Discussion from the thread "is homosexuality unnatural"

[dannieyankee]

Moderation Note: The first five posts of this thread were moved from the thread "is homosexuality unnatural" because they do not address the prior thread's topic.

The idea that straight women tend to be the more colourful one of the species, versus animals like the peacock, in which the men must be attractive to women, is inherently true.

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.

Gay men are more colourful because they have some features belonging to women (i.e. hypothalamus study)

No, gay men are not the norm in nature, but they are natural, that is, bred by nature, not by choice.

To my last quote: I didn't mean not genetic, I had trouble expressing myself. What I meant was that having a gay child doesn't mean that one of your parents was gay or had gay tendencies.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

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.

Do you have a source to support this claim?

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Do you have a source to support this claim?

Why, yes I do.
http :// en. wikibooks. org /wiki /Relationships / How_ Men_ Select_ Women

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

Why, yes I do.
http :// en. wikibooks. org /wiki /Relationships / How_ Men_ Select_ Women

Can you please point out where that article validates your claims that "Because women seek permanent relationships and men have a tendency to desire to wander, women have to fight to keep a man"?

In my life experiences, I've known many people, both male and female, that have wanted monogamous and permanent relationships. I've known people of both sexes that have not wanted permanent relationships. Hence, I question your claim that "women have to fight to keep a man".

[dannieyankee]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Can you please point out where that article validates your claims that "Because women seek permanent relationships and men have a tendency to desire to wander, women have to fight to keep a man"?

In my life experiences, I've known many people, both male and female, that have wanted monogamous and permanent relationships. I've known people of both sexes that have not wanted permanent relationships. Hence, I question your claim that "women have to fight to keep a man".

"Photos of beautiful women made men rate their wives as less attractive, and feel less committed to their marriages"

Thus stating that men seek only prime women.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

"Photos of beautiful women made men rate their wives as less attractive, and feel less committed to their marriages"

Thus stating that men seek only prime women.

I specifically asked where the quoted article gave credence to your claim that "women have to fight to keep a man" and you give me a reference to a study I'm actually familiar with, yet you give no link so maybe I'm not familiar with your quoted text.

The whole premise in your quoted text above is false. You've taken the results of this study and projected them to fit your assumption that "men seek only prime women". Show me the study that makes the claim that "men seek only prime women".

On casual reflection, it's easy to make the case for your argument from a biological evolutionary standpoint. Given the opportunity, members of each sex will be selective in choosing a mate.

In a more comical approach, I find it funny to envision your claim with respect to a praying mantis. Those poor guys don't stand a chance and it's hard to fight over them once their heads are severed.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by freeztar

In a more comical approach, I find it funny to envision your claim with respect to a praying mantis. Those poor guys don't stand a chance and it's hard to fight over them once their heads are severed.

I've known "prime women" who were like that.

[lemit]

"Moderation Note: The first five posts of this thread were moved from the thread "is homosexuality unnatural" because they do not address the prior thread's topic."

I'm not sure this doesn't belong. If we use available studies of attraction, we can define the physically perfect companion--roughly speaking, supermodels. I'm not sure we as a species would do well if we followed those guidelines, matching the male and female supermodels (assuming they would want to be matched to the opposite sex, which is a reach). I'm not sure we'd achieve the best possible humans for the technological world the less-than best possible humans have created.

So, maybe the supermodels aren't the best, well, models. So what if we match the Nobel Prize winners with the supermodels--as a few of the Nobel Prize winners have proposed? (I wish I had a pickup line like that.) I'm not sure the results would be as precise as people think they would. What if we ended up with a person who had the body of a Nobel Prize winner and the mind of a supermodel?

Okay. That's kind of a dumb way of theorizing about a kind of dumb selection process we all use in selecting a mate. We could establish a continuum of potential mates (as Desmond Morris has) ranging, I would extrapolate, from the most attractive member (for whatever convoluted reason nature and nurture might give us) of the opposite sex to the least attractive member of our own sex, with at least some crossovers. For most of us--the non-Nobel Prize winners--our choices are limited by what we can offer in return and by our predisposed sexual orientation.

(There actually seems to be little crossover. The gay males I've interviewed have almost universally considered bisexuals to be deviant. The bisexuals I have interviewed have somewhat gleefully assented. My sample is too small to be significant, but it's fun to discuss, and very consistent.)

So, in discussing mating patterns and attractions, aren't we still discussing sexual orientation? And also, is not attraction, no matter what cultural input and personal limitations are attached to it, still a biological function? Are we not while discussing heterosexual attraction also discussing homosexual attraction and the biological divide between them?

--lemit

p.s. Where would the Farrelly brothers be if we understood our mating rituals and impulses as well as we understand those of other species? MacDonalds or Burger King? Taco Bell? Maybe we have another thread there.

[lemit]

Following up on my postscript, if we expand the discussion beyond the Farrelly brothers, what can we learn about human sexuality by the choice of pie? Does cream vs. fruit belong on the other thread?

Sorry. "There's something about" Friday, even though I haven't had a Monday-to-Friday schedule for many years.

--lemit

[REASON]

Originally Posted by dannieyankee

Thus stating that men seek only prime women.

As INow already pointed out, this statement is false relative to homosexual men.

Aside from that, it can only be true based on the premise that what makes a woman "prime" is purely subjective.

Nature loves diversity.