Evolutionary Psychology: Male Mate Preferences

[Mistress Klaus]

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. 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]

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]

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. 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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

All of this talk about the 'collective' and the 'cell' really freaks me out. Are you Borg, Agrippa? Or Amish?

[Agrippa]

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]

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]

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.