Hahah, I lol'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
I dunno about the dimples. I'm sort of neutral there, I suppose.
Printable View
Hahah, I lol'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
I dunno about the dimples. I'm sort of neutral there, I suppose.
I read in my friend's university books that faces that are mathematically average are attractive. They took 2 sisters and created an image based on both of their faces, the average distance between each feature and size of each feature itself. The woman that created was beautiful. I think it's because, like someone said, average faces are healthy. Giant noses and messed up teeth make you wonder "what's wrong with that person?" lol. Even if subconcious.
As for big breasts, hour glass figure, etc... these things just make a person seem fertile. And man was created to reproduce...
I'm pretty sure I was created because my parents wanted another kid. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
Yeah and that desire to want another kid is ingrained in our make up, the desire to reproduce.
The point though is that humans weren't "created" to reproduce, we were "created" because our ancestors reproduced.
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The common ancestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
Lol! Who was the FIRST ancestor.
If you want to get abstract, the big bang.
Giving birth and raising a child is an amazingly intimate bond. Women who are pregnant it changes them. They carry another soul within them. Their love for each other is pure. The energy of the family, its an incredible thing. Of coarse it is not always as I describe. Children are raised like they are objects. TV teachs them to be stupid. Born pure, tought to be dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
The egg. Chickens can be traced to either the red jungle fowl or a hybrid of the red and green jungle fowls. Eggs (in the form that you're probably talking about) have been present since the amniotes specialized from the rest of the tetrapods (you might say amphibians). So the egg came first by a couple of hundred million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
It has been said the inherent mission of life is to reproduce, securing the continued survival of our species.
As Dave Matthews puts it, "we climb on two by two, to make sure these days continue. Things we can not change." -Two Step
Can't be stated any better. Men and women are, by instincts, attracted to different things n the opposite sex. Men are very very visual.
Women on the other hand must be far more cautious when choosing a mate. They are attracted to a mans survival value. is this man going to be around and provide security to the family unit? They are attracted to the mans personality, more so than his looks, they want the alpha male. Social, intelligent, and adventureous.
A lot of attraction is unconscious. But that is correct. Even size and evenness of breasts, and waist to hip ratio is a big factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
A mistake I often see people make is to confuse the evolutionary reason for something and the psychological reason. The evolutionary reason we're attracted to certain qualities in the opposite sex is that our genes will more likely survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the psychological reason is the same. I doubt that my reason for being attracted to intelligence, even subconsciously, is because I think an intelligent guy will be more likely to provide for and protect me and my future children. The allure of intelligence is just there in the brain. Same with attraction to body. You aren't attracted to breasts because you're thinking about the milking opportunities for your future offspring with her. There is just an ingrained attraction to breasts. Which got there by evolution, yes, but the attraction itself has nothing to do with some subconscious desire to pass on your genes. My (recent) attraction males with a bit of muscle has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to be protected (well not for me, anyway) - it just looks good.Quote:
Originally Posted by theMagician
In addition to what PhilosopherStoned said, assuming evolution is true, the egg would have to have come first. Even if the 'egg' in the question refers only to 'chicken egg', the first egg wolud have to have been the one that the first chicken came from, which was laid(layed?) by a non-chicken. This is assuming that we're forced to draw a line between 'chicken' and whatever species came before it. They would be able to mate with one another because they're so closely related, but if we could observe every step of evolution we'd end up forcing ourselves to choose where to draw the lines between species.Quote:
Originally Posted by SusyS
EDIT: I've suspected that this question is really a creation vs. evolution question in disguise. For the reason above, if evolution is true the answer is the egg. But if creation were true the answer would be the chicken.
Not assuming. It's a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I don't look at breasts and think that my offspring will be well fed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
I only brought up the desire to pass on ones genes as our inherent mission in life.
As a man, like any man, I am attracted to legs, soft skin, tight but, breast size, proportionate features such as face, hip to waist, ect. I see a girl, and it's automatic, attraction is not a choice.
Passing on our genes is not our inherent mission in life. This is a gross misreading of the facts. We do not exist too make copies of our genes. We exist because our ancestors made copies of their genes. Therefore, we can expect that the genes that we have are good at getting copies of themselves made.Quote:
Originally Posted by theMagician
That's all you can say.
You can not extrapolate from that to any of this nonsense about "inherent missions" or anything like that.
Don't forget those nasty nature-evolved mind poisons known as pheromones!
Both sexes have them, and they, like the matrix, are biochemically programmed to dull your logic and reason, to take over your thinking mind and blur consequences for the purpose of forcing you to incarnate yet another generation of thinking mortals into this planet better suited to the animals among us.
Or course things like alcohol and corporate propaganda help push the unnatural aspect of attraction even further, to where it has little to do anymore with the person themselves, but rather, their arsenal of sexual WEAPONS.
Axe body spray with pheromones, anyone?
So, instead of pushing our corrupt medicine for profit cartels and murderous government regimes to fund immortality research, and defense against bio-tech, for a future that might be worth looking forward to, we see the hyper-sensationalizing of sex as a product.
Priorities... Just my 2c.
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/3...ding_super.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by AlienDiplomat
It's like a conspiracy theory raped some devout evangelical rant and this post is the bastard offspring of this unholy union.
I like girls that are friendly, try to keep an open mind, aren't quick to judge, take care of their appearance without obsessing over it, and expect the same from me.
Why are you guys complicating things with your theories of "sexual weapons" and whatnot? D:
Personal preferences vary greatly, and shouldn't really be taken into account when considering the overall underlying causes of physical attraction.
I think I've stated this before, but from what I've deduced, women are attracted mostly to emotional appeal, and men are attracted mostly to physical appeal. Neither emotional nor physical appeal is the entire cause of attraction in either sex, but each is generally the main determining factor in attraction for each sex respectively. To explain this in real-world terms, women are generally sexually attracted to dominant men. (Guys who have money, mainly at the center of attention, unpredictable, sociable, intelligent, classy,...) Of course, each woman has their own slant on what they like, given their individual personality. There are many factors which go into what a girl's personality is and therefore what she likes, but I'm not getting into that. A lot of women also tend to take a man's physical traits into much more account.
Obviously most guys are primarily sexually attracted to the physical appeal of women. If you disagree with me there, you're either just trolling or stupid. :) Keep in mind this is just about sexual attraction, not relationship-type attraction. If this thread concerned relationships, I'd also get into that.
So basically, any more in-depth of a description than what I've given would either be a specific biological description of sexual attraction or would just concern one's personal preferences.
Feel free to challenge me on this paradigm if you think differently.
Whatever, you are missing my point. Survival and replication, all the way back to the caveman days. If it wasn't, you or I would most likely not be here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.
If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already. You know, human nature... So where does human nature come from... Oh yeah, our instincts.
Think of pandas who won't fvck to save their species
No, you're missing my point. None of that makes it our "inherent mission" or any such similar bullshit. We are free agents that can exercise our will in anyway we want.Quote:
Originally Posted by theMagician
Most genes that do get transmitted will have an exact replica of them made. Each gene (and we're really using the term loosely here, we should be saying allele) has a 50% chance barring meiotic drive. What's your point? "Survival of the species" has nothing to do with evolution.Quote:
I don't know if you know this or no,but when you mate and reproduce, both partners genes get passed, not an exact copy, duh. I'm not talking about cloning and making an exact copy of my genes, I'm talking about our control over the continued survival of our species.passing on my bloodline to the next generation and so on and so on.
That's what I said. Again, this does not mean that it's our "inherent mission" to reproduce. It just means that the genes that build us are good at getting copies of themselves made. The equip us with an inherent instinct to "meet, attract and reproduce." None of this makes it our "inherent mission".Quote:
If it wasn't inherent instinct to find, meet, attract and reproduce, we may have become extinct already.
BTw, this all theory, but it makes the most since. Survival and replication value is really about primal instincts; we don't go off survival and replication value in a realistic environment anymore (because modern life is more than just about surviving and having sex--see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), but they are the foundation of the attraction switches, as in, triggering an attraction switch inherently indicates that you do have higher survival and replication value. Together, survival and replication value make up your "value", or how attractive you are as a possible mate. When women judge men, they look for the highest value mate because he is most likely to increase her chance of survival (and again, it happens subliminally). Similarly, when men judge women, they look for wide hips and large breasts because those indicate high replication value (even though, naturally, we don't know why we like it, we just do). This thread is about what causes attraction, therefor you must know where it comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Modernism surfaced around the end of the Middle Ages, it's a relatively a new concept.
Forgot, you also mentioned that survival of a species has nothing to do with evolution.... Survival of the fittest ring a bell?