Speciation

[shereads]

Re: The Science of Sex...

A pleasure to read comments from both genders....the birth control pill study keyed a memory on another Science of Sex study involving several thousand women and presented as, 'fact', take that for what ever it means...

It appears that of the study group, 58 percent of the children born did not know who their fathers were...oh, and if I recall correctly, these are 'married women'

The reasoning given was that women often choose a 'mate' that is stable and a 'good provider' but goes elsewhere for the most viable gene pool. Perhaps the Islamic treatment of women has a rational and not a religious foundation.

Comtemporary and Victorian or Judeau Christian ethics and morality notwithstanding, it seems that the basic physical and psychological nature of the (individual) beast reigns supreme over the, 'social' or 'group' interests.

regards to all for the New Year...amicus...

I'd like to know what group was being studied here...Same goes for the statistic someone cited earlier about there being sperm from two men present in a typical woman during her fertile cycle. The most promiscuous women I know would call it a rare month when they had two lovers in the space of their few "fertile" days.

At certain levels of society - urban, high poverty, high birthrate among teenaged mothers - I know it's not unusual to have children by more than one man (or at least that's the common perception). But in those same social groups, there typically isn't an adult male in the household as a permanent presence. So the theory that women are having babies with multiple partners but selecting one man as a provider doesn't ring true.

As far as the rationality of keeping women isolated from males outside the immediately family - I don't doubt that the practice springs from the same roots as the concept of marriage: to assure lines of succession and inheritance wouldn't be called into question. It can't be an effective way of guarding the strength of the gene pool unless husbands are assumed to have the "best" genetic material.

 

[SummerMorning]

Amicus...you beast! If I didn't know, I'd think you're some kind of individualist monster .

Anyway - another study I came across found that around 10% of married "fathers" in the Netherlands are actually being cuckolded - is that the word? I.e. - their kids aren't actually their own.

This study used double-blind gene testing on a representative cross-section as far as I recall - tho I don't remember the sample size, so I can't give you a probability on the numbers.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, it's a lovely theory, but there's only one high school quarterback per team.


EDITED to add: Your theory doesn't take into account the nurturing instinct that sometimes kicks in at an inappropriate moment and causes a woman to select a man who "needs" her; i.e., her future ex husband.

Hi, Shereads.
Happy New Year to you, and I really admire your AV. Most high schools have a starter and two or three backups, besides having jr. varsity players. Anyhow, when I referred to the quarterback, I meant a generally prominent high school male student. I could have referred to the student council president, the best dancer, or some other boy who would be considered "successful" in the framework of high school.

By the way, I don't think there would ever be a third string waterboy.

I am aware of "the nurturing instinct" or other reasons that what I said would not always be true. I probably should have said "generally speaking" or some other qualifier but in a statement like that, it should be understood that there are so many exceptions that they are not actually exceptions, but should perhaps be called a minority.

I still say that, generally speaking, males who are perceived by females as being successful, however the females describe "successful" will be more appealing to those females.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Re: The Science of Sex...

A pleasure to read comments from both genders....the birth control pill study keyed a memory on another Science of Sex study involving several thousand women and presented as, 'fact', take that for what ever it means...

It appears that of the study group, 58 percent of the children born did not know who their fathers were...oh, and if I recall correctly, these are 'married women'

The reasoning given was that women often choose a 'mate' that is stable and a 'good provider' but goes elsewhere for the most viable gene pool. Perhaps the Islamic treatment of women has a rational and not a religious foundation.

Comtemporary and Victorian or Judeau Christian ethics and morality notwithstanding, it seems that the basic physical and psychological nature of the (individual) beast reigns supreme over the, 'social' or 'group' interests.

regards to all for the New Year...amicus...

Like Shereads, I would have to question who the "study group" was. If it was something like "offspring of unmarried teenage mothers", I might believe the 58% number but not otherwise. I realize that some people do not know who their fathers are or were but nowhere near 58% of the population

Happy New Year to you also.

 

[Quasimodem]

. . . The biological purpose of sex is producing offspring, and in that regard, a "nice ass" and "nice tits" are seen as positives. The former indicates a wide pelvis, which is good for carrying a fetus to term, and giving birth safely, and the latter is seen as being good for nursing the baby. In this case, a carnal attraction is also a biological attraction, and I am sjure the two are related.

Box,

Read my post again.

The "nice ass" to which I referred, was of the ones which women seem to be attracted. For the life of me, I can see no function served in childbearing, by a man's "nice ass."

Elucidate!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box,

Read my post again.

The "nice ass" to which I referred, was of the ones which women seem to be attracted. For the life of me, I can see no function served in childbearing, by a man's "nice ass."

Elucidate!

Sorry, Quasi, I did misread your post. Success or the appearance of success is not the only quality that attracts women to men; good looks, including a "nice ass" can also do it, as can dancing ability, personal charm or other qualities. I still say that being successful, unless there are other strong negative factors, is the one quality in men that is the most attractive to women.

 

[In your psyche]

Sorry, Quasi, I did misread your post. Success or the appearance of success is not the only quality that attracts women to men; good looks, including a "nice ass" can also do it, as can dancing ability, personal charm or other qualities. I still say that being successful, unless there are other strong negative factors, is the one quality in men that is the most attractive to women.

You don't know the inner workings of women's minds very well, do you?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that the traits women look for in potential mates are usually ones associated with character, spirit, and personality, and thank God for that.

While I’ve certainly heard of women marrying for money, I’ve never heard of a woman marrying a man for his looks, no matter how nice an ass he has.

And I don’t understand this study where 58% of some kids didn’t know who their fathers were. You mean the kids mothers told them that they didn’t know who the fathers were? Or they figured out for themselves that their mother was lying to them? That’s kind of hard to believe.

---dr.M.

 

[Quasimodem]

In your psyche,

Nothing like a good, obvious, straightforward, declarative sentence to introduce yourself!

Greetings and felicitations on your effulgence.

 

[In your psyche]

Thanks, Quasi.

 

[Guest]

I'll welcome you too, Psyche. But for Quas: what was effulgent about that post?

Perdita

 

[gauchecritic]

While I’ve certainly heard of women marrying for money, I’ve never heard of a woman marrying a man for his looks, no matter how nice an ass he has.---dr.M.

At the risk of being beaten to a bloody pulp by various members of the female inteligencia, I'm pretty sure you just don't get out enough Mab. There are a great many women (in my experience) who initially 'fall for' a man purely on looks alone, it then happens that the man in question turns out to have no irredeemably bad traits and they do eventually marry on 'looks' alone.

Gauche

 

[In your psyche]

I'll welcome you too, Psyche. But for Quas: what was effulgent about that post?

Perdita

Thanks, Perdita. Please, let me wallow in being effulgent for once in my life.

 

[Guest]

Wallow at will, Psyche.

regards and happy new year,

Perdita


(I was only questioning Quasi's use of the word, nothing personal re. you.)

 

[In your psyche]

Wallow at will, Psyche.

regards and happy new year,

Perdita


(I was only questioning Quasi's use of the word, nothing personal re. you.)

I know, honey.

Thank you and a very happy new year to you, too.

Psyche

P.S. I'm wallowing!

 

[Guest]

At the risk of being beaten to a bloody pulp by various members of the female inteligencia, I'm pretty sure you just don't get out enough Mab. There are a great many women (in my experience) who initially 'fall for' a man purely on looks alone, it then happens that the man in question turns out to have no irredeemably bad traits and they do eventually marry on 'looks' alone.

Gauche

Very true, Gauche, very true. My own marriage is living testament to that. I fell for Adam, initially, on looks alone. I then got to know him, as a whole person, and fell deeply in love with all of him. I guess I didn't just marry him on looks alone, but his looks had a huge bearing on me going after him in the first place. Yes, it was me who did the chasing.

Lou

 

[Guest]

I'm not jumping on Gauche either (well not to hurt him). Yes, I've been done in by looks too, many times, but I can't say I married any of my 3 hubbs for their looks (though the initial attraction was there). At most I'd say that's it, the attraction, but when it comes to marrying or becoming otherwise seriously involved, looks rarely go very far w/o other important attributes (e.g., intelligence is primary for me).

Perdita

 

[shereads]

At the risk of being beaten to a bloody pulp by various members of the female inteligencia...

Later. It's my turn.

...There are a great many women (in my experience) who initially 'fall for' a man purely on looks alone, it then happens that the man in question turns out to have no irredeemably bad traits and they do eventually marry on 'looks' alone.

1) No, there's probably also something happening between the sheets that makes his looks worthwhile.

2) I'm certain there is irrefutable scientific evidence of this, and if there's not then science has been negligent in failing to substantiate the obvious: Women are less likely than men to judge a mate by appearance. There are women who find Woody Allen sexy, for God's sake. Can you imagine his female equivalent, in the looks department, being found attractive by men because they find her brilliant and funny?

When Dr. Mabeuse says "for looks alone," I agree wholeheartedly provided there's emphasis on the word "alone." Looks count, but unless a woman is planning to have - pardon me while I invent the term for a male mistress - is planning to have "misters-es" who will fulfill her need for a man whose intelligence, wit and tongue skills she can respect and enjoy, she's not likely to want to grow old with an airhead boy who decorates her arm at parties.

 

[In your psyche]

I wouldn't jump on Gauche either, well I would given half the chance (if that's him in his piccie anyway!).

I agree about looks being very important.

Psyche

 

[gauchecritic]

I wouldn't jump on Gauche either, well I would given half the chance (if that's him in his piccie anyway!).

I agree about looks being very important.

Psyche

I knew I should have left gollum in there. (still searching for a with-beard av for certain other AH irregulars appreciation.)

Gauche

 

[Dirty Slut]

ROFLMFAO

Wealth? Good looks? Great car? Swank dresser? Nice ass? And not one comment on genital size? Do you really think that we women are so shallow? Is it any wonder that you even bother to call us after that first date if that's all that you think of us. And is it any wonder why we hate being thought of as just sexual objects for you to jack off all over.

One of my favorite movies tells it like it really is: "Oh I love him for the man he is, and for the man he wants to become. I love him. I just love him!" True, the guy was actor Tom Cruise, but at the time his character was broke as dog shit. He didn't have a fine car, or expensive clothes either. What he did have was charm, wit, and a healthy awareness of her. And if I have to explain that last part then you're really a loser. And that's what we mean by a loser.

DS

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Looks are certainly important, especially in deciding who's attracted to whom at the early stages of a relationship. Nor do I dispute that a good looking guy is more likely to attract more women.

But I stand by my contention that it's very rare for a woman to marry based on looks alone. Men, yes. Women: very rare.

---dr.M.

 

[Quasimodem]

. . . I can't say I married any of my 3 hubbs for their looks . . .

Gee, Dita,

After three exes, maybe you should consider trying looks alone. At least it would be making a different mistake.

After my first ex, I decide I would concentrate on trying to make ten women happy, rather than one woman miserable.

 

[Guest]

Quas, I've done looks alone many times, and it was often worth it, but not for marriage. My last divorce was in '89, my great love in '92. No more of either for me, but I'll still go for the looks in times of need. Otherwise, I mostly want good conversation.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

I still say that being successful, unless there are other strong negative factors, is the one quality in men that is the most attractive to women.

What sort of women are you hanging around with? Of the most successful men I can think of, top of mind, there a dozen I would pay to not spend time with. Lots of them are political figures who also happen to be wealthy, but for purity of purpose let's keep it to Donald Trump.

As my college roomate used to say, "I wouldn't fuck him in a full-body condom." I wouldn't even want to have dinner with him. There's just something shallow and self-absorbed about such men that makes me think they'd be boring in and out of bed.

Extremely success-focused men are like body-builders: there's a degree of focus on themselves, and on how they look in the mirrror or on the cover of Forbes, that seems to signal they wouldn't be willing to focus much attention on a partner.

Plus, the hair. Please, Donald Trump, you can afford to have a scalp transplant from a live donor, if you so choose. Can't you comb the world for a team of skilled barbers who might create a head-pelt for you that doesn't look like a parasite living off of your dandruff?

I suppose that if you allow for definitions of success besides the obvious ones (oodles of money, lots of gilt mirrors, and a stretch Hummer to carry the cash from home to vault - then yes, most women are attracted to success.

Here are some kinds of success that make my pu...Ahem. Here's what I like in a successful man:

Successfully making me laugh at moments when I didn't think it was possible. That counts.

Successfully dealing with failure. That's incredibly sexy.

Successfully making me feel beautiful and sexy. That's the most powerful aphrodisiac.

Successful earlobe-nibbling, with just the right degree of tooth pressure. Yowsa.

EDITED to theorize that when you see a successful (wealthy/powerful) man with women flocking about, perhaps he's treating these women to the same social skills that have helped him manipulate people in the business or political worlds. There are people whose success is due to personal magnetism, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work on both sides of the sheets.