PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionary Psychology: Male Mate Preferences



Nordhammer
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 06:22 AM
Evolutionary Psychology, Lecture 7: Male Mate Preferences.

http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm

Previous sessions have emphasised that males would tend to prefer short-term matings with as many partners as possible so as to maximise their reproductive potential. However, as this type of mating is not favoured by females, males are unlikely to have the opportunity to adopt this strategy. Males typically adopt more longer-term reproductive strategies revolving around commitments such as marriage. There are several advantages to this strategy:

As ancestral females would have demanded commitment before consenting to sex, males who failed to show commitment would lose out in the mating game.
Males who provided clear evidence of commitment would be able to attract a better quality female.
The male would increase the odds of paternity certainty, as he would engage in mate-guarding behaviours to reduce the possibility of cuckoldry.
The children of a stable relationship would be much more likely to survive.
What do men find attractive in women?

Buss (1999) points out that to be reproductively successful a male needed to mate with a female who has the capacity to produce children. Human female reproductive value cannot be assessed directly as ovulation is concealed (unlike most other mammals). However, there are several clues to a woman's reproductive value (the number of children a person of a given age is likely to have in the future) and ancestral males would have been selected for to detect and respond accordingly to these signals. Such signals would be 'honest' as they would be an accurate reflection of developmental and hormonal health.

1. Youth.
This is the most powerful cue to a woman's reproductive potential because she reaches her reproductive peak around the age of twenty, and her reproductive potential declines rapidly thereafter. In all studies of mate preferences a typical and strong finding is that males prefer females who are at their peak of reproductive potential. For example, in the cross-cultural survey carried out by Buss (1989) males in every one of the 37 societies assessed preferred younger wives, on average around 2 ½ years younger. As males age, they prefer mates who are increasingly younger (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992).

Of course, the preference for younger partners is not always to be predicted, if teenage males preferred younger partners then these females may not be old enough to bear children, we would therefore predict that teenage males would prefer slightly older females. Kenrick et al., (1996) asked teenage males and females (aged between 12-19) the ideal age of a dating partner, and the age limits that would be acceptable. Teenage males (unlike older males) preferred mates who were slightly older than themselves - they are unlikely to be successful because females at all age ranges prefer older males.

The male preference for youth is reflected in partner-wanted advertisements as males typically seek younger partners than themselves, this is recognised by women as they are likely to offer youth in their advertisements (Thiessen et al., 1993).

Buunk et al., (2001) examined minimum and maximum age preferences for mates across 5 different levels of relationship involvement in people aged 20-60. Women preferred partners around their own age regardless of the relationship involvement. However, irrespective of their own age, males preferred mates at the peak of reproductive capability (18-30) for short-term relationships or sexual fantasies. For long-term relationships however, males preferred mates who although younger than themselves, were sometimes above the age of maximum fertility. This may be because males realise that very young women would not find them attractive.

2. Beauty.
All theories of human mate selection based on evolutionary principles assume that attractiveness provides a reliable cue to the reproductive value of the female - signs of youth (clear unwrinkled skin, bright eyes, red full lips, and glossy hair) are all external indicators of youth, good health and reproductive capability. Males evolved the tendency to become sexually interested in such stimuli because selection favoured those who assessed their partner's acceptability for mating on the basis of such fertility cues. Males assign far greater significance to physical attractiveness than do females. In surveys of mate preferences it is consistently found that males report physical attractiveness as being more important in a potential partner than females (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

Physical attractiveness is a strong predictor of whether a woman will marry, and of the socioeconomic status of their spouse. For example, Townsend & Wasserman (1998) used photographs of individuals varying in attractiveness which were presented with a brief description varying in social status; degree of generosity and ambition. Students were asked to answer a series of questions concerning the individuals dating / sexual / marital desirability. They found that males would be willing to date and have sex with the most attractive individuals irrespective of their social status.

It used to be thought that standards of beauty were culturally determined, and individuals perceptions of beauty had to be learned ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"). Darwin noted a wide variety of differing cultural preferences involving beauty (grooming, body shape, adornments, hair style, cosmetics, clothing etc) and stated that "It is certainly not true that there is in the mind of man any universal standard of beauty with respect to the human body".

However, Langlois et al., (1990) studied infant's responses to faces differing in attractiveness. Infants aged 2-3 months and 6-8 months were presented with faces that had been pre-rated by adults and both groups gazed longer at the faces that had been judged as being attractive than those judged as being unattractive. In another study the same authors found that infants played longer with dolls with attractive faces than ones with unattractive faces. This suggests that beauty preferences may in part be innate.

Cunningham et al., (1995) proposed a 'multiple fitness model' which emphasised that beauty is not a single quality but instead reflects a combination of desirable neonate, sexually mature, expressive, and grooming qualities. Within and between cultures, individuals may display variance in response to specific features, but will respond in a similar manner to the features as a whole. We should thus expect similar judgements in response to attractive/unattractive faces. They presented males from 4 ethnic-cultural groups in 13 countries with Asian, black, Hispanic, and white female faces. The average correlation between racial groups in their rating of attractiveness was r = .93, exposure to Western media had no influence on the ratings. Males in all cultures were attracted to female faces displaying large eyes, small noses, high cheekbones, small chin and a large smile; body shape preferences did differ though with black males preferring 'heavier' bodies.

Similarly, Langlois et al., (2000) conducted meta-analyses comparing socialisation with evolutionary predictions concerning cross-cultural agreements/differences concerning perceptions of attractiveness. They discovered remarkable within and between cultural consistency between rater's in judging who is or is not attractive.

Contrast effects: The above studies imply that males have consistent perceptions of beauty but such perceptions can vary. Kenrick et al., (1989) examined the effects of exposure to attractive nude females on male sexual attraction judgements. Participants who were currently in a relationship viewed 16 pictures of attractive nude females or 16 art slides. They were then asked to rate their current relationship and state the extent to which they loved their partner and found them sexually attractive. Males who had previously viewed the attractive female nudes showed a significant reduction in ratings for their partner.

Kanazawa & Still (2000) assessed the cumulative effects of males being exposed to young attractive women. They analysed a large data set of more than 32,000 males and found that being male and a secondary school teacher/college lecturer statistically increased their likelihood of divorce.

Which facial features are males focussing on when judging beauty?

a) Skin condition: Skin condition may be a reliable signal of female health and fertility and flawless skin is one of the most universally desired female features (Etcoff, 1999). Skin condition is an 'honest' signal because it reflects the ratio of sex hormones (estrogen and testosterone), for example women with higher than average levels of testosterone have more acne and facial hair (Lucky, 1995). Females are aware of the importance of flawless skin to males and spend a great deal of time and energy removing facial hair and applying make-up/lotions to their skin. In addition to skin quality, Fink et al., (2001) proposed that lighter skin is an honest sign of youthfulness, interestingly skin tone alters throughout the menstrual cycle becoming darker during the non-fertile phase, during pregnancy, and in women who use the contraceptive pill.

Van den Berghe & Frost (1986) have proposed that changes in female skin colour may enable males to distinguish more fertile females from less fertile ones. Fink et al., (2001) asked males to judge the attractiveness of female faces that had been manipulated for colour and texture. Smooth skin was found to be most attractive though they found no evidence that males preferred paler skin with slightly reddish skin being most favoured.

b) Symmetry: While there is a broad consistency in the judgement of faces as being attractive or unattractive, it remains difficult to identify exactly the key features involved. Faces created by combining individual faces into composites are viewed as being more attractive than the individual faces themselves and this was initially thought to reflect a preference for averageness. However, in combining individual faces to make composites, symmetry is increased and facial blemishes are reduced. Grammer & Thornhill (1994) argued that males would prefer symmetrical female faces because such symmetry could only be produced in healthy individuals able to resist genetic and environmental disturbances. They created composite male and female faces and asked males and females to judge them for attractiveness, sexiness, health and dominance. The female composite faces were judged as being more attractive and sexy than the individual photos and this was due to their reduced asymmetry.

c) Neoteny: A key feature of female facial attractiveness is the extent of neotenous features that the face displays. Such features (large eyes, high cheek bones, small nose, small chins, full lips, short eye-chin distance etc.,) are regarded as being very attractive and may be seen as an indicator of youth, and hence reproductive potential. Any cues to illness or advanced age (wrinkles, grey hair, poor complexion, facial blemishes, poor teeth etc) are universally rated as being unattractive. Johnson & Franklin (1993) used a computer program, which allowed participants to morph female faces until they had achieved an ‘ideal’ face. The final face had proportions indicative of a 14-year-old.

3. Body size/shape: Standards for body size vary between cultures, for example in Western societies males prefer average-slim body sizes but in cultures where food is scare plumpness is a sign of adequate nutrition, health and good social standing. However, according to Singh (1993) the distribution of body fat may be an honest signal of reproductive status and capability. Differences in body fat distribution are minimal in infancy, childhood and old age, and maximal during early reproductive life. After puberty, males deposit tissue on the upper body whilst females deposit tissue in the thighs and buttocks. These sex differences in fat distribution can be assessed by measuring the waist at its narrowest point, and the hip at the level of the buttocks, and computing a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). After puberty the female WHR becomes significantly lower than that of the male - the typical female range being between 0.67-0.80; while the typical male range is 0.85 - 0.95. The WHR is unique to humans and may be an adaptation signalling fertility.

A growing body of evidence indicates that the WHR is an accurate indicator of reproductive status; as circulating estrogen lowers WHR and testosterone raises it. For example, in girls of the same body weight, those with lower WHR’s exhibit earlier pubertal endocrine activity; whilst older women with higher WHR’s have greater difficulty in becoming pregnant - it has been estimated that a 0.1 unit increase in WHR decreases the probability of conception by 30%. WHR also signals health status as the incidence of certain diseases (diabetes, hypertension, heart problems, strokes, etc) vary with body fat distribution - a high WHR indicates a greater propensity to have such problems.

It is therefore likely that males would have evolved mechanisms (conscious or unconscious) to detect and use WHR to infer potential mate value; it is also likely that females could enhance their attractiveness by emphasising and advertising a low WHR through ornamentation and clothing. Singh (1993) asked participants to examine 12 randomly arranged line drawings which represented four levels of WHR at three levels of body weight (underweight, normal, and overweight) and rank them in order of attractiveness. In all weight categories, both male and female participants aged 18-22 rated the figure with the lowest WHR as a being youthful, healthy, reproductively capable and as the most attractive.

In a follow-up study, older participants aged 30-60 carried out the same procedure and produced the same ratings, overall males and females rated the figure of normal weight with the WHR of 0.7 (N7) as being attractive, youthful, healthy, and reproductively capable. Interestingly, the underweight figure with a WHR of 0.7 (U7) whilst being rated as the most youthful, was not rated as being the most attractive or reproductively capable. This is perhaps because this figure is perceived as being sexually immature. WHR could magnify the sexual attractiveness of the ‘hourglass figure’ - shapely breasts and broad hips set against a narrow waist. A high WHR may give off warning signals of low reproductive value and high disease risk, but may also give the appearance of pregnancy.

In a follow-up study Singh & Young (1995) addressed the role of differing body size, WHR and breast size in attractiveness. They found that the slender figures were judged to be more attractive, healthy, feminine looking and desirable for both short- and long-term relationships, the slender figures with low WHR and large breasts were the most preferred. In a second experiment the authors focused on the possible influence of hip size because two women can have an identical WHR in spite of differences in hips or buttock size. They devised a new set of stimuli in which all of the figures had a WHR of 0.7 but they differed only in terms of breast size and hip size. Attractiveness ratings were affected by hip and breast sizes, figures with large breasts and small hips being rated as significantly more attractive than figures with small breasts and small hips. The figures with large hips were rated as being unattractive irrespective of breast size.

4. Behavioural Characteristics.
A key problem for males is that they lack paternity certainty, those males that were able to reduce the risk of cuckoldry would have had greater reproductive fitness than those who could not. It would therefore be predicted that males should have developed adaptations to seek partners (particularly for long-term relationships) who would remain faithful. Chastity is valued highly in most cultures but there are large differences in its extent (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Males in all cultures view promiscuity and unfaithfulness as being particularly undesirable in a potential long-term partner.

Summary.

According to predictions generated by evolutionary theory, males should find the following characteristics most attractive:

Symmetrical facial features.

Neotenous facial features (e.g. small nose, large eyes).

Clear, unwrinkled, unblemished and hairless skin.

Bright eyes, full red lips, glossy hair.

A slim waist and hips, large breasts, a WHR around 0.7.

Be younger than the male.

Have a 'good' reputation, i.e. chastity and faithfulness.

Be healthy, and have a 'youthful gait'.

Be kind, caring, good with children, nice personality and intelligent.


References.

Buunk, B.P., Dijkstra, P., Kenrick, D.T., & Warntjes, A. (2001). Age preferences for mates as related to gender, own age, and involvement level. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 22: 241-250.

Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12: 1-49.

Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New science of the Mind, chapter 5.

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100: 204-232.

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest. New York: Doubleday.

Cunningham, M.R., Roberts, A.R., Wu, C-H., Barbee, A.P., & Druen, P.B. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 261-279.

Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (2001). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness in relation to skin texture and color. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115: 92-99.

Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108: 233-242.

Johnson, V.S., & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 183 - 199.

Kanazawa, S., & Still, M.C. (2000). Teaching may be hazardous to your marriage. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 21: 185-190.

Kenrick, D.T., Gutierres, S.E., & Goldberg, L.L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica judgements of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 159-167.

Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 15: 75-133.

Kenrick, D.T., Keefe, R.C., Gabrielidis, C., & Cornelius, J.S. (1996). Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: support for an evolutionary model of life history strategies. Child Development, 67: 1499-1511.

Langlois, J.H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A.J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 390-423.

Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Casey, R.J., Ritter, J.M., Rieser-Danner, L.A., & Jenkins, V.Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: rudiments of a stereotype. Developmental Psychology, 23: 363-369.

Lucky, A.W. (1995). Hormonal correlates of acne and hirsutism. The American Journal of Medicine, 98: 89-94.

Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women’s attractiveness: the critical role of the waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4: 297 - 321.

Singh, D., & Young, R.K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: role in judgements of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16: 483-507.

Thiessen, D., Young, R.K., & Burroughs, R. (1993). Lonely hearts advertisements reflect sexually dimorphic mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 209-229.

Townsend, J.M. (1993). Sexuality and partner selection: sex differences among college students. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 305 - 330.

Van den Burghe, P.L., & Frost, P. (1986). Skin colour preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: a case of gene-culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9: 87-118.

xakep
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 10:11 AM
Long article, but well worth it.

Scoob
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Great stuff.

Agrippa
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 04:44 PM
A good summary of the universal traits preferred by males usually.

Although you can see that culture can change everything. If its about todays women and especially their character, some men, at least those which do not plan to have any family, might think somewhat different.
At least in our decadent culture of today.

Scoob
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 04:50 PM
A good summary of the universal traits preferred by males usually.

Although you can see that culture can change everything. If its about todays women and especially their character, some men, at least those which do not plan to have any family, might think somewhat different.
At least in our decadent culture of today.
Modern Western society, possibly because of Capitalism, seems to put humans in some kind of "cheap" behavioral mode - where everything is valued very cheaply because of easily-obtaintainable, low-quality goods. Things are not carefully weighed, including mate preferences. It's the "f**k of the month club" mentality.

Food, friendship, family, etc - are all weighed very cheaply and simply used for the moment instead of carefuly chosen and cultivated. The thing that people take more seriously, at least in the upper strata of society, is "career" - which takes precedence even over family, which is for society a very bad strategy, since family should always come first.

This tendency is strong in the USA, hence the valid hostility of people from more traditional societies towards American culture. I attribute the tendency probably to Capitalism, and also possibly to multiculturalism and the lack of strong social bonds in everyday life that it creates.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Food, friendship, family, etc - are all weighed very cheaply and simply used for the moment instead of carefuly chosen and cultivated. The thing that people take more seriously, at least in the upper strata of society, is "career" - which takes precedence even over family, which is for society a very bad strategy, since family should always come first.

This tendency is strong in the USA, hence the valid hostility of people from more traditional societies towards American culture. I attribute the tendency probably to Capitalism, and also possibly to multiculturalism and the lack of strong social bonds in everyday life that it creates.Not all of us have families, Scoob. My focus over the last decade has been career and it has served me well. It's something I've always been able to depend on, unlike family, friends, and mates. It also fufuills the human need to be productive and contribute to societal well-being, at least in my case. We aren't all so blessed to have a spouse, 2.5 kids, and a dog. Some of us have to settle for stellar professional careers with fat retirement packages. ;)

Scoob
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Not all of us have families, Scoob. My focus over the last decade has been career and it has served me well. It's something I've always been able to depend on, unlike family, friends, and mates. It also fufuills the human need to be productive and contribute to societal well-being, at least in my case. We aren't all so blessed to have a spouse, 2.5 kids, and a dog. Some of us have to settle for stellar professional careers with fat retirement packages. ;)
I'm not criticizing the individual, since I too feel these pressures. I'm criticizing the social trend. And it is quite negative for society. Career should come only after family IMO in a healthy society.

I feel that creating a life with another human being touches on something Divine. Work is just work - it can benefit other people in a material way or create a path for something better, but without an inner feeling of love or unity with other humans, it's all futile, it's all just junk - at least that is how many people feel about it in the end.

Sigrun Christianson
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 05:35 PM
I'm not criticizing the individual, since I too feel these pressures. I'm criticizing the social trend. And it is quite negative for society. Career should come only after family IMO in a healthy society.

I feel that creating a life with another human being touches on something Divine. Work is just work - it can benefit other people in a material way or create a path for something better, but without an inner feeling of love or unity with other humans, it's all futile, it's all just junk - at least that is how many people feel about it in the end.I think it's good for society. People like me, who are materialistic and self-centered, who put career aspirations and tangable wealth before marriage and children, are less likely to have families and therefore less likely to spawn a brood of neglected children who will in turn weigh down society with their emotional problems. It's eugenics at it's finest, really. It's preferable that people like me don't procreate, but being the selfish bitch that I am, I will anyway because it's all about what I want.

I love Baby Gap. ;)

Scoob
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 05:58 PM
I think it's good for society. People like me, who are materialistic and self-centered, who put career aspirations and tangable wealth before marriage and children, are less likely to have families and therefore less likely to spawn a brood of neglected children who will in turn weigh down society with their emotional problems. It's eugenics at it's finest, really. It's preferable that people like me don't procreate, but being the selfish bitch that I am, I will anyway because it's all about what I want.

I love Baby Gap. ;)
This is an irresponsible attitude. It might seem fine for the individual, but the social effects are horrible. Look at Blacks for an idea of where it leads people.

However, I'll add that having children only when you can afford them and care for them is good.

Agrippa
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 06:23 PM
I think it's good for society. People like me, who are materialistic and self-centered, who put career aspirations and tangable wealth before marriage and children, are less likely to have families and therefore less likely to spawn a brood of neglected children who will in turn weigh down society with their emotional problems. It's eugenics at it's finest, really. It's preferable that people like me don't procreate, but being the selfish bitch that I am, I will anyway because it's all about what I want.

I just hope you dont mean that serious because its exactly that attitude which you probably caricatured, that is destroying our folks, our race(s), our values, our future and all what has any worth on this planet. In fact its an attitude that could harm whole mankind and the future of our ecosystem.

This social trend is highly contraselective because the most women which follow it first are those which are usually more than average - tall, healthy, intelligent, educated. There genetic featues will be lost, their knowledge and what they would have brought to their children will be lost - it will be almost as would they have never lived!

What does that mean? Such societies select against their best parts and destroy themselves on the long run. This sort of thinking and social-darwinism is biological and social destructive.

The same women with other values were the perfect mothers because they saw their status, their social success in raising up healthy, intelligent children with high status.

So if women like that say they are not able to do so, there are just two things to say: Mistakes by social environment and by education and the selfish attempt to legitimate it with the sentence: "I would be a bad mother blabla..."

Emotional problems are of course the result of this wrong values and ill social conditions in which they live first and personal-inherited second. So legitimating the sick system and own behavious means to minimize the real reasons for this destructive attitude.

The only real legitimation might be for such a women if she doesnt find a proper man, but even that should be no excuse if its about the survival of the own line, own fold, own race and the better parts of humanity as a whole.

If such women dont are Nobel prize winners or produce artificial superhumans they CAN NEVER BE AS USEFUL AND PRODUCTIVE THAN THEY WOULD BE AS MOTHERS NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!

Because almost everything what they do in their job could do a man, a foreign, a lower status-less intelligent etc. woman also, or could be done with a family as the more important part of life.

On the other hand the family, the children of such women are not that easy, if at all, replaceable.
That means that such attitude harm the collective on the long run and has no utility at all.

You might be trapped in the pathological tendencies of our today Western society, for which I dont just blame capitalism general but Liberalism-Marxism first, thats ok, but never defend this pestilence of humanity and say its good also...
Women which think like that should question their whole life style, life concept and value system.

Such behavious is irrational, biological and for the own genes/line destructive and just irresponsible.

On long run such women which just stay alone without family and any future from their 50...

For what should they have money then? To substitute the lack of a filled and decent life with further consumption?
As individuals they are both victims and perpetrators, as a whole those which believe in such life concept and still promote it not just for themselves but legimitate it for others also are just perpetrators.


Sorry but I cant stand such comments even if they might have been caricatured...

Nordhammer
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 07:04 PM
I think one of the issues with more intelligent people breeding is that they're just harder to please. They want a longterm mate of high quality, so they often have fewer children or none at all because of this strictness. Whereas average people find mates of their status and intelligence much more often and are more easily pleased.

Nordhammer
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 07:18 PM
I think this is a good point about the flaw of computer composites, median being most attractive:

However, in combining individual faces to make composites, symmetry is increased and facial blemishes are reduced. Grammer & Thornhill (1994) argued that males would prefer symmetrical female faces because such symmetry could only be produced in healthy individuals able to resist genetic and environmental disturbances. They created composite male and female faces and asked males and females to judge them for attractiveness, sexiness, health and dominance. The female composite faces were judged as being more attractive and sexy than the individual photos and this was due to their reduced asymmetry.

Nordhammer
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 07:19 PM
If you liked this thread give me some rep. ;)

Agrippa
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 07:22 PM
I think one of the issues with more intelligent people breeding is that they're just harder to please. They want a longterm mate of high quality, so they often have fewer children or none at all because of this strictness. Whereas average people find mates of their status and intelligence much more often and are more easily pleased.

You are right for our today totally degenerated Western society but not for all times.

Furthermore I would formulate it different: They have often such high and totally unrealistic demands which can be never fullfilled on the long run which must lead to problems in the partnership.

It is not by chance that a hedomatic character especially of the upper class is dominating their free time and even certain sorts of sexual behavious (bisexual, sadomaso etc. practices)

Partnerships are for them today not there for the future, for their lines, their community etc. but just for fun.
So if the fun (the time of first amorousness) is over and reality is coming (just look at the fucking and by god and me cursed series "Sex and the city" which promotes such lifestyle and "values") they have soon enough.

People like that have too high demands for their partners but not for themselves. For themselves they have just demands for their job but in nothing else in their whole life what is of course the main problem because much of their work is useless or even contraproductive on the long run whereas their behavious in the group, as social subjects, for their collective and family is an absolute catastrophy.

It is flattering to say they "search for high quality" because even they find it they are not satisfied and dont make compromises.
Probably their next partner (must be) is worse, but hey...we live in a free and liberal society which is hedonistic-materialistic and high demands, quality and strict moral exists just in the economic system which is destroying our societies and planet...

To educate girls/women and boys/men that way is not mistake but the trial to make perfect slaves to plutocracy, perfect producers and consumers out of the best parts of our group.

To give them more values than for their job would just mean to burden them and to decrease their effectiveness in the current system.

They are burnt and destroyed like the forest of Ireland, Spain and Dalmatia. To use them for the moment, for maximum profit and a stabilized (by the "American way of life", by hedomatic lifestyle and substitution) society for the plutocracy.

Do they masterminds think about the future of our groups? Of course not.
Do this people do? Most not and thats the result of their reeducation.

Maybe they think about it, but they dont do anything, at least not what they should do, namely to get a family first.

Nordhammer
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 07:38 PM
You are right for our today totally degenerated Western society but not for all times.

Furthermore I would formulate it different: They have often such high and totally unrealistic demands which can be never fullfilled on the long run which must lead to problems in the partnership.

It is not by chance that a hedomatic character especially of the upper class is dominating their free time and even certain sorts of sexual behavious (bisexual, sadomaso etc. practices)

Partnerships are for them today not there for the future, for their lines, their community etc. but just for fun.


I agree with you. Some men and women have perhaps unrealistic expectations. It's even to the point now where a woman will prefer to have a child on her own by invitro without a male partner. It's better than not having any children at all, but it's sad in a way that we are that individualistic and uncompromising. Jodie Foster, a blond, blue-eyed Nordish woman who is reported to have an IQ around 160 is an example. She had a child by invitro. At least she had her own child and the child is non-Jewish white, right? ;)

Short-term partners are a different matter. As in my other thread, females prefer men who are more attractive or have some kind of erotic appeal without regard to long-term qualities. This is where racemixing usually occurs with white women. When they are younger and more apt to indulge in hedonism, they sully themselves with black or nonwhite men... whereas it would occur much less if they were judging them for long-term partners. A long-term relationship between a black male and white female is very rare. Although this doesn't solve the problem with white men and Asian women. So especially in our current multiracial environment, I'm against this individualistic and hedonistic idea of short-term partners.

Scoob
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 08:47 PM
For me one thing I know that the Hispanics and Italian-Americans (the traditional ones) are right about is the primacy of Family. In the USA this takes the form of a Christian religious stance, but it is really a stance for traditional values.

Agrippa, can you say more about how Marxism-Liberalism promotes this kind of destruction of the family? I am interested in all sides of this problem.

I agree completely with what Agrippa says on this thread. Family comes first. America has become a society with no heart and soul because the material shell of existence, in other words bare subsistence coupled with trite consumer recreation, has taken precendence over basic internal values. Our society is extremely superficial and "cheap."

Even the way Americans eat is cheap and trite: hastily-prepared and consumed food, not really enjoyed or savored or prepared with love. Recreational sex for a few quick orgasms and puppy love, then on to the next partner for more of the same.

And Agrippa's point about work is well-made. What job really contributes so much to society, more than bringing a new life into the world? Even a heart surgeon does less than one good mother, in my opinion.

nicholas
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 08:55 PM
Could you post what the female mate preferences are?

I don't see intelligence being the female preferene, rather physical size and strength.

Nicholas

Awar
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 09:41 PM
There's no future in wishful thinking and complaining about women,
it's much better to learn more about them and to try finding how to meet their preferences.

Agrippa
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 09:57 PM
Agrippa, can you say more about how Marxism-Liberalism promotes this kind of destruction of the family? I am interested in all sides of this problem.

Well, I wrote longer articles including that issues in German, but I think you cant read German dont you?

Its not that easy in English but I will try to explain it in short.

First the liberal position is clear - Capitalism comes first - individual life concepts are made for such kind of society.

There could be other ways to cope with Capitalism, but this is the liberal one...

Family and ethnic bounaries are just things which burden "the free individual in the free market" and are therefore a contradiction for people which want to be "successful" in this system.

Both Marxism and Liberalism promote some sort of radical egalitarism - there are no (inherited-genetic) differences, especially not if its about the value of individuals.

The only value they have is a materialistic one - as much as they "produce", if they are disciplined members in the process of production and in the economy.

If you dont make any further distinction, kinship and individual genetic features are not important. Therefore children have no value than as "workers and as fun-makers" for the parents.
You can get workers from outside whereas women which have to raise more children arent in the production process involved as much as wished.

They say both, Marxists and Liberals, that women and men are basically the same and the differences are "culture made", just social constructs which should be deconstructed and promote, because of the value system of work-production and out-of-house working employer-employee relationships just one model for that: Women must do the same things as men and fit in the male value system - they must be soldiers, construction worker, politicians etc...

To fit in this they must not just accept this (male) new value system but dismiss the old one!

So even if there are enough workers but not enough children, for ideological reasons, for the concept of universal life concepts for all humans, no matter which sex, race and individual features they have, a male oriented life concept and "value system" msut be promoted for women.

Because it is already established and there is no status in this society than by a job and earning money.
Therefore if you are a radical egalitarian and have such unrealistic concept of humans you must educate the women in a way so they can get a similar status.

You must destroy or at least question old values and life concepts because Marxism-Social Constructivism says that all old value systems which distinguished people (including "male-female") are social constructs to oppress and exploit people.

Liberals adopted such a view early too but fully agreed with it in the cold war in which they wanted to be "more egalitarian and liberal/free" than the Communists.

But once they adopted such a view family and traditional values for women must be questioned seriously.
Such things were seen as "oppression" and the only way to "free the women" is that they adopt male value systems. This is especially widespread in the educated liberal or neomarxistic upper class and in schools which are oriented on them.

What does intelligent women think? They want status, status means to be free and to earn money as a member of the production circle.
The conclusion is they dont just are career and materialistic oriented, no, they disregard women which still are traditional.

They think they are "to stupid" and "still live in oppression" whereas they by about themselves say they are "free".

In fact they are just slaves of the companies and system, but ok, not longer of the family and "their men".
Is that more freedom? No, its just another hedomatic and liberal lifeconcept.
Now, as it is established, the Neoliberals use it because they promote an universal value system for all humans and cant go a step back and because women are so involved in the new economy as cheap and willing workers (which undergo the male unions and working ethic of the old times) that they dont want to lose this ressource.

But the main reason, the ideological background was Marxistic, the liberals just adopted this ideas for an universalistic concept of what is right and moral in the Cold War.
As you can see Islam is strongly attacked because of his traditional view on women.

The Neoliberals/Conservatives use old Marxist ideas for their economic and universalistic moral concepts.

Without such egalitarian and materialistic ideas, the life concepts of "modern Western women" wouldnt be possible.
This is combined with the fun society which is hedomatic oriented. To fight decadence another ideology would be needed than the liberal-egalitarian one but that is against the mainstream, the to-day rules and is not "profitable" for the Plutocracy.

Agrippa
Friday, May 7th, 2004, 10:01 PM
There's no future in wishful thinking and complaining about women,
it's much better to learn more about them and to try finding how to meet their preferences.

On a personal level I would usually agree, on a collective level the only solution is to change the preferences which they got from the ruling ideology and the liberal social structures.

The fight against this structures is necessary and too much tolerance for women which act crazy and irrational is not acceptable because it leads to further destruction.

Of course its necessary and good to know more about men and women to make a system which fit both and give both a life concept which they can accept and which is effective too.

Scoob
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 09:09 AM
On a personal level I would usually agree, on a collective level the only solution is to change the preferences which they got from the ruling ideology and the liberal social structures.

The fight against this structures is necessary and too much tolerance for women which act crazy and irrational is not acceptable because it leads to further destruction.

Of course its necessary and good to know more about men and women to make a system which fit both and give both a life concept which they can accept and which is effective too.
Current wage situation in the USA is that one man cannot afford to support a wife and even 2 children on a typical job. 60-70 years ago, a working man (even working class) could work a job and feed 5 kids and a wife. Now both husband and wife must work just to "make ends meet" for the two of them, and even one child is a great financial burden.

And yet Americans are encouraged to think that working their jobs is somehow ennobling - as if pushing papers for some corporate entity really helps the human race or "society" somehow. Europeans need to remember that in the USA, the 40 hour work week with benefits is a thing of the past - most Americans work much longer hours, or have part-time jobs with no benefits (no health insurance, no paid vacation, etc).

It's not like in Europe where shops close midday for lunch and then close after 5 pm, and people have one month of paid vacation. That would sound like a paradise to most Americans.

Our society is more and more stress-filled. We have high worker output because we work absurd numbers of hours each week on average.

Agrippa
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 02:30 PM
It's not like in Europe where shops close midday for lunch and then close after 5 pm, and people have one month of paid vacation. That would sound like a paradise to most Americans.

That is in most parts over in Europe too and financial plus career problems are at least in the statistic the No. 1 reason to have no or less children.
Imo thats insofar a lie as they just dont want to stop their hedonistic lifestyle and burden themselves with responsibility.

But you have to distinguish upper and lower classes. What I said about the hedomatic-career oriented pathological view of women and many men is mainly visible in the upper class and middle class which is conditioned to think like that.

In the lower classes and lower middle class you are right, some want children but they want to live as humans as well.

Thats a social and economic problem in itself which must be solved.

But what America and the whole West needs is a totally different value system. Work and money secondary and status must be represented in many other forms as well.
The whole social space must be completely reorganized. As long as that doesnt happen I see no bright future for the majority, neither in individuals, families, for the communities, for the race and ecosystem.

Sigrun Christianson
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 04:39 PM
Current wage situation in the USA is that one man cannot afford to support a wife and even 2 children on a typical job. 60-70 years ago, a working man (even working class) could work a job and feed 5 kids and a wife. Now both husband and wife must work just to "make ends meet" for the two of them, and even one child is a great financial burden.That is simply untrue. I've heard many men use this argument to get their wives out of the home and back into the workplace so they can afford to buy more toys (newer trucks, a boat, $1500 set golf club).

There are plenty of jobs available with good pay, health insurance, and lots of vacation time, but you have to have the education and the drive to get them. I work one full-time job that pays well, has full health, dental and vision insurance, employer-paid life insurance, educational reimbursement, and several weeks of vacation time each year. I could easily support a family (not that I would since that is a man's job ;) ). My Mother doesn't work, either. My parents live very well off of my Dad's income alone. My grandmothers never worked and they had seven children each.

The only people I ever hear complain about a lack of well-paying jobs and the necessity of two-income families are men. Forgive me if I sound like I'm male-bashing here, but modern men are such babies. I've met 1000+ women who support themselves and their children on one full-time job and still clean, cook, grocery shop, attend PTA meetings, and take care of family & friends along with all of life's other obligations. It sucks, it's a lot of hard work and not much time for pleasure, but it can be done and is done by lots of people.

I don't have a family so I get to spend my money on toys and other hedonistic, materialistic, and selfish consumerist recreations. However, I fully realize that having children means that you don't get to do that anymore (probably why I haven't had any yet :D ). When you have a bunch of brats, you don't get to buy a new SUV every other year, spend $300 on a pair of shoes, or even have cable or cell phones. You cut out the frills and stick to basics - that means no golf club memberships and no freakin' Xbox. No using the credit card to buy drinks at the local pub or parts for that motorcylce you always meant to restore. The families who need two income are those who want all the extra luxuries to keep up with the Jones or those who have zero education and can't get decent jobs.


And yet Americans are encouraged to think that working their jobs is somehow ennobling - as if pushing papers for some corporate entity really helps the human race or "society" somehow. Europeans need to remember that in the USA, the 40 hour work week with benefits is a thing of the past - most Americans work much longer hours, or have part-time jobs with no benefits (no health insurance, no paid vacation, etc).Most Americans work much longer hours? Where did you get that from? Have any stats? Even Wal-Mart employees making $7.00 an hour get health insurance and paid vacation time. The newest labor law regulations just passed restored overtime pay to thousands of management and middle management workers who were not previously eligible for that pay. Effective July 1st in California, people can get disability pay to take care of an ill family member or a new baby. California also has a program, as do most states, to provide low-cost ($9.00 per month!!!) medical, dental & vision insurance to children under age 19. The really poverty-stricken people can get Medicaid... which actually has more extensive coverage than my private insurance which costs over $400 per month.

I work 44 hours one week and 36 the next week, with every other Friday off, and full benefits. I love getting overtime hours, too, cha-ching. If it weren't for people like me spending our disposable incomes on trivial trinkets, the cashiers and clerks at Wal-Mart and the departments stores wouldn't have jobs at all. You're welcome. :D

The point is that it can be done and it is done all over this country. Millions of people survive and prosper off of a single income because they know how to do it. The jobs are out there and waiting for qualified applicants. The benefits are their for those who know how to get them.

Scoob
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 04:57 PM
Sigrun: Interesting, thanks for your input on this. But the fact remains that more and more jobs are being converted to part-time work without benefits. Companies are outsourcing to India and elsewhere (including in tech sector, which used to be thought of as an American specialty and safe from that kind of thing) or simply cutting jobs. This is a major problem. I'm glad you have a good job, but it's not what the majority are experiencing in this country.

Agrippa: I doubt people would restructure their basic beliefs unless there were some kind of real crisis. Politicians, especially in the US system, are conservative wimps afraid to venture out with bold new ideas. They are not leaders in most cases.

What would the new ideology be called? I don't think framing things in 20th century terms would be useful.

RusViking
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 06:49 PM
This is a very opinionated statement that offers no proof. Post #24, Christianson.

I think perhaps you are very impressed with yourself.

Agrippa
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Sigrun you made good points because its true that the radical emancipation and hedomatic revolution of the 60's changed men's behaviour as well.

If we speak about people which can afford a decent life with more than 3 children and a women which doesnt work, well, it depends were you are living, what education, intelligence etc. level you have and so on, but fact is, that more and more people CANNOT AFFORD IT, at least not if they want to have a decent life and I dont speak about luxury, at least not what understand under it.
And look at it, there are more and more even well-educated white people which CANNOT AFFORD IT!

In fact men and women lose economically. Why? Because a family is simply cheaper, you can buy other and bigger things than in a single household.
In my opinion this is one reason why even advertising propagates singles and small families.

Such singles have more private work at home as well because they can manage the household with others (with the exception of Mexican cheap charwomen and Asian cooks in cheap restaurants McDonalds etc...).
The women is losing because she lose time, has more to work and no stable partnership.
Mens lose because they dont have a managed household, no right for the children and must pay for it because of the idiotic law.

The fundamental problem began not just with emancipation and women work, but even earlier with out-of-house jobs of men, of the majority of men.

Because in earlier times the householf was made up by men and women, they had not just a "loving" partnership, but worked together for the future of their own, their children, their line etc...

Because out-of-house work is necessary in a modern economy we cant go back but we should have made replacements of the older structures which function as well.

That was what ideologies basically tried imo with the exception of the liberal ideology which had no such idea at all because its all up to the "individual".
But as we can see that doesnt work at all.


What would the new ideology be called? I don't think framing things in 20th century terms would be useful.

Right, thats the reason why I call myself a "Progressive Collectivist".

What we need is a collective organized society which contains sociobiological views about Eugenic and kinship and is on the other hand ecological and social oriented.
Which organizes the whole society in cells hierarchically and leads the whole collective in the useful direction.

The economy should be basically capitalistic but with a strong state sector and regulation.

The ISI-strategy might be on the long run quite useful at least in a big economic space with protection duties. At least if the major crisis will come which I believe.

Family and social space in general should be completely reorganized. You might say that difficult, but if you look at what even intelligent people believe today because of the good propaganda, well, you can change things with a good idea very fast when the crisis will come and good people will work together.

Ok, thats the crux, but who said it will be easy?

About the Progressive Collectivist rules = http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4310&page=2&pp=20

My only problem is time and language because its not that easy to say what I want, which is partly quite complicated, in English.

But I thing some of my ideas might be a good alternative and I know others have similar (not the same) views at least in parts.

On the long run (really long! :) ) I thing there are not that much alternatives to value system like I promote because its oriented on the reality of life and what we HAVE to do to survive on a high level or develop mankind further.

The main problem is that today many people believe in the absolut freedom of the individual at least as long it doesnt harm the (pseudo-) liberal society.
It will be a big step to say yes you have certain rights and freedom but you are in the end just one small part in a bigger system for which exist and not the other way around.

For this realization people need a real crisis, thats for sure. Of course people wouldnt just lose because my and similar ideologies give very much back too.
Not just more common sence/spirit, but also a strong believe, common aims and the idea of an absolute justice in which people cannot do what they want and everything what some do (at least the really importants things) must have its justification in the interests of the collective.

From that the most will benefit although everyone might have to sacrifice as well.

EDIT: In the new statistic of Central Europe/German people every 2nd man wants children or more children but just every 3rd women.

So they live even more in their hedomatic bubble as most men which is something I can see in my personal environment as well.
Many women are generous towards friends and their pets, but they dont want to have children just because they would take their "freedom" to travel, go to party, have casual sex and concentrate on career.

If a man had 2 such women he might not have too much respect and faith in women any more.
It would be unlogical if he would invest his money in such women which have the RIGHT to take his children away, have even in marriage casual sex (law changed in Europe) and are strongly oriented on their "friends".

They are more often totally integrated in this liberal-individualistic lifestyle and -concept.

Of course advertising, education, companies, political ideologies manipulated them, but that doesnt change the bad result...

Men getting worse and worse as well, but its mainly secondary.

Imo men were "paid" by many women, with casual sex and pornography to accept "emancipation" and this unnatural behaviour.

Its the same like it is with Bonobos, this dumb apes we know. This apes are weaker and more sex oriented than chimps, but women have more power because they work a) more together than chimps and b) have often sex with each other and the Bonobo "man".

Our society goes in the same direction.

But if you get chimps with this "peaceful" or better sex-driven Bonobos together, bet how long they survive...

Its the same with our culture, the Indoeuropean structues were useful and effective, even the adapted Christian were in way, liberal arent and the lifestyle of women today is biological destructive and its not just the fault of the men.

Because you should ask first why this women are alone. Of course many are not responsible for their situation, but many are.

RusViking
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 09:02 PM
But if you get chimps with this "peaceful" or better sex-driven Bonobos together, bet how long they survive...
.
The above quote points to the real problem. Bonobos would become extinct. Emancipation of women (they become policy makers) + effeminization of the males = Dead community.

"Throughout history the civilized centers have succombed to the barbarian fringes due to the effeminization of the males." A great quote by whom I no longer remember.

Scoob
Saturday, May 8th, 2004, 11:20 PM
I think when people are part of a bigger social structure that they feel at home in, they feel more powerful, more free, more happy, and more "spiritually" connected.

One demotivating factor of liberal/capitalist society is the chaos and lack of direction for the individual. In Christian times, people felt happy to live their lives in devotion to God. Now, people imagine their job is some higher purpose, but feel that it really is not, or fear that it's just futile in the end. Family is a type of higher purpose. Of course this society breeds unscrupulous/immoral people who don't care whether they contribute to a greater good, and this is a type of de-evolution IMO.

But what kind of concrete policies could a politician in the US or a European nation advocate to advance towards Progressive Collectivism? Perhaps strong financial incentives for families and stay at home moms?

In the USA a big problem is that upper level professionals not only work outside of home (as most people do), but work in other cities, going to work in airplanes or trains and seeing the family only on weekends, if they can. It's considered very bad for a career for a young professional to be "tied down" by family.

A big problem here is that cities in the USA are destroyed by permanent "colonies" of degenerate elements. They should be forced out, so that urban centers can be more efficient and human-friendly (safe and clean) areas of human life and business. If professionals can live happily with a family in good environment and ride the subway to work, that's great.

"Telecommuting" via Internet technology etc might also help make this easier.

I think businesses should be financially rewarded for encouraging pro-family practices, and punished for negative practices.

Also, I think there should be severe penalties for corporations that have no allegiance to workers in their native country. If they really want to operate in the Third World, they should be forced out of the First World.

Agrippa
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 07:59 AM
Youre absolutely right and the funny thing is that we would have NOW the best position ever in time to do all that. The problem is just the Neoliberals want to create a worldwide free market with no effective social and ecological rules. In such an environment measures which would provide the necessary economic circumscription are just not profitable.

Furthermore you dont go far enough imo. You still think at least in parts in a liberal scheme. What I say is not just to change the economic system but the whole social and political system.

A mother and a father, people which fight for their community are more important than the slaves of the companies even if they might be more intelligent.

My idea of a progressive society is that we are really collective organized. I have just things like my own ancestors the Siebenbuerger Saxons or Kosacks in mind in which every community was under the rule of the collective but organized itself.

Just with modern and more strict-effective administration-leadership.

Too long the Western people lived as individuals which had freedom in areas in which its just destructive and the lack of freedom in useful parts.

This pathological trend of the last 50-60 years must be end. I dont want to go back to a conservative age, I want to use the best parts of the past and combine it with the most effective and useful parts for the future.

I want a society with one aim, with one rule, which is going in one direction and that fast and effective.

The liberal system must die and must be completely forgotten that the European race(s) and mankind can live and develop itself further to an higher level.

But about such issues I could speak hours and hours, personnally and in German of course better than in English and over I-net but I try my best to get the message through it.

Scoob
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Agrippa, thanks for trying to explain these ideas in English, because your English is far better than my German.

When you say people should be organized starting in local communities/cells, do you mean socially, economically, or both? For instance would each cell focus on one economic activity, say a farm, or an automobile production plant, or etc?

I am interested to hear your ideas.

I do think that exposure to a wide range of activities can make people smarter in many ways, so long as their activity remains focused and they can refine their skills without becoming too myopic.

Mistress Klaus
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 09:45 AM
Hmmmm...well I don't know about most women, but I am definitely not impressed by a man's wealth or career status, nor materialistic. Maybe I am just easily pleased. :D I am not employed at the moment, but we (my boyfriend & I) survive quite comfortably on one (his) wage.
He works and I take care of the home duties. This system works for us. :)

Agrippa
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Agrippa, thanks for trying to explain these ideas in English, because your English is far better than my German.

When you say people should be organized starting in local communities/cells, do you mean socially, economically, or both? For instance would each cell focus on one economic activity, say a farm, or an automobile production plant, or etc?

I am interested to hear your ideas.

I do think that exposure to a wide range of activities can make people smarter in many ways, so long as their activity remains focused and they can refine their skills without becoming too myopic.

I meant just social. In fact I thought about a net of relationships of all collective members.
I would compare it best with the organization of Siebenbuerger Wehrbauern in old times in which every member had certain duties and rights in the community.

If there are problems of any sort the cell is the first group which reacts, if this group cant solve the problem, the next higher hierarchical organization level will try to solve it etc.

It would be a mixture of direct leadership oriented on the leaders principle ("Fuehrerprinzip") and basic democratic orientation.

This cells would function as the basic organizational unit of the society and would in a way represent the modern form of an extended family or better clan, just without the useless animosity which they usually between each other and the "just direct kinship" - family related aspect.

Families would be included there, mothers to help each other and plan certain duties for the family, household and kids.

You hopefully see what I want to construct, a society which is modern but uses basic human organizational moments for a better community and both help+control of the members.
Because in such cells its obvious that you have your duties and responsibility.

Like I always say, nobody should hunger, everyone should if possible live in decent circumstances, but those which dont accept the basic rules of the collective have just the right to leave it or stay in their reservations.
This cells would function as the strong help+control element the European societies lacked since late Christian times, but not to get to the old fights between kingroups back but to lead in the next step of modernity.

Economically I believe in a flexible but regulated Capitalism. The cells are not there to function as a economic entitiy, but as a social which should minimize the bad result of consumer orientation and modern economy.

But they are not autarc also, they should just solve what is on their level whereas they are just a part of the bigger whole.
And if you have (job, family etc.) to another town you come in your new local cell. So this advantage is there as well, you can move but are still in the concept, you dont just lose your direct help+control like it was the case with extended families.

Usually your extended family would be part of the cell, but just in case there are personal troubles or economic-collective needs for you to move it would work I think.

Agrippa
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 04:26 PM
Hmmmm...well I don't know about most women, but I am definitely not impressed by a man's wealth or career status, nor materialistic. Maybe I am just easily pleased. :D I am not employed at the moment, but we (my boyfriend & I) survive quite comfortably on one (his) wage.
He works and I take care of the home duties. This system works for us. :)

You seem to be idealistic and to have a kind heart, thumbs up!

If it works for you, its the right way.

RusViking
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 04:51 PM
Hmmmm...well I don't know about most women, but I am definitely not impressed by a man's wealth or career status, nor materialistic. Maybe I am just easily pleased. :D I am not employed at the moment, but we (my boyfriend & I) survive quite comfortably on one (his) wage.
He works and I take care of the home duties. This system works for us. :)Probably not impressed doesn't mean you do not take a man's wealth or career status into account or his potential, only that it is one of a number of factors and not the most important to you. Don't change. My experience is that you will find a man, and apparently you already have, that will love you for other reasons than what you can do for him and will stay by your side when you need him most. Not to mention his loyalty to your children.

But then wealth can give your children opportunity. True love can also.

Awww, I have a women like you and she is the best thing that ever happened to me.....that is what I am trying to say.

BTW...she is Celtic also.

Scoob
Sunday, May 9th, 2004, 05:30 PM
I meant just social. In fact I thought about a net of relationships of all collective members.
I would compare it best with the organization of Siebenbuerger Wehrbauern in old times in which every member had certain duties and rights in the community.
What type of civil authority would the cells hold? Could they f.e. veto a proposed marriage? Punish people who broke a social code?

Would there be an extended code of social laws along with this cell system - as in primitive societies? Or would everything be up to the vote of the cells - and if so, how extensive would their authority be?

Agrippa
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 03:08 AM
What type of civil authority would the cells hold? Could they f.e. veto a proposed marriage? Punish people who broke a social code?

Such things would be the responsibility of the next higher level. The lower community or cell level has mainly the task to control the rules of the collective and help the community and individuals to stay vital and strong - united for the aims of individuals and the collective.

Punishments on a low level yes, there are examples for such kind of social actions.
For example if a person would act destructive on level which is not the job of the court or must not be, the cell leadership and whole group can handle it on its own and only if it doesnt work the next higher level would be in action.

Individuals could question such decision about their personal duties and rights in the cell on the next higher level but if the decision was made in congruence with the collective rules the must follow the decision or have to face the consequences.
Every member of the collective has the duty to control and work for the aims of the collective in their local cell and in congruence with the decisions of the next higher level.



Would there be an extended code of social laws along with this cell system - as in primitive societies?

I wouldnt say "prmitive" if its about that because even in modern states such codes are reality, in fact the main problem is and was that the liberal state protected individuals which acted against it for the cause of individual freedom and destroyed the social codes necessary and useful for the group.
F.e. a gay couple which lives with children in the neighborhood wouldnt have been accepted in most groups, but the liberal law protects them and gives a negative example of what is moral to the whole group.



Or would everything be up to the vote of the cells -

They are the local and personal spirit of the collective - the link between the state, folk/race, region and what is the daily life of the people.

They have just autonomy in the level which is desired by the higher levels of the state and organization.


and if so, how extensive would their authority be?

Like I said they would have the opportunity for small scale punishments in the social space but their duty is to act in congruence with the collective and serious punishment is not up to them.

They should be more the social construction, the social environment which represents the collective spirit and rules on the personal level with the main target to help the people to raise their children, do something for their place, help each other if they are old or ill etc.
They are the social instrument against individualization and social destruction.

Just if people act asocial, destructive or even criminal they have the right and duty to do something and if they cant help themselves the authorities will.

The rules would be just much harder at least in some parts because for the collective future asocial and destructive behaviour like in the liberal society cant be tolerated.
It would encourage the people to act in their community and to do something if things go in the wrong direction.
Every individuals is the small part, the fighter of the whole collective, those which are really involved and act in the way which is necessary will gain higher status and social benefits.

Those who are neutral will be tolerated and treated like any other individual, but those which are destructive must be marked.
The local party members and cell leadership are responsible if its about the prevention or message of such behaviour.

No matter how much money somebody has or which job he has, in the cell he is just a member like the others with the only exception of the high elite (the persons which are the head of the state and party, on the long run selected individuals which are the role model for the social and biological progression of the group - they would be the most advanced part of the society and the whole will follow on the long run although they should always take the next step in an almost neverending progression) which would live in cells on their own but basically under the same rules.

Sigrun Christianson
Monday, May 10th, 2004, 03:20 AM
All of this talk about the 'collective' and the 'cell' really freaks me out. Are you Borg, Agrippa? Or Amish?

Agrippa
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:08 AM
Nah, I'm just not liberal, see the primary aims of the collective and thought about different possibilities to establish a new collective society adapted to the modern technological and economic situation.

If you think about the word "collective", its you group, the people which live with you, the future our people might have, the future humans might have.
Its the community and the object which survives all individuals.

Therefore its just rational to look for the whole and the interests of the majority first and for the individuals, especially the destructive ones second.
Its the weakness of the liberal system that it is the other way around.

"Cells" is just a name. You could say neighborhood, virtual extended family, organization unit or anything else.
Its about the help+control function the liberal society really lacks. Many people say that the traditional family with father+mother+children doesnt work in a modern environment and that the extended family/clan is immobile and produce further problems in a modern world if there influence is too strong.
But the small family model is not useful because never in history really functioning families had to organize everything on their own.
Relatives, servants, grandparents etc. were there, but what is there in modern society?
Children to the Kindergarten for the half of the money the woman earn in her "job"?

You must see the advantages of organiztion on the local level in the interests of the individuals and the whole.
It would take just a small part of your freedom and would give you much more back. Of course things which are essentially much more worth than the false freedom and whole life concept of the liberal world.

Not to forget that similar organization forms were reality in certain societies like I mentioned.
They can work, they will work, they would be the opportunity to make a progressive AND collective society stable and able to develop inself at once.

The liberal-individualistic-capitalistic and pluralistic society of the West we have today is no option because it lead to nothing else but the destruction of useful structures, ressources and probably most important our folks and race(s).

BTW even from communities like the Amish you could learn a lot because in parts they represent in a way an collective approach, just an irrational and more primitive than progressive one.
But that doesnt mean we couldnt learn from them, because their families managed at least to survive what many liberal families from 19th century on didnt.

Bestio
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 10:27 PM
c) Neoteny: A key feature of female facial attractiveness is the extent of neotenous features that the face displays. Such features (large eyes, high cheek bones, small nose, small chins, full lips, short eye-chin distance etc.,) are regarded as being very attractive and may be seen as an indicator of youth, and hence reproductive potential. . .



. . . The final face had proportions indicative of a 14-year-old.
Did anyone else notice this?

Bridie
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 05:40 PM
On a personal level I would usually agree, on a collective level the only solution is to change the preferences which they got from the ruling ideology and the liberal social structures.

Funny that you all seem to think that men's preferences when it comes to choosing a partner is biologically determined (and for the good of the group).... yet women't preferences are determined by "the ruling ideology and liberal social structures". What a load of rot. And in any case, how would you propose women are forced to change their preferences? :|

If anyone should be forced to change their preferences it should be men that prefer highly paedomorphic women (as opposed to progressive right??) as from what I understand, such paedomorphic traits are rather degenerative, and those men who prefer 14 year old children....



Hmmmm...well I don't know about most women, but I am definitely not impressed by a man's wealth or career status, nor materialistic.
That's a big mistake. A very impractical way of looking at things actually. A woman who is serious and sensible about providing a good life and good opportunities for her children will prefer a wealthy powerful male to father them. Women who settle for paupers will suffer for it in the end.



The final face had proportions indicative of a 14-year-old.
Yes, I noticed. And I find it quite disturbing, particularly when you consider that the average 14 year old is neither ovulating nor at an optimal or even satisfactory level of sexual maturity.

It could be possible that the researchers conducting the study have a vested interest in promoting paedophilia as "normal" or justified. One must always be skeptical of what they read, and remember that nothing is Gospel in this world.... it's all subjectivity, whether we're talking about analysis or study methods.

Agrippa
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 06:31 PM
Funny that you all seem to think that men's preferences when it comes to choosing a partner is biologically determined (and for the good of the group).... yet women't preferences are determined by "the ruling ideology and liberal social structures". What a load of rot. And in any case, how would you propose women are forced to change their preferences? :|

Media, schools, families, moral system - all must be changed because if women of today prefer a Negrid Hip Hop star with primitive traits just because he is rich, a loudmouth and has "prestige" in the popcultural social perception as well as the "politically correct diversity-fraction" before an European elite male officer who defends his own group and has all positive traits the group needs and the female's ancestors ones had too, THEN there is definitely something wrong and this must be changed NO MATTER WHAT!


If anyone should be forced to change their preferences it should be men that prefer highly paedomorphic women (as opposed to progressive right??) as from what I understand, such paedomorphic traits are rather degenerative, and those men who prefer 14 year old children....

Paedomorphic traits are preferable to primitive ones though, but in general you are right, just compare with that:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66306
and
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471
and
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43474

However, one has always to distinguish about which grade of maturity and about which EXACT traits we are speaking.


That's a big mistake. A very impractical way of looking at things actually. A woman who is serious and sensible about providing a good life and good opportunities for her children will prefer a wealthy powerful male to father them. Women who settle for paupers will suffer for it in the end.

Life can mean to suffer too. Better suffering and having a good blood line which will flourish later than having an easier, more comfortable and hedonistic life but being a traitor for the own group and finally destroying or downgrading the blood line. If wealth is a nice bonus, sure, every reasonable individual would prefer a wealthy before a poor individual. But if "the wealthy man" doesnt fit into the group and bloodline, the only reason to allow a woman to marry such a subject could be to get rid of it in the first place, because such weak and irrational characters should be selected out on the long run anyway.
However, it depends on the reasons for such a behaviour, is it just environmental, socio-cultural, the society and social pressures must be changed, is it really the personality of the subject, the subject as such is expandable and therefore free to go wherever it wants - but never let her male into our group nor her children.


Yes, I noticed. And I find it quite disturbing, particularly when you consider that the average 14 year old is neither ovulating nor at an optimal or even satisfactory level of sexual maturity.

It could be possible that the researchers conducting the study have a vested interest in promoting paedophilia as "normal" or justified. One must always be skeptical of what they read, and remember that nothing is Gospel in this world.... it's all subjectivity, whether we're talking about analysis or study methods.

No, they are just right, but one has to be careful about what they said in detail (!).

The final face had proportions indicative of a 14-year-old.

This means just Neoteny/Paedomorphy, the crucial question would be, is it balanced or not? If balanced, thats obviously "the goal" of our current human development. Because if comparing female Homo erectus faces of a girl and adult women, what do you get? The girl is obviously closer to sapiens.

Both if speaking about a racial type and the girls, its about balance, so that just certain traits of the face becoming more Neotenic, whereas the rest of the cranio-facial proportions and especially the body stays more mature. Thats the progressive combination. So the proportions of a 14 year old on average doesnt have to mean its a 14 year old, it just means such proportions being preferred, which is insofar normal as no normal man will prefer the proportions of a 40 year old women before that of a 18 year old one.

Like they said in the text too:

A slim waist and hips, large breasts, a WHR around 0.7.

The difference between a paedophile and a "normal male" is not as much in the facial proportions as in the body proportions. Otherwise a lot of males and even females would have "paedophile tendencies". Furthermore finding someone really sex, sexually attractive, can be another matter too.
14 is young, but its borderline for maturity already and its clear that the next step of balanced Neoteny, progressive tendencies will approach a juvenile current status - overall craniofacial and body proportions would stay in a balanced development the same or being even more elongated rather.

If comparing primitive Australids and progressive Nordid variants, who is more Neotenic overall in comparison?

Just look yourself:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=510661&postcount=159

The difference between progressive and infantile types is that they are balanced and not as reduced, not that they look like adults of primitive sapiens. Additionally they have certain more mature traits infantiles are lacking, which signal more dominance and determination in comparison, what goes on line with their overall specialisation.

Bridie
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Media, schools, families, moral system - all must be changed because if women of today prefer a Negrid Hip Hop star with primitive traits just because he is rich, a loudmouth and has "prestige" in the popcultural social perception as well as the "politically correct diversity-fraction" before an European elite male officer who defends his own group and has all positive traits the group needs and the female's ancestors ones had too, THEN there is definitely something wrong and this must be changed NO MATTER WHAT!

Now Agrippa, be sensible. I did not mention anything about all women preferring black hip-hop "artists" (I use that word loosely) with primitive traits over good quality, yet less financially secure white men. Nor did I mention anything about loudmouths. Obviously a man has to have more going for him than just money and power to be attractive to most women.

Now, you've implied that I said that women would prefer a degenerate wealthy man over an "elite male officer who defends his own group and has all the positive traits".... Well obviously if a man is an "elite" he already is in a desirable postion (one of respect and power), and if he courageously defends his own group, well that's as sexy as hell to women. Furthermore, if he has "positive" traits one must assume that he has the intelligence and motivation to ensure that he could provide a good, secure life for any potential family in any given environment.

So your example is unfair.

You should have asked me first which traits I was referring to when I mentioned "women's preferences".



So the proportions of a 14 year old on average doesnt have to mean its a 14 year old, it just means such proportions being preferred, which is insofar normal as no normal man will prefer the proportions of a 40 year old women before that of a 18 year old one.
I can't see that facial proportions like eye size, nose size etc would vary in an individual female between the ages of 14, 18 or 40. What would vary would be skin integrity, sub-cutaneous fat levels and perhaps fullness of lips to a degree.

Agrippa
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Now Agrippa, be sensible. I did not mention anything about all women preferring black hip-hop "artists" (I use that word loosely) with primitive traits over good quality, yet less financially secure white men. Nor did I mention anything about loudmouths. Obviously a man has to have more going for him than just money and power to be attractive to most women.

What I meant are role models, so you probably misunderstood me and I was going with my criticism to far. Role models and cultural imprintings dont equal "natural female preferences" - like preferences which are less dependent on a given cultural and time context.


Now, you've implied that I said that women would prefer a degenerate wealthy man over an "elite male officer who defends his own group and has all the positive traits".... Well obviously if a man is an "elite" he already is in a desirable postion (one of respect and power), and if he courageously defends his own group, well that's as sexy as hell to women. Furthermore, if he has "positive" traits one must assume that he has the intelligence and motivation to ensure that he could provide a good, secure life for any potential family in any given environment.

Thats true but the example is not unfair because it shows the antagonism. Its about the antagonism of extremes - almost always, we all know or at least should know that many cases in reality are rather in between or blurry in comparison.

However, we all know that there are women which dont look for too much other traits than wealth or social prestige as they perceive it. Those are the women which are easiest to influence by current fashions and social trends and the ones I meant primarily, even though stronger women can be influenced too, they are not immune after all.



I can't see that facial proportions like eye size, nose size etc would vary in an individual female between the ages of 14, 18 or 40. What would vary would be skin integrity, sub-cutaneous fat levels and perhaps fullness of lips to a degree.

You are right to a certain degree, but you should look up for graphic depictions to make it clear, unfortunately I dont found one ad hoc.

Nose size definitely varies, especially looking softer even in progressive racial types which have long noses in younger age already and forehead being somewhat higher and more rounded to give an example. A higher forehead as such is a progressive traits, at least if not being very infantile rounded or out of proportions. Just compare the two extremely progressive examples in comparison to the Australid ones in the link I gave.

Tabitha
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 07:59 PM
In my city its the rich white footballers that most single women are obsessed with, personally I find that group just as odious.



Media, schools, families, moral system - all must be changed because if women of today prefer a Negrid Hip Hop star with primitive traits just because he is rich, a loudmouth and has "prestige" in the popcultural social perception as well as the "politically correct diversity-fraction" before an European elite male officer who defends his own group and has all positive traits the group needs and the female's ancestors ones had too, THEN there is definitely something wrong and this must be changed NO MATTER WHAT!



Paedomorphic traits are preferable to primitive ones though, but in general you are right, just compare with that:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66306
and
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471
and
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43474

However, one has always to distinguish about which grade of maturity and about which EXACT traits we are speaking.



Life can mean to suffer too. Better suffering and having a good blood line which will flourish later than having an easier, more comfortable and hedonistic life but being a traitor for the own group and finally destroying or downgrading the blood line. If wealth is a nice bonus, sure, every reasonable individual would prefer a wealthy before a poor individual. But if "the wealthy man" doesnt fit into the group and bloodline, the only reason to allow a woman to marry such a subject could be to get rid of it in the first place, because such weak and irrational characters should be selected out on the long run anyway.
However, it depends on the reasons for such a behaviour, is it just environmental, socio-cultural, the society and social pressures must be changed, is it really the personality of the subject, the subject as such is expandable and therefore free to go wherever it wants - but never let her male into our group nor her children.



No, they are just right, but one has to be careful about what they said in detail (!).


This means just Neoteny/Paedomorphy, the crucial question would be, is it balanced or not? If balanced, thats obviously "the goal" of our current human development. Because if comparing female Homo erectus faces of a girl and adult women, what do you get? The girl is obviously closer to sapiens.

Both if speaking about a racial type and the girls, its about balance, so that just certain traits of the face becoming more Neotenic, whereas the rest of the cranio-facial proportions and especially the body stays more mature. Thats the progressive combination. So the proportions of a 14 year old on average doesnt have to mean its a 14 year old, it just means such proportions being preferred, which is insofar normal as no normal man will prefer the proportions of a 40 year old women before that of a 18 year old one.

Like they said in the text too:


The difference between a paedophile and a "normal male" is not as much in the facial proportions as in the body proportions. Otherwise a lot of males and even females would have "paedophile tendencies". Furthermore finding someone really sex, sexually attractive, can be another matter too.
14 is young, but its borderline for maturity already and its clear that the next step of balanced Neoteny, progressive tendencies will approach a juvenile current status - overall craniofacial and body proportions would stay in a balanced development the same or being even more elongated rather.

If comparing primitive Australids and progressive Nordid variants, who is more Neotenic overall in comparison?

Just look yourself:
http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=510661&postcount=159

The difference between progressive and infantile types is that they are balanced and not as reduced, not that they look like adults of primitive sapiens. Additionally they have certain more mature traits infantiles are lacking, which signal more dominance and determination in comparison, what goes on line with their overall specialisation.

Bridie
Saturday, September 9th, 2006, 08:02 PM
What annoys me too though, is that by implying that men's preferences are so important, righteous and in the best interests of the group no matter what, and women's preferences are corrupt, ignorant, irresponsible and in need of controlling, one would basically be saying that women should have to mould themselves to men's desires, yet men shouldn't have to do the same to women's in turn. Men can just do what's natural to them.... women can only do what men decree they should do to suit themselves (and don't pretend that it would always be about what's in the best interests of the group).

You are down-grading women's desires while putting men's on a pedastal. I don't think you even realise how disrespectful you are being toward women, and how you down-grade them into the subservient role of a naughty child.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:52 AM
What annoys me too though, is that by implying that men's preferences are so important, righteous and in the best interests of the group no matter what,

Where did I do that?


and women's preferences are corrupt, ignorant, irresponsible and in need of controlling,

They have both, males and females, their own as well as common weaknesses on that. But women need to be better controlled for a simple biological as well as social reason. They determine the numbers of "pure group members" in the next generation, not males, and if they having different partners its from a biological perspective not an expansion, since they can have just a limited number of children with one fertile as well as with 10 males, but a decision against the male. For a male the same is not true, since the male can have more offspring by having more women, simple as that.

Therefore he could have offspring with lower quality women as well as a main family with a high quality one - this would just maximise his biological success and at the same time further positive evolution if he would have good traits.

Obviously I spoke about the control of high quality women's affairs rather - since I dont care for the low level ones as much...the problem is the possibility of downgrading a valuable line of the group by making an ill decision. A male can correct such a wrong decision much easier, for a female its much more difficult.


one would basically be saying that women should have to mould themselves to men's desires, yet men shouldn't have to do the same to women's in turn.

They should do whats necessary for a healthy, functioning and for the group valuable relationship - if they dont they have the freedom to split up, thats a freedom they should have, both the male and the female. Finally its about those two which have to live their life together, so they should know whats right for themselves, at least as long as they dont act against the interests of the group.


Men can just do what's natural to them.... women can only do what men decree they should do to suit themselves (and don't pretend that it would always be about what's in the best interests of the group).

Give me examples - this is to vague to answer it.


You are down-grading women's desires while putting men's on a pedastal.

One is just as animalistic and brute at the same time like the other, thats not the point. I can imagine males doing awful things as well as females and I dont like the idea in either cases. It rather depends on what one considers being awful in detail...


I don't think you even realise how disrespectful you are being toward women, and how you down-grade them into the subservient role of a naughty child.

That goes much too far. Furthermore you argue too much from the Feminist perspective on some levels. Probably you should try to concentrate more on social-functional and biological aspects which are crucial for a proper analysis and solutions.

Bridie
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Where did I do that?

I think that you were implying this when you said in response to another member saying that men should find out what women want and go with that....

on a collective level the only solution is to change the preferences which they got from the ruling ideology and the liberal social structures.

The fight against this structures is necessary and too much tolerance for women which act crazy and irrational is not acceptable because it leads to further destruction.



Give me examples - this is to vague to answer it.
I was just saying that this is what I've interpreted you as saying.... just another way of wording what I said above.... men can do what they want, women must be controlled by men. I don't approve of that notion when most men are so flawed, as you've already acknowledged (does that make sense at all? :chinrub ).



They have both, males and females, their own as well as common weaknesses on that. But women need to be better controlled for a simple biological as well as social reason. They determine the numbers of "pure group members" in the next generation, not males, and if they having different partners its from a biological perspective not an expansion, since they can have just a limited number of children with one fertile as well as with 10 males, but a decision against the male. For a male the same is not true, since the male can have more offspring by having more women, simple as that.

Therefore he could have offspring with lower quality women as well as a main family with a high quality one - this would just maximise his biological success and at the same time further positive evolution if he would have good traits.Well I propose that men need to be controlled just as well as women because stable, secure family structures where a father and husband can devote all of his time, love and money to one family (!!) is absolutely essential for a well-functioning, content society. There are several reasons for this....

1) Men who are promiscuous run a good chance of catching and spreading sexually transmitted diseases. (Why should his wife have to die of AIDS or syphillis because he couldn't keep it in his pants??)

2) Women shouldn't have to feel neglected, unloved, jealous, rejected, disrespected, fearful and insecure just so that their husbands can screw around. (And why should a women have to sit at home alone while she knows full well that her husband is off having sex with one of his floozies???) This is a social issue. Unhappy mothers = fractured families. This is just a fact. Content mothers = happy families.

3) By a man screwing around with lots of different women he's leaving less eligible women for other men.... leaving a certain portion of men lonely, sexually deprived and without family (and yes, "high level" men would be left childless too!)

4) Children require a lot of attention from both parents for good self-esteem etc.... why should a man's children have to share their father with 20 other kids from different families?

5) I don't like the idea of allowing decadent, irresponsible and selfish behaviour to certain members of a community, yet not others. This will only create conflict.... and boys who are given few boundaries when it comes to appropriate sexual behaviour and responsibility for one's own actions will only become anti-social. And women will be left angry and resentful.

6) Fathers and husbands are needed to help do certain chores etc around the household (read to the children, mow the lawn etc etc), without a husband being able to fulfull this role (as he would be having to divide his attention and time among so many people) the family would suffer. (Believe me, being a parent to just one family is a full-time job!!!)


The only time that I could ever entertain the idea that polygamy (or a man having many sexual partners by being adulterous) could have a positive outcome for a community would be in times of war when populations are dwindling (due to a high number of male deaths) and there are too many women, not enough men to go around. Even then, this situation would be an exception allowed only due to desperate circumstances.

In other times, men must control their sexual behaviour. Men must take responsibility for their commitments... and that includes commitments to his (one!) wife and children.



A male can correct such a wrong decision much easier, for a female its much more difficult.

No he can't. That would be irresponsible and cause nothing but social fracture.



They should do whats necessary for a healthy, functioning and for the group valuable relationship - if they dont they have the freedom to split up, thats a freedom they should have, both the male and the female.After children are brought into the equation, there is no freedom to merely "split up". What's best for the children is the top priority.



That goes much too far. Furthermore you argue too much from the Feminist perspective on some levels. Probably you should try to concentrate more on social-functional and biological aspects which are crucial for a proper analysis and solutions.
Okay, from my perspective you are not acknowledging at all the fragility of interpersonal and social dynamics when you only consider things from a cold bilogical pov (I cannot see any evidence that comes to mind of you considering social aspects beyond demographics).

And yes, I acknowledge that I was exaggerating when I said that you down-grade women to the subservient role of a naughty child, and I apologise for that.... but still, there is some truth in this.

If I argue things from a feminist perspective that's just co-incidental. The things I say are my own thoughts, I suppose based on my own life experiences mostly.... Of course, my life experiences so far have occured within a society awash will feminist (and masculinst) rhetoric, so perhaps there is some sub-conscious influence there. Nevertheless, feminism wasn't ALL bad. ;)

Agrippa
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 04:37 PM
I was just saying that this is what I've interpreted you as saying.... just another way of wording what I said above.... men can do what they want, women must be controlled by men. I don't approve of that notion when most men are so flawed, as you've already acknowledged (does that make sense at all?

You must see that in the context I have written it. Its being meant for the politically active and leading people which should not give one quota to lesbian radical Feminists or women which act like bitches, reproduce with non-integrable elements or constantly causing troubles by playing males out and being unfaithful in marriages (marriages should have a specific meaning, if women dont want to follow it in the way it should work in a functioning, they should simply not marry in the first place!) against each other, spreading negative and irrational ideas, destabilising the social environment and things like that.

All such things would have never been accepted in any well functioning and effective, high level culture and social system.

Its not about every male in his home doing with his wife what he wants or anything like that if you understood it that way. Its a fight against destructive tendencies and harmful influences, be it males or females. The topic was about females so...


1) Men who are promiscuous run a good chance of catching and spreading sexually transmitted diseases. (Why should his wife have to die of AIDS or syphillis because he couldn't keep it in his pants??)

First sexually transmitted diseases are something we have to fight as such. But ok, thats not the topic. Otherwise you are absolutely right, if the male has a disease and infects his woman, especially if knowing about it but saying nothing its a crime.
I dont spoke about promiscuity by the way - furthermore just imagine such a social climate in which a honorable woman simply doesnt have sex with anybody nor just like that. This would reduce the access of males to females in non-serious relationships and those which are still there would be "bitches" or prostitutes - other females would learn from that whats right and wrong and males would see a serious relationship as such and the respective women in a different way. Thats how it worked in most functioning societies, just compare.


2) Women shouldn't have to feel neglected, unloved, jealous, rejected, disrespected, fearful and insecure just so that their husbands can screw around. (And why should a women have to sit at home alone while she knows full well that her husband is off having sex with one of his floozies???) This is a social issue. Unhappy mothers = fractured families. This is just a fact. Content mothers = happy families.

Two things: a) Its something the two must know - as long as their family works and others being not harmed in one way or another its their problem.
b) I didnt meant it that way, the way as you described it is obviously inacceptable, especially if a good and well-functioning family with children being established.
However, especially better males should have the possibility of having more women one way or another again. Its not the same as promiscuity, since the final implicit goal would be more children from a valuable male, not all males having sex with as much women as possible...


3) By a man screwing around with lots of different women he's leaving less eligible women for other men.... leaving a certain portion of men lonely, sexually deprived and without family (and yes, "high level" men would be left childless too!)

Rising birth rates mean more women - today with have exactly that situation even with monogamic relationships. Concerning high level men - well, they should be able to get their woman and found a family and the social motivation and biological knowledge would be better too. Obviously defect males which are very negative, lowest level criminals etc. are those which have the lowest rights and would in such a society even with a concrete law the worst chances to get an acceptable female. Different from now, since today its all about the personal persuasion, many females have children from one night stands or affairs with lowest level men. Those must be signified as what they are to the point where they think twice.


4) Children require a lot of attention from both parents for good self-esteem etc.... why should a man's children have to share their father with 20 other kids from different families?

Thats the responsibility of the father and man must be raised to know whats best for their family. If they act irresponsible, if they not even care for their (healthy group member) children as they should, it should be something socially proscribed.


5) I don't like the idea of allowing decadent, irresponsible and selfish behaviour to certain members of a community, yet not others. This will only create conflict.... and boys who are given few boundaries when it comes to appropriate sexual behaviour and responsibility for one's own actions will only become anti-social. And women will be left angry and resentful.

Boys should learn that valuable women are something they have to respect and care for, work and live together with, not just being there for fun in a moment. Responsibility is something they have to learn from the beginning for valuable women which could be decent mothers of their future children.


6) Fathers and husbands are needed to help do certain chores etc around the household (read to the children, mow the lawn etc etc), without a husband being able to fulfull this role (as he would be having to divide his attention and time among so many people) the family would suffer. (Believe me, being a parent to just one family is a full-time job!!!)

As I said, they must be raised in a spirit of responsibilty for their long time partner, valuable woman and children.


The only time that I could ever entertain the idea that polygamy (or a man having many sexual partners by being adulterous) could have a positive outcome for a community would be in times of war when populations are dwindling (due to a high number of male deaths) and there are too many women, not enough men to go around. Even then, this situation would be an exception allowed only due to desperate circumstances.

As you said yourself and I said elsewhere ones too, it should be rather the exception - in the situation after a great war it should be a social pressure for valuable males, especially those decorated survivers of elite units with high losses f.e., should have more wives. That this wasnt done in the West as it should is one of the most important reasons why contraselection was so catastrophic in major wars.


No he can't. That would be irresponsible and cause nothing but social fracture.

Women can't, men can, thats a biological rule for both. A woman can as long as she has no or just one children probably too, but once she has more children and being just somewhat older she can't to the same degree as a man. The irresponsibility must be defined by the result - so it depends on various factors, it can but must not be irresponsible.
Just imagine the most drastic example: A male being a colonist in Australia - having no access to white women, taking a aboriginal female in this time which is at least better than getting homosexual.
Now some years later white women come, obviously if he has overall good traits, the first thing to do is to take a decent white woman. Everything else would be nonsense. Imagine the same for a women having 4 bastard children then...


After children are brought into the equation, there is no freedom to merely "split up". What's best for the children is the top priority.

If the couple doesnt fit together any more, its not the best for the children nor for the line - just imagine they have one child, now they are split spirituially, she doesnt want more children from him and there are constantly disputes in the family - doesnt make sense. Both could have more children and a more harmonious family with another partner. Yes, thats a situation which shouldnt happen in the first place, but oh well, reality is not always as it should be.
And there were and are such families and they just make no sense...

Bridie
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 05:17 PM
Its being meant for the politically active and leading people which should not give one quota to lesbian radical Feminists or women which act like bitches, reproduce with non-integrable elements or constantly causing troubles by playing males out and being unfaithful in marriages (marriages should have a specific meaning, if women dont want to follow it in the way it should work in a functioning, they should simply not marry in the first place!) against each other, spreading negative and irrational ideas, destabilising the social environment and things like that.

All such things would have never been accepted in any well functioning and effective, high level culture and social system.

Okay. :)



Its not about every male in his home doing with his wife what he wants or anything like that if you understood it that way.
No, I didn't think that you meant it this way.



First sexually transmitted diseases are something we have to fight as such. But ok, thats not the topic.
Yeah, it is off topic.... but nevertheless I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think STD's are a great way of controlling sexual promiscuity in a population. And those who sleep around deserve what they get.



I dont spoke about promiscuity by the way - furthermore just imagine such a social climate in which a honorable woman simply doesnt have sex with anybody nor just like that. What you've talked about does equal promiscuity.... if you deny that then you're just glossing over the facts to suit your own theories.

In any case, honourable men simply don't have sex with just anyone either. That is still the way of the world as far as I'm concerned. Men can be whores too you know. No woman in her right mind would think a man who sleeps around is respectable.



However, especially better males should have the possibility of having more women one way or another again.
Only in exceptional circumstances like war.



Rising birth rates mean more women - today with have exactly that situation even with monogamic relationships.
It's not the amount of women that counts, it's the male : female ratio.



Boys should learn that valuable women are something they have to respect and care for, work and live together with, not just being there for fun in a moment. Responsibility is something they have to learn from the beginning for valuable women which could be decent mothers of their future children.
I don't think so. I don't like all this talk of "valuable" people. Everyone has the right to be treated with respect until they do something to contraindicate it. A rather old-fashioned value that I was brought up with (perhaps its just British?) was to behave respectfully and courteously towards all strangers..... so perhaps that's why in my mind it's WRONG to raise our boys to think that it's okay to treat some strangers like crap, yet not others (who they judge to be worthy - and quite frankly, who would they be to judge another who's shoes they've never walked in??).

Obviously I'm not saying that if you know a woman and you know her to be a slut that she deserves to be treated with respect. Same goes for men too. Male sluts should be afforded no more respect than a female slut.



Women can't, men can, thats a biological rule for both. A woman can as long as she has no or just one children probably too, but once she has more children and being just somewhat older she can't to the same degree as a man. The irresponsibility must be defined by the result - so it depends on various factors, it can but must not be irresponsible.
Just imagine the most drastic example: A male being a colonist in Australia - having no access to white women, taking a aboriginal female in this time which is at least better than getting homosexual.
Now some years later white women come, obviously if he has overall good traits, the first thing to do is to take a decent white woman. Everything else would be nonsense. Imagine the same for a women having 4 bastard children then...
Agrippa! :-O I'm sure a man doesn't just become gay because there are no women around to sleep with! ;) :D

You don't seem to be taking into account that if a man had children with an aboriginal woman HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE CHILDREN, AND HE IS OBLIGED TO BE THERE FOR THEM AS A FATHER! He can't just abandon his family with this abo woman just because a better woman comes along!!! How immoral!!

And it's not a biological rule.... it's a socially determined rule!!



If the couple doesnt fit together any more, its not the best for the children nor for the line - just imagine they have one child, now they are split spirituially, she doesnt want more children from him and there are constantly disputes in the family - doesnt make sense. Both could have more children and a more harmonious family with another partner. Yes, thats a situation which shouldnt happen in the first place, but oh well, reality is not always as it should be.
And there were and are such families and they just make no sense...I disagree. Once people make their beds, they are obliged to lie in them. Divorce should be outlawed.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 10th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Yeah, it is off topic.... but nevertheless I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think STD's are a great way of controlling sexual promiscuity in a population. And those who sleep around deserve what they get.

Nobody who didnt directly harm others or the group seriously deserved a deadly disease. I think such a view on this problem is unrealistic and pseudoreligious, furthermore finally such diseases always spread in the population and are a constant danger. Not speaking of the fact that it would be - even if just targeting those which are promiscuitive - very casual so still not just because some might get diseases from having sex with just one individual by chance, others staying healthy after having had sex and being adulterous for many years with hundreds of sexual partners. So such a view is highly irrational and too much religiously influenced.


What you've talked about does equal promiscuity.... if you deny that then you're just glossing over the facts to suit your own theories.

It doesnt by definition.


In any case, honourable men simply don't have sex with just anyone either.

Thats true, for sure not with anyone.


That is still the way of the world as far as I'm concerned. Men can be whores too you know. No woman in her right mind would think a man who sleeps around is respectable.

It depends on the exact circumstances and behaviour of the person. You can't generalise that, especially not if the individual cares for the children and wants a larger family, while having good traits and a great responsibility, energy and potential to keep up a high level for all his children.


It's not the amount of women that counts, it's the male : female ratio.

Sure, but thats what I said. Decreasing birth rates mean less available women because most males take younger females, which results in a imbalanced ratio = more males than females in the important age categories. Same goes for a growing populatoin with high birth rates: More females in the same age-group = more females per male if considering the normal age differences on average.


I don't think so. I don't like all this talk of "valuable" people. Everyone has the right to be treated with respect until they do something to contraindicate it.

You can treat someone friendly while still knowing he has not the same value. One shouldnt equate a certain respect with evaluation. Only in critical situations it must be clear who's more valuable and who's not.


who they judge to be worthy - and quite frankly, who would they be to judge another who's shoes they've never walked in

We are what we are and we should know whats good, harmless or harmful for the group. Thats enough, we dont have to be fair to everyone nor is it necessary to think too personal about such issues. Finally results matter most. Personal respect and human dignity are values on their own, but they have to be suspended in critical situations if its necessary for the best of the group. Otherwise you couldnt lead a war by the way - of course I'm against war for a variety of reasons, but if its inevitable for the best of the group it has to be done.


Same goes for men too. Male sluts should be afforded no more respect than a female slut.

There are no male heterosexual sluts and men dont bring bastards home, thats the point and it was known in every reasonable traditional society.


I'm sure a man doesn't just become gay because there are no women around to sleep with!

As I said, they dont become homosexual, but a certain number of males use homosexual practices or in other ways perverted in this situation - at least for the period of sexual isolation from women and social pressure. There are even experiments with animals on that and humans go finally in a similar direction.


You don't seem to be taking into account that if a man had children with an aboriginal woman HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE CHILDREN, AND HE IS OBLIGED TO BE THERE FOR THEM AS A FATHER! He can't just abandon his family with this abo woman just because a better woman comes along!!! How immoral!!

And it's not a biological rule.... it's a socially determined rule!!

Its no social rule and should be none of course. Its the responsibility of the other group and its members if they are unable to care for their woman and can't protect it. Its a Liberal stupidity to consider individual decisions on that too much, traditional societies know it better.

Of course if having good traits he should have a European family then, taking his chance and helping his group, his primary concern should be his bloodline and own group - before that he had no alternative, then he has.
He could care for his mixed children too - why not - but he would be a weak loser if really not taking the chance.


I disagree. Once people make their beds, they are obliged to lie in them. Divorce should be outlawed.

Again thats too pseudoreligious - what works in reality is good, what doesnt work for the individuals and group is bad, simple as that. No reason to get in an irrational way moralistic on that. Especially if considering an example like that I gave you above which is just clear-cut and unambiguous.

As I said, there is no definite reason to marry, people should think about it twice and especially females should consider it again. But finally, even if I would make a divorce problematic, it must be possible and everything else is just not reasonable. Even many traditional societies knew that and Islam as well - at least in theory.
If there are good reasons for a divorce and the marriage shattered its about clear cases.

Bridie
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 03:20 AM
Nobody who didnt directly harm others or the group seriously deserved a deadly disease.
I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one Agrippa. ;) I think that promiscuity and other forms of anti-social, self-destructive behaviours DO harm the group and undermine social cohesion. Definately!



So such a view is highly irrational and too much religiously influenced.
I think you're being too sympathetic towards sluts! :-O ;) And I'm really not religious (reconsidering my pagan stance these days) so I'm not influenced by some ramblings of the Bible or anything if that's what you mean. It's just common sense.



It doesnt by definition.
Having a lot of different sexual partners amounts to promiscuity. End of story.



You can't generalise that, especially not if the individual cares for the children and wants a larger family, while having good traits and a great responsibility, energy and potential to keep up a high level for all his children.
So you think it's wrong to generalise about male whores, but not about female whores?? How ridiculous. Clearly a case of having an agenda whether you realise it or not. If you were only thinking of what would be good for a population (and that's it) you would have to agree that immoral behaviour is wrong for both sexes, and therefore both sexes do not deserve respect if they engage in it. I know you think that males are entitled to have looser moral guidelines.... but as I've said before, this merely contributes to social fracture and is therefore undesirable!



Sure, but thats what I said. Decreasing birth rates mean less available women because most males take younger females, which results in a imbalanced ratio = more males than females in the important age categories. Same goes for a growing populatoin with high birth rates: More females in the same age-group = more females per male if considering the normal age differences on average.
Oh okay. I was wondering if I'd understood you correctly on that. Obviously I didn't. :) So since we're living in times of decreasing birthrates now, it only makes biological ;) sense for every fertile woman to take several men!! :yippee (That way, few men will die childless.) Good thinking Agrippa. :D



You can treat someone friendly while still knowing he has not the same value. One shouldnt equate a certain respect with evaluation. Only in critical situations it must be clear who's more valuable and who's not.
Okay. :)



There are no male heterosexual sluts and men dont bring bastards home, thats the point and it was known in every reasonable traditional society.
That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard!! No male sluts!! LOL! What sort of country must you live in where males are entitled to respect even though engaging in socially and self destructive behaviour! If men have gotten away with immoral behaviour in the past, it is a good example of where traditional societies went wrong!! (And we can't pretend that traditional societies didn't have their weaknesses.)



Its no social rule and should be none of course. Its the responsibility of the other group and its members if they are unable to care for their woman and can't protect it. Its a Liberal stupidity to consider individual decisions on that too much, traditional societies know it better.Individuals must still take responsibility for their own choices and actions!!! It's an ethical issue!



Of course if having good traits he should have a European family then, taking his chance and helping his group, his primary concern should be his bloodline and own group - before that he had no alternative, then he has.
No intelligent, discerning, self-respecting woman would want to forge a relationship with an irresponsible man lacking such a degree of integrity, commitment and compassion (for the family he's abandoned!!). Women should, of course, get to choose which men they marry, and no woman of worth would want a man so clearly capable of abandonment, cold-heartedness and causing such pain to others. Such a man would be nothing but a reject to worthy women.



Again thats too pseudoreligious - what works in reality is good, what doesnt work for the individuals and group is bad, simple as that. No reason to get in an irrational way moralistic on that. Especially if considering an example like that I give you above which is just clear-cut and unambiguous.
Okay, maybe I was going a bit far when I said divorce should be illegal. But I do think that it should be more difficult to obtain than it currently is in most countries of the modern world.

However, I do think you underestimate the importance of moral obligation to a well-functioning, healthy population.

Agrippa
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 04:05 AM
I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one Agrippa. ;) I think that promiscuity and other forms of anti-social, self-destructive behaviours DO harm the group and undermine social cohesion. Definately!

Thats no comparison and a deadly disease is just not justified for a variety of reasons of which I just mentioned some.


So you think it's wrong to generalise about male whores, but not about female whores??

Well, I had something quite specific in mind if speaking about "female sluts" and some of the reasons why males and females can never be judged the same way on that are being explained above. Its even ethologically and psychologically different, since it means something different for males and females which is the result of the different specialisation. Quantity vs. quality: A fertile woman can just have a limited number of children no matter what she does, the same is not true for a fertile male. The whole normal female behaviour and way of thinking is different on that and its right that way since the sexes have different functions and options on that.


How ridiculous. Clearly a case of having an agenda whether you realise it or not. If you were only thinking of what would be good for a population (and that's it) you would have to agree that immoral behaviour is wrong for both sexes, and therefore both sexes do not deserve respect if they engage in it.

I defined whats "more and immoral". Its not even about "immoral behaviour" for the female bitch, its about the outcome, the results. Some women can be promiscuous, that doesnt matter, its about the majority which should look for having more stable relationships and family. A certain number of "natural bitches" always existed, be it the village bitch, courtesan or modern prostitute. Their strategy was indeed to have more and different males, but thats not option for the group as a whole, it would be a destabilising factor.


I know you think that males are entitled to have looser moral guidelines.... but as I've said before, this merely contributes to social fracture and is therefore undesirable!

Again, you must give examples, very concrete ones. One thing is for sure, they dont have a looser or more strict moral, but different. Certain things which are important for a women to function good in a group are relatively unimportant for the male and vice versa. Same goes for certain personality traits. If the society is well organised a woman can be more emotional, personal oriented etc., thats just nice for the close social environment to a certain degree and does no harm since she won't decide who's in and out and what the big policy will be anyway. Same goes for a male not being too caring - doesnt matter because the mother is there anyway.


Oh okay. I was wondering if I'd understood you correctly on that. Obviously I didn't. :) So since we're living in times of decreasing birthrates now, it only makes biological ;) sense for every fertile woman to take several men!! :yippee (That way, few men will die childless.) Good thinking Agrippa. :D

Does the respective woman get more children then? No. Does she give birth to better children if having sex with a lower class male? No. Is it good for the group and for the male role and duties if they have to share a woman? No.

End of the story like you would say. Argue the same way with "more females" and the results will be completely different.


That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard!! No male sluts!! LOL! What sort of country must you live in where males are entitled to respect even though engaging in socially and self destructive behaviour! If men have gotten away with immoral behaviour in the past, it is a good example of where traditional societies went wrong!! (And we can't pretend that traditional societies didn't have their weaknesses.)

No, they dont get away with it in traditional societies if they would have illegitimate sexual acts with valuable and honorable women of the group. Thats the point, in such a society the males are responsible for their females and they lose their honour if they have sex with a lower, foreign male - or even if they are not married in any case. Since they live in extended families, clans, there are not too much "free and unprotected" women around, so every male searching for an "adventure" might get too much of an "adventure" because he will come into conflict with other males. Namely the father, other male relatives, local group members or the husband if there exists one already.
Therefore the male will be punished not because he had sex with the female, thats in theory uninteresting, but because he diminished the value and honour of the female, therefore of the whole group. Its about the males act against other males and the group because he was hunted down - the sexual act as such for the male being, as I said, uninteresting if not involving valuable women of the group, rather a funny story for the others in the community...

The only females he will have free access too are lower class women, outcasts and whores on which he can "train" for later life and the real woman. Thats how it worked most of the time in functioning and culturally higher evolved societies. Some were more Liberal and gave people the chance to test - sexual relations for a limited time being possible in the Germanic world f.e., they were not as prudish on that, but hard if the female damaged the honour of the group or/and her husband. In fact that was a quite reasonable approach, not too extreme, not moralistic, but still with clear rules where its necessary.


Individuals must still take responsibility for their own choices and actions!!! It's an ethical issue!

Thats true. But this doesnt include being an idiot and destroying or at least downgrading the own blood line and group if having the chance to make it better.


No intelligent, discerning, self-respecting woman would want to forge a relationship with an irresponsible man lacking such a degree of integrity, commitment and compassion (for the family he's abandoned!!). Women should, of course, get to choose which men they marry, and no woman of worth would want a man so clearly capable of abandonment, cold-heartedness and causing such pain to others. Such a man would be nothing but a reject to worthy women.

Just imagine you had a son which was one of the colonists, he would be your only child and he had to live without an European female for 14 years, therefore it was not that immoral to take an indigenous Aborigine woman for that time. Still, when new colonists with European women are coming, he is just 33 years of age and could found a new white family. If he would stay monogamous with the Abo-woman, the only grandchildren you will ever have will be half-Aborigine bastards.
Now he doesnt even have to really abandon them, he could even care for them materially to a certain degree, but to just make an European woman his main wife, now if you would say in such a case, "no, I prefer my son staying with his Abo-wife alone, it would be immoral to found a second family", it would just prove to me that a lot of women just can't be rational if its about personal relations and harder decisions...


However, I do think you underestimate the importance of moral obligation to a well-functioning, healthy population.

I dont underestimate it, but one has to define a good moral first before asking for "moral obligations" in the first place. Probably some of this obligations are rather negligible and others - for the big picture and long term considerations of both the own blood line and the own group as well as mankind - far more important.

Bridie
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 07:50 AM
Well, I had something quite specific in mind if speaking about "female sluts" and some of the reasons why males and females can never be judged the same way on that are being explained above.
No, it's not that men and women can't be judged in the same way, it's just not convenient to selfish, greedy and weak men to be judged the same way as women. Men want to be allowed to be irresponsible and decadent while demanding that women refrain. Men want women to remain monogamous and faithful to one man in her lifetime to ensure exclusivity of the fathering of her children, sure... but it's not for the good of the group; if he's a weak man then it only makes sense that if a stronger man comes along and desires his woman, or she desires him, that the weak will be toppled from his powerful position in the family or even done away with to make way for the stronger man... this is the way of it in the animal kingdom for many species of course, and some believe perhaps in ancient human populations too. The reason men try to control the women to prevent unfaithfulness and multiple partners can only be because the thought of a more dominant male being able to come along and have influence over his family leaves men feeling insecure and frightened.

In fact, if we're going to look at it from a biological perspective, we should encourage women to either leave their husbands for a better man if she's young enough and of a "high quality" (as you say), or take on better quality men when they become available. This would ensure that the women are always going to be interbreeding with the best quality males on offer. And the first husband could still stick around, he'll still be valuable for generating income to support the family and for baby-sitting services etc.



Its not even about "immoral behaviour" for the female bitch, its about the outcome, the results. Some women can be promiscuous, that doesnt matter, its about the majority which should look for having more stable relationships and family. A certain number of "natural bitches" always existed, be it the village bitch, courtesan or modern prostitute. Their strategy was indeed to have more and different males, but thats not option for the group as a whole, it would be a destabilising factor.
(Agrippa, please don't refer to whores as "bitches". This sounds absolutely abhorrant and in very poor taste in English. And "bitch" is generally used to mean complaining, a mean woman or a female dog. I'd never heard of "bitch" being used to describe a whore until I read it on Skadi! :-O ;) )

I think you're VERY wrong there Agrippa. Whores have existed throughout history that's true. So has slavery, murder, rape, peadophilia, homosexuality... doesn't make it right, healthy, NOR natural. (And for a man who's keen on the notion of humanity evolving to a higher level I'm surprised that you'd be looking to the past so much for justifications for destructive behaviours - whether it be personal destuctiveness to the subject or otherwise.)

Furthermore, whores have arguably always been victims.... oftentimes women living in desperate poverty who had no choice but to sell themselves to survive.... otherwise weak, unintelligent women who have been used and abused in a male-dominated society as some kind of product, instead of a human being.

And should we just think that it's acceptable for under-privaleged women to be used as commodities, regardless of the harm it causes them? It's not just the woman's choice to become a whore that must be looked down on after all... if there were no demand, there would be no sex industry. And this is where men come into it. Men should be forced to control their own urges!

Blaming whores for promiscuity (saying that they are just like that, so they get what they deserve) is like blaming illegal drugs for the drugs problem. It is ultimately the user that is responsible for any misuse.

In any case, I find it near impossible to believe that some females are just born with the tendancy to sleep with as many men as possible. A woman who does this in practice obviously has some sort of mental instability.

And your attitude of "oh well, some women are self-destructive, so we may as well cash in on that and use that flaw to justify catering to men's selfish desires at the detriment of social stability" is VERY WRONG. (Okay, that's just how I'm interpreting your stance.... you may not agree with my interpretation, but this is what your attitude amounts to in my opinion.)



Their strategy was indeed to have more and different males, but thats not option for the group as a whole, it would be a destabilising factor. It is a destabilising factor no matter what to allow certain members of the population to be used as commodities and to allow women's husbands and children's fathers to root around!!!


Remember what the original article said about the value of monogamous, faithful men???



As ancestral females would have demanded commitment before consenting to sex, males who failed to show commitment would lose out in the mating game.
Males who provided clear evidence of commitment would be able to attract a better quality female.
The male would increase the odds of paternity certainty, as he would engage in mate-guarding behaviours to reduce the possibility of cuckoldry.
The children of a stable relationship would be much more likely to survive.
Like I said no decent woman would form a meaningful relationship with an irresponsible man-whore.

So all that I've said above is why male promiscuity should be disallowed.



End of the story like you would say.
No it's not, ;) but I don't have time to answer to the rest just now.... I'll come back later and finish this discussion. :D :P (No, I'm not competing with you really, I just don't have the time to say what I want to just now! lol)

Bridie
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 02:37 PM
Quote Bridie:
I know you think that males are entitled to have looser moral guidelines.... but as I've said before, this merely contributes to social fracture and is therefore undesirable!
Quote Agrippa:
Again, you must give examples, very concrete ones.

The situation that you cited of a man who has a family with a foreign woman because he can't keep his equipment in his pants (not for the good of his people), and then heartlessly ditches the foreign woman for a "better quality" woman later on is all the example needed I think. If you don't think that's immoral.... well I just don't know what can be done with you! :-O Obviously no one in their right mind would say that a woman should be entitled to have a family with a foreign man, then ditch the family she had with him to take up with a better quality man when he becomes available.... so what's the difference?? Men abandoning and betraying their own children is just as bad as women doing the same... so why the double standards??

And it's no excuse to say "well the foreign woman should have been protected by her population's men...." as if she should suffer because they didn't protect her. Well in the early colonial days of Australia, British/Irish men would kill the aboriginal men and take the women for sex. Where's the morality in that???

Furthermore, it's completely unjustified to expect the same socio-political structures to be in force in foreign populations as one's own. Just because Euro populations may have protected their "valuable" women from foreign elements, (perceiving them as a threat,) doesn't mean all populations of the world will do this.... they may have a different way of veiwing the world. Indeed in most Australian abo nations this was the case. Their culture and social boundaries were so vastly different from British that there was a total culture clash and abo's were being punished according to British laws for things that weren't even crimes as far as they knew. (Ie, most abo populations didn't share Euro concepts of ownership... therefore what they perceived as taking what they were entitled to, whites perceived as being criminal and they were jailed, whipped etc.)




Quote Bridie:
Oh okay. I was wondering if I'd understood you correctly on that. Obviously I didn't. :) So since we're living in times of decreasing birthrates now, it only makes biological ;) sense for every fertile woman to take several men!! :yippee (That way, few men will die childless.) Good thinking Agrippa. :D
Quote Agrippa:
Does the respective woman get more children then? No. Does she give birth to better children if having sex with a lower class male? No. Is it good for the group and for the male role and duties if they have to share a woman? No.
She may not have more children, but she could very likely have better "quality" ones. She may not give birth to better children if she were to have "unprotected" sex with a lower class male, but this would be a good reason why lower quality males shouldn't be used for fathering children.... they should be used for "practice" or "training". Not to mention a whole lot of fun! (And once again, if Mama's happy, everyone's happy!! :thumbup )

Plus from a financial/provisional point of veiw having the incomes and home help of several men would obviously be very advantageous for the family. And since lower quality males shouldn't really be reproducing and passing on their inferior genes, they would be most useful to the population in the capacity of concubine, breadwinner and home help for better quality women. Of course they would need to be sterilised first, then the quality male/s could be happy and secure in the knowledge that the lesser males wouldn't be fathering any of the children.

(I'm really liking this only considering things from a biologically advantageous veiw point thing! :thumbup No need for considering people's feelings or emotional needs!)



The only females he will have free access too are lower class women, outcasts and whores on which he can "train" for later life and the real woman.Okay, now comes the point at which I must ask.... what exactly are the quality men and women training for when they have sex with lower quality ones? Is there some kind of Sexual Olympics that I don't know of?



Just imagine you had a son which was one of the colonists, he would be your only child and he had to live without an European female for 14 years, therefore it was not that immoral to take an indigenous Aborigine woman for that time.Why on earth would it be okay for him to have sexual relationships with indigenous women in that instance?? I think it definately would be immoral for a man to ever have a family with a woman, regardless of her race or quality, if he had no intentions of commiting himself to caring for them! That's just pure selfishness. Tell me, how is it good for the group if quality men go miscegenating?? Better that he dies childless.



Now he doesnt even have to really abandon them, he could even care for them materially to a certain degree, but to just make an European woman his main wife, now if you would say in such a case, "no, I prefer my son staying with his Abo-wife alone, it would be immoral to found a second family", No decent Euro woman would consent to marrying a man with other wives be them foreign or not... why? Because it would mean having to play second fiddle sometimes. It would also be revolting to think that your husband is out screwing some other woman while you're sitting at home alone. And it would take the husband's time, money, effort and attention away from her family... no woman with any self-esteem would accept this situation!!



it would just prove to me that a lot of women just can't be rational if its about personal relations and harder decisions...
Think about this sensibly Agrippa.... there is no advantage to a man taking a low quality or foreign woman even if there are no other women around, other than satisfying his own lustful desires! If there were any real advantage I would reassess my opinion about it being wrong.... but there is NO ADVANTAGE!!

This discussion is making me think (if you could be representative of most men) that males just don't have the ability to combine both cold, hard rationality and thinking of large-scale concerns with more intangible, abstract concerns (like psychological health, emotional needs of the population) etc. It occurs to me that war time and colonial atrocities etc can only take place in an extreme male dominated environment because women would never stand for it. Men rationalise appalling behaviour by saying "well it doesn't hurt our group as far as we can see right now, so let's go for it!" Women would be more likely to say "well such a behaviour doesn't benefit our group (it may not hurt our gourp, but it doesn't actually serve any useful cause either) and it will only cause others unnecessary pain so let's not allow it."

Many men seem to have difficulty with empathy.



I dont underestimate it, but one has to define a good moral first before asking for "moral obligations" in the first place.
Well I personally define "moral behaviour" as behaviour that causes no unnecessary hurt. I think the problem for many men is they often don't recognise emotional or psychological hurt when they see it.

Obviously everything is relative though, and actions that have the potential to cause hurt, but are necessary for the long-term good of a population, should be prioritised if they are needed. The action that leads to the best outcome should be the action taken.

Agrippa
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Men want women to remain monogamous and faithful to one man in her lifetime to ensure exclusivity of the fathering of her children, sure...

Thats only the case in a fix relationship and for sure in a marriage, other than that women can do what they want to, but its about the males in their family and environment as well as the group to judge it. Furthermore the woman can leave the male, thats her freedom, she just shouldnt cheat on him, since that would be completely different. As I said, the male doesnt bring the children home necessarily, the women on the other hand makes cuckoo's egg - and thats something women know instinctively, they know that its worse if a female "does the same", thats just natural.


The reason men try to control the women to prevent unfaithfulness and multiple partners can only be because the thought of a more dominant male being able to come along and have influence over his family leaves men feeling insecure and frightened.

In that case the woman must be punished and outcasted - in every case the male she had a relationship with while switching to the next has no responsibility for her materially. As I said, she can leave the male, she is just not allowed on cheating him in a fix-long term relationship and for sure not marriage.
So the women must simply make the decision before and go after that - they two partners can speak about the rules for their relationship and determine whats allowed for them though. As long as it doesnt harm others, f.e. cause conflicts, harming others directly or giving a very bad role model its their problem.

Why should a male invest or trust in a family, where can he form his traditional line with an unfaithful woman? Even the idea of her being unfaithful? I mean today and in the future it will be easy - test - punishment - repudiation, but just imagine in the past. Of course that was a problem not just for the male, but for the whole clan, they took over an female, probably even "paid something" in exchange one way or another, integrated her in the family and now its about having trust in her and her giving birth to new group members. She shouldnt cause troubles in the group nor should she get children from a foreign male. Thats why only some primitives might see that loose, whereas higher and well structured, close knit groups never saw females unfaithfulness positive, neither males, but simply the latter more loose.


In fact, if we're going to look at it from a biological perspective, we should encourage women to either leave their husbands for a better man if she's young enough and of a "high quality" (as you say), or take on better quality men when they become available.

Yes, if the current male has a very low standard and a new one would have a higher, this can be indeed discussed. However, she must break up and leave the old, going to the new, there is no allowed half-way for a woman.


This would ensure that the women are always going to be interbreeding with the best quality males on offer. And the first husband could still stick around, he'll still be valuable for generating income to support the family and for baby-sitting services etc.

Just imagine an older elite male with excellent genes and she prefers a younger immigrant which is a dull and dead loss finally. Not acceptable. This would undermine his social prestige too, he would have to take hard measures to balance that out against those who betrayed him.
What you said would be only acceptable if the current male is an absolute minus-variant which should better have no children at all whereas the woman has very good traits, but then one might ask why is she together with him in the first place? A women chosing such a low standard male just for being secured must be a psychological problem case herself.


Furthermore, whores have arguably always been victims.... oftentimes women living in desperate poverty who had no choice but to sell themselves to survive.... otherwise weak, unintelligent women who have been used and abused in a male-dominated society as some kind of product, instead of a human being.

Lets put it that way, certain, especially psychological minus-variants were more common under them in any case.


And should we just think that it's acceptable for under-privaleged women to be used as commodities, regardless of the harm it causes them?

The way you put it obviously not.


It's not just the woman's choice to become a whore that must be looked down on after all... if there were no demand, there would be no sex industry. And this is where men come into it. Men should be forced to control their own urges!

Depends on the situation - war is a good example for a case where such an option is needed.


Blaming whores for promiscuity (saying that they are just like that, so they get what they deserve) is like blaming illegal drugs for the drugs problem. It is ultimately the user that is responsible for any misuse.

What you seem to ignore is that for the sake of my argument above the village slut is the same as the prostitute whether others paid for her or not. The status prostitute just makes the thing official and more professional, but even the "non-professionals" have the same status. It doesnt really matter from a certain point on if a women is being paid directly or not. In fact the one which want to be paid is better because she has at least an additional argument for her behaviour. There is a certain percentage of women which will and always behaved that way. Even if you would burn them alive or stone them to death they would do it, thats the point. So just give them the function which fits best, dont let them get a normal family in that case, they should just do for what they made are...
And its normal for males, at least if having no fix relationship and no available decent, valuable woman, that they sooner or later come to such a slut, be it a official or non-official one...


In any case, I find it near impossible to believe that some females are just born with the tendancy to sleep with as many men as possible. A woman who does this in practice obviously has some sort of mental instability.

She is not like the average, not normal in that way indeed.


to men's selfish desires at the detriment of social stability

Explain why its detriment to social stability?


It is a destabilising factor no matter what to allow certain members of the population to be used as commodities and to allow women's husbands and children's fathers to root around!!!

Yes, the smaller the group the more problematic by the way, because everyone would know it then and the wife of the perpetrator would be the victim of the gossip too, whats in my personal opinion one of the best arguments against, because that way the wife would get victimised with or without diseases and personal problems with the male behaviour. So you are right its destructive finally and rather the result of a certian imbalanced structure and society. However, one has to work on society as a whole and doing research on a certain type of women and men to know whats going on there and probably preventing or at least better controlling it in the future.


Like I said no decent woman would form a meaningful relationship with an irresponsible man-whore.

Again, the way you put it obviously not.


The situation that you cited of a man who has a family with a foreign woman because he can't keep his equipment in his pants (not for the good of his people), and then heartlessly ditches the foreign woman for a "better quality" woman later on is all the example needed I think. If you don't think that's immoral....

It might be hard but its rational - thats for sure. And you again reducing it "keep in his pants". First you can prove that males have a stronger desire for sexual contacts on average so its just natural and secondly what did he wrong? If there is no other partner available his blood line would be better survive in a mixed form than not at all. For the indigenous population, especially in the case I gave to you, it would be even an upgrade. As I said, the female determines the pure line, that way the other group would just be somewhat upgraded, the other way around it could be just a downgrading.



Obviously no one in their right mind would say that a woman should be entitled to have a family with a foreign man, then ditch the family she had with him to take up with a better quality man when he becomes available.... so what's the difference?? Men abandoning and betraying their own children is just as bad as women doing the same... so why the double standards??

Because as you said yourself, the children usually stay with the mother, the women has a more limited time and potential for getting children and for the male it can be always just an "additional procreation" what it can NEVER BE for a woman. Or can a woman say, "oh, two nice guys, now I will get twins, one from X and one from Y?" Not in nature at least...and thats in the woman's and man's behaviour and psychology, its instinctively right and normal women think more about with whom they have sex - they know what investment that must be. So as I said, its not even comparable.


And it's no excuse to say "well the foreign woman should have been protected by her population's men...." as if she should suffer because they didn't protect her. Well in the early colonial days of Australia, British/Irish men would kill the aboriginal men and take the women for sex. Where's the morality in that???

Eliminating competitor, taking ground, taking potential for procreation. Honestly that was done in many parts of world various times - its nothing I want to see of course, since we have other options now, but in the past that was one of the major reasons why progressive traits spread. Eliminate competitor, overtaking potential for procreation, land, animals, women. Some leftists argued humans never did it the "Lion way", but that was wrong, now we have even sites on which we can see in Europe all males dead and no single women's remains, conclude from that yourself.
Its the way it worked, whether a group can protect its lands and women, or not. If not she was weaker and unable to do so, so she was shattered - if the males felt like needing additional women, they overtook them. Thats one of the reasons why females adapt faster and being less rigid, having less rigour on some things - which can be seen to this day in policy - because it might have happened quite often actually. "The Rape of the Sabine women" is an interesting example too, as is the Ilias and the story about "Helene of Troy".

War being always ugly and that way of development is inhuman, therefore we have and should better ways now, but never forget, that we reached certain heights of biological development is partly the result of the fact that those which couldnt protect their women and land were eliminated.

It works that way: Those more dominant and higher quality males in the group have more women and the more dominant group as a whole has more women, more animals, more lands = more children, higher reproduction even if high investment is needed for the individual development of the progressive race and culture.
In consequence it even doesnt really matter if some of the women they took were of "lower quality" since they had their own pure lines anyway and as long as the strict selection worked only those mixed ones which had the necessary quality would have survived on the long run and finally more heads could mean more strength - so being again even advantageous for the own pure lines which were usually with rules (social classes, castes, religious tabus etc.) protected from mixture in the female line anyway. This again means as long as the positive selection works, they just win if being good in acting offensive and defensive which needs a lot of qualities and cultural improvements on the long run.




Furthermore, it's completely unjustified to expect the same socio-political structures to be in force in foreign populations as one's own. Just because Euro populations may have protected their "valuable" women from foreign elements, (perceiving them as a threat,) doesn't mean all populations of the world will do this.... they may have a different way of veiwing the world.

Thats why those with a higher and better organised culture and race survived and conquered others. You won't find the low level of culture and organisation, "this different views" in the centres of development, because if they would have been living their, they would have gone extinct many thousands of years already, not just in the 19th and actually thats the point.
Remember Aborigine culture and race, on which level they existed in comparison, in their isolation - because of their isolation!
They had wars too, they killed their people as well, but they never reached a certain level because it all happened constantly on very low niveau in comparsion and the environmental pressures didnt helped too much neither...


Indeed in most Australian abo nations this was the case. Their culture and social boundaries were so vastly different from British that there was a total culture clash and abo's were being punished according to British laws for things that weren't even crimes as far as they knew. (Ie, most abo populations didn't share Euro concepts of ownership... therefore what they perceived as taking what they were entitled to, whites perceived as being criminal and they were jailed, whipped etc.)

They should have put them in reservations - well, wasnt possible from the beginning. There were even fights in which Europeans died, you shouldnt forget that. This was a battle even if it was an unfair one. We wouldnt and wouldnt have to do it now the same way, but one thing is for sure, it worked. Australia is still a white country and even if being flooded with foreigner, it will never go back to such a primitive level of racial and cultural development as it was when Europeans first settled there.


Plus from a financial/provisional point of veiw having the incomes and home help of several men would obviously be very advantageous for the family. And since lower quality males shouldn't really be reproducing and passing on their inferior genes, they would be most useful to the population in the capacity of concubine, breadwinner and home help for better quality women. Of course they would need to be sterilised first, then the quality male/s could be happy and secure in the knowledge that the lesser males wouldn't be fathering any of the children.

Well, why should they have women than in the first place? It would be rather an ungood situation if he knows that his women sleep with lowest class males all the time, even if they are sterilised. In such an extreme situation of not enough women available, some males have just to stay without females.


Okay, now comes the point at which I must ask.... what exactly are the quality men and women training for when they have sex with lower quality ones? Is there some kind of Sexual Olympics that I don't know of?

I myself had usually girlfriends which were almost exactly the same age as I am, but for the statistics one could say its better that they are significantly younger, which means that a good male will have some years without having a decent wife, since he still has to go through certain stages of biological and social development whereas the female he would marry is still too young. In this phase its allowed for the male to have certain other females if he likes - usually this should not be decent women with which others will found a family if its avoidable.


Why on earth would it be okay for him to have sexual relationships with indigenous women in that instance?? I think it definately would be immoral for a man to ever have a family with a woman, regardless of her race or quality, if he had no intentions of commiting himself to caring for them! That's just pure selfishness. Tell me, how is it good for the group if quality men go miscegenating?? Better that he dies childless.

Its never better to die childless with the exception of your relatives having a huge number of children and there is not enough living space anyway. In every other situation expansion is good and if he is a coloniser, his half-breeds might be useful for the newcomers since they will feel a certain connection, know the language and finally spread the own genes and racial characteristics further in the group. Its a question of how you do it. Obviously he might feel a certain commitment, he can - but he should know what the priorities are: He will always stay an European and if the chance for a pure line is present he should use it. That doesnt mean he should forget about his half-breeds, since as I said, if caring enough for them they can be very useful for the next wave of colonists.
Some people see the "race mixture story" to dogmatic, it isnt. If a higher level male impregnates a lower level female its a progress and the half-breeds can be useful, there are a lot of stories which tell you that.


No decent Euro woman would consent to marrying a man with other wives be them foreign or not... why? Because it would mean having to play second fiddle sometimes. It would also be revolting to think that your husband is out screwing some other woman while you're sitting at home alone. And it would take the husband's time, money, effort and attention away from her family... no woman with any self-esteem would accept this situation!!

Well, if she's really that demanding he can leave the other woman alone, just caring for her material well being and especially the children as far as its possible and reasonable.
Furthermore what you are saying goes back to the bourgeois idea of a nuclear family, and thats most likely how it really works in cities in particular. Very hard to imagine a patriarch sitting in a city flat with 3 women isnt it? So its not really an option in many cases anyway, but you shouldnt generalise. In some situations and cultures the women were even glad to have a 2nd or 3rd one in the household, because that meant that she could share work and childcare with them. They usually divided the work in the household then, everyone had her own space and the male was committed to care for all. They were a social unit as well or even more than a "love story". Marriages were in the past something different anyway, for sure not just "love stories" and the funny thing is that it worked statistically better than it does now...

As I said, thats not really imaginable for most people in the modern West as it is now - but one shouldnt always look at things from our current perspective which is in some ways superior, in others inferior and degenerated.


Think about this sensibly Agrippa.... there is no advantage to a man taking a low quality or foreign woman even if there are no other women around, other than satisfying his own lustful desires! If there were any real advantage I would reassess my opinion about it being wrong.... but there is NO ADVANTAGE!!

Read above.


It occurs to me that war time and colonial atrocities etc can only take place in an extreme male dominated environment because women would never stand for it.

Thats the problem we have. Now we dont even send Negrids back to Africa from Europe for the very same reasons. The extremes are always bad, but the "effeminated extreme" is worse because it kills THE OWN GROUP.


Well I personally define "moral behaviour" as behaviour that causes no unnecessary hurt.

Fully agree with you on that.


I think the problem for many men is they often don't recognise emotional or psychological hurt when they see it.

Right, and thats necessary, in the small scale environment is one thing, big picture another.


Obviously everything is relative though, and actions that have the potential to cause hurt, but are necessary for the long-term good of a population, should be prioritised if they are needed. The action that leads to the best outcome should be the action taken.

Well said! But now think about what you said before again.

fms panzerfaust
Monday, September 11th, 2006, 11:53 PM
I have to disagree about prostitutes. They existed since the stone age, both on times of ascension and decline of civilizations.

Some men have their drives for sexual intercourse, and sometimes they dont find a serious woman to a partnership. This is true for modern men that work on offices or corporations, they work too much and sometimes need some sex, that career girls cannot provide (as they only thought in career and money). In this case, I cannot condemn they going after prostitutes and paying their services, when all options about finding a partner have ended.

I read, some time ago, about a guy that only did sex one time per year, and worked too much in one of these big corporations. He dont had time to search for a girlfriend, and even when it had he cant find one, because the girls that he find werent serious enough to a partnership, prefering to suck his money, or then were career girls that dont wanted even a kiss. He decided to pay whores, because find it more cheap and practical.

He can be seem as a slave to capitalism, but as in this case, I cant simply say that he is promiscuous, as men have more of a sexual drive than women, and career-girls, like the women that were his colleages in the company, dont want or dont like sex, or, when they want it, they always prefer a negro than a white (the anti-white racist type), or a more enriched man to find "security" (the money-hungry type). I will prefer say that this man is a victim.

I'm not advocating promiscuity. It's just that not all men will behave like me, being nine months without ****ing or living an ascetic life.

Men and women have different natures, and it's clear that modern women dont need sex after all, contrary to men. Men need an iron will to control these impulses.

Bridie
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 02:22 AM
it's clear that women dont need sex after all, contrary to men. Bullshit.

That's all I'm going to say on this now, it's clear that you blokes have no common sense at all. Male dominated environments are brutal and uncivilised for a reason.... and now that reason has become crystal clear to me.

Agrippa
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 02:45 AM
it's clear that women dont need sex after all, contrary to men.

Thats indeed false, didnt read it before. Women have sexual desires too obviously, they just dont think as often about sex and can deal with longer periods of abstinence better on average. This is again natural if comparing the different functions of the sexes in the human as well as most mammal species.


Male dominated environments are brutal and uncivilised for a reason....

Most civilised nations and cultures, especially those which were successful on the long run, were male dominated. Thats nothing which happened by chance. Females and more (not fully - that never existed) female influenced cultures can be very brutal too, there are historic notions about that. They usually just have a lower degree of organisation and lack positive and dynamic structures and hierarchies - what doesnt mean there are no hierarchies, but those are usually determined by cults and religion much more than by achievements and clear cut kinship rules, which are at least in theory, and if its just about the glorious ancestors, almost always behind a leader in a patriarchic society. Everything works for keeping things stable rather then dynamic in a too effeminated society, real progress is hard to achieve if a society is conservative in such a passive way, nor are hard but necessary measures which are more than "tradition" and heroic rigour something one will see too often.
But thats what every successful society needs - women can influence their man and family, can influence the private and more local environment, but the big decisions and the path which the group should go are something primarily males should decide, because if not the own group will simply lose.

Kaiser
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 04:01 AM
"Males in all cultures were attracted to female faces displaying large eyes, small noses, high cheekbones, small chin and a large smile; body shape preferences did differ though with black males preferring 'heavier' bodies." This just further illustrates negroidal tendencies toward cannibalism and welfarism as well. Have intercourse with the woman who brings home the most vittles. If that fails, throw her on the spit and eat her! Typical.

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Male dominated environments are brutal and uncivilised for a reason.... and now that reason has become crystal clear to me.

That's not fair, just a blanket statement.

Huzar
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Bullshit.
. Male dominated environments are brutal and uncivilised for a reason.... and now that reason has become crystal clear to me.


Come on, aren't you exaggerating a bit ? ;)

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 02:50 AM
That's not fair, just a blanket statement.


Come on, aren't you exaggerating a bit ? ;)

Actually, I really mean it and I've thought it since I was at least 10 years old. If you had lived in the remote areas of Australia before, where the vast majority of the population is male, and seen the sorts of behaviour that result from these rather unnatural environments you would see where I'm coming from on this.

Even in the colonial days of Australian settlement, some appalling and brutal things took place at the hands of some men, and it was noted that as the areas became more settled and larger proportions of women came to live in them, these sorts of brutal behaviours virtually ceased.

Women in my state of Australia (at least) generally know that the remote, male dominated areas are not good for women to live in.... it's often said that men become like animals in these areas.... and it's true a lot (not all of course) do. Also male depression is high in these areas.... suicide, drug taking, alcoholism etc are all relatively common.

I think perhaps it's more difficult for people like you 2 guys that live in a long settled area of the world like Europe to really envision what male dominated communities (not just work environments or anything) can be like.

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 08:03 AM
Even in the colonial days of Australian settlement, some appalling and brutal things took place at the hands of some men, and it was noted that as the areas became more settled and larger proportions of women came to live in them, these sorts of brutal behaviours virtually ceased.

Women in my state of Australia (at least) generally know that the remote, male dominated areas are not good for women to live in.... it's often said that men become like animals in these areas.... and it's true a lot (not all of course) do. Also male depression is high in these areas.... suicide, drug taking, alcoholism etc are all relatively common.

You have to take the rough with the smooth, these areas were not going to be explored and conquered by women. No doubt the pack mentality of men can achieve good and bad things.

Women occupy a far narrower band of behavourism than men. Some men are murderers, child molestors, consistently violent to their spouse. Some men are total brain-dead dunces, other men make scientific discoveries. Some men are far more quiet and placid than the majority of women.

This will always be the case.

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 02:16 PM
You have to take the rough with the smooth, these areas were not going to be explored and conquered by women. No doubt the pack mentality of men can achieve good and bad things.
That's true.... but it only just serves to re-inforce my belief that men need to have their behaviour influenced or even controlled by women. This way they can achieve good things without being bad. ;)

:whip




Furthermore the woman can leave the male, thats her freedom, she just shouldnt cheat on him, since that would be completely different. I wasn't referring to a woman cheating on her "one" partner or husband though.... I was talking about women having having several partners or husbands at a time. That's not the same as "cheating". This would be advantageous for many reasons;

1) More males to provide financial, emotional and physical support ensuring that the family thrives.

2) If the first husband (and even 2nd, 3rd etc) needs to go to war or away for an extended period for work for example, the wife will still have her lesser husbands to provide sex, support and company. (Why should she go without just because her other husbands are away??) This would stop her from feeling the need to "cheat" in order to find company and sex.

3) If one husband dies.... it's no big loss or threat to the family's survival..... she's always got other husbands on hand.

4) The woman wouldn't be placing unfair demands on just one husband... the responsibilities would be shared around among the husbands, so the husbands could have a better, more relaxing life (they'd be nagged less, wouldn't need to listen to ALL of her problems, wouldn't have to have sex all the time, number of household chores would be lessened for each husband).

5) The woman would be much happier all 'round... and the children will benefit from having a happy mum.

6) Men are expendable anyway since they don't control group purity (right?) and one man can impregnate many women, so if there are less available men for the lower-level women, it doesn't matter (well, they souldn't be breeding anyway, so that's probably a good thing!).

... of course it could be decreed that women should only have one higher level husband each and the others could just be sterilised lower level men, if the "first husband" is worried about feeling "ousted" from his favoured position in the family. Of course, sterilisation would be necessary for the lower level males as they don't provide good enough genetic material to be of any good other than for work, sex and providing money....

.... but best arrangements can be discussed.



Why should a male invest or trust in a family, where can he form his traditional line with an unfaithful woman?
You're right, unfaithfulness is not a good thing and shouldn't be tolerated. That's why every good woman should have several husbands.... this would eliminate any temptation for her to cheat.



Just imagine an older elite male with excellent genes and she prefers a younger immigrant which is a dull and dead loss finally. Not acceptable. This would undermine his social prestige too,
The younger immigrant could be sterilised. Easy! :) No need to procreate with him! :-O

And the first husband's prestige wouldn't be undermined if it were just accepted in that culture that every woman will have several husbands. He would still have his title of "first husband", which would bring him a certain degree of power and prestige.




Explain why its detriment to social stability?

Men having several partners at a time or being promiscuous is detrimental to social stability because the prestige of the females would be undermined. Females would not be respected so much.... rather thought of as "things" to use for whatever purpose. Also it would be a rather bad situation for the women in the population to know that the men are being slutty.... they just wouldn't like it, and would be unhappy.



Well, why should they have women than in the first place? It would be rather an ungood situation if he knows that his women sleep with lowest class males all the time, even if they are sterilised. In such an extreme situation of not enough women available, some males have just to stay without females.

It's not that the lower level men should have women, it's that they may as well serve some purpose to society.... and all they're really good for is to provide money, sex and labour for the women and their families. Not much point in having even lower level males go to waste.

Huzar
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 02:58 PM
That's true.... but it only just serves to re-inforce my belief that men need to have their behaviour influenced or even controlled by women. This way they can achieve good things without being bad. ;)

:whip







Controlled by women ?!? Uarrggh !! Don't tell me such things........:P :D. I'm sweet with women, but be dominated by one of them.........only a fabulous one could be. Perhaps.






1) More males to provide financial, emotional and physical support ensuring that the family thrives.



Logic......:-O





2) If the first husband (and even 2nd, 3rd etc) needs to go to war or away for an extended period for work for example, the wife will still have her lesser husbands to provide sex, support and company. (Why should she go without just because her other husbands are away??) This would stop her from feeling the need to "cheat" in order to find company and sex.



Logic.........:D





3) If one husband dies.... it's no big loss or threat to the family's survival..... she's always got other husbands on hand.



Hyper-logic (and brutal....)







... of course it could be decreed that women should only have one higher level husband each and the others could just be sterilised lower level men, if the "first husband" is worried about feeling "ousted" from his favoured position in the family. Of course, sterilisation would be necessary for the lower level males as they don't provide good enough genetic material to be of any good other than for work, sex and providing money....

.... but best arrangements can be discussed.




Wow ! You don't lack imagination, Bridie. You propose a new slave trade for the 21th century...............:D I'd be curious about sterilisation criteria, but I'm sure Agrippa will discuss this specific point with pleasure.......






It's not that the lower level men should have women, it's that they may as well serve some purpose to society.... and all they're really good for is to provide money, sex and labour for the women and their families. Not much point in having even lower level males go to waste.



Islamic holy Poligamy Vs. Bridie feminist empire.................who will win ?:P


Excuse my excess of humour, Bridie, but it's difficult to think such world (even theorically). Anyway, i've never read anyone exposing so well such ideas.:)

Jäger
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Even in the colonial days of Australian settlement, some appalling and brutal things took place at the hands of some men, and it was noted that as the areas became more settled and larger proportions of women came to live in them, these sorts of brutal behaviours virtually ceased.
Wasn't there a post here on Skadi which supported the claim, that in societeies with few females males tend to be more violent?
I think this is quite reasonable, even without the idea of "woman control", which might as well apply, there is the biological component of the fight for women.


I was talking about women having having several partners or husbands at a time. That's not the same as "cheating". This would be advantageous for many reasons
Interesting that you mention this, because I am currently reading The Moon is a harsh Mistress (http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Harsh-Mistress-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0312863551/) by Robert Heinlein, and now that I come to think of it, it is actually quite australian.
It is about the Moon which became a prison colony, and of course there is a lack of women, which lead to what you described.
It is a good book, and there are even advantages for the male part mentioned, like to stay away from home for weeks without the wife nagging about it. :D

Since this book is also about revolutions and overcomming a current ruling class I recommend to read it :)

From a mere biological point of view, as long as there are enough women there will never be such a thing like one women with many men.

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 03:56 PM
Controlled by women ?!? Uarrggh !! Don't tell me such things........:P :D.You like? :fwink:



You propose a new slave trade for the 21th century...............:D They wouldn't be slaves! :-O What sort of cruel woman do you take me for! :fhmm: They would just be low-life husbands that's all. Just like the lesser wives of many a polygynist. :)


And honestly, I'm not even joking about this.... I think it's a great idea. :thumbup I think plenty of women would enjoy the added financial security, sexual diversity and experimentation, as well as the extra support and help around the house.

I think a society set up like this would be very successful. I can't see that such an organisation of our societies would pose any problems.... only pluses. :)

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Wasn't there a post here on Skadi which supported the claim, that in societeies with few females males tend to be more violent?
Hmmm... I'm not sure. But I have read that some people are now getting worried that the lack of females in China (due to the low level of female babies being born/surviving infancy because of a preference for boy babies by parents + one child policy) may cause unrest and even aggression and violence in the majority male population. One of the theories is that the lack of happy home lives (wife and child) and lack of sex will cause males to go off the handle a bit.

I read something years ago too about neural changes that occur in men's nervous systems (or something like that) when they don't have sex for extended periods.... basically they can become aggressive and irritable.... unable to think straight or something like that! I wouldn't be surprised if it caused depression too, going on the high suicide rates in vastly male dominated areas in remote Australia.

Seems like men without sexual partners should be investing in some good "blow-up dolls"! hehe Or they could just have a toss?

Still I don't think the sexual deprivation, nor the lack of a secure home life is the whole story. I think men feel free to behave in more brutal, uncivilised ways around other men, that they wouldn't dare around women.

Note how men's behaviour tends to change around females in a civilised society. Men swear less, are less likely to be extremely crude etc etc.

Women are good for men.... end of story. (hehe... don't you just love that saying Agrippa??)

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 04:19 PM
And before anyone suggests that men losing the plot when they don't have sex for extended periods (talking years here) is a justification for using women to just get their rocks off (sleeping with whores).... think about this.... women are human too. Every whore (conveniently de-humanising word) is someone's daughter, possibly mother, sister, granddaughter etc. Why should anyone be used in a derogatory or disrespectful way just to provide "relief" for others? It's not civilised behaviour at all.

Jäger
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 04:35 PM
I think a society set up like this would be very successful. I can't see that such an organisation of our societies would pose any problems.... only pluses. :)
Certainly not, one woman who has many husbands would mean that just for reproduction one single female has to get as many kids as she has husbands plus one.
Futhermore would this leave many women "unkissed", since in our society it is more or less 1:1, and I doubt a man would voluntarily share a woman if he has access to a surplus of them.
Biologically speaking it has only drawbacks, all packs developed a certain function to ensure the spreading of seeds, Wolfs let swollow their penises to a bigger size so they are stuck for roughly half an hour in the female wolf, Lions just kill every offspring when they enter a new group etc.

And to come back on topic, when you say "male dominated" do you mean theat males dmoinate in the sense of ruling or where there are more males than femals?

Amorsite
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 04:40 PM
That's true.... but it only just serves to re-inforce my belief that men need to have their behaviour influenced or even controlled by women. This way they can achieve good things without being bad. ;)

:whip



I wasn't referring to a woman cheating on her "one" partner or husband though.... I was talking about women having having several partners or husbands at a time. That's not the same as "cheating". This would be advantageous for many reasons;

1) More males to provide financial, emotional and physical support ensuring that the family thrives.

2) If the first husband (and even 2nd, 3rd etc) needs to go to war or away for an extended period for work for example, the wife will still have her lesser husbands to provide sex, support and company. (Why should she go without just because her other husbands are away??) This would stop her from feeling the need to "cheat" in order to find company and sex.

3) If one husband dies.... it's no big loss or threat to the family's survival..... she's always got other husbands on hand.

4) The woman wouldn't be placing unfair demands on just one husband... the responsibilities would be shared around among the husbands, so the husbands could have a better, more relaxing life (they'd be nagged less, wouldn't need to listen to ALL of her problems, wouldn't have to have sex all the time, number of household chores would be lessened for each husband).

5) The woman would be much happier all 'round... and the children will benefit from having a happy mum.

6) Men are expendable anyway since they don't control group purity (right?) and one man can impregnate many women, so if there are less available men for the lower-level women, it doesn't matter (well, they souldn't be breeding anyway, so that's probably a good thing!).

... of course it could be decreed that women should only have one higher level husband each and the others could just be sterilised lower level men, if the "first husband" is worried about feeling "ousted" from his favoured position in the family. Of course, sterilisation would be necessary for the lower level males as they don't provide good enough genetic material to be of any good other than for work, sex and providing money....

.... but best arrangements can be discussed.



You're right, unfaithfulness is not a good thing and shouldn't be tolerated. That's why every good woman should have several husbands.... this would eliminate any temptation for her to cheat.



The younger immigrant could be sterilised. Easy! :) No need to procreate with him! :-O

And the first husband's prestige wouldn't be undermined if it were just accepted in that culture that every woman will have several husbands. He would still have his title of "first husband", which would bring him a certain degree of power and prestige.




Men having several partners at a time or being promiscuous is detrimental to social stability because the prestige of the females would be undermined. Females would not be respected so much.... rather thought of as "things" to use for whatever purpose. Also it would be a rather bad situation for the women in the population to know that the men are being slutty.... they just wouldn't like it, and would be unhappy.



It's not that the lower level men should have women, it's that they may as well serve some purpose to society.... and all they're really good for is to provide money, sex and labour for the women and their families. Not much point in having even lower level males go to waste.

Rofl. I just hope everbody reads this post, thank you for it. You pretty much made clear what a childish and partial position you have. This goes far beyond anything i had said before, which was just my opinion and philosophical struggle for truth, but for this you will not only not be banned but rewarded by this army of retarded women-worshippers.
The IQ of this post is just too low to write any further line about it. Case closed.

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:13 PM
And to come back on topic, when you say "male dominated" do you mean theat males dmoinate in the sense of ruling or where there are more males than femals?
In this instance I was talking about the significant majority of the population being male. Not enough female influence. ;) :)

Huzar
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:24 PM
You like? :fwink:


If i like ?:P Maybe. It depends from the kind of woman.;)






They wouldn't be slaves! :-O What sort of cruel woman do you take me for! :fhmm: They would just be low-life husbands that's all.........


Too generous...........:P





I think a society set up like this would be very successful. I can't see that such an organisation of our societies would pose any problems.... only pluses. :)



Well, i don't know, to be honest. Anyway, i understand now : you're the secret mind of Feminist revolutionary front (australian section), unh ?:thumbup

But be carefull, my sweet Bridie : in the heart of old Europe you'll find the hardest obstacles : Agrippa's progressivist front, and me........... :D

Horagalles
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Those interested in the subject of this thread, may after all be interested in the following as well:thumbup :
http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/

or download the booklet on evolutionary economics:
http://www.evolutionary-economics.org/pamphlet/index.html

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:38 PM
the hardest obstacles

:wtf :bigeek Well Dragone, you stallion!! We're not in the Realm of the Senses now you know! I don't think such phallic references are allowed here in the Decent forums!! Still.... it's an image that's inclined to make a girl smile!! :wsg

Righto, I'm off to bed now to have some rather pleasant dreams about Agrippa's progressivist front, and the Skadi stallion........... :D no doubt! :-D:

Huzar
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 05:51 PM
:wtf :bigeek Well Dragone, you stallion!! We're not in the Realm of the Senses now you know! I don't think such phallic references are allowed here in the Decent forums!! Still.... it's an image that's inclined to make a girl smile!! :wsg



It wasn't intended in such precise sense, to be sincere..:P , but yes, if i think about it, your interpretation isn't totally wrong..........:D



Righto, I'm off to bed now to have some rather pleasant dreams about Agrippa's progressivist front, and the Skadi stallion........... :D no doubt! :-D:


:thumbup :D

Bridie
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 07:01 PM
It wasn't intended in such precise sense, to be sincere..
I know. ;)



but yes, if i think about it, your interpretation isn't totally wrong..........:D
:-O Yee-ha!!! Ride 'em STALLION!!! :yippee


:lol

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 07:10 PM
1) More males to provide financial, emotional and physical support ensuring that the family thrives.

2) If the first husband (and even 2nd, 3rd etc) needs to go to war or away for an extended period for work for example, the wife will still have her lesser husbands to provide sex, support and company. (Why should she go without just because her other husbands are away??) This would stop her from feeling the need to "cheat" in order to find company and sex.

3) If one husband dies.... it's no big loss or threat to the family's survival..... she's always got other husbands on hand.

4) The woman wouldn't be placing unfair demands on just one husband... the responsibilities would be shared around among the husbands, so the husbands could have a better, more relaxing life (they'd be nagged less, wouldn't need to listen to ALL of her problems, wouldn't have to have sex all the time, number of household chores would be lessened for each husband).

5) The woman would be much happier all 'round... and the children will benefit from having a happy mum.

6) Men are expendable anyway since they don't control group purity (right?) and one man can impregnate many women, so if there are less available men for the lower-level women, it doesn't matter (well, they souldn't be breeding anyway, so that's probably a good thing!).

No sane man would tolerate that. No government could bring it to fruition because of it's massive unpopularity, apart from it being a loony idea.

Civilised evolution is (was) working towards one man + one woman.

Uncivilised (Africa) is bands of men killing other men and controlling a large group of women or the women living independent of their brutish men. There is a biological basis to this among Africans.


And before anyone suggests that men losing the plot when they don't have sex for extended periods (talking years here) is a justification for using women to just get their rocks off (sleeping with whores).... think about this.... women are human too. Every whore (conveniently de-humanising word) is someone's daughter, possibly mother, sister, granddaughter etc. Why should anyone be used in a derogatory or disrespectful way just to provide "relief" for others? It's not civilised behaviour at all.

As long as the prostitutes do it of their own free will, there is no issue. What you see as derogatory is someone else's salary.

When prostitution is illegal, that's when the pimps and abusers move in. When it is legal or tolerated, the women have much better conditions.

Huzar
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 09:19 PM
I know. ;)
:-O Yee-ha!!! Ride 'em STALLION!!! :yippee
:lol


Of course. With a woman over me.:D

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 02:50 AM
No sane man would tolerate that. No government could bring it to fruition because of it's massive unpopularity, apart from it being a loony idea.:D Of course it's a loony idea... but I am Australian you know.... can't expect too much. ;)



Civilised evolution is (was) working towards one man + one woman.
:thumbup :thumbup YES!! That's EXACTLY what I was arguing for in about... what? 20 posts or something?? Didn't work so, I thought I'd try the "how would you like to be disempowered and treated like an object?" route. ;) You'll have to forgive me for my empathetic way of veiwing things.... :bmaiden:



As long as the prostitutes do it of their own free will, there is no issue. There will always be an issue where there are women who are too weak, unintelligent and pathetic to realise what's self-destructive and what's not.... what's right from wrong. I don't know about you Saxon, but I personally believe that the vast majority of the world's population are too ignorant and narrow-minded, focused on mundane issues to be able to make proper, healthy decisions for themselves without guidance from stronger, more intelligent people. This is where prohibiting women from doing this to themselves comes in.

In the early days of colonial settlement in Australia, girls that came from half-decent families (or where the elders cared about the girls) were put into insane asylums if they became promiscuous.... so the only prostitutes there were, were girls/women who no one cared about.

So here's the question; is it ethically sound to allow someone to abuse themselves, and/or for them to allow others to use and abuse them, just because no one cares enough about them to stop them?

I think not.

Men need to be forced to take moral considerations into account before they go giving of themselves so freely. They need to make sure that they're not hurting anyone in their pursuit of gratification.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridie http://forums.skadi.net/images/asgard/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=536859#post536859)
I know. ;)
:-O Yee-ha!!! Ride 'em STALLION!!! :yippee
:lol


Of course. With a woman over me.:D
Could you get any more Italian??? :fwink: (You're such a stud Dragone. ;) :P )

:rofl

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:27 AM
The last posts were going further and further away from the original topic, but since some doubted the "baby face proportions" story, even spoke about hte study being one sided, I might bring it back on track again.

Its interesting if comparing more paedomorphised faces of which the typological background is still visible. A progressive basic type looks partly still progressive and more Neotenic rather than the less Neotenic but typically (imbalanced) infantilised individuals. The partial change of face proportions doesnt lead to a racially fully infantilised individual but to exaggerated Neoteny usually.
Even though one can see if comparing the Cromagnoid spectrum alone, that there things are somewhat different. If using very archaic-coarse-robust Cromagnoid individuals as starting point, Alpinisation and Baltisation can be seen - at least partially - as a female paedomorphisation. If speaking about the less reduced, physically more juvenile-mature build people of the Balto-Alpinoid spectrum, even of progressive Neotenisation. Facial paedomorphisation/Neotenisation and racial total infantilisation, especially together with strong reduction, shouldnt be equated.
This can be seen in the Dalofaelid/Cromagnid spectrum itself too, especially if comparing the coarsest-archaic with the more refined-Neotenic females.

If comparing progressive individuals with primitive ones, the first being more Neotenic, especially in certain facial traits obviously - but not fully infantilised (!) nor heavily reduced (!) and they have at the same time characteristic adult and dominant signals (strong paedomorphy is rather subdominant).

Infantile:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66528

Progressive:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43474

On this site one can see what childlike (generally paedomorphic) facial proportions can mean:
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchenschema.htm

One can check for him-/herself which percentage of adult/childlike proportions he perceives as being more attractive:
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchenschema-exp.htm

All starting faces are progressive and attractive, already balanced Neotenic for European standards one could say. The differences being more obvious in the first example me thinks.

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:52 AM
On this site one can see what childlike (generally paedomorphic) facial proportions can mean:
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakulta...chenschema.htm (http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchenschema.htm)

You know it strikes me that the differences between the 100% adult and the progressively more child-like female faces, is that the more "adult" a female face is, the less "feminine" it looks (perhaps indicating something about popular ideals of what it is to be feminine). So perhaps to an extent, the popular perception of ideal femininity could incorporate child-like qualities not only in physical appearance, but in behaviour too. Any suggestions of what they could be if this is true??

However, some of the 50/50 faces looked childlike to the point that if you saw a fully grown woman in real life with a face like that, she would appear as though she may have some kind of disorder to make her look so unusually childish.

But then you read what it says here.....

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm

..... and it becomes clear that many childlike features are considered unattractive even in women; ie, paler skin; more facial fat; wider face shape; lighter eyebrows; less pronounced, lower cheekbones; wider nose; thicker eyelids.

Horagalles
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 09:44 AM
"Women," wrote Ramsey Clark in l970, in his celebrated book Crime in America, "are not a threat to the public."[1 But he also wrote, in discussing the male juvenile criminals who ]are a threat to the public, that "three-fourths came from broken homes."[2 That means mostly female-headed homes. That means that while the single mothers of these criminals do not themselves commit crimes and go to prison, the social]ization they give their children has an extraordinarily high correlation with the male crime of the next generation. This socialization, in fact, is the "root cause of crime" which Clark wrote his book to explore. He had found the explanation he sought and he didn't know it. It was concealed by the generation-long time-lag between cause and effect and by the sex-switch between generations: like hemophilia, crime is manifested in males but carried and transmitted by females--or rather by single females. ...Not so. If we are to deal meaningfully with crime, what must be seen is its relationship with the female-headed family. Most criminals come from female-headed families. Most gang members come from female-headed families. Most addicts come from female-headed families. Most rapists come from female-headed families. Most educational failures come from female-headed families. Every presidential assassin before Hinckley came from a female-headed family or one in which he had an impossibly bad relationship with his father. Most illegitimate births occur to females who themselves grew up in female-headed families.

...THE ONCE AND FUTURE MATRIARCHY:
THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE

In the Matriarchal System the reproductive unit consists of the mother and her offspring, the father playing a marginal role, wandering into and out of the "family," subject to dismissal at the mother's bidding. The central fact about this kind of family is its naturalness. Roman jurists spoke of maternity as a natural fact, "natura verum," and of paternity as merely a matter of civil law. "In all but a few species," writes Sarah Hrdy, "females are permanent residents in social groups, males mere transients."[8 This is the reproductive arrangement of all lower mammals. It has been the reproductive arrangement of the human race itself until recently. Its biological backup is awesome--what Margaret Mead meant by saying the female role is a "biological fact."
It is the reproductive pattern which re-emerges in times of social catastrophe. When men are killed on battlefields or cast into prisons, female-headed families carry on. When there is divorce, the mother takes custody of the children. When ghetto males sit on curbsides and get stoned, ghetto females and children stay home and watch T.V.
The matriarchal family may result from catastrophe, but it may also result from doing nothing, from biological and social drifting. It is always on standby, always waiting to resurface and re-establish itself. It is what society lapses into when the upkeep and maintenance of the patriarchal system is neglected. It is the pattern which is re-emerging at the present time under the aegis of the feminist/sexual revolution.
It is the pattern found in surviving Stone Age societies. A l9th century German ship's doctor described the situation in the German African colony of Cameroon thus:

With a large number of tribes, inheritance is based on maternity. Paternity is immaterial. Brothers and sisters are only the children of one mother. A man does not bequeath his property to his children, but to the children of his sister, that is to say, to his nephews and nieces, as his nearest demonstrable blood relatives. A chief of the Way people explained to me in horrible English: "My sister and I are certainly blood relatives, consequently her son is my heir; when I die, he will be the king of my town." "And your father?" I inquired. "I don't know what that means, 'my father,' answered he. Upon my putting to him the question whether he had no children, rolling on the ground with laughter, he answered that, with them, men have no children, only women....
http://www.dadsnow.org/essay/garbgen.htm

Huzar
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 11:01 AM
. If using very archaic-coarse-robust Cromagnoid individuals as starting point, Alpinisation and Baltisation can be seen - at least partially - as a female paedomorphisation.


Alpinisation process happened in central-europe, while Baltization one in northeastern, right ? And, although the pedomorphization, Baltid type can be seen as the most direct filiation of the Cromagnid, is it correct ?

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 01:36 PM
...THE ONCE AND FUTURE MATRIARCHY:
THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE
Okay, I was being satirical with my post singing the praises of polyandry. I was criticising polygyny.

Obviously a family will benefit from having a male head who is devoted to that one family and can guide, protect and provide for that family. Fathers are well known to be instrumental in the raising of developmentally sound, well adjusted children (and in particular, teens). Fathers that don't feel a sense of ownership of their family (due to the mother having multiple partners etc) most likely wouldn't be devoted to that family, more likely to abandon them, and thus wouldn't be able to provide what a man needs to, to produce a healthy, stable and secure home environment. Both male and female influence and bonding is crucial, in an ideal sense, for the healthy, well-balanced rearing of children and provision of a stable home environment.

However.... the problem comes when patriarchs take advantage of their power and use it to force women into subservient and even de-humanised roles. Certainly the development of a polygynous family would be such an example of a patriarch abusing his power to meet his own ambitions and desires, to the detriment of the "wives" and even the children.

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 01:37 PM
You know it strikes me that the differences between the 100% adult and the progressively more child-like female faces, is that the more "adult" a female face is, the less "feminine" it looks (perhaps indicating something about popular ideals of what it is to be feminine). So perhaps to an extent, the popular perception of ideal femininity could incorporate child-like qualities not only in physical appearance, but in behaviour too. Any suggestions of what they could be if this is true??

Its true especially for girls which are viewed by man just "as sexy", but probably less serious. The stereotypical floosy or just beloved girl comes to mind which is naive in a way, even if being intelligent. And just looking at what we talked about the whole time. Females caring for little children, but also for little animals and even Bambi on TV, being more often interested and if more radical in animal welfare, seem to dislike war or if wanting one being quite naive about what war really means etc.

You just have to look the most superficial and constructed time of sexual relationships, to the degree from which many things look rather ridiculous and cannot work in reality, namely the 1950's. If the "big alpha male" tells the women "dont look there", "dont think about that", "dont go there", "dont bother yourself", "dont bring you in danger", etc, etc.
And the woman constantly answers "yes, why, please stay" etc.
So many sexual relationships being described like those between a big warrior alpha male and a minor girl. And this might indeed be a certain stereotype - especially in young couples. It was trained in the West to the degree of being ridiculous and a caricature in the 1950's.
But why? Not because the relationships started that way, but they stayed that way. The young bride can and probably even should be naive and emotional, but once she is in a "commitment" and has the first children, she simply can't be because she has responsibility and must be more than the naive girl, namely an organising woman and wife for the husband and children. No woman can stay a caricature of the naive and loving girl of the teens her whole life - in some aspects she SHOULD, but in others she can't. Males being attracted to this "innocent and naive girls", because thats the right age and behaviour for founding a family: Still not having (or at least not too much) sexual contacts, no foreign children, high degree of adaptation and commitment with idealism, good health and longer fertile period = wanted.
Thats the typical competition a female has to face if her male is very successful and wanted, namely sooner or later the competition with those attracting naive young females - which they were themselves once probably - but can't be no longer.


However, some of the 50/50 faces looked childlike to the point that if you saw a fully grown woman in real life with a face like that, she would appear as though she may have some kind of disorder to make her look so unusually childish.

Exactly. We are programmed to strive for a certain degree of further Neotenisation, but not more at the moment. Thats the evolutionary direction nature already gave us, to select in that direction. The more harmonious ones keep certain rather mature traits, facial differentiation, dont look like having a broad-short-infantile body etc., they just have somewhat altered proportions and a larger cranium.


But then you read what it says here.....

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm

..... and it becomes clear that many childlike features are considered unattractive even in women; ie, paler skin; more facial fat; wider face shape; lighter eyebrows; less pronounced, lower cheekbones; wider nose; thicker eyelids.

That are traits which are typical for infantile racial types - both their face, head and body being not Neotenised in a balanced but imbalanced and reduced way. Therefore the progressive faces, though being in some traits less paedomorphic, will be preferred by the majority if being harmonious.

The imbalanced infantile variants can just look good on a certain percentage of women, but they knock out the male qualities, whereas the balanced progressive variants being advantageous both for males and females if looking at attractiveness AND functionality.


Alpinisation process happened in central-europe, while Baltization one in northeastern, right ?

Yes.


And, although the pedomorphization, Baltid type can be seen as the most direct filiation of the Cromagnid, is it correct ?

The direct ones are Dalofaelid-Eastcromagnid, Palaeatlantid and Berberid.
Just partly reduced are Westbaltid, Borreby and probably Berid (more difficult case).
stronger reduction in Baltid and Alpinoid, with the latter two having a certain variation, range - from just somewhat infantilised and reduced with more pyknomorphic and shorter proportions to extremely reduced and infantile. In the thread about infantile individuals I showed both very infantile and progressive-infantile Alpinids f.e.

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 02:43 PM
Okay, there are a few things that just don't make sense to me..... (*everyone groans... "bloody hell, she's not off again is she?"* :oanieyes )


Its true especially for girls which are viewed by man just "as sexy", but probably less serious.
So these would be chicks that men would be more inclined to veiw as a casual fling, rather than marriage material?



You just have to look the most superficial and constructed time of sexual relationships, to the degree from which many things look rather ridiculous and cannot work in reality, namely the 1950's. If the "big alpha male" tells the women "dont look there", "dont think about that", "dont go there", "dont bother yourself", "dont bring you in danger", etc, etc.
And the woman constantly answers "yes, why, please stay" etc.
So many sexual relationships being described like those between a big warrior alpha male and a minor girl.
Yes, and those in power who attempted to propagate the popularity of such ridiculous, imbalanced, unnatural relationships really just provided "fuel" for feminism. It is this caricature of the stereotypical male and female sexual relationship and family base that turned many incensed women and girls to feminism in the first place!! Without this 50's crap, I feel very confident in saying that many women/girls wouldn't have even bothered with feminism... probably seeing it as something not relevant to them.


And this might indeed be a certain stereotype - especially in young couples. It was trained in the West to the degree of being ridiculous and a caricature in the 1950's.
But why? Not because the relationships started that way, but they stayed that way. The young bride can and probably even should be naive and emotional,
Now, I disagree with that. I don't think it is in the nature of many young women at all to be so submissive, desperate to please and pathetic!! (It just makes men feel secure to think that it is the true nature of females) Naive maybe.... emotional.... well, women are emotional compared with men most likely at ALL ages. My mum who's going through menopause now is more emotional now in her early 50's than she ever was before!! Too, women who are pregnant, menstrual etc etc will be more emotional. But I think you're confusing "emotional" for "weakness"?

Anyway.... that 50's ideal is ridiculous because male/female roles are exaggerated to such a degree.... not to mention the cheesy smiles, impeccable grooming at ALL times (even when in bed for the night - full face of make-up for the women!!), anal retentiveness and corny jokes.



Males being attracted to this "innocent and naive girls", because thats the right age and behaviour for founding a family: Still not having (or at least not too much) sexual contacts, no foreign children, high degree of adaptation and commitment with idealism, good health and longer fertile period = wanted.

Now, I disagree with that too. I think men the men that like innocent, child-like and naive girls are weak and insecure so they need a girl/woman who isn't threatening and will be so child-like and unassertive that in comparison to the girl, even the most weak and effeminate of men will feel "butch" and dominant. It only makes sense that less dominant males, in an attempt to feel more dominant, will choose relatively weak females to partner with.

From what I've seen in my life so far, the really successful, assertive, dominant, intelligent, ambitious men tend to go for strong, elegant, sophisticated and intelligent women. The lower socio-economic males, who are less ambitious, less successful and less assertive (although often more aggressive) tend to go for less threatening, easy to please, "girly" girls. You know... giggly, pretty in a "girly" way; but rather unsophisticated and lacking in refinement.

I think this aspect has less to do with biological factors and more to do with the influence of socio-economic hierarchies and cultural conditioning. After all, you can still very often find 20 year old women who are assertive, opinionated, sophisticated and elegant.... and women who are 45 who are giggly, submissive, fun-loving, inclined to take life less seriously and appear naive (look at Goldie Hawn who's, what? 60 now!)



Thats the typical competition a female has to face if her male is very successful and wanted, namely sooner or later the competition with those attracting naive young females - which they were themselves once probably - but can't be no longer.

I think that competition has more to do with physical appearance than "naivete". ;)

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:53 PM
So these would be chicks that men would be more inclined to veiw as a casual fling, rather than marriage material?

Yes, especially if too extreme. Such tendencies are good, too extreme is bad, because she could be a bad mother and as "open" to other males too, so a certain seriousness is needed.


Yes, and those in power who attempted to propagate the popularity of such ridiculous, imbalanced, unnatural relationships really just provided "fuel" for feminism. It is this caricature of the stereotypical male and female sexual relationship and family base that turned many incensed women and girls to feminism in the first place!! Without this 50's crap, I feel very confident in saying that many women/girls wouldn't have even bothered with feminism... probably seeing it as something not relevant to them.

There went a lot of things wrong in the 1950's, in fact it was an absolute catastrophy and that it would go down from then on was clear. One has to remember that the "weak conservative rollback's fail" was wanted by a lot of people. There were pressures to destroy f.e. the German family after the 2nd WW, which was a much more natural model in comparison, by the allies, because they wanted to destroy hierarchies by beginning in the smallest units and weakening the father. This already happened because of the war and the fact that many males were dead or years away from home, in war and as prisoners of war, whereas the females had to do everything at home, worked, cared for children, partly even fought and saw the horrors of war themselves. This changed in Germany everything.

The 50's stereotypes were indeed just ridiculous and one could say that National Socialism "was feminist" in comparison if its about the female role model. People need reasons and to say to women they should just do this and that "because it should be that way" is ridiculous. The good reasons, namely forming a stable social unit, family, getting children and caring for them etc. was all weakened too, because their was no "folkish" or other real philosophy behind that, just a "Christian moral" which was in most parts of the West already unrealistic and too far away from real needs.

The youth culture, beginning of popculture came in as well as Marxist influences of "Liberation of everything". The culture of the parents was weak and hypocritical, therefore easy to attack and the social inconsistency and inconsequence made it easy. As you know, you can teach people almost everything, every stupidity, can raise average children for the most ridiculous beliefs and rules, thats no real problem, but only if you are consistent and consequent, if not they will rebel, even the average, even against good rules. And inconsistency and inconsequence, strong antagonisms were the rule in the 1950's in the period of the final transition from the "collectivistic rest" in the West towards the individualised and fully Liberalcapitalistic propaganda.


Now, I disagree with that. I don't think it is in the nature of many young women at all to be so submissive, desperate to please and pathetic!!

You are right, not all. However, its not about them being submissive, desperate to please and pathetic, but being more like that than in later age. So its not about the extreme caricature, but a relative comparison of early and later age, early girly role and later one as wife and mother.


My mum who's going through menopause now is more emotional now in her early 50's than she ever was before!!

Thats natural because the physiology is now very "messy".


Too, women who are pregnant, menstrual etc etc will be more emotional. But I think you're confusing "emotional" for "weakness"?

No. Its rather about the naive, youthful idealism of girls and young women, which is just natural - the disenchantment comes later and is a natural process many women dont accept nowadays because they are being filled with false illusions of what life should be about and how things should be. Again this leads to the very high rates of divorces.


Anyway.... that 50's ideal is ridiculous because male/female roles are exaggerated to such a degree.... not to mention the cheesy smiles, impeccable grooming at ALL times (even when in bed for the night - full face of make-up for the women!!), anal retentiveness and corny jokes.

Absolutely. And again, even if looking at your description, its inconsistent! The female should behave like a submissive thing, but at the same time being frivolous, wearing make up, superficial and materialistic to the degree of absolute corruption (shopping maniac), being later in her life already and not looking primarily for a husband and family. This mix of modern Capitalistic and already sexualised city life and "old female role" can just look like a freak, especially if being made by people who dont really care about the essence of the structures which led to certain role models, even on the contrary. If looking back one could even argue that some of those Hollywood magnates made fun of normal housewives and conservative women, ridiculed them consciously or unconsciously until the youth could just rebel - especially if seeing no true meaning in such a life since the collectivist and social aspects being largely excluded.


Now, I disagree with that too. I think men the men that like innocent, child-like and naive girls are weak and insecure so they need a girl/woman who isn't threatening and will be so child-like and unassertive that in comparison to the girl, even the most weak and effeminate of men will feel "butch" and dominant. It only makes sense that less dominant males, in an attempt to feel more dominant, will choose relatively weak females to partner with.

Thats not really true, but some males which really search for "challenges" prefer "more difficult" women, especially if they had already too much of the "nice girls". That are those (really) promiscuous guys, of which I know some, which had the best girls for a relationship and life already, but treated them like "sluts", and then they get a girl which is difficult, just causes problems, is not really committed and will finally even cheat them - dont want children oftentimes too or say them 10 years after that its not his...

So there are two extremes of males on that, but for the average, dominant or not, the above said is true and they search for women looking up to them, especially if not being sated by years of extremely promiscuous behaviour - which is a decadent phenomenon. In a more traditional society they would have never had the chance to behave that way nor would they have come to the same, subconscious most of the time, conclusions. Though there are irrational males constantly preferring sluts and "difficult women" around, like there are sluts around...
In an ideal case they deserved each other.

I made the observation that weak and subdominant males often prefer rather dominant women, which simply overtake the leading role in their relationship. Normal dominant males usually prefer to play the number one in a relationship too - there are always masochistic males there too of course. The classic for the weak male : strong female relationship is that of a calm and Asthenic man with a rather Pyknic and loud woman with a very "loud organ", almost shouting all the time. This is really the caricature of what is less successful, usually not that loved - a subdominant, weak, socially low, less intelligent schizothymic meagre male with a dominant and loud, obese hypomanic woman commanding her skinny male around. Dont know if you saw that especially in the towns and cities too, but its really a stereotype.


From what I've seen in my life so far, the really successful, assertive, dominant, intelligent, ambitious men tend to go for strong, elegant, sophisticated and intelligent women.

If wanting a stable relationship, the average is like you said and its good that way - partner selection is not that unimportant as you know (!). Still they might feel attracted at certain times by the naive girls, which they wouldnt marry and present to society in most cases of course. An intelligent individual will always distinguish between a sexual affair and a partner for life or even just a longer time of life.


The lower socio-economic males, who are less ambitious, less successful and less assertive (although often more aggressive) tend to go for less threatening, easy to please, "girly" girls. You know... giggly, pretty in a "girly" way; but rather unsophisticated and lacking in refinement.

Well, in those social strata you seem to mean and I know very well, being intelligent, refined or having manners doesnt matter - at least not if speaking about "aristocratic and bourgeois" manners. So they have a wholly different value system which is determined by their lower social role in the whole society but higher one on the local-small level - since they are the "masters of their districts" in a way, though being finally just at the bottom of the "official ladder". In this "inofficial hierarchy" of the working class, which sometimes influences rich people too as working class people can live outside of this "system", has its own rules and manners to which they adapt, which suit them better since they would be always the worse "lord and lady".

They are still the more successful ones, they can at least go for attractiveness, intelligence or compatible behaviour. The lowest males are those I described above which just get the rest - namely a fatso as commander for them. But one should see the positive side of their fate, they seem to need that quite often, because they are simply unable to lead or being dominant in any area. Kretschmer described such characters, both males and females as "dry and hollow". This might be hard but approaches reality. Therefore characters like that, both males and females, will usually get a dominant partner which will dominate their life, but thats just natural and they way it should be, one shouldnt interpret too much in them, they simply aren't made for determining their own fate.


I think this aspect has less to do with biological factors and more to do with the influence of socio-economic hierarchies and cultural conditioning. After all, you can still very often find 20 year old women who are assertive, opinionated, sophisticated and elegant.... and women who are 45 who are giggly, submissive, fun-loving, inclined to take life less seriously and appear naive (look at Goldie Hawn who's, what? 60 now!)

Usually most of those traits are the result of a combination of various influences including genetic ones.


I think that competition has more to do with physical appearance than "naivete". ;)

Obviously a 60 years old and fat woman with such a behaviour wouldnt make it for most 50 years old dominant males, but I think in a direct comparison of two women which are both on the same level of attractivness, intelligence and social level, the one being more like the idealistic and naive girl on some matters will have an easier life and better relationships - being more wanted for sure.

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Actually I just thought of something else that may be relevant too when looking at men finding "infantile" traits to varying degrees sexually attractive; but I've done a few searches and I can't find anything "authoritative" on it, so who knows how true it is....

I read years ago something about a study that was done that indicated that introverted and extraverted men (and women too) tend to be attracted to slighty different types more often than not. Basically the findings were that men tend to prefer:

Introverted - smaller breasted women, fine boned, very slim and tall, longer faces, facial profile more tending toward straight up-and-down or even concave, darker hair, straighter hair. (That's all I can remember)

Extraverted - bigger breasted women, more sporty or curvaceous body type, rounder faces, facial profile tending to be more convex (slighty receding chin and forehead), fairer hair, curlier hair.


And another theory that may be relevant is the fairly popular one doing the 'rounds that people tend to be attracted to mates who are the same age as their own mental age. So a 50 year old with the mental age of a 30 year old, will be attracted to typical 30 year olds.... or a 25 year old with the mental age of a 35 year old will be attracted to typical 35 year olds.

This could, in part, account for the tendancy for women to choose slightly older men and vice versa?? Females mature mentally, emotionally and physically earlier than males in general. The difference in maturity is usually about 2 or 3 years. (More or less)

Just some rather random thoughts! :)

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Actually I just thought of something else that may be relevant too when looking at men finding "infantile" traits to varying degrees sexually attractive; but I've done a few searches and I can't find anything "authoritative" on it, so who knows how true it is....

I read years ago something about a study that was done that indicated that introverted and extraverted men (and women too) tend to be attracted to slighty different types more often than not. Basically the findings were that men tend to prefer:

Introverted - smaller breasted women, fine boned, very slim and tall, longer faces, facial profile more tending toward straight up-and-down or even concave, darker hair, straighter hair. (That's all I can remember)

Extraverted - bigger breasted women, more sporty or curvaceous body type, rounder faces, facial profile tending to be more convex (slighty receding chin and forehead), fairer hair, curlier hair.


And another theory that may be relevant is the fairly popular one doing the 'rounds that people tend to be attracted to mates who are the same age as their own mental age. So a 50 year old with the mental age of a 30 year old, will be attracted to typical 30 year olds.... or a 25 year old with the mental age of a 35 year old will be attracted to typical 35 year olds.

This could, in part, account for the tendancy for women to choose slightly older men and vice versa?? Females mature mentally, emotionally and physically earlier than males in general. The difference in maturity is usually about 2 or 3 years. (More or less)

Just some rather random thoughts! :)

Your first comments just goes in the direction of constitutional variants: The Leptosomic schizothymic prefers his own, the Pyknic zyklothymic too. What you said about colors and hair cut would make sense too, because schizothymics prefer form before color and prefer clearly structured surfaces, whereas the Pyknic prefers colors before form and doesnt care too much for structure.

The mental age story makes sense too, to a certain degree at least. Usually the physiological difference in maturation being 17-21 for females to 19-25 for males. One could also argue that the relative age difference grows with age. So whereas a natural combination would be a 19 y female with a 23 y male, with the same relative distance later in life. Because males will, if having a choice, being normal and not preconditioned, always look for a female around the early 20's. So it might be more right for younger couples than for older males "searching again".

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 04:31 PM
I made the observation that weak and subdominant males often prefer rather dominant women, which simply overtake the leading role in their relationship. Normal dominant males usually prefer to play the number one in a relationship too - there are always masochistic males there too of course. The classic for the weak male : strong female relationship is that of a calm and Asthenic man with a rather Pyknic and loud woman with a very "loud organ", almost shouting all the time. This is really the caricature of what is less successful, usually not that loved - a subdominant, weak, socially low, less intelligent schizothymic meagre male with a dominant and loud, obese hypomanic woman commanding her skinny male around. Dont know if you saw that especially in the towns and cities too, but its really a stereotype.
I've heard of the stereotype, but I can honestly say I can't think of any couples that I've ever known that are really like that.

But what I think of as a weak, insecure man who is inclined to go for the air-head, door-mat kind of woman may vary from your perception.... I don't see him as a subordinate, quiet, calm man. On the contrary, I think the quietly spoken gentlemen (not subordinate) are the strong, secure ones. I think of weak men as being over-bearing, bullying, emotionally unrestrained, needing to dominate others and more likely to be the sort of men who will abuse their wives. Hyper-masculine I guess. And then the women they tend to go for are hyper-feminine. Strong, assertive, quietly confindent and secure men don't need to bully or dominate to "prove themselves", so they tend to go more for stronger women who aren't too subordinate, as they aren't looking so much for someone to dominate, but someone to be a partner with in life who they can truly respect and lean on at times too.

Those have just been my observances in my life so far.

Bridie
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 04:41 PM
One could also argue that the relative age difference grows with age. So whereas a natural combination would be a 19 y female with a 23 y male, with the same relative distance later in life. Because males will, if having a choice, being normal and not preconditioned, always look for a female around the early 20's. So it might be more right for younger couples than for older males "searching again".

But men's fertility and sex drive is affected by age too.... so why would a man with a decreased sex drive and decreased quality of sperm (with the decreased potential for producing healthy offspring - increase in genetic abnormalities) still be "wired" to go for a woman in her early 20's??

You know, this makes me think of a few instances when I was in my early 20's and much older men approached me in pubs or whatever and honestly seemed to be coming onto me, but I'd think "nah, he's old enough to be my dad.... surely he's not interested in that way in me!!" So I'd just dismiss that revolting thought....

Which leads me to wonder, if much older men are still "wired" for being attracted to women in their early 20's, why are young women so often repulsed by them?

Agrippa
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 05:36 PM
But men's fertility and sex drive is affected by age too.... so why would a man with a decreased sex drive and decreased quality of sperm (with the decreased potential for producing healthy offspring - increase in genetic abnormalities) still be "wired" to go for a woman in her early 20's??

Chance is chance and why should they dismiss a chance for further reproduction and give the woman to another, probably totally foreign male? Wouldnt make sense for them.
For the group its another matter. For the group it would fully depend on the quality of the old male, because if he has a son of the same age with the same qualities, it would be better the son gets all the young women and impregnates them rather than the father, but if the father has good genes, good traits, but the young man hasnt, its better to take the small risk for genetic abnormalities in some cases - this would have died soon or being abandoned anyway in most cases - than giving the chance for reproduction for an overall worse, even if young, male.


You know, this makes me think of a few instances when I was in my early 20's and much older men approached me in pubs or whatever and honestly seemed to be coming onto me, but I'd think "nah, he's old enough to be my dad.... surely he's not interested in that way in me!!" So I'd just dismiss that revolting thought....

Its somewhat strange in the Anglo culture on that, reminds my on the fact that some in America really think of a girl of 19 years as a "child" which is like a joke. Once fertile and having female sexual characteristics - being relatively mature - every female is a potential partner, no matter which age the man is.


Which leads me to wonder, if much older men are still "wired" for being attracted to women in their early 20's, why are young women so often repulsed by them?

That has different reasons.
First culture:
In a culture in which such relationships being seen as "inferior" the young females will, in their majority, be less inclined to consider a much older partner.
Furthermore the image of what a male has to be should be considered too, if being young and sexy being considered important even from the socio-cultural perspective its being important too.
If females dont search for social dominance as much nor material security, are more independent, it changes direction as well...
Etc., etc...

There are genetic and psychological reasons, variation. Some women just prefer more or less masculine, younger or older males. There are women which just accept partners if they are minimum 10 years older than they are. So its all relative, males know that and thats why they try - some might be interested.

Last but not least the really important question is not if a female prefers an old man before a young, usually they will, if being young herself, prefer the younger and just somewhat older male, but what would they do in the following situation:
Your parents and environment wants you to marry, you are in a small village, there are not too much free males around and you yourself want to have a husband, you have just two choices:
One being old, but still healthy, attractive, wealthy and socially dominant.
The other being young, but weak, rather not that attractive, not as wealthy nor dominant.

What would you prefer? In fact most couples, partners, are just a compromise, you give up one plus for another minus, it all depends on what you consider being more important. And for sure the more reasonable, intelligent and better woman will usually prefer the old man before one being worse but younger.

Youth goes by, some traits might stay and live on in your children, if considering that, old males were always an option for a lot of young females, even if being not that wealthy. I mean just think of Sean Connery in his 50's in comparison to Danny de Vito in his 20's, with both being not that wealthy nor that different psychologically - just considering the grade of physical attractiveness and dominance for women...

Bridie
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 02:38 AM
Chance is chance and why should they dismiss a chance for further reproduction and give the woman to another, probably totally foreign male? Wouldnt make sense for them.
For the group its another matter. For the group it would fully depend on the quality of the old male, because if he has a son of the same age with the same qualities, it would be better the son gets all the young women and impregnates them rather than the father, but if the father has good genes, good traits, but the young man hasnt, its better to take the small risk for genetic abnormalities in some cases - this would have died soon or being abandoned anyway in most cases - than giving the chance for reproduction for an overall worse, even if young, male.

Hmmm... well that's debatable I guess. Good health actually has little effect on the viability of a man's sperm (ie, no matter how healthy an older man is, his sperm production and quality will still be inferior to a young, but unfit man's sperm).

And obviously in the instance of young women having the choice of either young men, or an older man (who's going to increase the likelihood of genetic abnormalities in her offspring)... the young women should be paired with young, virile men.

Acutally if you look at it from purely biological perspective it would make sense that young "studs" should be off impregnating all the fertile females (as men are in their short-lived sexual prime in their late teens - early 20's) and the older men should be reserved for leadership roles (for the intelligent older men, due to their wisdom and experience), and fighting (for the less intelligent older men, more expendable, less valuable to the group).

But what makes the thought of a significantly older man going for young women rather "off" I guess, is that for starters a 45 year old (for example), in days gone by when life expectancies were much shorter, would have been considered VERY old, and WAY past his prime.

In books that I've read that explore more archaic societies where young women (sometimes just pubescent girls) were forced to marry much older men, a common theme from the girl's point of view seems to be the girl's disgust and dismay at being lumped with such an old guy that she just can't relate to, or connect with, on a mental, emotional or spiritual level because of the age, maturity and life experience difference.... nor would she have any power in the relationship. (Not to even mention the fact that the older men were often physically repulsive to the young girls/women) This sort of relationship struck me as very unnatural and always leaves the poor young girl in a position of powerlessness and hopelessness. How much better of a life could she have had had she been able to choose a man more her own age that she would be attracted to and able to connect with as well?




Quote:
You know, this makes me think of a few instances when I was in my early 20's and much older men approached me in pubs or whatever and honestly seemed to be coming onto me, but I'd think "nah, he's old enough to be my dad.... surely he's not interested in that way in me!!" So I'd just dismiss that revolting thought....
Its somewhat strange in the Anglo culture on that, reminds my on the fact that some in America really think of a girl of 19 years as a "child" which is like a joke. Once fertile and having female sexual characteristics - being relatively mature - every female is a potential partner, no matter which age the man is.

No way! It's not an unusual attitude for a young woman to have at all!!! :-O Are you kidding me?? To a woman of 21, even 35 seems ANCIENT. And that's not just my attitude.... that's going on conversations that I've had with MANY other young women, both from Australia and from other countries around the world.

I don't think of 19 as a child by the standards of older times.... but then in those days 35 was considered really quite old, and most men and women would have had a large family by that age, possibly even just starting to see the possibility of grandchildren arriving soon!

Again, why would a young woman of 19 go for a 35 year old who is past his sexual prime, been around the block a few times (or more ;) ) and will die way before her, leaving her a lonely widow for many years??? There's no advantage to that if she could have a young man of say 21 or 22.



First culture:
In a culture in which such relationships being seen as "inferior" the young females will, in their majority, be less inclined to consider a much older partner.
Furthermore the image of what a male has to be should be considered too, if being young and sexy being considered important even from the socio-cultural perspective its being important too.
If females dont search for social dominance as much nor material security, are more independent, it changes direction as well...
I think it's natural for younger women, with all of their idealism and lack of experience with hardship and sacrifice, as well as lack of practicality when it comes to financial considerations to not be interested in men for their social prestige or material/financial success/security. It's as women get older and realise just how bad life can be when living a materially and socially disadvantaged life, that they become more practical and will sacrifice a sexy, young, virile man for an older, more stable man.

Young women are probably more romantic and less practical in general.... and social prestige and fiscal wealth are practical considerations.... not romantic or emotional ones.

For and extreme example, this is why you'll find greedy, although practical (to the point of having no honour) young women attempting to catch an elderly, rich guy.... it's not about love obviously, nor physical attraction.... it's about setting herself up for a good life. Then once she's financially secure, the old guy can die and she can go after a young bloke around about her own age.



So its all relative, males know that and thats why they try - some might be interested.
Well, you can't blame them for trying I guess. But they should be aware that they may very well be making fools of themselves. :-O :(



One being old, but still healthy, attractive, wealthy and socially dominant.
The other being young, but weak, rather not that attractive, not as wealthy nor dominant.

What would you prefer?
Well, not all young men are unattractive, weak, poor and submissive. ;) Neither are all old men wealthy, socially dominant etc.



Youth goes by, some traits might stay and live on in your children, if considering that, old males were always an option for a lot of young females, even if being not that wealthy. I mean just think of Sean Connery in his 50's in comparison to Danny de Vito in his 20's, with both being not that wealthy nor that different psychologically - just considering the grade of physical attractiveness and dominance for women...
But then think of Sean Connery in his 20's or 30's.... mmmm..... :D

Bridie
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 05:37 AM
Here's an article highly relevant to the question of preferred facial features (and how that relates to preferences of personality too) when people assess potential sexual partners.... (it also addresses briefly the likelihood of people choosing sexual partners who are genetically very different to themselves)....



Face value

About face

Are you a good judge of character? Perhaps you think you can judge someone's personality just by looking at their face? Research shows that most of us - 90% according to one study - think we can.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/images/mind/faceperception1/morescience_faceperception1/facescreen.jpgWhat does a face really tell us about someone's personality?

But this may not all be down to arrogance. Scientists are uncovering evidence that some personality traits may be written all over our faces.
This could have important implications for the way we behave, and even how we choose our sexual partners.
Professor David Perrett of the Perception Lab at St Andrews University has spent the best part of a decade trying to pin down the essence of facial attractiveness.
Perfect profile
His technique of digitally manipulating faces first attracted attention four years ago, when he showed that women prefer more masculine faces during the fertile period of their menstrual cycle. Faces were made more masculine by strengthening the jawline and brows and more feminine by widening the face and raising the eyebrows.
Now Professor Perrett is using the same techniques to investigate the connections between facial features and personality. Perrett is using the most widely accepted model of human personality: the five-factor model. This consists of:

Openness to experience - creative, original, independent
Conscientiousness - careful, hard-working, conscientious
Extraversion - affectionate, talkative, sociable
Agreeableness - forgiving, sympathetic, warm
Neuroticism - nervous, worrying, highly strungAltered images

For the time being, Perrett has decided to focus his attention on the best understood of the 'big five' personality factors: extraversion and its opposite state, introversion. Extraverts are talkative, fun-loving and sociable, while introverts tend to be reserved, quiet and retiring.
In previous experiments, Perrett and Little have found that digitally altering the masculinity and femininity of a face affects how people perceive aspects of their personality.
"As we manipulate female faces to make them more feminine, people see them as more extravert," says Perrett.
But masculinity and femininity is only part of the story. Pinning down the essence of an introvert or extravert face is more complicated.
Perrett and Little found that there was little data on what constituted an extravert or an introvert face. However, Perrett and his team came up with an ingenious solution.
After showing a group of volunteers 15 carefully chosen faces, the team asked them to complete a 20-item questionnaire. The questionnaire asked the volunteers to say which faces best represented certain character traits.
The team then carried out a statistical technique known as factor analysis on the results. This allowed them to draw out the features in a face that people regard as extravert and introvert.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/images/mind/faceperception1/morescience_faceperception1/facelab.jpgVolunteers rate face composites in a university computer laboratory.

With this information, they created average extravert and average introvert faces from the same 15 images by using computer software to amplify some features and suppress others. These composite images were then used to transform other faces, making them either more introvert or more extravert.
"A lot of the things that we're seeing in extravert and introvert faces are transient things like how likely you are to smile," says Dr Tony Little, of the Perception Lab at St Andrews. Indeed, while the withdrawn look of introvert faces is instantly recognisable, extravert faces seem to be fixed in the earliest stages of a grin.
Fight club
But why would such subtle facial cues have evolved? Dr Little believes they might have played an important role in physical confrontations between our ancient ancestors.
"We all become highly competitive when confronting an opponent we think we can realistically beat. However, we will submit to opponents we feel are superior to us in order to avoid fighting a battle we will probably lose. Evolution is a game of survival, so it pays to know when to fight and when to run.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/images/mind/faceperception1/morescience_faceperception1/boxers.jpgExtraverts may have stumbled into more physical confrontations than people with other personality types.

"If you were sickly, it would have paid to stay out of harm's way. An introvert face would have told rivals you weren't a threat," Little explains. Introverts might not have dominated in the social pecking order, but they would have secured their survival by avoiding confrontation.
"Extraversion was a more risky strategy because there was a greater chance you would encounter confrontation," says Little. But the fact that extraverts are still with us strongly suggests that the rewards of winning those battles were enough to make fighting them worthwhile.


Domination game

Little won't speculate on what the rewards of winning these battles might have been, but it's not hard to fathom that dominant males would have had better access to food, resources and may have been more attractive to females.
Our preferences for introvert and extravert faces might also have fascinating implications for how we choose partners.
In Perrett's experience, opposites don't attract. Instead, like seems to attract like. Previous findings from the Perception Lab show that we tend to choose partners who look like our opposite sex parents. This seems to suggest that we prefer to mate with people who appear to share the same genes as us.


Are you local?

This apparent tendency towards inbreeding might come as a surprise. Inbreeding can cause harmful recessive genes to pair up in children, resulting in deformity or disease.
In a well-known study, Dr Marion Petrie and Dr Craig Roberts of the University of Newcastle asked female volunteers to wear the same T-shirt for several days. Male subjects were then asked to choose which one smelt best. Men invariably prefer the smell of a woman with an immune system very different to their own.
Children born to parents with different immune systems have a better chance of fighting off disease, suggesting that outbreeding has definite advantages.
But Dr Petrie sees no contradiction between her findings and those of Perrett's. "There is an optimum genetic distance that is preferred. You don't want a mate that's identical because that would be inbreeding," says Petrie.
"But if [animals] mate at too great a genetic distance, [they] could be mating with another species," she adds, "and that could be bad news."
The suggestion is that a little inbreeding is no bad thing, because it preserves useful combinations of genes that are adapted to your environment. Petrie believes that chemical cues from smell work in an opposite way to facial cues of attractiveness in order to strike this balance between extreme inbreeding and extreme outbreeding.
Perrett and Little are working on the hypothesis that preferences for different personalities follow the same pattern as facial cues. Prof Robert Zajonc of Stanford University has found that long-term partners tend to have similar personalities. It may be that they grow more similar through shared experiences.
But Little thinks this is because humans unconsciously treat personality as another measure of genetic similarity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/images/mind/faceperception1/morescience_faceperception1/halfface.jpg

This theory is supported by work conducted at the University of Cambridge in 1989 by zoologist Pat Bateson. Using an experimental set-up called the Amsterdam Apparatus, Bateson invited Japanese quails to choose from a selection of opposite sex birds arrayed behind miniature shop windows.


Family business

The birds preferred first cousins over both full siblings and unrelated birds, suggesting that they prefer inbreeding, though not incest.
In a follow-up study, Professor Bateson put newly hatched chicks in a pen with each other. Amazingly, siblings and cousins tended to clump together in groups, even though they had never come into contact.
"Although we never proved it, we speculated that this was due to similar behavioural preferences between relatives," says Bateson. "How it was mediated, we never found out," he adds, "but since the quail chicks also tended to be attracted to relatives in adulthood, we reasonably thought that they were using behavioural cues here as well."
Further work may be needed to discover the precise mechanisms by which personality and facial features interact to determine our mating preferences.
In the human mating game, describing someone as having a nice personality has turned into an insult, because we regard a person's behaviour as secondary to other, more important cues of attractiveness.
But the next time someone describes an eligible member of the opposite sex in this way, perhaps we should all take a bit more notice.

source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/faceperception1.shtml



For fun, see if your ideal partner is an extravert or an introvert! : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception1/index.shtml


Another test for seeing how you veiw certain facial characteristics and how we all tend to think they represent different personality tendancies : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception2/index.shtml

Bridie
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Sorry for so many posts in a row (I'm on a roll!! :D )...


I mean just think of Sean Connery in his 50's in comparison to Danny de Vito in his 20's, with both being not that wealthy nor that different psychologically - just considering the grade of physical attractiveness and dominance for women...
Let's test something.... men will always prefer younger women if they get the choice right? Well....

.... which woman would you, or most men choose out of these 2?

#1 - Fiona Horne
http://starfileonline.com/output/FHorn030424M003.JPG
http://www.iceposter.com/thumbs/G74374_b.jpg

http://www.radical3over2.com/images/-fionahorne.jpg


http://www.fionahorne.com/



OR #2 Rebel Wilson




http://www20.sbs.com.au/pizza/images/characters/6.jpg


http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1032734164230_2002/09/24/25ent_scholars,0.jpg


http://www21.sbs.com.au/alchemy/media/images/406rebel_wilson.jpg









http://secure.moshtix.com/uploads/3EDBD6B76E91414080F8024BD8BA76FD.jpg




Fiona Horne is 40, Rebel Wilson is 22. (All photos are current.)

Would you prefer one or two kids with good genes.... or a whole lot of kids with bad ones? (That's what it comes down to really! lol)




Ageing beauties

Men, so the biological assumption goes, always prefer younger women, because they are likely to bear them more children.
But a recent study seems to contradict this theory. Dr George Fieldman, of the Buckinhamshire Chilterns University College showed images of women to about 200 men with an average age of 30.
A picture of a 36-year old woman, who a separate group of men had found attractive, was shown to the men along with eight other photos of women aged 20 to 45 who had been rated as less attractive.
Asked to choose one woman as a long-term partner, all three groups chose the beautiful woman regardless of what age they thought she was.

"They are saying: 'I'd rather risk a relationship with an older woman who is not going to give me as many children but is very beautiful, than a woman who is more fecund but whose children will be plainer," says Fieldman.

The theory is based on the notion that a beautiful woman is more likely to bear beautiful offspring and that those offspring will be more successful than plainer offspring.

"Female beauty has evolved through sexual selection. If you're beautiful then it's likely that you're also symmetrical," he adds.
Symmetry is a difficult characteristic for genes to code for, leading many scientists to conclude that it is an indicator of good genes.
Fieldman's research suggests that beauty is important to men on a deeper level than just a simple indicator of youth.


source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/lonelyhearts.shtml

Glenlivet
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 02:22 PM
Bridie, I agree, to some extent. One would still want a younger Fiona Horne. I think Agrippa may mean that men prefer younger attractive women, so your example might be irrelevant. Maybe you should have shown 2 attractive women, 40 and 22 years old. Could you do that instead?

There are elegant and beautiful 55 year old woman. The first woman you posted is obviously more progressive (leptosomatic) in Agrippa's way of seeing things. I believe most men find her more sexy. The second, younger woman, is on the other hand not sexy at all. She is simply fat and ugly (she is not even a cute pyknomorph).

Age gap does matter when you think rational. A woman who is too old may not want children. She may have also divorced and having children from a previous relationship is a big minus. I would certainly have a difficult time accepting that situation. A young woman is fresh and want to often start a family, that is what every conservative man want. She can also be moulded, I think this is a mistake many men (women too!) do though. It is very difficult to change a person and maybe you should not even try. I see it as a problem even with a woman who is 5 years older for a man who is 20-25. It is a smaller problem if the man meet a 35 year old woman at the age of 30.

I noticed that guys between the ages of 17-23 are attracted to women a few years older than themselves (25-35). They can usually not get these women though.

I think a sane 45-50 year old man would choose the older woman, although she is not the best example (slutty facial expressions, or only in these pictures?).

A young handsome man should choose neither woman. The first would be alright for a purely sexual relationship, but marriage is out of the question.

Bridie
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 03:47 PM
One would still want a younger Fiona Horne.
Yes, and one would still want a younger Sean Connery. ;)


I think Agrippa may mean that men prefer younger attractive women, so your example might be irrelevant.
Absolutely! This little experiment of mine would only test if a man would ALWAYS prefer a younger woman over an older one, even if she is less attractive than available older women. ;) You see, my example is only as irrelevant as Agrippa's example.... *who should a young woman choose if she is desperate to be married, Danny DeVito in his 20's or Sean Connery in his 50's?*.....

Last but not least the really important question is not if a female prefers an old man before a young, usually they will, if being young herself, prefer the younger and just somewhat older male, but what would they do in the following situation:
Your parents and environment wants you to marry, you are in a small village, there are not too much free males around and you yourself want to have a husband, you have just two choices:
One being old, but still healthy, attractive, wealthy and socially dominant.
The other being young, but weak, rather not that attractive, not as wealthy nor dominant.

What would you prefer? In fact most couples, partners, are just a compromise, you give up one plus for another minus, it all depends on what you consider being more important. And for sure the more reasonable, intelligent and better woman will usually prefer the old man before one being worse but younger.

Youth goes by, some traits might stay and live on in your children, if considering that, old males were always an option for a lot of young females, even if being not that wealthy. I mean just think of Sean Connery in his 50's in comparison to Danny de Vito in his 20's, with both being not that wealthy nor that different psychologically - just considering the grade of physical attractiveness and dominance for women...

I'm basically disagreeing with this....

Its somewhat strange in the Anglo culture on that, reminds my on the fact that some in America really think of a girl of 19 years as a "child" which is like a joke. Once fertile and having female sexual characteristics - being relatively mature - every female is a potential partner, no matter which age the man is.I think it is unnatural and a bit "off" for an old man to try to seduce a 19 year old. Compared to a 40 year old man, 19 is a child.


A young handsome man should choose neither woman. The first would be alright for a purely sexual relationship, but marriage is out of the question.Yes exactly! The young handsome men will end up with the young beautiful women (that's natural), so the only young women left over for the dirty old men will be the younger men's rejects. And for those young women who are rejected by young men, an older even attractive man will not usually be good for either sex or marriage, as women do tend to be more fussy about who they sleep with (unless they're a slut), considering sex is an invasive act for women and they have more to lose if they sleep with a dud. I mean, who wants to marry a man who's going to die 20 years or so before her, leaving her a widow, unless she just wants his money? (Especially if you consider that on average women live longer than men)

I would say that "normal" young women would prefer to stay single rather than to degrade herself to becoming a sexual partner of someone 20+ years her senior... whereas Agrippa thinks that all fertile women in their early 20's are fair game for old men. That's just madness.



Age gap does matter when you think rational.Of course it matters.... and that was my point..... it matters for both men and women.


A woman who is too old may not want children. She may have also divorced and having children from a previous relationship is a big minus. I would certainly have a difficult time accepting that situation. A young woman is fresh and want to often start a family, that is what every conservative man want. She can also be moulded,Yes absolutely. Young, childless men should go for young, childless women... that's just common sense. But all of the things you've said apply to young women considering a relationship with an old man too. What woman would want a relationship with someone who may not want kids, may have defective sperm and/or low sperm count, may have already been divorced and had other children??? That's not exactly an attractive prospect for a young woman wanting to start a family with someone.... she would prefer someone fresh too, who she can grow with and share her youth....

Huzar
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 04:41 PM
. She is simply fat and ugly (she is not even a cute pyknomorph).



Indeed. There are adorable pyknomorph (see Alexis Bledel or Kristin Kreuk). But she surely isn't.




. A woman who is too old may not want children. She may have also divorced and having children from a previous relationship is a big minus. I would certainly have a difficult time accepting that situation. A young woman is fresh and want to often start a family, that is what every conservative man want.


That's the heart of the problem. Not only conservative man, but all men (because all men are vaguely conservative in the deep of themselves. It's instinctive) desire having their own family and sons who belongs to them. Sure, many other (alternative), familiar solutions are possible, outside the "standard"/traditional model, but , imo, aren't that stable ; i mean, yes, love and attraction are strong elements in human mind and play a big role in many cases without dubt, but at the same time, life has no sense without any real projectuality. If you can't have children from a relationship (cause the woman disagrees, or any other reason), that relationship will not be very important for you, on average (at least on thelong term).

Bridie
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 05:00 PM
That's the heart of the problem. Not only conservative man, but all men (because all men are vaguely conservative in the deep of themselves. It's instinctive) desire having their own family and sons who belongs to them.
Yes, of course a young, childless man should want to start a family with a young, childless woman.

And women want men who can devote all of their love and wealth to their one family.... men who don't have other families already because they've been divorced etc. Why should a young woman ever settle for an old man who has lived a long life already and whom she can't relate to well, nor "connect" with?? This is what it would mean to marry and have a family with an old guy for her.

Even if some 20 year olds found Sean Connery or the likes even vaguely attractive (which is quite doubtful really), why on earth would she want to have a family with someone who's been around the block more times than she's had hot dinners???

OneEnglishNorman
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Even if some 20 year olds found Sean Connery or the likes even vaguely attractive (which is quite doubtful really), why on earth would she want to have a family with someone who's been around the block more times than she's had hot dinners???

1) Sean Connery still has 20 (?) years in him
2) He is handsome, well travelled and charming
3) When he is dead, his widow will be able to live comfortably

Sean Connery is an extreme example...

On the broader points you raise, it's very much a case of "all things being equal".

Tabitha
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 09:26 PM
Sean Connery is an old codger,albeit a charming, well travelled one and of course, my fellow country man.:D

Most women I know would prefer a young man to a rich old man.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 02:04 AM
1) Sean Connery still has 20 (?) years in him

Sean Connery may have 20 years left to live (but how many of those years will he be incontinent and in need of care? :D ), but if a 20 year old were to marry him that means that she would be left a widow at 40 and most likely wouldn't be able to meet another decent man to share her life with as she would be too old. Hard, brutal truth. Why should a young, vital woman full of hopes for the future and energy for life waste it with an old man, and then when she comes to an age where she would want to have more commmitment and a more settled homelife, the old bastard goes and dies!!! :|


2) He is handsome, well travelled and charming
He looks like Father Christmas sans overgrown beard! :D He is good looking for an old man, that's all. Not good looking at all compared with even an average looking younger man!! And CERTAINLY NOT sexually attractive!! :puke I have read before that women are still supposed to find him sexy.... but I think that was just written by some old bloke who is way past it trying to propagate the idea that old codgers can still be attractive to young women....

And well-travelled? Well that's not really an attractive prospect for a young woman just starting out in life. I would say most young women would prefer someone confident sure, but who will still have adventures with her (sans walking frame ;) :D ) for the first time. How boring would it be to travel or experience new things with a partner who is like.... *yawn* "been there, done that"..... "oh yes, I recall the last time I did this back in 1965..."



3) When he is dead, his widow will be able to live comfortably
What? Your idea of comfortable living is being a widow before her fertile days are even over and she's left to sleep alone for the rest of her life (possibly 40 years or more!!!)??!!


And all of this sacrifice on the part of the young woman, all of her youth spent on bringing pleasure to some old fart.... then when her youth has faded, she is left alone and empty.... don't you think that's just a little bit selfish on behalf of anyone who would condone a relationship between a young woman and an old man???



On the broader points you raise, it's very much a case of "all things being equal".[/And that's the thing.... "all things being equal" a young woman would not go for an old man either. In fact, even if there were no other men left in the world.... what drug free 20 year old woman could bring herself to sleep with a wrinkly old fart??? :throwup



Any young woman who is stupid and naive enough to even contemplate a relationship with a man 20 years her senior, is simply not old enough yet to understand consequences and what a big mistake it would be. Therefore she would need the guidance and boundary setting of her elder family members (her parents, older sibling, aunts/uncles etc) to protect her from making a BIG MISTAKE and throwing away the rest of her life.

fms panzerfaust
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 03:45 AM
Most women that go for a old man go for his money. No more words needed.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 04:53 AM
Most women that go for a old man go for his money. No more words needed.
:nod


For and extreme example, this is why you'll find greedy, although practical (to the point of having no honour) young women attempting to catch an elderly, rich guy.... it's not about love obviously, nor physical attraction.... it's about setting herself up for a good life. Then once she's financially secure, the old guy can die and she can go after a young bloke around about her own age.

An old bloke who goes for a young woman is deluding himself.

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 06:09 AM
He looks like Father Christmas sans overgrown beard! :D He is good looking for an old man, that's all. Not good looking at all compared with even an average looking younger man!! And CERTAINLY NOT sexually attractive!!

Pffffffffft..... he hasn't had a bad innings. And you're just going on how he looks.



And that's the thing.... "all things being equal" a young woman would not go for an old man either. In fact, even if there were no other men left in the world.... what drug free 20 year old woman could bring herself to sleep with a wrinkly old fart??? :throwup

20 year old + 60 year old is too extreme. 20 year age gap is not so unreasonable to be sustainable

Tabitha
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 10:01 AM
And the noise of his creaking joints and his inability to keep up in a myriad of situations.



Pffffffffft..... he hasn't had a bad innings. And you're just going on how he looks.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 01:32 PM
Pffffffffft..... he hasn't had a bad innings.

Sure, but his game was over a loooonnngg time ago. ;)



And the noise of his creaking joints and his inability to keep up in a myriad of situations.
:rotfl "keep up".... you're so naughty Tabitha. :-O :sway


:wsg



20 year age gap is not so unreasonable to be sustainableYou're living in a dreamland Saxon.... time to switch off the porn and join the rest of us in realityland. :fwink:


Has anyone else noticed that the only ones here who seem to think that Sean Connery is still sexually attractive are two men???

Agrippa
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Hmmm... well that's debatable I guess. Good health actually has little effect on the viability of a man's sperm (ie, no matter how healthy an older man is, his sperm production and quality will still be inferior to a young, but unfit man's sperm).

Humans sperm is generally of low quality in comparison to certain animals, but in fact, it doesnt really matter as long as the woman gets pregnant and gets a healthy child with good traits. To give you an example, the old man might be already weak and having certain mutants under his sperms, but still most would have his healthy-normal traits which means if he is/was tall, healthy, intelligent, handsome etc., his sons will be too, whereas the young man's sperm, might it be as vital as possible, will just pass on what traits he has, if he is short, weak, dumb and unattractive, thats what you get. So the quality of the sperm is irrelevant as long as the women can get pregnant and gets no defect children - chances are low even if the man is old and the solution for such cases I described above.



And obviously in the instance of young women having the choice of either young men, or an older man (who's going to increase the likelihood of genetic abnormalities in her offspring)... the young women should be paired with young, virile men.

With the man with the better traits, young or old is secondary in comparison.


But what makes the thought of a significantly older man going for young women rather "off" I guess, is that for starters a 45 year old (for example), in days gone by when life expectancies were much shorter, would have been considered VERY old, and WAY past his prime.

In the old male you can see what the young can only promise - namely that he is/was a good fighter, intelligent, healthy etc., its like a guarantee whereas the very young male might be just promising but finally a disppointment. Furthermore young men have to fight most wars, doing most things in the group, the older has more time, more patience, status and wealth as well. So it makes both sense to have children early on - you dont know how long you live, but later in life too, if you have proven your qualities at least.


In books that I've read that explore more archaic societies where young women (sometimes just pubescent girls) were forced to marry much older men, a common theme from the girl's point of view seems to be the girl's disgust and dismay at being lumped with such an old guy that she just can't relate to, or connect with, on a mental, emotional or spiritual level because of the age, maturity and life experience difference.... nor would she have any power in the relationship. (Not to even mention the fact that the older men were often physically repulsive to the young girls/women) This sort of relationship struck me as very unnatural and always leaves the poor young girl in a position of powerlessness and hopelessness. How much better of a life could she have had had she been able to choose a man more her own age that she would be attracted to and able to connect with as well?

It depends on individual and concrete cases, one can't generalise that if looking at various bad "highschool couples".



I don't think of 19 as a child by the standards of older times.... but then in those days 35 was considered really quite old, and most men and women would have had a large family by that age, possibly even just starting to see the possibility of grandchildren arriving soon!

The way it should be.


Again, why would a young woman of 19 go for a 35 year old who is past his sexual prime, been around the block a few times (or more ;) ) and will die way before her, leaving her a lonely widow for many years??? There's no advantage to that if she could have a young man of say 21 or 22.

Explained above. And was a sort of award for the successful males, so they had a good motivation in younger years, became the gratification of higher status and good wife/wives in later age.


I think it's natural for younger women, with all of their idealism and lack of experience with hardship and sacrifice, as well as lack of practicality when it comes to financial considerations to not be interested in men for their social prestige or material/financial success/security. It's as women get older and realise just how bad life can be when living a materially and socially disadvantaged life, that they become more practical and will sacrifice a sexy, young, virile man for an older, more stable man.

Yes, talking about the more extreme cases in particular you are absolute right. But the "young phase" is actually rather the teen age, not 20s anymore, at least not in more traditional societies. Furthermore it depends again, 35 is one thing, 60 another, good quality old male and a dodderer something different as well. Of course its some sort of sick if a dodderer gets a 19 year old girl.


Young women are probably more romantic and less practical in general.... and social prestige and fiscal wealth are practical considerations.... not romantic or emotional ones.

Right, but it depends on the individual, the woman's personality. One shouldnt generalise too much. But for the better and more valuable women you are right, if they were not raised for looking strictly for certain social-material standards, most look for other things always first.


For and extreme example, this is why you'll find greedy, although practical (to the point of having no honour) young women attempting to catch an elderly, rich guy.... it's not about love obviously, nor physical attraction.... it's about setting herself up for a good life. Then once she's financially secure, the old guy can die and she can go after a young bloke around about her own age.

Thats a negative example, the woman should always look for biological qualities too at least.



Well, you can't blame them for trying I guess. But they should be aware that they may very well be making fools of themselves. :-O :(

Not if they have with 50 a new young wive and might get 5 children - and they might manage that sooner or later. If so they are the winners and not fools.


Well, not all young men are unattractive, weak, poor and submissive. ;) Neither are all old men wealthy, socially dominant etc.


Exactly, therefore generalisations on that can be misleading.


But then think of Sean Connery in his 20's or 30's.... mmmm..... :D

Right, that should be females first choice, but again if having the two options described...


"A lot of the things that we're seeing in extravert and introvert faces are transient things like how likely you are to smile," says Dr Tony Little, of the Perception Lab at St Andrews. Indeed, while the withdrawn look of introvert faces is instantly recognisable, extravert faces seem to be fixed in the earliest stages of a grin.

Thats the difference between average schizothymic and zyklothymic faces without strong cultural pressure for a grin on pictures. Compare with the thread about Kretschmer and Sheldon.


For the face preference test, I got 50 : 50:

You seem to have equal preferences for introvert and extravert faces. This means you may also have equal preferences for introvert and extravert partners.


Let's test something.... men will always prefer younger women if they get the choice right? Well....

.... which woman would you, or most men choose out of these 2?

No, tests have shown the opposite. Good quality older females - at least if still in potentially fertile age - being preferred.

Sure I would prefer 1, before having anything to do with 2 I would run amok...looks like lowest level extremely zyklothymic ugly nag. Better 2 children with 1st than 4 with 2nd.


"They are saying: 'I'd rather risk a relationship with an older woman who is not going to give me as many children but is very beautiful, than a woman who is more fecund but whose children will be plainer," says Fieldman.

Exactly what I said, true for both males and females. Symmetry is overrated and beauty alone is not the key, but the clues the traits can give.


A young handsome man should choose neither woman. The first would be alright for a purely sexual relationship, but marriage is out of the question.

Very true, and I agree with the "slutty expression" in some pictures at least as well. Older is not the problem alone as long as she's below 30, for women the absolute age is more important than for males for the reasons said above.

But if my choice would have been reduced to the 2 above, I would for sure have preferred 1st, but its an extreme sample. The comparison should be made between an aged beauty and an average attractive girl, young woman.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Humans sperm is generally of low quality in comparison to certain animals, but in fact, it doesnt really matter as long as the woman gets pregnant and gets a healthy child with good traits. To give you an example, the old man might be already weak and having certain mutants under his sperms, but still most would have his healthy-normal traits which means if he is/was tall, healthy, intelligent, handsome etc., his sons will be too, whereas the young man's sperm, might it be as vital as possible, will just pass on what traits he has, if he is short, weak, dumb and unattractive, thats what you get. So the quality of the sperm is irrelevant as long as the women can get pregnant and gets no defect children - chances are low even if the man is old and the solution for such cases I described above.
Latest research is showing that the degenerated sperm of older men increases the risk of offspring having genetic abnormalities, miscarriage and stillbirth.... as well as men's sperm counts being considerably lower etc.



In the old male you can see what the young can only promise - namely that he is/was a good fighter, intelligent, healthy etc., its like a guarantee whereas the very young male might be just promising but finally a disppointment. Furthermore young men have to fight most wars, doing most things in the group, the older has more time, more patience, status and wealth as well. So it makes both sense to have children early on - you dont know how long you live, but later in life too, if you have proven your qualities at least.
Well, you may be under the impression that young women find a "guarantee" attractive, or prioritise those sorts of characteristics in a man when assessing a potential partner.... but I'm telling you as a female, and a person who has had almost exclusively female friends all of my life - so has had discussions with loads of other females young and older about such things - YOU ARE WRONG.

And how selfish and short sighted of a man to endeavour to father children when he knows full well that he most likely would never be able to be there for them as they grow into adulthood.... never be a grandfather to his grandchildren.... and leave his young wife a widow for decades until her death!! :thumbdown :thumbdown



It depends on individual and concrete cases, one can't generalise that if looking at various bad "highschool couples".I'm not really even generalising.... this dismay and distraught of young brides with old men seems to be a constant theme if you do a bit of reading on the subject (biographies and suchlike).



But for the better and more valuable women you are right, if they were not raised for looking strictly for certain social-material standards, most look for other things always first.
Actually I was reading recently somewhere... I think it was on that other website that I linked to.... that it's the higher classed, higher socio-economic group women that tend to be more fussy when it comes to choosing a partner with wealth and prestige. ;)



And was a sort of award for the successful males, so they had a good motivation in younger years, became the gratification of higher status and good wife/wives in later age.
Women are not commodities to be "given" as prizes. Women are actually human, believe it or not. But you seem to be so heartless and lacking in empathy (anti-social borderline personality disorder??? :wsg ) that you think that it's okay for some members of the community (ie, successful, old men) to be rewarded with the misery of some poor young women who are unfortunate enough to be attractive and thereby making them fair game for having their youth and hopes stolen from them by some selfish old codger whom she can never relate to nor connect with- plus will most likely be physically repulsed by!! I feel as though I must be talking to a wall trying to get you to understand why this practice is so damaging. :headwall It's no co-incidence that young Lady Guinevere's heart was stolen by the young Sir Lancelot while she was married to old King Arthur.... and she had an affair with the former. ;)



For the face preference test, I got 50 : 50:
I should post that test in the Lounge or something... I'm sure a lot of people would find it interesting to do. I might do the test now myself (first time I did it I just answered the faces that I thought most women would choose, just to experiment and see the percentages other's put.... this way I got 10 : 90 in favour of extraversion.)




Quote:
You seem to have equal preferences for introvert and extravert faces. This means you may also have equal preferences for introvert and extravert partners.Agrippa, you floosie. ;) :P You just want everyone!! :-O :D



Exactly what I said, true for both males and females. Symmetry is overrated and beauty alone is not the key, but the clues the traits can give.

Yeah but a 55 year old man will never be as good looking as even an ugly 25 year old man. And same goes for women. Maybe a 40 year old man could be better looking than a 25 year old (if he's taken care of himself over the years), but by the time they get to 50, men are saggy and wrinkly.... as are women. It's nature's way of saying "keep away.... sex with this person is a danger". Did you look at that test on disgust (which explains the biological reason for it) on that same site with the other tests?



Older is not the problem alone as long as she's below 30, for women the absolute age is more important than for males for the reasons said above.
That's true, from a childbearing point of veiw, not even considering anything else, women are redundant by the time they reach about 45. However, as always, nothing is black and white, and everything is relative.... Eg; If a man is looking for a partner to have a family of 10 kids with, his best bet would be to start a family young himself, and look for a partner who is about 20 years old. If a man is looking to father 5 kids, he'd need to find a woman who's aged at most 30. But if a man's only looking to have a family of say 2 or 3 kids, a partner of 35 or even up to 38 would most likely be just fine. (Most of the mums that I know from my son's school had their first child past the age of 35 and most have 2 or 3 kids.)

Of course there are always risks of infertility for both men and women that can't be determined by just looking at someone.... so it would be practical to do like the royals ;) and have both partners have their fertility tested before entering into marriage.

Fact is, there are plenty of women in their early 20's these days that are infertile, and plenty of women who are 40 who aren't.... it's like a gamble seeing who you'll get really.

Concerning infertility, I was actually really surprised to realise just how many young couples have serious problems these days. I'm sure infertility is on the rise to a startling degree... and this seems to have not that much to do with women delaying childbearing (women pre-1950's often had many children way past the age of 35! I had one great-great grandmother in my family tree that wasn't married until 36 and went on to have 8 children... the last of whom was born when she was 48!! My husband's mum had 6 sons between the ages of 35 and 43!! So this is nothing new!!). On the parenting board that I sometimes post on, the majority of women using "Assisted Conception" (fertility drugs, IVF etc) are women under the age of 30. I personally wonder if the widespread use of the contraceptive pill has something to do with increased infertility.... although 50% of cases of infertile couples, it's the man's problem.

And I remember when I was pregnant with my 2nd daughter, I was walking through the maternity hospital and went past a room in which there was a lecture on IVF for infertile couples.... when I saw the sign stating what the lecture was on, I expected to see a room full of couples who looked as though they were in their 30's and 40's as I peered in the room.... but to my shock most of the couples (I particularly noticed the women) looked as if they were in their 20's!


Anyway, that's going off-track a bit... but I still think it's a good idea for couples that really want to start a family together to get fertility testing done before they walk down the aisle, to prevent any nasty shocks in the near future....

Glenlivet
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Could you please give the link to the face preference thread?



Thats the difference between average schizothymic and zyklothymic faces without strong cultural pressure for a grin on pictures. Compare with the thread about Kretschmer and Sheldon.


For the face preference test, I got 50 : 50:

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 04:51 PM
So the quality of the sperm is irrelevant as long as the women can get pregnant and gets no defect children

I'm afraid not....


Men aged >40 years contribute to reduced fertility and fecundity of a couple, especially when the female partner is also of advanced age. Because relatively few children are born to older fathers and genetic diseases are rare, there is little statistical power supporting an association of genetic diseases in the offspring with advancing paternal age. Nevertheless, autosomal dominant diseases and some diseases of complex aetiology, such as schizophrenia, are associated with advancing paternal age. The single point mutations in sperm which are responsible for achondroplasia and Apert's syndrome, two autosomal dominant diseases, increase with the man's age. In case of Apert's syndrome this increase is believed to be due to a pre-meiotic selection of mutant spermatogonia. Although structural chromosome anomalies and disomies of certain chromosomes increase in sperm with the man's age, paternal age is, with the exception of trisomy 21, not associated with numerical or de novo structural chromosomal aberrations in newborns.

source : http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/dmh030v1

Trisomy 21 is Down's Syndrome of course. It seems that the risk of Down's babies increases with a father's age as well as the mother's age.





Could you please give the link to the face preference thread?


It's the first one.



For fun, see if your ideal partner is an extravert or an introvert! : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...n1/index.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception1/index.shtml)


Another test for seeing how you veiw certain facial characteristics and how we all tend to think they represent different personality tendancies : http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...n2/index.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception2/index.shtml)

Agrippa
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 05:09 PM
For Kretschmer and Sheldon:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=8778
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=53225

Leptomorphy and progressive traits and attractiveness:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66306


Trisomy 21 is Down's Syndrome of course. It seems that the risk of Down's babies increases with a father's age as well as the mother's age.

I commented that before, in a more traditional society such children would have been abandoned most of the time and chances for such defects are still low and most children would be healthy. The risk of getting one children with such a defect is a minor one if comparing it with the fact of getting worse offspring by having a lower quality, not proven father. Some of the traits I mentioned above are far more important than such a minor risk.
Always if doing a direct comparison of high quality old vs. low quality young of course. High quality-young is the best for sure.

Glenlivet
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Cheers.

I took that test in the past. I think the differences are too subtle in the first test. I understand that is their point though.

Results of the second test:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/faceperception2/index_7f.shtml

The second test is interesting because masculine males are seen as extroverted. Would this not go against your view Agrippa? Or are these masculine males not true leptosomes, rather mesomorphs? Kretschmer did not make this difference between men and women, as far as I know. The test agree with Kretschmer's findings for females.






It's the first one.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Quote Bridie:
Trisomy 21 is Down's Syndrome of course. It seems that the risk of Down's babies increases with a father's age as well as the mother's age.


Quote Agrippa :
I commented that before, in a more traditional society such children would have been abandoned most of the time and chances for such defects are still low and most children would be healthy. The risk of getting one children with such a defect is a minor one if comparing it with the fact of getting worse offspring by having a lower quality, not proven father.
And what of the other diseases and syndromes mentioned? Certainly, mental illness isn't so easily dealt with.

In any case, everything that you've said about negating the risk of defects associated with increased paternal age applies to women up until pre-menopause too (about age 50).

Why don't you just admit it Agrippa.... you're just trying to justify the act of dirty old men exploiting and de-humanising young women, in order to encourage the social acceptability of such a practice.

Agrippa
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 06:13 PM
In any case, everything that you've said about negating the risk of defects associated with increased paternal age applies to women up until pre-menopause too (about age 50).

Sure. If there are Eugenic measures and children needed, they have good traits too, nothing speaks against them trying to get children even in later age. The biological limitations are just clearer.


Why don't you just admit it Agrippa.... you're just trying to justify the act of dirty old men exploiting and de-humanising young women, in order to encourage the social acceptability of such a practice.

If a high quality elite male passes his genes on in later life thats good. Obviously if he would have a son of the same quality, if not being egoistic, he should give him the woman rather - or at least give her the opportunity so to say in a tribal group.
However, the exampels I gave above are clear, defects are something which will be selected out anyway usually, a genome which is as a whole of lower quality is much worse, because its not about one or two single traits, but the whole "composition" of the individual, which is, even if "normal" not as desirable in comparison. Therefore if we are really speaking of high quality males, age is not limitation for them as long as they are fertile. That this practice was so widespread shows its rather a human constant.

Just in theory, not necessary suggesting it, what you said would mean that it would be best if wanting really to breed for the best traits, that better males should have a large reservoir of frozen sperm from their younger years, so they can prove their abilities and qualities in life and then they can be used. ;)

However, thats rather not appropriate for humans nor necessary since we can now select defect embryos and soon non-desirable traits anyway, which means that both old males and females can get more children without having the risk of getting worse offspring, even on the contrary - they would get better one from the genetic perspective at least if comparing them with people using no such methods but being younger.
Thats particularly important for people on a higher social level and all those women with long careers after which they find back to their mother role and want their first or just more children. Obviously its a crook in such cases but better than such women and men having less children.
The best would be if having more children in the early fertile age of course - at least from the medical and biological perspective.

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Has anyone else noticed that the only ones here who seem to think that Sean Connery is still sexually attractive are two men???

Look, Connery is not ugly. He is an old old man and still has a "twinkle in his eye". He is a multi-millionaire, he was the James Bond and he knows how to carry himself.

If (according to you) Sean Connery does not have any of his old attractiveness to women, you are setting ridiculously high standards. I bet a lot of women would rather spend time with Sean Connery than Jude Law. Granted, many of them would be into their 40s and upwards, but the point still stands.

Wikipedia:

Connery is known for his trademark Scottish accent and saturnine good looks, repeatedly mentioned as one of the most attractive men alive by magazines, even though he is considerably older than most other sex symbols. When advised of the award, Sean seemed to be unaffected as he replied, "Well there aren't many sexy dead men, are there?!"He is 76 years old, for Chrissakes!!

How many 76 year-old women are even remotely attractive to men??!

Confirms my belief (more just common sense) that women "burn brightly and quickly" whereas men sustain their looks for far longer, as a generalisation, but a useful one.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Agrippa - it's amazing how you still see fit to just conveniently forget about all of the other issues relating to the emotional, psychological and social well-being of members of the population when thinking of old men breeding with young women. If it ever became really necessary for old blokes to impregnate all the fertile women they can... it'd be time to get out the turkey baster. Why make women suffer??



Obviously if he would have a son of the same quality, if not being egoistic, he should give him the woman rather - or at least give her the opportunity so to say in a tribal group.
.... Still veiwing woman as lifeless commodities to be done with whatever pleases those in power..... will you ever learn Agrippa???? :|



Look, Connery is not ugly.
Maybe not to you Saxon. ;)

As for some people thinking he's still a sex symbol.... what bollocks. I've already said that the men who go on and on about Connery the old Codger still being sexy are just trying to delude themselves that old men can still be attractive to women.

Men definately have a use-by date mate.... believe it or not, that's up to you; but in years to come when you're busily gulping down handfuls of Viagra, while trying to convince yourself that your grey hair, flacid penis and wrinkly old body are attractive to women.... just don't get angry when you find out that they think you're a joke, because you've been warned.....

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:19 PM
As for some people thinking he's still a sex symbol.... what bollocks. I've already said that the men who go on and on about Connery the old Codger still being sexy are just trying to delude themselves that old men can still be attractive to women.

Well, if 76-year-old Sean Connery goes back onto the relationship market, he could have his pick of stunning women in their 50s.

Say no more.

How many 76-year-old women - no matter how rich and wealthy - could do the same thing?

Proves two of my points with one stroke.

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:29 PM
Well, if 76-year-old Sean Connery goes back onto the relationship market, he could have his pick of stunning women in their 50s.

Say no more.

How many 76-year-old women - no matter how rich and wealthy - could do the same thing?

Proves two of my points with one stroke.

Mere opinion has never been known to "prove" anything Saxon. :sway ;)

I'm sure there would be enough money hungry 50 something year old men (and even younger) who would gladly marry a wealthy 76 year old woman to get their hands on her "assets". :D :fwink:

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:33 PM
marry a wealthy 76 year old woman to get their hands on her "assets". :D :fwink:

Gah....... thanks for that revolting mental image :thumbdown :)

Bridie
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Gah....... thanks for that revolting mental image :thumbdown :)

:lol

Yes, it's not a nice one... :puke ... sorry about that....


I think perhaps we should just stop talking about old people having sex now... because it's just foul...

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:49 PM
I think perhaps we should just stop talking about old people having sex now... because it's just foul...

Yes, especially 30 and over, totally disgusting

:smilies

nicholas
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 07:54 PM
I'm wondering if there could ever be a time when sex is only allowable by license from gov't? Of course there would be certain requirements such as height, appearance, intelligence, age, etc.

Those caught having sex without license would have to be medicated in order to completely deaden their sexual urges.

Of course the super rich and super influential would be exempt from these laws but only under the table as to not aggravate the drooling sexless masses.:thumbup

Huzar
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 09:55 PM
Yes, especially 30 and over, totally disgusting


Gosh ! :D :D :P

Agrippa
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 10:53 PM
The second test is interesting because masculine males are seen as extroverted. Would this not go against your view Agrippa? Or are these masculine males not true leptosomes, rather mesomorphs? Kretschmer did not make this difference between men and women, as far as I know. The test agree with Kretschmer's findings for females.

I forgot to mention that extraverted and schizothymic are, as I said in other threads, not exactly the same and that it being assumed by some scientists that hunter and gatherers being more cautious rather.

Some of the interpretators of this study seem to see extraverted = socially dominant and risk taking behaviour, but thats only true for a very specific, already rather ordered society. In many tribal groups aberrant behaviour wasnt accepted and would have been punished and sociability can mean a strategy for physically weaker individuals as well.

I assume that both very introverted as well as very extraverted individuals being the extremes of the spectrum which were in absolute minority in the past, but when people became sedentary, social structures and patterns more chaotic and at the same time it was more up for the individual to organise the own social environment, extraversion, especially the numbers of strongly extraverted individuals might have increased which are less cautious, planful and at the same considering only whats necessary for the moment.
I think that the old Cromagnid hunter gatherer population of the North was one of the most introverted, Nordids already more moderately etc.

Zyklothymes can be rather reserved too, but for other reasons, not because they think about too much things like the sensitive schizothymic with neurotic tendencies, but because of their subdepressive tendencies.

Oswiu
Saturday, September 16th, 2006, 11:34 PM
Yes, especially 30 and over, totally disgusting

:smilies
My my! You must be young! I see the smilies, but do you really mean that?!? Plenty of attractive forty-odd year olds can catch my eye, you know! ;)


I think that the old Cromagnid hunter gatherer population of the North was one of the most introverted, Nordids already more moderately etc.
Are you sure? When I think of people I know well, I'd tend to go for the chunky robust types if I was in the mood for some earthy humour and a good belly laugh.

Or is this my misunderstanding of your scheme? Where can I look for good definitions of the terms you're using here? So far, I've just been working out what you mean from context.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Are you sure? When I think of people I know well, I'd tend to go for the chunky robust types if I was in the mood for some earthy humour and a good belly laugh.

What you describe here is definitely zyklothymic and not schizothymic, but you might mean no classic Cromagnids but rather Borreby- and Alpinoid-like Pyknics in that case, than those tall, mesomorphic build and hard-robust looking folks. The classic Cromagnid is a mesomorphic/Athletic, not endomorph/Pyknic, though the border is fluent.

The typical character traits would be rather somewhat slower, but steadier and more practical than the typical more volatile or theoretical schizothymes of the Skandonordid or Atlantomediterranid spectrum.

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 02:40 AM
Yes, especially 30 and over, totally disgusting
:D You remember that on your 30th birthday luv :gift .... it'll be all over Red Rover for you (probably before it's even begun :-O ).

But nevermind.... since you find 30+ year olds so revolting.... when you get to an age where the only women that would even consider having to put up with the sight of you taking your clothes off are well over 30 ;) , you can just forget about them.... I'm sure Sean Connery will still be knocking about and wouldn't mind servicing you every now and then.... :thumbup

Funny how you think 30+ year olds are so gross, but 76 year old Sean Connery is completely bonkable. :chinrub


:P

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 02:45 AM
The typical character traits would be rather somewhat slower, but steadier and more practical than the typical more volatile or theoretical schizothymes of the Skandonordid or Atlantomediterranid spectrum.
So are Skando's and Atlanto-meds always schizothymic?

And what are the differences between females and males when it comes to Schizothymes and Zyklothymes? Surely there are differences in behaviour and perception between, say, a schizothyme female and a schizothyme male... and same for zyklothymes??

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 08:00 AM
I'd like to do a genuine experiment this time... I've been thinking about how facial expressions, body language, physical presentation etc can influence people's perceptions and opinions when assessing potential partners. (A couple of guys have mentioned that Fiona Horne looked "slutty", implying that this would be a turn-off I think? I thought the vast majority of men LOVE that look! :shrug ) According to that aforementioned site, people associate physical traits and facial expressions with characteristics of personality, and this can influence their choice of sexual partner.... people will choose partners with the most desirable personality, and the physical body/face is useful in that it is a representation of the desirable personality. It also cited that "like attracts like", and that people will generally choose partners who they assess as having personalities similar to their own. So perhaps perceptions of beauty and lust are not so shallow after all and men's preferences for mates will vary from individual to individual more often than is generally recognised in our modern Western cultures.... :chinrub ...


So here's my little test...

Categorise....

a) the photos in which the women look sexually desirable, but not the sort of women that you'd really like to have a long-term relationship/marriage with. (if any)

b) the photos in which the women look like the sort of women that you could have a long-term relationship with. (if any)

c) the photos in which the women look like the sort of women that you could be friends with but nothing more. (if any)

d) the photos in which the women look like the sort of women that you'd avoid altogether. (if any)

(It'll be interesting if the same woman can look like the sort of woman that most men would only want to have sex with, but nothing more... and then in another photo with a differing facial expression, hair, make-up etc, look like the sort of woman that most men could consider for a more serious relationship. This will test, possibly, just how much of an influence factors such as clothing, facial expressions etc can have on the assessment of potential relationships.)


#1 - Isla Fischer
http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/gallery/i/f/fisher/53193721_10.jpg


#2 - Isla Fischer
http://www.xfiles.force9.co.uk/isla/gallery/isla101.jpg


#3 - Isla Fischer
http://www.theforce.net/jedicouncil/castingcall/pics/isla.jpg


#4 - Sarah O'Hare
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/23/bonds_narrowweb__200x304.jpg


#5 - Sarah O'Hare
http://www.musicavirtuale.net/mondovip/sarahohare/images/fash2968_jpg.jpg


#6 - Sarah O'Hare
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/9905/Sarah/Gallery3t.jpg (http://lavender.fortunecity.com/gilliams/93/gallery3.jpg)



#7 - Melissa George
http://www.melissageorge.co.uk/gallery/roar/henweb_mel_roar06.jpg


#8 - Melissa George
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b41/AzianScRewBaLL/actressMelissaGeorge1.jpg


#9 - Melissa George
http://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/upfront/thieves.jpg


#10 - Melissa George
http://horror.about.com/library/weekly/Amityville/pages/Melissa_George85.jpg




#11 - Bridie Carter
http://www.spockman.com/images/CarterBridie1a.jpg


#12 - Bridie Carter
http://www.sitemaken.nl/Josieneke/images/soap%20opera.bmp

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 10:01 AM
I
Give your first impressions of....

a) the photos in which the women look sexually desirable, but not the sort of women that you'd really like to have a long-term relationship/marriage with. (if any)

Isla Fischer, objectively attractive.


b) the photos in which the women look like the sort of women that you could have a long-term relationship with.

Melissa George, looks pleasant and has the best body.


c) the photos in which the women look like the sort of women that you could be friends with but nothing more. (if any)

Isla Fischer, Sarah O'Hare.

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Hmmm... that's not really what I meant Saxon... I was hoping people could share their impressions of individual photos to see what affect facial expressions, clothes etc can have on desirability.

Eg, in photo #1 Isla, someone might think she looks like long-term relationship material... whereas in photo #2 Isla they may think she looks like just sex material. See what I mean?

Thanks for your response nonetheless though!

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 12:10 PM
Hmmm... that's not really what I meant Saxon... I was hoping people could share their impressions of individual photos to see what affect facial expressions, clothes etc can have on desirability.

Eg, in photo #1 Isla, someone might think she looks like long-term relationship material... whereas in photo #2 Isla they may think she looks like just sex material. See what I mean?

Thanks for your response nonetheless though!

Wow that's a lot of work. Suffice to say, O'Hare looks a-sexual especially compared to Melissa George. Bridie Carter has untidy hair. I have nothing more to add.

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 12:30 PM
Wow that's a lot of work.
Fair enough. I think I put in too many photos....

I'll change it.

I didn't mean going through all the pics and commenting though.... just saying something like,

sex = pics 1,2 & 3

long-term relationship = pics 5 & 6

friendship = pics 1,4,8

revolting = pics 10 & 11

you know, that sort of thing. :)

P.S. I must have just picked bad pics of Sarah O'Hare too, because she's actually REALLY gorgeous. :glamgal

P.P.S. You wouldn't want to actually have sex with either Isla or Melissa though surely!! They're both 30. ;) :P

Waarnemer
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 12:41 PM
a) Melissa George

b) Sarah O'Hare and Bridie Carter

c) Isla Fischer

d) Bridie

Bridie
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 12:47 PM
d) Bridie
Where are the pics of me??

Oh, here I am....:awife

Huzar
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 01:25 PM
#5 - Sarah O'Hare
http://www.musicavirtuale.net/mondovip/sarahohare/images/fash2968_jpg.jpg




#12 - Bridie Carter
http://www.sitemaken.nl/Josieneke/images/soap%20opera.bmp






My favourite are these two.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 02:48 PM
So are Skando's and Atlanto-meds always schizothymic?

No. Its like saying are all Central African Negrids less intelligent and all Northern Europids intelligent - no they aren't, but still the difference is present and clear. AND, the more typical a variant represents Nordisation (all traits "classic") or Alpinisation, the more likely it is this individual is schizothymic. F.e. imagine Max von Sydow being a down to earth practical guy with a superficial sense of humour and always quacking around, preferring colourfil and chintzy clothes and furnishings, dont caring for appearance and a representation, being just a "natural and unstrained" in general behaviour. Doesnt really fit, thats a human biological stereotype already and its seldomly the case in reality.


And what are the differences between females and males when it comes to Schizothymes and Zyklothymes? Surely there are differences in behaviour and perception between, say, a schizothyme female and a schizothyme male... and same for zyklothymes??

Yes sure, I spoke about that partly in the threads I wrote already.

A good example would be the MBTI again, the more extreme males would be more often IxTx, the females more often IxFx. They would be more personal-social, more often sensitive in a personal way, f.e. quite often in animal rights groups and things like that if they had no rational education and are hyper-sensitive. Males would rather be more reclusive, caring for specific hobbies, fantasy worlds ("nerd syndrome") and if being active in any groups, they would be more dogmatic and less caring (if comparing with the female counterpart), even though they would be (extreme-hyper-sensitive cases) very sensitive.
Typical for the schizothymic male and female Idealism is that the males think for the cause first, for the individual cases second, for the females it might be more often the opposite, so its more typical for them being active for animals, children, olds, family values, foreigners etc. for their individual well being, whereas for the males its usually more integrated in the bigger picture, a general idea.
Just to give an impression of the most extreme ones, hypersensitive schizothymes.

Extreme Zyklothymes, well, the female ones would be extremely social oriented, very personal, would most likely ignore most things which dont fit into their view of people, have practically no self-awareness and would be highly emotional without caring for more specific interests or hobbies, higher idealism being foreign to them and everything would be very practical from the small perspective.
The man would be less emotional and more striving, highly social and looking for acceptance, a practical guy which knows how to tackle things, having a simple, often vulgar but usually fitting humour - at least as long as they dont meet people of a very different class or intellectual level, whereas schizothymes have quite often a more specific, individual sense of humour which others dont necessarily share. The individualisation is generally stronger in the schizothymic sector. The typical zyklothymes are easier to understand and analyse, they function in a more simple and general manner, are more open. The typical schizothyme is more difficult to get, to analyse, because being more secretive or if talking often building up a more complex facade - depending on the intellectual level, education and personal strength. But once you have got through the wall, they are understandable too.
Zyklothymes change their mood in minutes, are in a short time not very stable, always moving up and down, but on the long run they are stable in this way, whereas schizothymes can be extremely stable for years, and then something changes their attitude and they will be different persons. Because their inner world and ideas are so important for them, if they change it changes everything, whereas for the zyklothymic individual ideas and theories are just one part of their life which they can change without changing their general outlook, attitude to life.
Typical are schizothymic managers which were just hard-working and career oriented subjects for decades, then suddenly they get a heart attack, other disease, accident or the wife left them and they have to fully orient themselves again in life - they might begin to think about what they thought of being self-evident in the past and this might start a full scale change of their personal outlook especially if some rest of a general Idealism could stay alive in all that years in which they lived for work and acceptance. A schizothymic individual, both male and female, needs to be hit hard before learning in later life, but once they learned they will do what they learned with consequence.

OneEnglishNorman
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 04:19 PM
Agrippa,

do you have a generalised scheme for schizothymic versus zyklothymic within races (like you did with a map of racial groups).

I mean, are all Europeans tending towards one way and Africans the other, or do you identify considerable differences within Europe itself.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 17th, 2006, 04:52 PM
Agrippa,

do you have a generalised scheme for schizothymic versus zyklothymic within races (like you did with a map of racial groups).

I mean, are all Europeans tending towards one way and Africans the other, or do you identify considerable differences within Europe itself.

On that the differences inside of the (major-) races are bigger than between.

F.e. in Europids a strong schizothymic tendency would be present in:
Nordid, Atlantomediterranid, Iranid, Nordindid

A stronger zyklothymic tendency in:
Alpinoid, Baltid

In Mongolids:
Nordsinid schizothymic, Palaungid zyklothymic.

In Negrids:
Nilotid schizothymic, Palaenegrid more zyklothymic.

One can see its a correlation between average body type, growth pattern = more leptomorphic = schizothymic, more pyknomorphic = zyklothymic.

Usually the dominant and in relation more progressive forms are more schizothymic, the subdominant and more reduced zyklothymic, with the large framed types being rather in between, the Athletic-mesomorphic rather slow pace schizothymes-viscoese people. Just compare with the threads.

The (major-) race differences come rather from intelligence, sexual type (Negrids most, Mongolids least masculine), affective control and other more specifically racial tendencies. If comparing a Nordid with a Nordsinid culture and both with an Alpinid and Palaungid one, you can see differences and similarities between the two schizothymic high-cultural poles as well as between the major racial unities. Its like it is with the sex differences, it runs across. So the typical Nordid and Nordsinid are schizothymic in their way.

A more popular article, but still interesting to read would be this:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=37644


Within the field of animal breeding acknowledgments of this kind are natural. When crossing horses no breeder would be guided by the absurd idea of combining, for example, the rough skeletal structure of the heavy cold-blooded race with the nervous temperament of the thoroughbred race. These two things cannot be separated.

The same pattern can be roughly observed in humans if comparing inside of the rather schizothymic spectrum very mesomorphic vs. leptomorphic types. The one is more resistant and steady, but at the same time slower and less energetic, whereas the other is more nervous, strained, but reacts faster, is more creative and flexible. Both are rather controlled, reserved to a certain degree, whereas the typical zyklothymic is more between moods, between being happy or sad, often more careless, open and relaxed - stress is being directly converted in actions, often before thinking about it carefully enough.

This are influences which go parallel on body and psyche, because its about growth patterns, hormones and nervous system. Typical is that the refined variants are more often sensitive, have if usually only a reactive depression and tend towards neuroticism, whereas the typical pyknomorphic variants have more often endogenous depressions (compare manic-depressive/bipolar disorders and obese, Pyknic body build).

Patrioten
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 02:24 PM
A good example would be the MBTI again, the more extreme males would be more often IxTx, the females more often IxFx. They would be more personal-social, more often sensitive in a personal way, f.e. quite often in animal rights groups and things like that if they had no rational education and are hyper-sensitive. Males would rather be more reclusive, caring for specific hobbies, fantasy worlds ("nerd syndrome") and if being active in any groups, they would be more dogmatic and less caring (if comparing with the female counterpart), even though they would be (extreme-hyper-sensitive cases) very sensitive.
Typical for the schizothymic male and female Idealism is that the males think for the cause first, for the individual cases second, for the females it might be more often the opposite, so its more typical for them being active for animals, children, olds, family values, foreigners etc. for their individual well being,
Just to give an impression of the most extreme ones, hypersensitive schizothymes.If this was to be applied on my home country Sweden it would mean that the political climate here is very much "feminised". Would you dare to guess the make up (percentages) of these different personality types in a northern European country, Sweden for example?

Quite obviously the masses are, to a large degree, mesomorph in constitution and are closer to the zyklothymic spectrum rather than the schizothymic such. And then there are smaller numbers of extreme zyklothymes, as well as schizothymes. This would mean that the ruling liberal-socialistic ideology has the people in a very strong grip as long as they keep the zyklothymes happy, materialism and emotional-wise, as well as unexposed to too much of personal uncomforts. It makes sense and is logical.

Agrippa
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 02:58 PM
If this was to be applied on my home country Sweden it would mean that the political climate here is very much "feminised".

Scandinavia is now totally feminised of course.


Would you dare to guess the make up (percentages) of these different personality types in a northern European country, Sweden for example?

Very hard, but I assume if going after the averages for different groups that rather schizothymic personalities should be above 40 percent in Sweden.


Quite obviously the masses are, to a large degree, mesomorph in constitution and are closer to the zyklothymic spectrum rather than the schizothymic such.

Lets put it that way, clearly schizothymic, especially the sensitive extreme, is a minority, but rather schizothymic is in most countries of the world the majority and in Northern Europe in particular. If putting all moderate classic schizothymic and viscoes (slower, higher perseveration etc.) people together they should be in Sweden 75 percent+.

However, we dont deal with typical or extreme, but mostly "mixed" people, which are just closer to the schizothymic than to the zyklothymic pole on a scale without being extreme in any way.


And then there are smaller numbers of extreme zyklothymes, as well as schizothymes.

Exactly. In the North though extreme zyklothymes should occur, especially in the most Nordid regions, less often. Would be interesting to see studies about manic-depressives in the most Skandonordid regions (Eastern Norway, Western Sweden).


This would mean that the ruling liberal-socialistic ideology has the people in a very strong grip as long as they keep the zyklothymes happy, materialism and emotional-wise, as well as unexposed to too much of personal uncomforts.

Thats right, this "emotional centre" (of non-typical individuals and zyklothymes) is easy to control, since they dont have too much demands nor Idealism, they are the "wavy herd".

However, male schizothymes, especially the more intelligent, energetic and potentially idealistic ones are not that common in mainstream policy NOW. In these days they mostly observe policy, with its "correctness", strange emotions and ridiculous, mostly feminised gestures. They have usually personal life plans, want to be successful "in business", science, personal social field or sport etc. They are the backbone of this society even, since they go with a certain performance, Idealism and personal involvement in all kinds of fields. As long as the system allows them to do so, they are often even less critical than the zyklothymes are, which mock all the time without having any concept or real idea about whats going on and being finally too easygoing to even risk a serious change.
The greatest risk for a revolution comes in every society from young schizothymic males which have at least a certain minimal intelligence and education. Once they are not satisfied any more, they taking over the leadership in all fields of society, even if there might be some hypomanic preachers under them which can be of great importance, and begin to make enormous pressure which results in mass movements in which the more average people being carried away - since it was fermenting in the centre too already, just the concept, true will and fanatism was lacking. The typical higher level schizothymic is thinking more about what he wants in life and what he considers "correct" or "corrupted" than the average. But still most are mainstream (even if in a specific subculture, professional field etc.) as long as the parameters are "ok" for them. Every society must try "to please them", because they are needed by and at the same time the threat for the current upper class.

So one ccould say, as long as these schizothymic males are satisfied in their personal fields and can live with a certain, even lame, irrational or corrupted, Idealism their daily life, they might be calm, but as soon as this isnt guaranteed any more, f.e. a lot of well educated males of this category being without a job, women and perspective, it might get ugly for the establishment very fast. Thats true from Chinese farmers in uprisings from antiquity, peasant uprisings in Germany, French revolution to better organised and more intelligent workers practising red revolutions to Fascist or Islamist movements around the world.
They are the base of more radical political movements and once they reach a critical mass by numbers and power, they can change the whole society in a very short period of time.

Patrioten
Sunday, September 24th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Lets put it that way, clearly schizothymic, especially the sensitive extreme, is a minority, but rather schizothymic is in most countries of the world the majority and in Northern Europe in particular. If putting all moderate classic schizothymic and viscoes (slower, higher perseveration etc.) people together they should be in Sweden 70 percent+.

However, we dont deal with typical or extreme, but mostly "mixed" people, which are just closer to the schizothymic than to the zyklothymic pole on a scale without being extreme in any way.Yeah i tend to focus too much on the extremes. I should instead think of it as a horizontal bar with a large part in the middle being moderate schizothymes and zyklothymes with an overweight for schizothymes, then a smaller part on each side of the larger part being typical schizothymes and zyklothymes, and finally on both edges of the bar a thin part consisting of the extremes of both kinds.

Klegutati
Tuesday, September 26th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Totally confused! What do these terms state?:~( BTW don't really like the dress in #10, totally looks like shes pregnent..eww.