Why would men be more superficial?

[Royale]

That particular male theory always confuses me. It would seem from a natural standpoint a woman would have more to lose by slacking on the looks department, having to carry around for 9 months and spend energy raising a child with possibly defective genes than a man who can basically pole-hop from woman to woman (off the man theory that men are supposed to be polygamous) and not be worse for wear.

 

It can't be that woman are looking for a father investment in their children, unless that developed really late in the human instincts department, because for the most of human existence men had little to do with the raising or interacting with their mate's children; they were raised by the mom and other female relatives. Hunting had it's value in village/tribal affairs but was very unrealiable for the people's daily needs; again woman and gathering supplied nutrition for the family, while meat was shared among the men after kills or passed around for special occasions.

 

It's seems rather unintuitive to me; with women being bogged down to a maybe not genetically healthy male, with only the *very* risky and very able to backfire fallback on cheating, while men are hurting themselves by being overpicky and lowering the chances of creating viable offspring (re: hot chicks are also able to be eaten by tigers, and all babies are vulnerable).

 

I'm not saying men aren't more focused on looks and women on other things (of which I don't know), I just don't think that reasoning probably explains why it would be that way.

[Boughs]

Just trying to understand exactly what you are saying... are you more concerned about men and their pickiness in women? the fact that men cheat and women can't do much about it?

 

Men being picky... well its attraction. I don't see how being picky is a bad thing.

 

Men cheating... well women cheat too... can't really do much there... I think its best to not think too hard about it... just enjoy the goodness of reliable people.

 

Something my friend told me which I think is relatively true... the guys that can't tell the crude jokes that everyone laughs at, tend to be more genuine. From my observations, these kinds of people tend to be less aware of their audience... and thus less concerned about what they do, as long as they stick to their morals. A bit of a shot in the dark, but I think that the less "harmful" type jokes a person says, they tend to be more genuine people.

[Royale]

I'm not concerned about how superficial men are or why men/women cheat. At least not in this post (bear with me I haven't slept in over a day, ha). I'm just concerned with the idea of men being superficial is based off of a basic human need for evolutionary purposes in the past. It would seem how people were like in the past the woman should the pickier all around, if you're talking about human instincts spurred by the past need to make babies.

[ghost69]

i think it has nothing to do with the past, but more with the surroundings you were brought up in. a lot has to do with the media and how a child learns to like the opposite sex.

[Boughs]

Hmm, well I think times are a changing. Evolution includes our state of mind. Also social standards are things that have developed from interaction/increased ease of communication.

 

Men now have a restraint from just popping penises in everywhere because of the "player" status (which is a burden despite what a lot of girls might think). Women have adapted the "love everyone" attitude.

 

Think it could be perhaps that women have made competition amongst one another and thus men bought into it because it made it better for them too? Doubtful of that theory, but I gues worth mentioning.

[Zackinlaw]

Oh ... so you are talking about the genetic drive, egg investment, women's choosiness, etc. etc. vs. men's obession with a woman's appearance???

 

Maybe it goes back to pre-history when a man's only way to give his genes survivability was to assess their general genetic health by the visual indicators such as a reproductive body type, averageness and symetry of features, while a woman had to take into account the additional indicators of strength (hence the dimorphism), intelligence and confidence.

 

Of course, this may very well be moot in a modern, monogamous society with a very high reproductive participation rate. Today, random pairings would probably bring about the same result in the population as a whole!

 

Interesting question though

 

Zack.

[Clarity]

Both men and women's attractions to one another have been partyl shaped by evolution. It just so happens that what men look for in a woman evolution-wise (health, ability to bear healthy children, good genes) translates into something that is perceived as more superficial by some; the woman's looks. Whereas, evolution-wise, some think that women are attracted to men who will be able to protect them, provide for them and their children, etc.. This translates into looking for a man who is successful (sometimes that means financially), strong, etc.

 

Obviously these aren't the only things involved, but I definitely believe they play a role. Why do you think most women prefer a man that is taller/bigger than them? Protection (even if they are not actually more protected, the feeling is there). Why are women, generally, more attracted to men with more wealth/success (all other things remaining equal)? The ability to provide.

 

Why are men attracted to "hot women"? Because what we perceive as "hot" are that person displaying visible traits of what we subconsciously deem as good genes. And each of us have a different innate idea of what good genes are, which is why different men find different women attractive...

[Royale]

Oh ... so you are talking about the genetic drive, egg investment, women's choosiness, etc. etc. vs. men's obession with a woman's appearance???

 

Maybe it goes back to pre-history when a man's only way to give his genes survivability was to assess their general genetic health by the visual indicators such as a reproductive body type, averageness and symetry of features, while a woman had to take into account the additional indicators of strength (hence the dimorphism), intelligence and confidence.

 

Of course, this may very well be moot in a modern, monogamous society with a very high reproductive participation rate. Today, random pairings would probably bring about the same result in the population as a whole!

 

Interesting question though

 

Zack.

 

Eh, yeah, I agree with you on the points on what men are looking for, but I don't understand why those supposed extra things a woman needs should dumb down superficial cravings under a man's.

 

Strength I believe can be safety swept under the umbrella of physical appeal. Confidence is also physically related, right? A man who can strut his stuff in the wild has energy to spare and speaks of good genes, which would again lead to exterior thinking. Intelligence, even if different types, should more or less work both ways; a smart woman did more for her child in raising them than the smart man back then, who used his intelligence for food, women, and survival, not for baby.

 

Also in a basic hunter-gatherer setting intelligence and strength of the men were communal property; all benefited from the men that were more strategic and better able to defend the people; you didn't have to sleep with him for benefits necessarily, except for inter-tribal conflicts, which better not have a huge impact because communal self-destruction is not evolutionarily sound.

[Royale]

Both men and women's attractions to one another have been partyl shaped by evolution. It just so happens that what men look for in a woman evolution-wise (health, ability to bear healthy children, good genes) translates into something that is perceived as more superficial by some; the woman's looks. Whereas, evolution-wise, some think that women are attracted to men who will be able to protect them, provide for them and their children, etc.. This translates into looking for a man who is successful (sometimes that means financially), strong, etc. QUOTE]

 

Yeah, the thing I find odd is this dynamic of men/women is relatively new. I mean, obviously no matter how new it's having a good impact, but in the beginnings of mankind women were more helped by the strength and protection of other women, not men. The total reliance on men for protection and finances came much later.

[Royale]

i think it has nothing to do with the past, but more with the surroundings you were brought up in. a lot has to do with the media and how a child learns to like the opposite sex.

 

I basically agree with him, though I'm not completely ruling out evolutionary thinking (i.e. symmetry), but in the end I believe these beliefs come from modern thinking and the very important influence of culture. Heck, 'culture' came from evolution, so by no means I'm kicking it out. But culture can be fickle and arbitrary.

[CaptainPlanet]

Fantastic this sheds a great deal of light in my mind as to why women would chose more subjectively than men. So its like a womans version of attraction is more based on perception (of protection and ability to provide) and a mans more strongly on definite and obvious indicators.

[Clarity]

Fantastic this sheds a great deal of light in my mind as to why women would chose more subjectively than men. So its like a womans version of attraction is more based on perception (of protection and ability to provide) and a mans more strongly on definite and obvious indicators.

 

I'm not sure I would go that far. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but rather relaying things I have picked up along the way. Something "subjective" that men look for in women, evolution-wise, is the ability of the woman to be a good mother to his prospective offspring. That is something tough to judge objectively...

[CaptainPlanet]

aahh thats true

[Carl5000]

These may have been covered, but men aren't complete challenger apes and thereforeeee polygamous - they are a mix of rearing ape(i don't think that's the term)and challenger - we are defo challenger apes, as we have sperm imprinting to intoxicate other sperms. I think the attraction, is basically the mixture of genes to create successful offspring i.e schopenhauers opposites attract. I remember the most appealing girl to me, was the complete opposite to me in every department - feature wise.

 

We all sub-consciously seek certain characteristics kindness, symmetrical faces, intellgence, wealth, status, power and we can even smell good, healthy genes which is crazy. Its all rather depressing, when you consider at a mirco level, that were nothing but selfish genes, who are looking to survive and pass their genetics onto the next generation. We are mortal, but our genes are immortal and thats how to look at it - we are just the protecting shell.

 

This is why many relationships are a struggle and fail, because we aren't suited to relationships - we do it mostly for the child. I read somewhere, that women are more likely to remember the loyal, kind, moral acts of their bf to see if they can trust them to hang around after the birth of a child. Things like remembering birthdays, turning up for dates etc.

 

I always remember this famous quote by nietzsche aswell;

 

Courageous,

Violent,

Untroubled,

Mocking

 

That is what wisdom wants to be. Wisdom is a woman and she loves only warriors. That's why woman want strong, tall, athletic, secure, wealthy man to take care of them - maybe violence would come into it, at hunter gatherer level for protection and to intimidate and destroy any competition. This has be sublimated in our advanced civilisation, into the workforce and we get power that way, a weaker type and thats why some ppl enjoy bullying and control. Lets be honest about it, most women dislike timid, shy, reserved, weak, emotionally unstable men for that reason. So guys, if u want women - put up the persona of a FEARLESS WARRIOR!! hahhah plus get a poweful job.

 

Other interesting evolution areas are game theory, reciprocal altruism - game theory is interesting. Where Maynard Smith used complicated mathematical equations - i think it was in the prisoners dilemma and found the most stable form of gene evolution was reciporcal altruism - i scratch your back, u scratch mind and by sticking to the rules of the game and gaining a good reputation it becomes the most advantageous way for ur genes- long term.

 

That's why we developed consciousness and a memory - to remember different people's acts of goodness, altruism and so that when ppl are cheating the system, we can punish them - also it evolved due to needing an advanced intellect in villages of around 160ppl as that's our iq's limit. Also, scans on the brain show that when ppl don't cheat and do acts of altruism and compromise as it releases dopamine into(i think) the amygdala and gives us good feelings. Are we free or are we determined prior to our consciousness?

 

Anways, i find it interesting and it puts stupid human connotations of love, friendship into context and you realise its a game of deception by the genes and to just force you into reproducing. Also, other philosophical questions arise - as evolution has almost been proven without doubt - that we came from bacteria, or one called pond crap and not intelligent design aka God. thereforeeee, it throws up the question about how wrong is murder, theft, lying -) outside of the human intellect - its ok for other species and we kill animals as its too our advantage. Would the gene care if you murdered a person, if it helped the gene reproduce. Probably not, its a good job we've delevoped guilt and sin eheh and that killing one competitive m8 isn't really worthwhile - it certainly isn't in this culture with the judicial system.

 

If we did an experiment and put one male outside of society say on mars, with 14 mating partners and then threw another male in the mix. Would they look to murder each for control of the mating pool? it might be a possibility if u gave one of them a gun and a huge advantage to kill his competition, without the risk of harming himself.

 

I try and use my conscious mind to control my genes and to repress myreproductive urges and to form relationships - it doesn't work though - as my genes are a prior to my consciousness. They set up the rules of the game, i'm just piggy in the middle, as freud said, if u don't play the genetic game, u will develop a neurosis - the game of sex especially. thereforeeee, i think its advantageous for men to have many sexual partners on the go and forget about conventional morality.

 

The morality of weakness - if u cheat on me, u are bad, evil as i want u to be loyal towards me. This is most strongly advocated by women and with all morality, its a morality for control, power and for ur own selfish perspective. "Fear is the mother of morality" Niezsche. Actually, men are the same, if they are going to put resources into a child, they want a loyal partner and want a good probability that they are the real father aka kin altruism.

 

Well, just some concepts - that one or two peeps might not be aware of. lol, it took me a few months to re-adapt to this line of thinking, when i started talking an interest in my life at a deeper level -) Still, i don't understand some parts and humans seem to partly move beyond their genes i.e contraception, the pill and it would be interesting, if anything could give a logical reason, why? practise with the opposite sex, for when u do want to settle down, why some ppl never want children? faulty genetics, homosexuals, bi's some things don't add up for humans. Were just so darn smart. hmmm homosexual, bi's would have died out years ago though, through natural selection, if the gene's had mis-fired.

 

One last point - ic many ppl mention selfless acts, yet this is like light vs dark, with dark not existing and just being the absense of light.. same with Aquinus notions of Evil being the absense of Good ahah. Selfless acts exist, but for egoism reasoning. We are completely selfish at our core, like our genes. We only do what we want, when we want etc and all for our own long term benefit. We might be really nice, friendly to a girl, only because we want to get into her knickers, or have a relationship with her. I might kill myself, if it benefits a ratio of my kin - say i can save 2 sisters and 6 brothers and it allows more of my genes to prosper.

 

Good topic btw, even if i haven't answer ur original question - i always get carried away.

[Royale]

Hey Carl:

 

It's not that I disagree on you with what you're saying on many points, but at the cause I'm just going to agree to disagree. Recent discoveries on how early humans works doesn't support, and in some cases actually refute, the fact that men really protected women to any significant degree. Actually sometimes they were a source of harassment to fertile women or women with unrelated babies for sex.

 

Also, the theory that we came out polygamous was based off of closely related primates, right. Well the sexual activities of primates are all over the bar, and other closely related species are monogamous. I think people (both genders) are a mix of the two. Because actually polygamy doesn't have blatant genetic avantages (fyi-the chances of getting a fertile woman pregnant while she's ovulating by having sex with her one time is 1 out of 16 chances. Now add in the fact that men had no clue to tell when a woman was ovulating, especially if they didn't stick around. A man could actually have an advantage back then by sticking around with one woman and actually sire some kids and help raise and protect them then seek out many women)

[Batya33]

I'm not concerned about how superficial men are or why men/women cheat. At least not in this post (bear with me I haven't slept in over a day, ha). I'm just concerned with the idea of men being superficial is based off of a basic human need for evolutionary purposes in the past. It would seem how people were like in the past the woman should the pickier all around, if you're talking about human instincts spurred by the past need to make babies.

 

I would venture a guess that most people cheat because they are not emotionally satisfied in their relationships and not because they want someone who is better looking. Often you find affairs happening between co-workers who work in close proximity and for long hours - the co-workers might be nowhere near adonises or beauty queens but the people who are not feeling fulfilled in their relationships turn to the people they are with constantly under pressured deadlines and feel more understood by them than by their spouses.