say that looks are
> the only thing that matters.
Not the only thing, just the main thing.
ThePuttKing
Well yes I agree the main thing. You've only got to hear women talk,
it's all 'good looking' this 'nice looking' that.
I think if your unattractive then you have to be lucky to meet the
right woman. It's like a needle in a haystack though !
Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
Mxsmanic
> Well yes I agree the main thing. You've only got to hear women talk,
> it's all 'good looking' this 'nice looking' that.
Not just women. Both sexes are equally afflicted.
> I think if your unattractive then you have to be lucky to meet the
> right woman. It's like a needle in a haystack though!
Quite so. And she isn't likely to be attractive herself.
> Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
I find it hard to believe that a receding hairline and glasses alone would
suffice to turn a handsome man into an unattractive one.
ForeverRent
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/11/22/lui.dating.dark.cnn
>
> > It's interesting to see how many people are not happy when the lights come up,
> > which demonstrates how overwhelmingly important looks are in relationships. I
> > note also that the prettiest people object to it the most (because they have
> > the most to lose).
>
> You're really hung up on this, aren't you!
>
He's about as hung up on it as the caaahfidence jackasses are hung up
on trying to talk their way around this.-F.R.
Bernd Jendrissek
> He's about as hung up on it as the caaahfidence jackasses are hung up
> on trying to talk their way around this.-F.R.
Ok, I'll bite. Presumeably your assertion is that if you're not hot,
you can talk yourself blue in the face, you won't get anywhere?
How does wealth fit into your world view though? And I don't mean
wealth hidden under a mattress - I mean wealth where people can see
it. How sexually successful do you think an ugly but rich man would
be, assuming he displays his wealth effectively: drives a sports car,
wears obviously expensive designer clothes, constantly takes the tab
when eating / drinking out, etc. Is this man never ever going to get
a girl?
Bernd Jendrissek
> Well yes I agree the main thing. You've only got to hear women talk,
> it's all 'good looking' this 'nice looking' that.
But remember that humans are a post-rationalizing species. We justify
what we do with seemingly rational explanations after the fact. We
*don't* reason about our choices and *then* make the most rationally
optimal one. That's just a cute little story we tell ourselves so
that we can feel like we're running our show.
> I think if your unattractive then you have to be lucky to meet the
> right woman. It's like a needle in a haystack though !
I think you make your own luck. My god, why do you have to have such
a passive frame about this? "you have to be lucky" - like all you can
do is sit back and wait for the "right person" to appear and
appreciate you for how spethul you are?
All the ugly men I know [of] who have girls have gotten them by going
out there and MAKING their luck. They go out and upset the apple cart
a bit, make a bit of a show, like a magician working the audience,
sucking people attention in. Then with the opportunities they've
created, they grab one.
> Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
Balding is not a choice. Bald is. Have you shaven your head clean
yet?
ThePuttKing
Well I have the photo's to prove it. No way of getting them on here
though. I guess age has something to do with it as well !
ThePuttKing
> On Nov 23, 10:52 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well yes I agree the main thing. You've only got to hear women talk,
> > it's all 'good looking' this 'nice looking' that.
>
> But remember that humans are a post-rationalizing species. We justify
> what we do with seemingly rational explanations after the fact. We
> *don't* reason about our choices and *then* make the most rationally
> optimal one. That's just a cute little story we tell ourselves so
> that we can feel like we're running our show.
>
> > I think if your unattractive then you have to be lucky to meet the
> > right woman. It's like a needle in a haystack though !
>
> I think you make your own luck. My god, why do you have to have such
> a passive frame about this? "you have to be lucky" - like all you can
> do is sit back and wait for the "right person" to appear and
> appreciate you for how spethul you are?
I know I have no right to complain because I don't do a thing to meet
people. I only complain a bit on here, in real life I never say
anything.
>
> All the ugly men I know [of] who have girls have gotten them by going
> out there and MAKING their luck. They go out and upset the apple cart
> a bit, make a bit of a show, like a magician working the audience,
> sucking people attention in. Then with the opportunities they've
> created, they grab one.
I'm just too shy to do that !
>
> > Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> > from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> > started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> > straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
>
> Balding is not a choice. Bald is. Have you shaven your head clean
> yet?
Once and I hated it. I have a funny shaped head and being bald doesn't
suit me.
Mxsmanic
> Presumeably your assertion is that if you're not hot,
> you can talk yourself blue in the face, you won't get anywhere?
You can get somewhere by talking, but you might have to exert orders of
magnitude more effort than someone who is attractive would have to exert.
Beyond a certain point, it is no longer cost-effective.
> How does wealth fit into your world view though? And I don't mean
> wealth hidden under a mattress - I mean wealth where people can see
> it. How sexually successful do you think an ugly but rich man would
> be, assuming he displays his wealth effectively: drives a sports car,
> wears obviously expensive designer clothes, constantly takes the tab
> when eating / drinking out, etc. Is this man never ever going to get
> a girl?
Sure he'll get a girl, but it won't be sexual success: it will be commerce. He
provides money to a girl in exchange for sex. He is not sexually attractive
because he is wealthy; in fact, he is not sexually attractive at all.
Mxsmanic
> Well I have the photo's to prove it. No way of getting them on here
> though. I guess age has something to do with it as well !
Explain Sean Connery.
Mxsmanic
> All the ugly men I know [of] who have girls have gotten them by going
> out there and MAKING their luck. They go out and upset the apple cart
> a bit, make a bit of a show, like a magician working the audience,
> sucking people attention in. Then with the opportunities they've
> created, they grab one.
They depend mainly on creating an illusion of physical attractiveness, which
deludes the opposite sex long enough to permit a sexual relationship. The
problem with this technique is that the illusion can be destroyed just as
easily as it is created, so a woman who has been temporarily convinced that a
man is sexually attractive may change her mind again just as easily, and she
will probably do so one day.
In contrast, basic physical attraction tends to be constant. If someone is
spontaneously attracted to you physically, he or she will remain so
irrespective of any changes in the relationship between you (if any), because
the attraction is biologically mediated and not under conscious control.
ThePuttKing
He's a old, bald headed, tight fisted, grumpy actor.
Mxsmanic
> He's a old, bald headed, tight fisted, grumpy actor.
He's still considered a sex symbol by some.
August Pamplona
Humor, man! It's like it when right over your head! Ah, fuck
it! I would have answered ThePuttKing in exactly the same way. I admit it.
Curse Of Millhaven
I prefer keeping the lights off.
ForeverRent
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 5:11 am, ForeverRent <hesacoponthee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > He's about as hung up on it as the caaahfidence jackasses are hung up
> > on trying to talk their way around this.-F.R.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Presumeably your assertion is that if you're not hot,
> you can talk yourself blue in the face, you won't get anywhere?
Not entirely. But looks/height/age are very important, depending on
what you are willing to accept yourself.
> How does wealth fit into your world view though? And I don't mean
> wealth hidden under a mattress - I mean wealth where people can see
> it. How sexually successful do you think an ugly but rich man would
> be, assuming he displays his wealth effectively: drives a sports car,
> wears obviously expensive designer clothes, constantly takes the tab
> when eating / drinking out, etc. Is this man never ever going to get
> a girl?
Probably, depending on many other factors. But if he can stomach gold-
diggers or unattractive women, he'll never sleep alone.-F.R.
ThePuttKing
It's because he played James Bond and he was a famous actor. If he
lived on a council estate, and he used to be a dustbin man then I
don't think anybody would call him a sex symbol !
Michaela Mackenzie
> deludes the opposite sex long enough to permit a sexual relationship. The
> problem with this technique is that the illusion can be destroyed just as
> easily as it is created, so a woman who has been temporarily convinced that a
> man is sexually attractive may change her mind again just as easily, and she
> will probably do so one day.
>
> In contrast, basic physical attraction tends to be constant. If someone is
> spontaneously attracted to you physically, he or she will remain so
> irrespective of any changes in the relationship between you (if any), because
> the attraction is biologically mediated and not under conscious control.
I promised myself I'd try to be a nicer person, but heck man! There
you go
spouting crap again!
You know NOTHING about the power of persuasion.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
do with
your self image than anything else.
People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
- Michaela
August Pamplona
This can be explained through the Dunning Kruger effect (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ). No, I'm
not trying to suggest general incompetence on his part, just domain
specific incompetence (which we all have --just not in the same specific
domains as Mxsmanic).
>
> You know NOTHING about the power of persuasion.
>
> - Michaela
August Pamplona
Pumpkinhead
> I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
> do with
> your self image than anything else.
>
> People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
>
> - Michaela
Many, many women have lousy self images. Overall women are probably even
more insecure about their bodies than men are. That hardly stops them
attracting men though. Assuming what you say is true, you can see how easy
women have it. They can afford to be insecure.
Bernd Jendrissek
wrote:
> Many, many women have lousy self images. Overall women are probably even
> more insecure about their bodies than men are. That hardly stops them
> attracting men though. Assuming what you say is true, you can see how easy
> women have it. They can afford to be insecure.
These "many, many women" may have a domain-specific insecurity,
whereas us shy guys have an omni-insecurity.
Oh, and just because a woman can attract a man, doesn't mean she can
keep him.
Bernd Jendrissek
> In contrast, basic physical attraction tends to be constant. If someone is
> spontaneously attracted to you physically, he or she will remain so
> irrespective of any changes in the relationship between you (if any), because
> the attraction is biologically mediated and not under conscious control.
From this short paragraph I conclude that you have never fallen in
love (*) with a girl *and then* fallen out of love with her again. If
you had, you would know what it's like to wonder wtf you were thinking
when you thought that so-and-so was so incredibly hot.
(*) Lust, whatever you want to call it.
Mxsmanic
> I promised myself I'd try to be a nicer person, but heck man! There
> you go spouting crap again!
>
> You know NOTHING about the power of persuasion.
I know enough that I don't find it necessary to resort to personal attacks to
hide my ignorance.
Mxsmanic
> From this short paragraph I conclude that you have never fallen in
> love (*) with a girl *and then* fallen out of love with her again.
One does not fall into or out of true love. If you can fall into or out of it,
it's lust, not love.
Mxsmanic
> I prefer keeping the lights off.
Are you ugly? Ugly people usually prefer lights off.
August Pamplona
Such a romantic!*
August Pamplona
* Helen Fisher would beg to differ, by the way**.
** Not that you couldn't no true Scotsman it, of course. I'm just
pointing out that many folk (not just Helen Fisher --lest you consider
my statement a mere appeal to authority***) recognize different types of
love (one of which, normally referred to as "romantic love", being
synonymous with Bernd's usage) and that changes in this are widely
recognized (to the point of being non-controversial).
*** Call it an argumentum ad populum, if you wish, but you'd also be
wrong. It's not about what most people think, it is about how it is
widely defined. The fact that you can make up your own ad hoc definition
is the problem here.
Curse Of Millhaven
I am getting there.
August Pamplona
Again, this was an instance of self deprecating humor,
Mxsmanic. I totally missed it and so did you (but you came oh, so close!).
August Pamplona
Bernd Jendrissek
Did you read the footnote? It doesn't matter what "it is". The point
is that what you find sexually attractive at time A might not be
sexually attractive at time B. All that changes is your own mental
state!
Bernd Jendrissek
> Again, this was an instance of self deprecating humor,
> Mxsmanic. I totally missed it and so did you (but you came oh, so close!).
It is not possible for a humourless object to learn humour. We know
this because you need multiple atoms to construct a model of one atom!
ThePuttKing
I don't really agree with that. When I was younger my self image was
way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
comments.
PandoraElpis
Bernd Jendrissek yazdı:
> On Nov 24, 5:11 am, ForeverRent <hesacoponthee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He's about as hung up on it as the caaahfidence jackasses are hung up
> > on trying to talk their way around this.-F.R.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. Presumeably your assertion is that if you're not hot,
> you can talk yourself blue in the face, you won't get anywhere?
>
> wealth hidden under a mattress - I mean wealth where people can see
> it. How sexually successful do you think an ugly but rich man would
> be, assuming he displays his wealth effectively: drives a sports car,
> wears obviously expensive designer clothes, constantly takes the tab
> when eating / drinking out, etc. Is this man never ever going to get
> a girl?
I have already proffered evidence that female sexual choice privileges
delinquent males(where 'delinquency' implies fitness advantages in
short term optima while balancing selection is operating favorably,
lending to a selective proponderance of conventional badges of fitness
- physical characters).
Social prosperity can minimize sexual choice trade-offs between
genetic/direct benefits by offloading the burden of maternal
subsistence onto immediate/extended families, or agents of the welfare
state.
The evident frequency of solitary or family/state-dependent mothers
suggests that fem choice is in fact more sensetive to genetic benefits
than direct benefits, of which conventional badges(physical
characters) are the most palpable info proxy(in the former).
Since frequencies are meaningful, it is thus reasonable to conclude
that sufficiently floating social prosperity confounds personal wealth
as an honest signal of male quality.
In a more pointed answer to your question, an ugly wealthy man would
still have poor outcomes in any population that meets the conditions I
have just described.
Marriage(which is a wealthy ugly guy's biggest 'hook') is riskier for
unattractive males, as it poses no recourse in the more likely event
of mate infidelity(which is consequently almost certain to be the case
- obviously this is all about sex, as that is the life-history outcome
to which evolution is most sensitive).
Males and females are both socially conscious of this fact, which we
should expect has tempered in ugly males a greater measure of
suspicion and trepidation, as well as counter strategies which lever
the prospect of marriage(ie. enticing females through the lure of
material gain) for short term mating benefits - an advantage they can
no longer leverage once crossing the marriage threshold.
Materially motivated females appreciate the risk of being duped by
noncommittal opportunists, and thus have cause to give high-risk males
a wide berth.
Bottom line: females demonstrate an unwillingness to trade off mate
attractiveness for marginal gains in creature comforts(although a very
small minority will trade sex in the form of prostitution, this is not
a solution for the problems posed in this thread).
Mxsmanic
> Such a romantic!*
Hardly. My view of true love is rather the opposite.
Mxsmanic
> Did you read the footnote? It doesn't matter what "it is". The point
> is that what you find sexually attractive at time A might not be
> sexually attractive at time B. All that changes is your own mental
> state!
Sexual attraction isn't love.
Mxsmanic
> I don't really agree with that. When I was younger my self image was
> way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> comments.
The problem isn't with people realizing that you have a lousy self-image. A
problem only arises when they agree with such a self-image.
Mxsmanic
> I am getting there.
Are you closer than others of your age cohort?
August Pamplona
> On Nov 27, 5:15 am, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Again, this was an instance of self deprecating humor,
>
> It is not possible for a humourless object to learn humour. We know
> this because you need multiple atoms to construct a model of one atom!
I was going to congratulate Mxsmanic on his faltering first
step to develop self-deprecating humor and then I realized he didn't
write that. :-(
Solipsist
"PandoraElpis" <Pandor...@live.com> wrote in message
news:53b3bb39-5a85-4bc9...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>I have already proffered evidence that female sexual choice privileges
>delinquent males(where 'delinquency' implies fitness advantages in
>short term optima while balancing selection is operating favorably,
>lending to a selective proponderance of conventional badges of fitness
>- physical characters).
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but I'm pretty sure it can
be said in one line and such that the average person would understand it...
Something like "women want muscular bad boys" maybe?
Michaela Mackenzie
>
> Not really, but I'm reminded of it with each interaction with others, so it's
> hard to ignore.
I remember that when I was pregnant with puppy I noticed lots of other
pregnant women walking around. And then when puppy was born I noticed
a lot of moms with babies. Nowadays, puppy is eight years old and I
tend
to notice girls that are eight or older.
There's a pattern in there somewhere..
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> > I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
> > do with
> > your self image than anything else.
>
> > People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
>
> > - Michaela
>
> Many, many women have lousy self images. Overall women are probably even
> more insecure about their bodies than men are. That hardly stops them
> attracting men though.
I'd respond with: what quality of man would they get, but that started
me on
Pirsig's 'ZAMM' and, well, what do you think about the subject of
quality and how
would you define quality?
I'll wait while you read it..
Assuming what you say is true, you can see how easy
> women have it. They can afford to be insecure.
No one can "afford" to be insecure.
Puppy is in an all-girl's school and going through hell.
Wait, I just realised who I'm talking to. There's no point, cos you
are on Mxs's side
when it comes to stuff like this.
He also has this black and white pov.
You want a relationship with one particular girl, but you generalise
all girls as having
all the power. How can you hope to have a relationship with that
'tude? Are you waiting
for a girl who has some kind of missing feminine trait?
For anyone else who is listening, puppy is struggling at school cos
she's letting people
get to her. I need to teach her not to let people know what she's
thinking (feeling) when they
make comments, unfortunately for her she's right in the middle of it
all so she can't
think objectively.
I might elaborate later.
The point is: stop thinking of life as boys vs. girls. You are just
punching yourself in the
face with that attitude.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
Agreeing with a self image doesn't necessarily mean you are going to
be dissed.
Perhaps you don't understand the notion of compassion?
- Michaela
Mxsmanic
> I remember that when I was pregnant with puppy I noticed lots of other
> pregnant women walking around. And then when puppy was born I noticed
> a lot of moms with babies. Nowadays, puppy is eight years old and I
> tend to notice girls that are eight or older.
>
> There's a pattern in there somewhere..
Exactly. And if you are ugly, you notice how interactions with ugly people
work.
ThePuttKing
No idea what 'dissed' means !
I am compassionate.
PandoraElpis
Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:52 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> > from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> > started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> > straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
>
> do with
> your self image than anything else.
>
> People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
>
> - Michaela
Yeah, and guess what mediates those inferences?
Reception of sensory cues, which map irrational biases(bound by
evolutionary concerns) onto a framework of rationalized explanation.
A tendency to kludge cognitive bias into some kind of justification
framework is a multilevel strategic entanglement of the fitness
landscape.
And when observing males, fems will render all subjective appraisals
through a filter of sexual preference.
If confidence is an honest signal, it must be meaningful, and thus
follow from a conditionally dependent history of empirical outcomes.
Merely implying that confidence and female choice are correlated does
nothing to delineate causality, and is thus not useful.
My argument is that confidence is a part of a extended, high level
signal that communicates additional information bound by more
conventional low-level signals(think of it as a frquency overtone,
which cannot exist without the fundamental).
Thus, female sexual preference is sensetive only to that kind of
confidence which is bound by characters which denote sexual quality,
making it impossible to effectively fake(or spontaneously acquire).
So, try offering either a practical suggestion, or a sound explanation
next time instead of the same old, absurdly rote, law-of-attraction
apologism.
PandoraElpis
> On Nov 26, 3:18 am, "Pumpkinhead" wrote:
> > > I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
> > > do with
> > > your self image than anything else.
> >
> > > People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
> >
> > > - Michaela
> >
> > Many, many women have lousy self images. Overall women are probably even
> > more insecure about their bodies than men are. That hardly stops them
> > attracting men though.
Females are not more critical of themselves, it is just that males are
loathe to complain or advertise their flaws, for fear of signalling
their inferiority to females(and for fear of emboldening male
rivals).
Female victimology canards to the contrary are strategic in
manipulating sympathy.
This doesn't work for males - poor outcomes don't engender sympathy
for males, because loser males don't get sympathy from other males(for
competitive reasons), or females(whose only evolutionary concern is in
stratifying male quality by posing evolutionary problems for males to
negotiate, not sympathizing with losers), and winner males don't need
sympathy to begin with!
> I'd respond with: what quality of man would they get
Unless a female is exceptionally ugly, she will have sexual access to
the same pool of males as her betters.
Sexual conflict in optimal mating rate accords second-string fems
ample opportunity at first string males - they just have to wait
longer in the queue on average.
A large population of females tends to a small population of males,
because females have an evolutionary affinity for sharing males.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you named her 'puppy',
and sent her to an all girl school(where as in integrated schools, the
burden rests squarely on male 'losers', as the peer-pressure cooker
focuses on stratifying male status hierarchy), you new-age quack!
> The point is: stop thinking of life as boys vs. girls. You are just
> punching yourself in the
> face with that attitude.
How so?
Sexual conflict is a real dichotomy rooted in objective reality.
It is not useful to ignore that.
> - Michaela
PandoraElpis
ThePuttKing wrote:
> On 22 Nov, 22:59, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/11/22/lui.dating.dark.cnn
> >
> > It's interesting to see how many people are not happy when the lights come up,
> > which demonstrates how overwhelmingly important looks are in relationships. I
> > note also that the prettiest people object to it the most (because they have
> > the most to lose).
>
> I see loads of unattractive men with girlfriends. I also see
> overweight men with nice looking women. You can't say that looks are
> the only thing that matters.
That you see fat/ugly guys with attractive women is confounded by the
myriad explanations you might see such a pairing, none of which
necessarily implies sex, or reciprocal attraction.
I don't know about the UK, but I don't observe much evidence of such
pairings(I do see alot of fat cows apparently paired with
conventionally attractive males, however), and I have always held that
frequencies are meaningful.
Of course, problems in sexual selection weigh against males(unlike
females, where nearly all of them will share/swap reciprocally
attractive mates over time), as there is nothing equivalent about
dimorphic sex - that is what fixed its evolutionary niche.
So, male physical attractiveness will continue to enjoy a primacy of
selective value as long as balancing selection preserves its
advantage.
Consider:
As ecological pressures relax, balancing selection begins to shift in
favor of short term male fitness strategies, deforming the fitness
landscape, eroding its peaks until frequencies become unviable, and
the tide of balancing selection turns again in favor of long term
strategies as ascendent ecological pressures form evolutionary niches
for chance and opportunity to increase the ruggedness of the
landscape.
Mxsmanic
> No one can "afford" to be insecure.
>
> Puppy is in an all-girl's school and going through hell.
>
> Wait, I just realised who I'm talking to. There's no point, cos you
> are on Mxs's side when it comes to stuff like this.
I am not on anyone's "side." In particular, I don't believe that girls have it
any better than boys, or vice versa. In most societies, there are advantages
and disadvantages to each gender, but neither is in an entirely bad or
entirely good situation. Worldwide, though, women usually get a much worse
deal than men. Only developed countries give women a good measure of
equality--and it's impossible for a country to become developed unless it does
this.
> You want a relationship with one particular girl, but you generalise
> all girls as having all the power.
Girls have no more power than guys.
> For anyone else who is listening, puppy is struggling at school cos
> she's letting people get to her. I need to teach her not to let people
> know what she's thinking (feeling) when they make comments, unfortunately
> for her she's right in the middle of it all so she can't think objectively.
That's a function of personality rather than gender. Some individuals resist
well, others cannot resist at all. Unfortunately, bullying and other negative
character traits are not limited to boys alone.
Mxsmanic
> Females are not more critical of themselves, it is just that males are
> loathe to complain or advertise their flaws, for fear of signalling
> their inferiority to females(and for fear of emboldening male
> rivals).
Both sexes are this way.
> This doesn't work for males - poor outcomes don't engender sympathy
> for males, because loser males don't get sympathy from other males(for
> competitive reasons), or females(whose only evolutionary concern is in
> stratifying male quality by posing evolutionary problems for males to
> negotiate, not sympathizing with losers), and winner males don't need
> sympathy to begin with!
There are many women devoting themselves to total losers who disprove this
assertion. Men who seem to be victims attract certain types of women, just as
women who seem to be victims attract certain types of men. There are plenty
of male losers in the world, and most of them have girlfriends.
> Unless a female is exceptionally ugly, she will have sexual access to
> the same pool of males as her betters.
Her access is the same as a man's access. The more attractive a person is, the
better the access to the opposite sex, for purposes of sex. There isn't really
a sexual difference here.
I read a report not long ago on women who are in relationships with men who
aren't interested in sex. It's a siginificant problem. One always thinks of
girls being the ones to say "no," but very often it's the guys. The only
difference is that a woman may say "no" because man asks, whereas women are
less likely to ask and so it's a matter of the man never bothering to initiate
(although women stuck with men like this eventually learn to take the
initiative if they want sex).
Overall, your arguments are the reflection of a standard, well-worn, tired old
viewpoint that prefers to oversimplify human relations by reducing everything
to some sort of instinct. Human beings have very few instincts and their
behavior is much more complex than that of other animals. But men who aren't
able to find girlfriends like to rationalize that it's all because of some
sort of wired-in behavior.
> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you named her 'puppy',
> and sent her to an all girl school(where as in integrated schools, the
> burden rests squarely on male 'losers', as the peer-pressure cooker
> focuses on stratifying male status hierarchy), you new-age quack!
She would have the same problem in a coed school.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > Females are not more critical of themselves, it is just that males are
> > loathe to complain or advertise their flaws, for fear of signalling
> > their inferiority to females(and for fear of emboldening male
> > rivals).
>
> Both sexes are this way.
No They aren't.
These kinds of selection pressures are necessarily muted against the
limiting sex(females).
Males, on the other hand have evolved to be the shock-troops of
evolution.
In order for evolution to operate opportunistically, negative outcomes
must weigh against male success for limiting reasons of dimorphic
biology - a reality that is ultimately irreconcilable with gender
equality, except as as a strategic pretext in sexual conflict(which it
is).
Sexual selectivity is a function of dimorphic imbalance in
reproductive potential.
Males have short reproductive intervals, and thus are less
'selective'(with an 'active' optima).
Females have long reproductive intervals, and thus are more
'selective'(with a 'passive' optima).
Learn someone of evolution before you presume to debate it's
implications and quit inferring from what you see on 'Oprah', or read
in 'Cosmo'.
> > This doesn't work for males - poor outcomes don't engender sympathy
> > for males, because loser males don't get sympathy from other males(for
> > competitive reasons), or females(whose only evolutionary concern is in
> > stratifying male quality by posing evolutionary problems for males to
> > negotiate, not sympathizing with losers), and winner males don't need
> > sympathy to begin with!
>
> There are many women devoting themselves to total losers who disprove this
> assertion. Men who seem to be victims attract certain types of women, just as
> women who seem to be victims attract certain types of men. There are plenty
> of male losers in the world, and most of them have girlfriends.
Loserdom is popularly appealed as an indictment and innuendo of male
sexual quality.
In evolutionary terms, male success is a function of paternity.
Thus a male with good breeding prospects is an unlikely loser on the
basis of relative reproductive success, and it's proxy indicators.
By this standard, unattractive males have a lower confidence of
success than attractive males in populations where male physical
attractiveness is the prime determinant of female choice.
> > Unless a female is exceptionally ugly, she will have sexual access to
> > the same pool of males as her betters.
>
> Her access is the same as a man's access. The more attractive a person is, the
> better the access to the opposite sex, for purposes of sex. There isn't really
> a sexual difference here.
"When prostitutes and sex differences in infection rate for sexually
transmitted diseases (SDS) are considered, it can be deduced that
women in general have more sex and more sex partners than males on
average (Joseph, 2000a), which is also the case with most other
species (Bateman, 1948; Cade. 1985; Carpenter, 1942; Clutton-Brock,
1987; Hausfater, 1975; Howard, 1978; Lancaster, 1978; Lott, 1979;
McCann, 1981; Thornhill, 1981; Trivers, 1976; Seyfarth, 1977; Smuts,
1987; Tutin, 1975; Zuckerman, 1932). In fact, these sex differences
in
human sexual activity can be deduced based on the percentage of males
vs females who become infected with SDS (Joseph, 2000a).
Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (1991, 1996,
1997a,b;), Webster and colleagues (1991; Webster, Berman, and
Greenspan, 1991; Webster & Rolfs, 1991), and the World Heath
Organization (2000), indicate that females have a significantly
higher
rate of infection for HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia, and
that females between the ages of 15 and 19, have the highest
infection
rate of all age groups.
For example, in both 1991 and 1995, over half a million cases of
chlamydia in the United States were reported, and the rate of
infection for young females was found to be six time higher than for
men, with an incidence of rate of 290.3 per 100,000 for females,
versus 52 per 100,000 for males (Centers for Disease Control, 1991,
1997a; Webster et al., 1991).
In addition, females in the U.S., have a syphilis infection rate that
is 2 to 5.5 times higher than males, with a 35 per 100,000 incidence
rate for adult females versus 18 per 100,000 for adult males (Centers
for Disease Control, 1991, 1996, 1997a; Webster et al. 1991). Females
aged 10-14 have a syphilis infection rate that is 5.5 times higher
than males their own age (Centers for Disease Control, 1991).
Likewise, the incidence of gonorrhea among females aged 15-19 is
1,043.6 per 100,000 vs 882.6 per 100,000 for males (Centers for
Disease Control, 1991; Webster et al. 1991).
Moreover, as based on an analysis of 36 countries, it was found that
women under age 20 have twice the rate of infection with the AIDs
virus than do young males and that the HIV infection rate is highest
for women between the ages of 15 and 25 (World Health Organization,
2000). Among American youths, the HIV rate is about 4.2 per 1,000
girls, versus 2.0 per 1000 boys. Regardless of age, the HIV rate for
men never equals that of women (World Health Organization, 2000)
which argues against the notion that an equal number of older men are
infecting an equal number of younger women.
Hence, in consequence, as high status men come in limited numbers
and
are less choosy when it comes to sex partners, a relatively larger
percentage of females will have sex with a relatively smaller
percentage of males. Therefore, whereas almost all women are provided
multiple opportunities to mate with low and high status males, only a
relatively small percentage of males are provided with multiple
willing females. This explains the sex differences in the infection
rate for sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, a significant minority, and in some species, the
majority of males never have sex as females refuse to mate with them
due to the male's low status or lack of resources (Bateman, 1948;
Carpenter, 1942; Clutton-Brock, 1987; Hausfater, 1975; Howard, 1978;
Lancaster, 1978; Lott, 1979; McCann, 1981; Thornhill, 1981; Trivers,
1976;
Seyfarth, 1977; Smuts, 1987; Tutin, 1975; Zuckerman, 1932). Among
insects it has been reported that 85% of the females are mated by
less
than 5% of all males (Cade, 1985).
Non-human primate females, such as baboons, rhesus, and chimpanzees,
seek out and have sex with high ranked males and avoid lower ranking,
and in particular the lowest ranked males (Carpenter, 1942;Hausfater,
1975; Lancaster, 1978; Seyfarth, 1977; Smuts, 1987; Tutin, 1975;
Zuckerman, 1932). The female will refuse sex by lowering her
hindquarters.
Although an estrus female chimp may copulate up to 50 times in a
day,
and although she may have up to 20 or more males to choose from, she
may instead choose to repeatedly mate with only 8 of the available
males who generally tend to be of high status (Goodall, 1986; Tutin,
1975).
In polygynous primate species(note, prevailing occidental mating
systems do *not* tend towards interprtations of monogamy), only
perhaps 25% of the males ever mate (Fedigan, 1992). In one colony of
free ranging rhesus monkeys,
although there were 150 adult females and 52 males, most of the
estrus
females actively sought out and mated with the same three dominate
males (Carpenter, 1942). In some colonies, only about 20% of the
males
are responsible for 80% of the matings (Freedman, 1979). Similarly,
in
one study of 25 male and 25 female captive baboons, it was observed
that the females mated selectively with only five of the males
(Zuckerman, 1932)."
What is interesting, is where objective data suggests something
meaningful of how matings are distributed in a population, in such a
way that lends conclusion to females being more sexually *active*
through measures of relative kurtosis.
And this is exactly what we should expect as sexual selection *must *
be zero sum, as female function is limiting(with scale invarient,
isomorphic manifestations of a contrary agency).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320155237.htm
"Although women's selectivity across categories reflected how
attractive they appeared to other people, the researchers found the
characteristics men desired in a partner did not vary based on their
own physical attractiveness."
This agrees with greater variability in fem preference, which must
imply greater selectivity in tending larger fem populations towards
smaller male populations if these preferences can be interpreted as
qualitative filter thresholds.
It also, interestingly, corresponds with a greater varience in male
fitness traits(indicative of greater selective pressures acting on
males).
> I read a report not long ago on women who are in relationships with men who
> aren't interested in sex. It's a siginificant problem.
Provide compelling evidence that it is a 'significant problem'(Oprah/
Cosmo fodder will not suffice).
Anecdotes/victimology canards aren't cogent.
Given the conditioned pathos of constructed female victimology, which
is mercilessly hamered into the popular psyche from every angle ad
nauseum, we should expect that popular sympathy would privilege the
impertinent whinges of a few indignant females.
Disadvantaged(ex. unattractive) males with significant evolutionry
handicapps have no sympathetic medium for complaint or social
redressment.
> One always thinks of
> girls being the ones to say "no," but very often it's the guys. The only
> difference is that a woman may say "no" because man asks, whereas women are
> less likely to ask and so it's a matter of the man never bothering to initiate
> (although women stuck with men like this eventually learn to take the
> initiative if they want sex).
I'm sure the heart of every loser on ASS bleeds for them.
> Overall, your arguments are the reflection of a standard, well-worn, tired old
> viewpoint
So, my arguments are common?
Show me where they have been repeated.
> that prefers to oversimplify human relations by reducing everything
> to some sort of instinct. Human beings have very few instincts and their
> behavior is much more complex than that of other animals. But men who aren't
> able to find girlfriends like to rationalize that it's all because of some
> sort of wired-in behavior.
And here we go again.
As soon as taboo/inconvenient/insoluble implications follow(like the
necessity of sexual conflict), human behavior becomes a special,
irreproachable case no longer bounded by anything real(cue law-of-
attraction apologies).
I'm the only one posing sound explanations in agreement with
evolutionary principles.
> > Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you named her 'puppy',
> > and sent her to an all girl school(where as in integrated schools, the
> > burden rests squarely on male 'losers', as the peer-pressure cooker
> > focuses on stratifying male status hierarchy), you new-age quack!
>
> She would have the same problem in a coed school.
No she wouldn't.
Without intersexual socializing pressures, females will assume a more
stressful, active form, which clashes with their passive evolutionary
optima.
It wll be much harder on them.
Ponder why there are no rogue females.
Mxsmanic
> No They aren't.
>
> These kinds of selection pressures are necessarily muted against the
> limiting sex(females).
As I've explained, human behavior is not wired in. In fact, many of the higher
animals on this planet exhibit mostly acquired and not wired-in behavior, not
just people. Dolphins, chimpanzees, gorillas, some birds, and elephants spring
to mind. None of these animals is a mere robot implementation of a set of
fixed programs, and neither are human beings.
> Learn someone of evolution before you presume to debate it's
> implications and quit inferring from what you see on 'Oprah', or read
> in 'Cosmo'.
Show cause and effect, if you want to support an evolutionary theory.
> In evolutionary terms, male success is a function of paternity.
Human beings don't function in evolutionary terms. Once a species can think
for itself, evolution ceases to be a factor.
> Provide compelling evidence that it is a 'significant problem'(Oprah/
> Cosmo fodder will not suffice).
It didn't come from Cosmo or Oprah, although I should point out that both of
these sources are direct and accurate reflections of how at least some human
beings think and behave, since they are actually produced by those human
beings. It seems a bit odd to depend on studies of people as if they were zoo
animals to determine their behavior when one can listen to them directly to
find out what they think and why they do as they do.
> So, my arguments are common?
They are common among men who have no success with women.
> I'm the only one posing sound explanations in agreement with
> evolutionary principles.
You're one of many trying to rationalize a lack of positive experience in
interactions with the opposite sex.
> No she wouldn't.
There are millions of counterexamples to disprove that statement.
> Without intersexual socializing pressures, females will assume a more
> stressful, active form, which clashes with their passive evolutionary
> optima.
Girls can be cruel, just like boys.
> Ponder why there are no rogue females.
Why? I've seen them, so the statement "there are no rogue females" is false.
Michaela Mackenzie
Unfortunately? Are you at all familiar with the Hindu god, Shiva?
While I am really sad and it hurts that puppy is struggling so, I am
also
grateful that she is suffering. Because it's through suffering that
she will grow.
All I can do is be there for her and love her and tell her what I
would do if
I were in her situation. It feels really awful right now and I just
want to tear at
the kids who she thinks are being mean to her, but it'll be all good
in the end.
If she's really honest with herself, she'll realise that she's being
mean to other
kids on another level. As Mike always says, there're another 23 kids
to play with
in the class.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> On 25 Nov, 19:47, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 10:52 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> > > from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> > > started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> > > straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
>
> > I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
> > do with
>
> > People can /smell/ a lousyselfimagea mile off.
>
> > - Michaela
>
> I don't really agree with that. When I was younger myselfimagewas
> way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> comments.
Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying. And yes, it's
possible.
That said, I don't really believe it.
If I was able to spend some time with you, I reckon I could explain it
better.
Don't forget that what we think we believe may not be what we
actually believe.
There was that man who planted the seeds and told his wife he didn't
believe
anything would grow from those seeds. But they did grow. And that's
when he
realised that he only thought he didn't believe, but that there was
another aspect
of himself that believed..
- Michaela
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> On 28 Nov, 00:11, Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 8:09 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > > ThePuttKing writes:
> > > > I don't really agree with that. When I was younger myselfimagewas
> > > > way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> > > > Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> > > > comments.
>
> > > problem only arises when they agree with such aself-image.
>
> > be dissed.
> > Perhaps you don't understand the notion of compassion?
>
> > - Michaela
>
> No idea what 'dissed' means !
Yeh. Me two. It sounds good tho, dunnit?
- Michaela
August Pamplona
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> PandoraElpis writes:
>>
>>> Females are not more critical of themselves, it is just that males are
>>> loathe to complain or advertise their flaws, for fear of signalling
>>> their inferiority to females(and for fear of emboldening male
>>> rivals).
>> Both sexes are this way.
>
> No They aren't.
>
> These kinds of selection pressures are necessarily muted against the
> limiting sex(females).
>
> Males, on the other hand have evolved to be the shock-troops of
> evolution.
Holy shit! "The shock-troops of evolution"? What the fuck does
that even mean?
[snip]
>> Her access is the same as a man's access. The more attractive a person is, the
>> better the access to the opposite sex, for purposes of sex. There isn't really
>> a sexual difference here.
>
> "When prostitutes and sex differences in infection rate for sexually
> transmitted diseases (SDS) are considered, it can be deduced that
> women in general have more sex and more sex partners than males on
> average (Joseph, 2000a), which is also the case with most other
> species (Bateman, 1948; Cade. 1985; Carpenter, 1942; Clutton-Brock,
> 1987; Hausfater, 1975; Howard, 1978; Lancaster, 1978; Lott, 1979;
> McCann, 1981; Thornhill, 1981; Trivers, 1976; Seyfarth, 1977; Smuts,
> 1987; Tutin, 1975; Zuckerman, 1932). In fact, these sex differences
> in
> human sexual activity can be deduced based on the percentage of males
> vs females who become infected with SDS (Joseph, 2000a).
This probably doesn't mean what you think it means because it
is simply retarded if applied to the arithmetic mean (the commonly
understood meaning of "on average"). By the way, all those references
from your copy & paste job are useless if they are not full references
(though I guess one can find them easily enough by googling).
As a simplification, whenever the two sides are roughly equal
in numbers (which they are) one side is simply never going to have more
sex on average then the other.
For instance, if you have five males, m1-m5, and five females,
f1-f5, and f5 is a whore who is banging all males and in addition to
that f1 has sex with m1, f2 has sex with m2, etc., the average female
will have 9/5 sexual partners and the average male will have 9/5 sexual
partners. Add some men into the picture who are not having any sex at
all and it changes nothing: the average for one gender still will equal
the average of the other gender. Postulate that older men have sex with
younger women and older women don't have sex with younger men (to skew
the population making the male population greater than the female
population and thus breaking the initial assumption of equal numbers)
and it still changes nothing (since you have to consider the older women
not having sex with younger men, it still leaves both sides roughly equal).
And you are looking at sexual activity (frequency), it still
doesn't matter because every time that a female is having sex, a guy is
having sex with her (since we are only interested, for the purposes of
discussion in heterosexual couplings I will disregard homosexual
couplings --if I didn't it probably would not work out in your favor,
anyway).
You can make up any example and it will work out this way. If
the average number of sexual encounters in one side is x for n females
and y for n males and a female has an additional sexual encounter, then
the number of sexual encounters for females becomes 1+x�n and the number
of sexual encounters for males becomes 1+y�n (just divide the entities
by n for an average number) so as long as you start out with x=y (which
has to be the case whenever the population of males equals the
population of females) the number of sexual encounters for males has to
equal the number of sexual encounters for females. It can't be any other
way!
>
>
> Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control (1991, 1996,
> 1997a,b;), Webster and colleagues (1991; Webster, Berman, and
> Greenspan, 1991; Webster & Rolfs, 1991), and the World Heath
> Organization (2000), indicate that females have a significantly
> higher
> rate of infection for HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia, and
> that females between the ages of 15 and 19, have the highest
> infection
> rate of all age groups.
[snip]
This is, again, totally retarded (why am I not surprised?).
Male and female venereal diseases are, in general, not the same thing.
They do not necessarily present the same way, they are not always tested
for in the same way, they do not necessarily have the same consequences,
the periods during which one may be a infectious (symptomatically or
asymptomatically) may not be the same, and the likelihood of
transmission during a sexual encounter is usually not the same in both
directions.
You cannot draw the simplistic conclusions the author of this
piece (is it you?) is drawing from infection rates alone. The best one
could do is create a bunch of infection models based on known
epidemiology of a particular disease and run them through various
scenarios in Monte Carlo simulations.
[snip]
>> Overall, your arguments are the reflection of a standard, well-worn, tired old
>> viewpoint
>
> So, my arguments are common?
>
> Show me where they have been repeated.
Gosh, he knows just enough about evolutionary biology to be
dangerous(ly stupid) and he thinks he's special and that we've never
seen posts like his before on a.s.s..
>
>> that prefers to oversimplify human relations by reducing everything
>> to some sort of instinct. Human beings have very few instincts and their
>> behavior is much more complex than that of other animals. But men who aren't
>> able to find girlfriends like to rationalize that it's all because of some
>> sort of wired-in behavior.
>
> And here we go again.
>
> As soon as taboo/inconvenient/insoluble implications follow(like the
> necessity of sexual conflict), human behavior becomes a special,
> irreproachable case no longer bounded by anything real(cue law-of-
> attraction apologies).
>
> I'm the only one posing sound explanations in agreement with
> evolutionary principles.
>
>>> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you named her 'puppy',
>>> and sent her to an all girl school(where as in integrated schools, the
>>> burden rests squarely on male 'losers', as the peer-pressure cooker
>>> focuses on stratifying male status hierarchy), you new-age quack!
>> She would have the same problem in a coed school.
>
> No she wouldn't.
>
> Without intersexual socializing pressures, females will assume a more
> stressful, active form, which clashes with their passive evolutionary
> optima.
>
> It wll be much harder on them.
>
> Ponder why there are no rogue females.
What the fuck is a rogue female? Is that like Sarah Palin*?
August Pamplona
* See http://www.amazon.com/Going-Rogue-American-Sarah-Palin/dp/0061939897
Mxsmanic
> While I am really sad and it hurts that puppy is struggling so, I am
> also grateful that she is suffering. Because it's through suffering that
> she will grow.
A popular but baseless misconception, often used to justify bullying, hazing,
and other forms of barbarism.
> All I can do is be there for her and love her and tell her what I
> would do if I were in her situation. It feels really awful right
> now and I just want to tear at the kids who she thinks are being mean
> to her, but it'll be all good in the end.
A lot of people end up permanently screwed up by this type of experience.
Mxsmanic
> No idea what 'dissed' means !
Diss is slang for "disrespect." The latter word has too many syllables for
some illiterate people to pronounce, so it came to be shortened to a single
syllable in slang.
August Pamplona
[snip]
> There was that man who planted the seeds and told his wife he didn't
> believe
> anything would grow from those seeds. But they did grow. And that's
> when he
> realised that he only thought he didn't believe, but that there was
> another aspect
> of himself that believed..
>
> - Michaela
WTF!!! LOL!
August Pamplona
Michaela Mackenzie
Haven't you done something courageous fully expecting to fail only to
surprise yourself when you succeeded?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> Michaela Mackenzie writes:
>
> > While I am really sad and it hurts that puppy is struggling so, I am
> > also grateful that she is suffering. Because it's through suffering that
> > she will grow.
>
> A popular but baseless misconception, often used to justify bullying, hazing,
> and other forms of barbarism.
And your opinion may stem from an unwillingness to attempt living.
Fear keeps too many in its clutches that way.
> > All I can do is be there for her and love her and tell her what I
> > would do if I were in her situation. It feels really awful right
> > now and I just want to tear at the kids who she thinks are being mean
> > to her, but it'll be all good in the end.
>
> A lot of people end up permanently screwed up by this type of experience.
We get what we can handle and sometimes we don't believe we can handle
what we get.
- Michaela
PandoraElpis
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > No They aren't.
> >
> > These kinds of selection pressures are necessarily muted against the
> > limiting sex(females).
>
> As I've explained, human behavior is not wired in. In fact, many of the higher
> animals on this planet exhibit mostly acquired and not wired-in behavior, not
> just people. Dolphins, chimpanzees, gorillas, some birds, and elephants spring
> to mind. None of these animals is a mere robot implementation of a set of
> fixed programs, and neither are human beings.
Provide me with an example of 'higher' behavior, which does not
(apprently) abide evolutionary explanation, and I will unify the two.
> > Learn someone of evolution before you presume to debate it's
> > implications and quit inferring from what you see on 'Oprah', or read
> > in 'Cosmo'.
>
> Show cause and effect, if you want to support an evolutionary theory.
I have already posed good arguments for everyone to see.
I will not embark on a fool's errand of trying to 'prove' evolutionary
theory to someone who is obviously impervious to instruction.
> > In evolutionary terms, male success is a function of paternity.
>
> Human beings don't function in evolutionary terms. Once a species can think
> for itself, evolution ceases to be a factor.
And here come the law-of-attraction apologies, which reign supreme in
ASS!
> > Provide compelling evidence that it is a 'significant problem'(Oprah/
> > Cosmo fodder will not suffice).
>
> It didn't come from Cosmo or Oprah, although I should point out that both of
> these sources are direct and accurate reflections of how at least some human
> beings think and behave
These are highly spurious sources, that rarely offer evolutionarily
consistent(or often, even logically valid) explanations of human
behavior.
> , since they are actually produced by those human
> beings. It seems a bit odd to depend on studies of people as if they were zoo
> animals to determine their behavior when one can listen to them directly to
> find out what they think and why they do as they do.
Self-reporting does not make for a controlled testing methodology,
duh.
And it is revealing the zoomorphism protests are never made except to
distract from inconvenient/unsympathetic arguments(like those which
acknowledge zero-sum dynamics in sexual conflict).
Sounds like moving the goal-post to me.
> > So, my arguments are common?
>
> They are common among men who have no success with women.
>
> > I'm the only one posing sound explanations in agreement with
> > evolutionary principles.
>
> You're one of many trying to rationalize a lack of positive experience in
> interactions with the opposite sex.
No, you're the one trying to challenge claims with emotional appeals.
> > No she wouldn't.
>
> There are millions of counterexamples to disprove that statement.
If your are implying that conditions in single-sex schools are
equivalent to co-ed schools, then what's their point(hint: you are
wrong).
> > Without intersexual socializing pressures, females will assume a more
> > stressful, active form, which clashes with their passive evolutionary
> > optima.
>
> Girls can be cruel, just like boys.
What I'm saying, is that in such a segregated environment, females
will not assimilate behaviors which are more sympathetic of their evo
optima.
They will develop more masculine traits(which incur more stress) than
they otherwise would in a more integrated setting.
Females do not prosper as males(due to problems of sexual antagonism).
> > Ponder why there are no rogue females.
>
> Why? I've seen them, so the statement "there are no rogue females" is false.
I am implying that fem evolutionary optima eschews rigorous outcomes.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona schrieb:
Burning your strawmen, and ignoring your ad-hominems and arguments
personal incredulity for a moment, I should elaborate that my point
lies where data supports something universally meaningful of how
matings are distributed in a population, in such a way that lends
conclusion to less varience between females.
Consider Pareto's principle as an analogy - where at any given moment
80% of sexual access(to use an arbitrary example) might be distributed
between 20% of the male population, with the remaining 20% of sexual
access being distributed between the remaining 80% of males(with many
males getting no access to sex at all).
This would suggest a severe imbalance.
You're further missing the point where the interpretation of an
imbalance is in *unifying agreement* with commonly(scientifically)
held evolutionary assumptions.
Assuming you agree with the scientific basis of said assumptions, your
selective ridicule and ad-hominem treatments(which ignore vague
protests of personal incredulity) are interesting as they speak to an
agenda which is sensetive to something other than the vercity of
statements.
I wonder what that might be?
Mxsmanic
> No, you're the one trying to challenge claims with emotional appeals.
Emotion is not a part of my interactions.
> If your are implying that conditions in single-sex schools are
> equivalent to co-ed schools, then what's their point(hint: you are
> wrong).
I'm not implying that, so asserting that it is wrong is moot.
Mxsmanic
> And your opinion may stem from an unwillingness to attempt living.
I find living in hell to be counterproductive.
> Fear keeps too many in its clutches that way.
No fear is required to avoid suffering.
> We get what we can handle and sometimes we don't believe we can handle
> what we get.
If I follow your reasoning, you believe that children would benefit from being
sexually abused, since the suffering could only make them stronger, and if
they object it is only out of fear, itself a consequence of an unwillingness
to attempt living.
I don't agree with this.
Mxsmanic
> Haven't you done something courageous fully expecting to fail only to
> surprise yourself when you succeeded?
No. It would be irrational to attempt something if I fully expect to fail.
That's stupidity, not courage.
ThePuttKing
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 4:04 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Nov, 19:47, Michaela Mackenzie
>
> > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 10:52 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Upto the age of 25 I was quite good looking. I had comments / interest
> > > > from women but I was too shy to cope with it. After that when my hair
> > > > started to recede and I started to wear glasses, the comments stopped
> > > > straight away. Now I don't get any comments at all !
>
> > > I think if you were honest with yourself you'd find out it has more to
> > > do with
> > > yourselfimagethan anything else.
>
> > > People can /smell/ a lousyselfimagea mile off.
>
> > > - Michaela
>
> > I don't really agree with that. When I was younger myselfimagewas
> > way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> > Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> > comments.
>
> Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying. And yes, it's
> possible.
> That said, I don't really believe it.
>
> If I was able to spend some time with you, I reckon I could explain it
> better.
It would be interesting if anybody on here did meet me. Would I be
completely different to what people expect ?
A couple of people on here are my facebook friends and saw a video of
me playing golf that I posted on there. Comments were 'you look
completely normal' - made me smile because I don't know what they were
expecting !
>
> Don't forget that what we think we believe may not be what we
> actually believe.
> There was that man who planted the seeds and told his wife he didn't
> believe
> anything would grow from those seeds. But they did grow. And that's
> when he
> realised that he only thought he didn't believe, but that there was
> another aspect
> of himself that believed..
>
> - Michaela
>
> - Michaela- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ThePuttKing
I see.
Pumpkinhead
> > People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
> >
> > - Michaela
> I don't really agree with that. When I was younger my self image was
> way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> comments.
I think it's such a petty reason to reject someone. There are much worse
things someone can do that simply have a "lousy self-image". A fat, greasy,
single mother might have a great self-image but I'll just look at her and
go, "Huh?". A 21-year-old woman with no children, a 24 inch waist and 36
inch hips, clear skin and shiny, thick hair might have a "lousy self-image"
but that won't matter to me.
August Pamplona
>
> August Pamplona schrieb:
[snip]
>> Gosh, he knows just enough about evolutionary biology to be
>> dangerous(ly stupid) and he thinks he's special and that we've never
>> seen posts like his before on a.s.s..
>
By the way, I'm curious and you never clarified this. Are you
the idiot who wrote the original article or did you merely plagiarize
it? I'd assume the later because if it were the former you'd presumably
be posting under your name.
> Burning your strawmen, and ignoring your ad-hominems and arguments
> personal incredulity for a moment, I should elaborate that my point
It looks like we need to tutor Mr.
Pompousevolutionarypsychologistwannabe in logical fallacies.
For something that I am disputing to be a strawman, it has to
represent a position that you are not actually advancing. Not only are
you advancing the position that females have more sexual partners and
sexual encounters, on average, than males but you've devoted
approximately a third of your word count to do so.
As to the rest, everyone here can see you are just a whiny
bitch and thus it requires no response. See what I did there? That was a
real ad hominem (pointing out that you are a whiny bitch in no way
addresses your argument since you could be a whiny bitch with a
perfectly good argument); but that is not at all what I did in the post
which you are responding to. In the post I made, I pointed out that what
you wrote attempting to support your proposition that females have more
sex than males ignores basic mathematics and basic biology; and then,
after I was done refuting your stupidity, I made a couple of statements
which you took offense to (regarding how you think you are so special
that you're the only one who would ever have posted evolutionary
psychology post to this newsgroup). That is absolutely not an ad hominem
fallacy. You could say I am uncivil or whatever (that's in the eye of
the beholder, I suppose --not that I give a fuck) but it is not a
logical fallacy. Pointing out that you fail at basic logic is also not
an argument of personal incredulity, by the way.
> lies where data supports something universally meaningful of how
> matings are distributed in a population, in such a way that lends
> conclusion to less varience between females.
[snip]
All you are saying is boys are not the same as girls and
pointing out that boys and girls have different reproductive strategies
(while possibly exaggerating certain societally influenced aspects of
this dynamic). Wow, brilliant! I never heard that before! Totally new to
me, it is!
So you combine something mindbogglingly stupid with something
non-controversial* and when I point out the mind-boggling stupidity of
the former you say you actually only meant the latter. Brilliant!
August Pamplona
* Though perhaps somewhat misinterpreted on your part.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona schrieb:
I never claimed, nor held the position that females have more sex on
average(I have already addressed this point in previous posts), that
is the strawman, you imbecile.
I also never accused you of posing a fallacious ad-hominem argument
(another strawman), merely an ad-hominem.
Your broad appeals to emotion(appeals to ridicule), are another matter
for consideration.
Your strategic parsing, further betrays your emotional investment.
My contention was(and has always been) that there is less varience
between females in terms of sexual access/activity, which has
necessary implications.
Of course, you know all this.
Hence, appeals to ridicule are your only recourse.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona schrieb:
To correct another strawman, your argument from personal incredulity
was made with respect to STD infection rate findings.
And about that lesson in logical fallacies you presumed to give me?
PandoraElpis
Pumpkinhead schrieb:
There are not two more dispirate quantities in nature than between
what females claim, and what they demonstrate.
This is because, duplicity, and passive aggression(which places the
onus on males) lends perfectly to their evolutionary optima.
So, their characteristic duplicity is a fitness/survival strategy,
preserved and refined by countless trials of evolution to limit male
successes in sexual conflict.
When females claim they prefer confident men, it is a strategic half
truth, as the kind of 'confidence' they privilege implies physical
attractiveness(I have already made the argument that high level
confidence must be bound by low level signals in order to be
meaningful).
Thus, males should not pay undue credit to what females claim.
Especially Michaela.
August Pamplona
[snip]
> I never claimed, nor held the position that females have more sex on
> average(I have already addressed this point in previous posts), that
> is the strawman, you imbecile.
Hint: you started the passages in question with the following:
"When prostitutes and sex differences in infection rate for sexually
transmitted diseases (SDS) are considered, it can be deduced that women
in general have more sex and more sex partners than males on average".
From this one might infer that you are talking about females and about
them having sex in greater amounts, on average, than males without
having to expend any sort of effort at all into divining some hidden
meaning that is not there. It's all there!
Like I wrote, you're just saying, after the fact, that you
didn't write (or that didn't actually mean) what you wrote. In other
words, if you are not claiming it, don't write it! It's as simple as
that. Or are you simply saying that you disagree with the author? Why
quote him then? Granted, I quote people I disagree with all the time (if
I think it interesting or whatever) but I don't pass it off as my own
writing or make it seem as if I'm in agreement.
>
> I also never accused you of posing a fallacious ad-hominem argument
> (another strawman), merely an ad-hominem.
The accepted meaning of the expression ad-hominem, when used by
an English speaker, refers to a specific type of logical fallacy and,
even if you happen to be posting from the Netherlands, I suspect that
you know it (I doubt usage of this phrase is any different in Dutch, for
that matter). It's not just a literal translation from the Latin. You
knew what you were writing so, again, this is not another strawman on my
part. I win again! LOL!
>
> Your broad appeals to emotion(appeals to ridicule), are another matter
> for consideration.
>
> Your strategic parsing, further betrays your emotional investment.
No, I just happen to think that this notion of yours that you
are posting something new that no one has seen before on a.s.s. is
laughable and worthy of ridicule.
>
> My contention was(and has always been) that there is less varience
> between females in terms of sexual access/activity, which has
> necessary implications.
>
> Of course, you know all this.
Yup, like I said, nothing new at all. Females are choosier.
Men, if granted the opportunity, will nail anything that moves (and
sometimes it doesn't even have to move). It's actually quite complicated
to get real data and the data is not going to be the same across
cultures (for instance, the "problem" is actually much worse in certain
societies which certain former posters have expressed a longing for). I
can tell that we differ in matters of interpretation but other than that
you have not communicated anything that anyone here does not know
already. That is fine, but your delusion to the contrary simply amuses me.
>
> Hence, appeals to ridicule are your only recourse.
I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and
your father smelt of elderberries.
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
And I told you how you are ignoring the underlying biology of
sexually transmitted disease. If you're not able to understand that, it
is not my problem.
The underlying question that we'd need to know is whether you
can differentiate the scenario where few men have sex with many women
(Casanovas dominate --your preferred scenario) from the scenario where
few women have sex with many men (whores dominate) from STD infection
rates alone? The answer is no, we can't. Are these scenarios even good
models for the sexual networks in the real world or is reality quite
different? The answer is that reality is probably quite different and
more complex (an additional reality, for that matter, is that it is also
society dependent: what may be the case in Holland will probably be
different than what may be the case in sub-Saharan Africa which will
probably be very different from what goes on in Albania, etc.). I've
even told you what alternate approach you would have to take to address
your questions (from vague memory, I'd say that people have probably
already done this sort of work already but I'm not about to look for
references for you).
August Pamplona
PandoraElpis
> PandoraElpis wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I never claimed, nor held the position that females have more sex on
> > average(I have already addressed this point in previous posts), that
> > is the strawman, you imbecile.
>
> Hint: you started the passages in question with the following:
> "When prostitutes and sex differences in infection rate for sexually
> transmitted diseases (SDS) are considered, it can be deduced that women
> in general have more sex and more sex partners than males on average".
> From this one might infer that you are talking about females and about
> them having sex in greater amounts, on average, than males without
> having to expend any sort of effort at all into divining some hidden
> meaning that is not there. It's all there!
>
> Like I wrote, you're just saying, after the fact, that you
> didn't write (or that didn't actually mean) what you wrote. In other
> words, if you are not claiming it, don't write it! It's as simple as
> that. Or are you simply saying that you disagree with the author? Why
> quote him then? Granted, I quote people I disagree with all the time (if
> I think it interesting or whatever) but I don't pass it off as my own
> writing or make it seem as if I'm in agreement.
That's why I put it in quotes, dummy, and summarized my interpretation
directly below it, duh.
>
>
> > I also never accused you of posing a fallacious ad-hominem argument
> > (another strawman), merely an ad-hominem.
>
> The accepted meaning of the expression ad-hominem, when used by
> an English speaker, refers to a specific type of logical fallacy and,
> even if you happen to be posting from the Netherlands, I suspect that
> you know it (I doubt usage of this phrase is any different in Dutch, for
> that matter). It's not just a literal translation from the Latin. You
> knew what you were writing so, again, this is not another strawman on my
> part. I win again! LOL!
>
Only if you can show that my intended meaning was to accuse you of a
fallacious ad-hominem(where the burden is upon you to prove).
>
> > Your broad appeals to emotion(appeals to ridicule), are another matter
> > for consideration.
>
> > Your strategic parsing, further betrays your emotional investment.
>
> No, I just happen to think that this notion of yours that you
> are posting something new that no one has seen before on a.s.s. is
> laughable and worthy of ridicule.
>
I have authored many novel interpretations.
If you want to dispute that, thats your privilege.
>
> > My contention was(and has always been) that there is less varience
> > between females in terms of sexual access/activity, which has
> > necessary implications.
>
> > Of course, you know all this.
>
> Yup, like I said, nothing new at all. Females are choosier.
> Men, if granted the opportunity, will nail anything that moves (and
> sometimes it doesn't even have to move). It's actually quite complicated
> to get real data and the data is not going to be the same across
> cultures (for instance, the "problem" is actually much worse in certain
> societies which certain former posters have expressed a longing for). I
> can tell that we differ in matters of interpretation but other than that
> you have not communicated anything that anyone here does not know
> already. That is fine, but your delusion to the contrary simply amuses me.
>
>
>
> > Hence, appeals to ridicule are your only recourse.
>
> I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and
> your father smelt of elderberries.
I can only hope that is a 'Holy Grail' quote.
August Pamplona
Your problem might that, like Mxsmanic, you see things in
dichotomous black and white. In fact, there are multiple evolutionary
strategies which can lead to mating success. This is not some
peculiarity of the highly social Homo sapiens, most animals are like
this. Rape is one such strategy (hi, Darkfalz!). Being the well liked
funny guy might be another strategy. Being the hypertestosteronized male
with big muscles is another one. Etc., etc.. Actually, in Homo sapiens
displays of social competence are probably of greater importance than
anything else (not a happy thought for a.s.s., but there it is).
>
> Especially Michaela.
You were the one who brought up Paretto's rule, weren't you?
That's how you need to look at Michaela except 80:20 might be a bit
generous. There's that 10% or so of what she says that you really,
really need to listen to (though you might need to strip it of new age
gobbledygook at that). Okay, it's beginning to sound like I'm saying
that most of what she says is worthless but what I'm actually trying to
convey is that you should pay attention to her and not dismiss
everything she says. Seriously.
August Pamplona
> On 29 Nov., 21:30, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> PandoraElpis wrote:
[snip]
>> I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and
>> your father smelt of elderberries.
>
> I can only hope that is a 'Holy Grail' quote.
No, I was literally farting in your direction when I wrote that
and I literally think that your mother was a hamster*.
August Pamplona
* But I must confess that I don't actually know what elderberries smell
like.
PandoraElpis
The point your missing(again), is that evolution suggests where this
imbalance lies(hint: that female function is limiting, has
behaviorally isomorphic implications).
You don't know enough about this.
> August Pamplona
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
> make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
August Pamplona
> On 29 Nov., 21:33, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>
>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
[snip]
> The point your missing(again), is that evolution suggests where this
> imbalance lies(hint: that female function is limiting, has
> behaviorally isomorphic implications).
>
> You don't know enough about this.
No, the point is that you write x supports y in instances where
it is not so that x supports y. Do you even understand what I'm saying?
It doesn't matter what evolution suggests. You can't draw the inferences
you are drawing the way you are doing it. Or is this another one of
those cases where you are writing that you don't actually mean?
August Pamplona
> PandoraElpis wrote:
>> On 29 Nov., 21:33, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>
>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>>>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The point your missing(again), is that evolution suggests where this
>> imbalance lies(hint: that female function is limiting, has
>> behaviorally isomorphic implications).
>>
>> You don't know enough about this.
>
> No, the point is that you write x supports y in instances where
> it is not so that x supports y. Do you even understand what I'm saying?
> It doesn't matter what evolution suggests. You can't draw the inferences
> you are drawing the way you are doing it. Or is this another one of
> those cases where you are writing that you don't actually mean?
That should have been a "what".
>
> August Pamplona
PandoraElpis
Yeah, when the fitness landscape is rugged.
But, in the course of its operation, selection will invariably erode
many peaks so that only a few remain(making it less 'rugged' - which
balancing selection can restore).
The increasing frequency of solitary or family/state-dependent mothers
(as well as dynamics in age-fertility demographics), demonstrates an
evident advantage for genetic benefits(short term strategies) over
direct/material benefits(long term strategies), of which conventional
badges(physical characters) are the most palpable info proxy(in the
former).
This dynamic shift further suggests that fem choice has become less
sensetive to effective margins of phenotypic plasticity(which we can
deduce from age dynamics in paternal success, and infer from age
dynamics in female fertility), which in turn suggests a relative
flattening of the fitness landscape where few strategic 'peaks'
prevail.
And guess which peaks those must be?
> peculiarity of the highly social Homo sapiens, most animals are like
> this. Rape is one such strategy (hi, Darkfalz!). Being the well liked
> funny guy might be another strategy. Being the hypertestosteronized male
> with big muscles is another one. Etc., etc.. Actually, in Homo sapiens
> displays of social competence are probably of greater importance than
> anything else (not a happy thought for a.s.s., but there it is).
>
>
>
> > Especially Michaela.
>
> You were the one who brought up Paretto's rule, weren't you?
> That's how you need to look at Michaela except 80:20 might be a bit
> generous. There's that 10% or so of what she says that you really,
> really need to listen to (though you might need to strip it of new age
> gobbledygook at that). Okay, it's beginning to sound like I'm saying
> that most of what she says is worthless but what I'm actually trying to
> convey is that you should pay attention to her and not dismiss
> everything she says. Seriously.
Well, I meant to reserve for her some margin of creedence.
> August Pamplona
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
PandoraElpis
> PandoraElpis wrote:
> > On 29 Nov., 21:33, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> PandoraElpis wrote:
>
> >>> August Pamplona schrieb:
> >>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
> >>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The point your missing(again), is that evolution suggests where this
> > imbalance lies(hint: that female function is limiting, has
> > behaviorally isomorphic implications).
>
> > You don't know enough about this.
>
> No, the point is that you write x supports y in instances where
> it is not so that x supports y. Do you even understand what I'm saying?
> It doesn't matter what evolution suggests. You can't draw the inferences
> you are drawing the way you are doing it. Or is this another one of
> those cases where you are writing that you don't actually mean?
>
> August Pamplona
To keep this simple, I will ask you a pointed question.
Do you believe the data suggests a systematic, sexually dimorphic
imbalance in mate access?
Yes, no, contingently(I don't know).
If anything other than yes, can you qualify that with something other
than an argument from personal incredulity?
If you are contending that these findings are spurious from
unjustified assumptions of test methodology - which I must infer as
unjustified belief - that's an argument from personal incredulity.
Mxsmanic
> Well, I meant to reserve for her some margin of creedence.
A whole album, or just a single?
PandoraElpis
We don't need to know that, we only need to know that infection rates
are directly correlated with mating rates in such a way that is
indifferent of sexual biology.
We can use other data to chain inference.
If sex specific virulence factors are not significant in epidemiology,
than prostitution weighs even more heavily in favor of an imbalance.
But, I will concede, if testing methodology has not controlled for
such virulence factors, then I made an invalid appeal(regardless of
the truth of my conclusions).
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona schrieb:
Social competence is an unqualified in an entangled evolutionary
context - anyone who has superior outcomes can be deemed socially
competent(we cannot consider evolutionary success outside a social
domain).
You obviously also missed where I posted evidence that showed a strong
correlation between an antisocial/delinquent behavioral profile
(including sexual coercion, and violent abusiveness), and male sexual
quality.
This suggests that antisocial delinquency is largely, evolutionarily
strategic, according such males a behavioral lattitude which females
trade off in exchange for mate attractiveness.
This would also explain why females appear to sexually privilege 'bad-
boy signals'.
The fact that they are delinquents, and at high-risk for relationship
turnover, confers a further fitness advantage.
Michaela Mackenzie
> Michaela Mackenzie writes:
> > No one can "afford" to be insecure.
>
> > Puppy is in an all-girl's school and going through hell.
>
> > Wait, I just realised who I'm talking to. There's no point, cos you
> > are on Mxs's side when it comes to stuff like this.
>
> I am not on anyone's "side."
Where I come from, when two people make the same point they are on
the same side of the line. It doesn't mean that they are the same
people.
Why do you so often end up using black/white thinking?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> PandoraElpis writes:
> > Females are not more critical of themselves, it is just that males are
> > loathe to complain or advertise their flaws, for fear of signalling
> > their inferiority to females(and for fear of emboldening male
> > rivals).
>
> Both sexes are this way.
>
> > for males, because loser males don't get sympathy from other males(for
> > competitive reasons), or females(whose only evolutionary concern is in
> > stratifying male quality by posing evolutionary problems for males to
> > negotiate, not sympathizing with losers), and winner males don't need
> > sympathy to begin with!
>
> There are many women devoting themselves to total losers who disprove this
> assertion. Men who seem to be victims attract certain types of women,
Rather say some people may sometimes perceive another as being a
victim in a certain
way and sometimes that particular victim trait appeals to them at the
stage they are at in
their lives. This attraction may last a second, a minute or a
lifetime. It will usually
stem from some kind of insecurity. For instance, they may feel
inferior in some way
and think that this 'victim' will be grateful to them for 'rescuing'
them. Or they may
just feel that this 'victim trait' balances out some lack they feel
they have within themselves.
etc. but even that paragraph needs work. I'm not going to bother
anymore cos I don't appear
to know how to communicate with you.
> Overall, your arguments are the reflection of a standard, well-worn, tired old
> viewpoint that prefers to oversimplify human relations by reducing everything
> to some sort of instinct. Human beings have very few instincts and their
> behavior is much more complex than that of other animals. But men who aren't
> able
or willing to put in the effort...
to find girlfriends like to rationalize that it's all because of some
> sort of wired-in behavior.
And your reason is..?
> > Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you named her 'puppy',
> > and sent her to an all girl school(where as in integrated schools, the
> > burden rests squarely on male 'losers', as the peer-pressure cooker
> > focuses on stratifying male status hierarchy),
Oddly enough I know of many a girl and boy who were bullied by boys
and by girls
in co-ed schools. My brother was bullied at highschool --probably
because he was
rather short and they thought they could get away with it-- he fought
back and didn't
win, but just because he fought back, they stopped bullying him.
They wanted to see how far they could push him and when he gave them
boundaries
they respected him more.
I've often heard of people who fight their 'bully' becoming the
greatest of friends!
You really owe it to yourself to read up on setting boundaries.
O dear, I've just deleted your insult. Wait I'll type the useless
label back in for you...
what was it you said? Something about me being a new age freak, right?
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> Michaela Mackenzie writes:
> > And your opinion may stem from an unwillingness to attempt living.
>
> I find living in hell to be counterproductive.
And the guys here whining every day about how unfair it is are not
suffering?
How are you every going to succeed if you don't try, try, try again?
Do you think Thomas Edison [Quote: 'Many of life's failures are people
€
who did not realise how close they were to success when they gave
up.']
or other inventors sat back as you appear to do and waited passively
for
the inventions to come to them?
When you first tried to walk and you fell down, did you think to
yourself
"Well that's the last time I'm gonna try THAT!"?
> > Fear keeps too many in its clutches that way.
>
> No fear is required to avoid suffering.
And the fear that keeps guys in ASS from approaching girls is about
what if not suffering?
One has to take risks in life. Or else one can just suffer in noisy
grumbling.
Which of course can be rather addictive even if it's the only thing
that helps
you to feel /alive/.
> > We get what we can handle and sometimes we don't believe we can handle
> > what we get.
>
> If I follow your reasoning, you believe that children would benefit from being
> sexually abused,
Ever hear the saying 'you are in this world, not of it'?
My view is that we are just spiritual beings having a human
experience.
since the suffering could only make them stronger, and if
> they object it is only out of fear, itself a consequence of an unwillingness
> to attempt living.
>
> I don't agree with this.
I've had some really horrid things happen in my life and for a long
time I hated it
and felt like such a victim. But after a few years you emerge and look
again
for life with a different outlook,
Of course NO ONE wants to be abused. But you can come out of it less
attached
to this earthly body.
- Michaela
~ In the words of Ram Dass just today: 'The soul is witnessing your
incarnation.'
Michaela Mackenzie
I'm pretty sure that the chances are you'll get different responses
out of
everyone you meet.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
wrote:
> > > People can /smell/ a lousy self image a mile off.
>
> > > - Michaela
> > I don't really agree with that. When I was younger my self image was
> > way worse than it is now, yet I got interest and comments from women.
> > Now I am more out going, happy and jovial. Yet I don't get the
> > comments.
>
> I think it's such a petty reason to reject someone. There are much worse
> things someone can do that simply have a "lousy self-image".
It's a very general term and I reckon we could do better than to use
'self
image' so loosely. I mean, I like and accept myself in different ways
and
about different things and there are some things I'd like to change
but I
don't value them enough so I rather concentrate on other things that I
value more.
The idea of having a 'healthy self image' is so that you attract
someone that
fits into your self image.
Don't blame others if you don't appear to have the energy to make an
effort to
get to like people.
- Michaela
Mxsmanic
> And the guys here whining every day about how unfair it is are not
> suffering?
They are the cause of their own suffering, and it does not strengthen them.
> How are you every going to succeed if you don't try, try, try again?
See above. They will never succeed against themselves.
> When you first tried to walk and you fell down, did you think to
> yourself
> "Well that's the last time I'm gonna try THAT!"?
I don't remember.
> And the fear that keeps guys in ASS from approaching girls is about
> what if not suffering?
I'm not sure that it's fear.
> My view is that we are just spiritual beings having a human
> experience.
Suffering is not a necessary part of that experience. Indeed, anyone
suffering hasn't fully evolved.
> Of course NO ONE wants to be abused. But you can come out of it less
> attached to this earthly body.
It would be more correct to say that if you are less attached to this earthly
body, you don't suffer.
August Pamplona
[snip]
> ~ In the words of Ram Dass just today: 'The soul is witnessing your
> incarnation.'
And what would he know? By the way, Alpert was involved in
something really interesting which has been referredf to by some as The
Good Friday Experiment. Look it up.
August Pamplona
> Michaela Mackenzie writes:
[snip]
>> My view is that we are just spiritual beings having a human
>> experience.
>
> Suffering is not a necessary part of that experience. Indeed, anyone
> suffering hasn't fully evolved.
Don't go all Dalai Lama on us, Mxsmanic! Suffering is part of
life. You don't need to purposely add to it, though. Enough will come to
you on its own unless you are some freak like Mother Theresa and need to
go out of your way to find some.
August Pamplona
> On 29 Nov., 22:20, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>> On 29 Nov., 21:33, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>>>>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>>>>> August Pamplona schrieb:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The point your missing(again), is that evolution suggests where this
>>> imbalance lies(hint: that female function is limiting, has
>>> behaviorally isomorphic implications).
>>> You don't know enough about this.
>> No, the point is that you write x supports y in instances where
>> it is not so that x supports y. Do you even understand what I'm saying?
>> It doesn't matter what evolution suggests. You can't draw the inferences
>> you are drawing the way you are doing it. Or is this another one of
>> those cases where you are writing that you don't actually mean?
>>
>> August Pamplona
>
> To keep this simple, I will ask you a pointed question.
>
> Do you believe the data suggests a systematic, sexually dimorphic
> imbalance in mate access?
What data?
>
> Yes, no, contingently(I don't know).
>
> If anything other than yes, can you qualify that with something other
> than an argument from personal incredulity?
I've never made an argument from personal incredulity. In fact,
I've never even told you explicitly whether I agree or disagree with
your premise (which seems to be that some sort of simplistic notion
involving a small number of males having exclusive access to a large
number of females). I have suggested that the exact nature of sexual
networks varies enormously across cultures because of different cultural
norms (because culture is an enormous influence on human behavior). I
have said nothing specific beyond that. What I have said, is that what
you have used to attempt to support your apparent premises (both the one
you keep writing about which you keep saying you don't mean and the one
you seem to really mean) does not in fact support your premises.
It's as if I suggested that gravity makes things move toward
the ground because chocolate ice cream is brown. Whether gravity making
things move toward the ground happens to be correct or not is irrelevant
to the fact that chocolate ice cream being brown in no way supports
gravity making things move toward the ground.
Likewise, whatever point it is that you are trying to make is
in no way supported by studies looking at prevalence rates of various
sexually transmitted diseases.
>
> If you are contending that these findings are spurious from
What findings? Have you showed some findings?
> unjustified assumptions of test methodology - which I must infer as
> unjustified belief - that's an argument from personal incredulity.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Your English is good
but your communication skills are lacking (as someone whose prose can be
a little hard to follow sometimes, I should know).
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
[snip]
> Consider Pareto's principle as an analogy - where at any given moment
> 80% of sexual access(to use an arbitrary example) might be distributed
> between 20% of the male population, with the remaining 20% of sexual
> access being distributed between the remaining 80% of males(with many
> males getting no access to sex at all).
By the way, if you are talking about number of partners here (I
don't know if you are), do you realize that 20% of the male population
coupling with 80% of the female population probably only amounts to a
slightly above average number of lifetime partners*? Hint: the numbers
should add to a lot more than 100% so in reality, the remaining 80% of
the male population might also be coupling with 80% of the female
population**.
[snip]
August Pamplona
* If that.
** If you are talking about number of partners, that is. In fact, there
would be nothing logically preventing this sort of network from being
perfectly symmetrical so that it looked the same if you switched the
genders around (though it probably isn't). See, I told you this is
complicated!
August Pamplona
Yeah, it seemed like you were sort of trying to make some sort
of crappy 'bad boys get the girls' bullshit point. I vaguely noticed.
>
> This suggests that antisocial delinquency is largely, evolutionarily
> strategic, according such males a behavioral lattitude which females
> trade off in exchange for mate attractiveness.
>
> This would also explain why females appear to sexually privilege 'bad-
> boy signals'.
>
> The fact that they are delinquents, and at high-risk for relationship
> turnover, confers a further fitness advantage.
This works better when the speed seduction types are talking
about it. Apparently, you're taking their bad boy shit a little bit too
literally. Sorry, but your average woman is not interested in some jailbird.