Discussion from the thread "is homosexuality unnatural"

[dannieyankee]

To that guy that says I'm evading: I'm not evading. Read the entire source.

Then look at common life; references to smart, funny, or interesting men, which is, in general, the majority of the population, dating really beautiful women.

If I need to source every statement of generality, then I bet I'll be asked to source proof of being gay, too.

Or even worse, my name.

I think the original discussion was homosexuality. I'll go back to that one.

[Moontanman]

Before we discuss prime woman or even prime men we have to decide exactly what "prime" means! Are you talking the Best looking individuals? If so this varies by culture to an extreme extent. I honestly think the idea of "prime" is either emotionally stunted or at the very least nonsensical.

[dannieyankee]

Prime, meaning most appealing to each general society. I don't mean any specific prime.

[InfiniteNow]

That doesn't really help in terms of defining what you mean.

Is prime about bilateral symmetry? Is it about waist to hip ratios? Is it about reproductive fecundity? Is it about small pores? Is it about wealth? Is it about resources? Is it about attire? Is it about availability? Is it about numbers which are only divisible by one and themselves? I mean... seriously... it's time to step up and offer some clear parameters and definitions of terms.

[dannieyankee]

*sighs*.

Prime is this: If in one country, a 'prime' woman is one who is massive and unintelligent, then that is what prime is referring to. In another 'prime' may be unnaturally skinny and nerdy, in which case THAT is what the prime is.

Prime is whatever the general population of heterosexual men find as the most attractive. THOSE GROUPS set the parametres; I'm just the questioner.

[Moontanman]

First I would like to point out the the way homosexuals choose each other is very similar if not the same as the way heterosexuals do but I need to add that very few individuals choose each other for the so called prime parameters of any society since so few people actually fit this prime view. The idea of an ideal male or female as defined by society is a myth and only exists in pictures, films and books. It's an ethereal and totally false representation of humans in general and love in particular. Go to a place where lots of people congregate and if you're honest with yourself you'll see that very few of either sex fit the prime view. Most people are flawed in some way and the few people I know of that expect the "prime" in their mates are very lonely people.

[pamela]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

That is because in the human race, women have to attract men. Because women seek permanent relationships and men have a tendency to desire to wander, women have to fight to keep a man. That's why women in the human race are more colourful.

this is a curious statement. Both have to attract each other. The female must look for attributes in the male to protect and provide for the offspring. It is not about wandering but about the security of the family unit in order that the offspring will survive. The term colorful is subjective.Attraction is based upon the individual.Features and scents attract on the most basic level. Beauty is subjective. This needs no explanation.This thread has taken on more of a psychological premise of late, and not biological.We can choose our mate or companion based upon a plethora of reasons and not necessarily for procreation.

[HydrogenBond]

The colorful male, in nature, is the biological norm, in terms of the preponderance of the data. This goes without researched proof and only requires eyes to see. In western cultures, the female spends more time and effort being colorful. In Muslim cultures, the male is more decorative and the female more camouflaged. This actually is closer to the rest of animal nature. The question is, which is natural and which is learned behavior or are they both learned?

In western cultures, when woman are more dolled up, she can attract mates, sort of like the male animals in nature. The males in dating, often do their male animal song and dance (figuratively) to attract females. This may involve verbal make-up as they spin their attributes. Males also get more colorful during dating but the males are less likely to get colorful when not on the hunt or required. This is changing due to market pressures. Without this free market training, the natural default is different. It has taken a lot of dollars to market the change since it does not come naturally.

One interesting aspect, is when a woman is married, her husband will be the one male who will see her not dolled up the greatest percent of the time. When she goes out into public, stranger type males will see her dolled up a higher percent of the time during chance encounters. In other words, the female is comfortable sitting at home with old sweats and no makeup with her husband or mate, like the plain female in nature. But when she goes out into public shopping, job, etc., she feels more comfortable getting more dolled up, like the male animal.

Logically, if being dolled up helps attract mates and she gets more dolled up (time averaged) around males who are not her mate, could this create a false positive with respect to what science calls natural behavior? In other words, the male human animal is receiving visual signals from unknown females, who are not interested, yet dolled up to attract mates. Their husbands will also see stranger women more dolled up a higher percent of the time. Does the underlying cultural conditioning set the stage for the unconscious assumption all women are trying to attract mates, all the time, even when they have mates, creating a false positive in some science correlations.

Picture the situation where the females only dolled up to attract mates and/or for their mates. In public, they dress down to make themselves look less attractive to all the stranger males, so a mating colorful green light is not creating a false positive between intent and expectation. How would this effect correlation data?

[Moontanman]

I agree Pamela, I know that for me scent plays a huge role and I don't mean perfume either. I can always tell the first few minutes after I meet a woman if I could potentially like her just from he pheromones. Of course if she's an asshole then the pheromones don't help much but the smell is paramount. After the pheromones certain other parameters come into play, for me intelligence is the next most important, personality comes next, looks are far behind the first three and can vary wildly as long as the first three are right. I think most men see this if not consciously then subconsciously. Some ignore the important and go for looks only but these parings most often fail because looks fade and the "prime" in looks is a fleeting moment in life, seldom lasting long.

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The colorful male, in nature, is the biological norm, in terms of the preponderance of the data. This goes without researched proof and only requires eyes to see. In western cultures, the female spends more time and effort being colorful. In Muslim cultures, the male is more decorative and the female more camouflaged. This actually is closer to the rest of animal nature. The question is, which is natural and which is learned behavior or are they both learned?

In western cultures, when woman are more dolled up, she can attract mates, sort of like the male animals in nature. The males in dating, often do their male animal song and dance (figuratively) to attract females. This may involve verbal make-up as they spin their attributes. Males also get more colorful during dating but the males are less likely to get colorful when not on the hunt or required. This is changing due to market pressures. Without this free market training, the natural default is different. It has taken a lot of dollars to market the change since it does not come naturally.

One interesting aspect, is when a woman is married, her husband will be the one male who will see her not dolled up the greatest percent of the time. When she goes out into public, stranger type males will see her dolled up a higher percent of the time during chance encounters. In other words, the female is comfortable sitting at home with old sweats and no makeup with her husband or mate, like the plain female in nature. But when she goes out into public shopping, job, etc., she feels more comfortable getting more dolled up, like the male animal.

Logically, if being dolled up helps attract mates and she gets more dolled up (time averaged) around males who are not her mate, could this create a false positive with respect to what science calls natural behavior? In other words, the male human animal is receiving visual signals from unknown females, who are not interested, yet dolled up to attract mates. Their husbands will also see stranger women more dolled up a higher percent of the time. Does the underlying cultural conditioning set the stage for the unconscious assumption all women are trying to attract mates, all the time, even when they have mates, creating a false positive in some science correlations.

Picture the situation where the females only dolled up to attract mates and/or for their mates. In public, they dress down to make themselves look less attractive to all the stranger males, so a mating colorful green light is not creating a false positive between intent and expectation. How would this effect correlation data?

Oh lordie, it took me three times reading it over to fully understand that

But I think I got it, and that makes more sense than my argument.