Re: Why do short, plump and ugly men exist?

[Richard Harter]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:07:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>In talk.origins ForeverRent <hesacopo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Hi,
>
>>in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>
>>Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females always
>>choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
>
>This is quite wrong.
>
>>So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me? I don't understand
>>this.
>
>Because those are features more important to men than to women.
>Women's aims and men's aims reproductively are complimentary and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not identical.

Was this intentional? If so, twas quite clever, and if not a
fortunate typo.

>
>>Women usually want to be fucked by alpha men and not by fat, short and
>>ugly men.
>
>Even if that is true, which it isn't, women seem to be more concerned
>with the production of children and care for them until they leave
>the nest and often beyond that.
>
>There is a downside to mating with the alpha male. There is always
>a younger chick coming down the road. Will he be coming home tonight
>or ever again?
>
>>So how was I created? Why are there fat, short and ugly men like
>>me on Earth?
>
>>*I* am gay and I'm not interested in women, but still the women are calling
>>me "ugly" and "a freak", so I don't understand how fat, short and ugly men
>>like me can have offspring. Is it the money? Are women more interested in
>>money than in good genes?
>
>This is a complicated question with complex answers. I would
>suggest that you may not be the best person to evaluate how
>women feel about you or your behavior toward them.
>
>>Can Darwin explain, why there are so many "omega males" on Earth?
>
>Yes.
>
>>Can the bible explain the existence of "omega males"?
>
>The Bible explains nothing. It asserts things.
>
>--
> --- Paul J. Gans
>

[Rolf]

ForeverRent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>
> Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females
> always choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
>

> So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me? I don't

> understand this. Women usually want to be fucked by alpha men and not
> by fat, short and ugly men. So how was I created? Why are there fat,

> short and ugly men like me on Earth?
>
> *I* am gay and I'm not interested in women, but still the women are
> calling me "ugly" and "a freak", so I don't understand how fat, short
> and ugly men like me can have offspring. Is it the money? Are women
> more interested in money than in good genes?
>

> Can Darwin explain, why there are so many "omega males" on Earth?
>

> Can the bible explain the existence of "omega males"?
>

> -F.R.

With a population of several billions the human race seems to have plenty of
variation for selection to act upon. That is a good thing and bode well for
survival of the species.

BTW, the bible explains nothing. Might as well read the brothers Grimm or
something.

[James Beck]

On Feb 27, 9:56 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 4:23 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> > > ForeverRent <hesacoponthee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>
> > > > Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females always
> > > > choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
>
> > > > So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me? I don't
> > > > understand this. Women usually want to be fucked by alpha men and not

> > > > by fat, short awnd ugly men. So how was I created? Why are there fat,

> > > > short and ugly men like me on Earth?
>

> > > There we go again.
>
> > > And why aren't all women beautiful?
>
> > All women *are* beautiful.
>
> Indeed. Equally beautiful even,
> but some are more equally beautiful than others,

That's my story and I'm sticking with it...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:58:36 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "ForeverRent"
<hesacopo...@yahoo.com>:

>Hi,
>
>in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.

Your friends will miss you.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Feb 27, 1:41 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:58:36 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "ForeverRent"

> <hesacoponthee...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >Hi,
>
> >in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>
> Your friends will miss you.

Had he friends, no, they wouldn't.

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jieogi$g2j$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>There is a downside to mating with the alpha male. There is always
>a younger chick coming down the road. Will he be coming home tonight
>or ever again?

The optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to have her children
fathered by some guy who is very talented at getting women to let him
him impregnate them, while tricking some poor schlub into helping her
raise the kids.

For evidence, compare first vs. second marriages.

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <1kg4bbf.9yu...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

J. J. Lodder <jjl...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>There we go again.
>
>And why aren't all women beautiful?

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
Spermatazoa are cheap.

--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <007dfa33-f881-4a10...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>What about fat, short and ugly women who won't get fucked by strapping
>handsome dudes?

They can always get impregnated by *somebody*. Especially once humans
invented beer.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <jieogi$g2...@reader1.panix.com>,

> Paul J Gans  <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >There is a downside to mating with the alpha male.  There is always
> >a younger chick coming down the road.  Will he be coming home tonight
> >or ever again?
>
> The optimal reproductive strategy for a woman is to have her children
> fathered by some guy who is very talented at getting women to let him
> him impregnate them, while tricking some poor schlub into helping her
> raise the kids.
>
> For evidence, compare first vs. second marriages.

Totally disagree. The optimal strategy for a female is to find a
highly talented, wealthy, powerful male to impregnate her. This is
fraught in a society with pre-nup agreements, but even then the female
can usually be assured her offspring will be part of the elite.

Now, if a woman is impregnated by a loser, it's a whole different
story. The kid- into whom the female has invested significant energy-
not to mention possible life-threatening consequences- to bear, her
best strategy is to dump the loser and find someone decent to raise
and support the kid. And I am lucky enough to have been put into the
latter category; I would not trade my step-daughter for anything.

WARNING: TMI

I had no interest at all in reproducing. Call me defective. But as a
firm believer in cultural evolution, I think I improved society a
little by raising that kid. She turned out pretty awesome, and I know
it wasn't because of her bio-dad's genes.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <1kg4bbf.9yutzl1lc5l...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

> J. J. Lodder <jjlx...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> >There we go again.
>
> >And why aren't all women beautiful?
>
> If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
> Spermatazoa are cheap.

On a one by one basis, yeah. But it takes a village to fertilize an
egg...meaning, there have be studies that suggest the overall energy
cost of producing a gazillion sperm is pretty much equal to the cost
of producing a single egg.

Mind you, the energy cost of *rearing* that egg is significant. Some
males just shoot the wad and take off, but others stick around to help
raise the offspring. I leave it to the reader to look up the
reproductive benefits of those competing strategies.

Chris

[Frank J]

On Feb 26, 6:54 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 26, 4:58 pm, "ForeverRent" <hesacoponthee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Troll alert!

Ya think?

>
>
>
> > in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>

> There are some things out there that are downright ugly. You may very
> well be one of them.

>
>
>
> > Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females always
> > choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
>

> Unless the fat short ugly male is smart, rich, successful, or a proven
> good parent. Or even if some woman is attracted to short fat males-
> stranger things have happened.

>
>
>
> > So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me?
>

> Because Usenet loves trolls.
>
> > I don't understand
> > this. Women usually want to be fucked by alpha men and not by fat, short and

> > ugly men. So how was I created? Why are there fat, short and ugly men like
> > me on Earth?
>

> Well there are women who prefer other kinds of gratification than
> intercourse. Should you become accomplished at those other
> techniques...well.

>
>
>
> > *I* am gay and I'm not interested in women, but still the women are calling
> > me "ugly" and "a freak", so I don't understand how fat, short and ugly men
> > like me can have offspring. Is it the money? Are women more interested in
> > money than in good genes?
>

> Might be the money. It might also be the fact that your only life is
> posting silly troll posts on Usenet. That puts you right in the
> "freak" category as far as I'm concerned.

>
>
>
> > Can Darwin explain, why there are so many "omega males" on Earth?
>

> Yes.

>
>
>
> > Can the bible explain the existence of "omega males"?
>

> No.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> > -F.R.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Paul J Gans]

In talk.origins Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <1kg4bbf.9yu...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>J. J. Lodder <jjl...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>There we go again.
>>
>>And why aren't all women beautiful?

>If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
>Spermatazoa are cheap.

Relative to eggs, yes. Which right there explains a load of
sexual behavior.

[Paul J Gans]

In talk.origins Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <007dfa33-f881-4a10...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>What about fat, short and ugly women who won't get fucked by strapping
>>handsome dudes?

>They can always get impregnated by *somebody*. Especially once humans
>invented beer.

Doesn't even require beer.

[Paul J Gans]

In talk.origins chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> In article <1kg4bbf.9yutzl1lc5l...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>> J. J. Lodder <jjlx...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >There we go again.
>>
>> >And why aren't all women beautiful?
>>
>> If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
>> Spermatazoa are cheap.

>On a one by one basis, yeah. But it takes a village to fertilize an
>egg...meaning, there have be studies that suggest the overall energy
>cost of producing a gazillion sperm is pretty much equal to the cost
>of producing a single egg.

>Mind you, the energy cost of *rearing* that egg is significant. Some
>males just shoot the wad and take off, but others stick around to help
>raise the offspring. I leave it to the reader to look up the
>reproductive benefits of those competing strategies.

I'd think they are about equal, which is why both strategies
survive. There is no doubt that the impregnate and stick around
strategy works.

But the marry the rich guy and get the superstud to father the
kid also works rather well. Before testing, nobody really knew.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 27, 8:19 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> In talk.origins chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >> In article <1kg4bbf.9yutzl1lc5l...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> >> J. J. Lodder <jjlx...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >> >There we go again.
>
> >> >And why aren't all women beautiful?
>
> >> If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
> >> Spermatazoa are cheap.
> >On a one by one basis, yeah. But it takes a village to fertilize an
> >egg...meaning, there have be studies that suggest the overall energy
> >cost of producing a gazillion sperm is pretty much equal to the cost
> >of producing a single egg.
> >Mind you, the energy cost of *rearing* that egg is significant. Some
> >males just shoot the wad and take off, but others stick around to help
> >raise the offspring. I leave it to the reader to look up the
> >reproductive benefits of those competing strategies.
>
> I'd think they are about equal, which is why both strategies
> survive.  There is no doubt that the impregnate and stick around
> strategy works.

I'd suggest it depends on the other aspects of your life history that
determines your behavior (and this in no way contradicts what you
said). If your lifestyle is living in a transient or ephemeral
habitat, your best bet is to shoot your wad as many times as you can,
and let the kids fare on their own. If your lifestyle is to live a
long time, and reproduce relatively infrequently, then shoot the wad
once and stick around to make sure the kid survives.

This, of course, is the basic ecology notion of 'r' vs 'K' strategies.

Chris

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<963ed203-68e7-4225...@ge5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 27, 3:40 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> > In article <1kg4bbf.9yutzl1lc5l...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > J. J. Lodder <jjlx...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >There we go again.
> >
> > >And why aren't all women beautiful?
> >
> > If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.
> > Spermatazoa are cheap.
>
> On a one by one basis, yeah. But it takes a village to fertilize an
> egg...meaning, there have be studies that suggest the overall energy
> cost of producing a gazillion sperm is pretty much equal to the cost
> of producing a single egg.
>
> Mind you, the energy cost of *rearing* that egg is significant. Some
> males just shoot the wad and take off, but others stick around to help
> raise the offspring. I leave it to the reader to look up the
> reproductive benefits of those competing strategies.
>
> Chris
>

Roughly they should be equal over time. Since both have existed for a
long time, the uses should be in at least dynamic equilibrium, or one
would have replaced the other.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, perhaps, but...
Human behaviour evolved with people living in smaal groups,
with everybody related to everybody else in the group.

What may have been appropriate then need not be a good strategy
for sex in the city,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:05:45 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

Point taken... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:15:42 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

Nope; extended abstinence will do the trick just fine: "I
know it's time to head for town when she starts looking
good."

[William Morse]

No they should not be equal over time - you miss the point about
parental investment. For humans the parental investment is roughly equal
between males and females, which is why we are monogamous. Given our
biology, it is easier for males to renege on their part of the deal,
which leads to a number of other predictable behaviors. But in any case
your premise is false. Read Trivers to educate yourself on how this
stuff actually works.

Bill

[Tim Norfolk]

The easy answer is low light and alcohol, which worked for me.

The more complicated one appears to my somewhat uneducated mind is to
observe the difference in dating habits of young women in the US, who
tend to go for the aggressive and unstable young men, versus those
same women in their 30's, who go for security.

[nSCOURGE]

Which of course, begs the question why this cohort is particularly mal-
adapted towards this goal(ie. securing long-term benefits).

One reason being, that single women in this cohort have become mal-
adapted towards long-term gains(increasingly with each relationship
turnover), given that direct benefits are (justifiably - in lieu of a
more determinate advantage) of an inferior consideration to the mating
choices of females residing in a prosperous welfare-state.

"Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies
(and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but
also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger
women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words,
despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is
women in their middle years who are America's most sexually
industrious."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007422,00.html

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:58:36 +0100, "ForeverRent"
<hesacopo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
>

> Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females always
> choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
>

> So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me? I don't understand
> this.

Do you observe humanity going extinct due to low population? Nope,
you do not. Therefore fat ugly repulsive males such as myself are
not selected against, nor selected for: we are redundant. We are
only a problem if the male population is much smaller than the
female population.


--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[Walter Bushell]

In article <h2q4l71s5mfilqbb9...@4ax.com>,

AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reaklity.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:58:36 +0100, "ForeverRent"
> <hesacopo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > in nature, everything is about beauty and the survival of the fittest.
> >
> > Fat, short and ugly male animals don't breed, because the females always
> > choose the slim, tall and handsome males.
> >
> > So why are there fat, short and ugly humans like me? I don't understand
> > this.
>
> Do you observe humanity going extinct due to low population? Nope,
> you do not. Therefore fat ugly repulsive males such as myself are
> not selected against, nor selected for: we are redundant. We are
> only a problem if the male population is much smaller than the
> female population.
>

Reminds me of the albinos among a group where they are not allowed to
get married and yet they persisted in the population. (IIRC albinism is
a recessive trait.) When the men went off to hunt or fight, they stayed
home and worked with the women where their strength was appreciated.