Strength in Healing Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 And then there's Thomas (Also known as SIH), and he rules them all. Link to post Share on other sites
calvincline47 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 We're talking about mating here, not basic kindness, respect, and pursuit of happiness. It's literally the survival of the fittest genes. No one is owed a mate, or the right to reproduce. You can't be serious. Mating has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest genes". Maybe it did at one time, but definitely not today. Have you seen the people in the US with the most children? From what I've seen, they tend to be poor, ugly, stupid, fat, and living off of other people. Educated, good-looking people seem to have only one or two kids (if any). In fact, I know many intelligent, good-looking women that are unable to have children because they put it off for too long. Definitely not "survival of the fittest gene". Also, these days, one can easily have children without a mate (both women AND men). But that's a whole other discussion entirely. Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 My friend was walking around the beach, grabbed this random girl, kissed her, pushed her away, then started walking away from her. Her response: "Hey, wait!" My friend is a really good looking guy, so that works for him. Ha. It wouldn't work with me guarantee. :sick: Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I always thought of it more as a cache than a hoard. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
BlueIris Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Mating has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest genes". Maybe it did at one time, but definitely not today. ... Also, these days, one can easily have children without a mate (both women AND men). But that's a whole other discussion entirely. Survival of the fittest is not only about creating babies. It is about having offspring that are strong and thrive, that go on to have children that are strong and thrive, and on and on. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Rejected Rosebud Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Have you seen the people in the US with the most children? From what I've seen, they tend to be poor, ugly, stupid, fat, and living off of other people. So not top tier then??:confused: 2 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 You can't be serious. Mating has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest genes". Maybe it did at one time, but definitely not today. Have you seen the people in the US with the most children? From what I've seen, they tend to be poor, ugly, stupid, fat, and living off of other people. Educated, good-looking people seem to have only one or two kids (if any). In fact, I know many intelligent, good-looking women that are unable to have children because they put it off for too long. Definitely not "survival of the fittest gene". Also, these days, one can easily have children without a mate (both women AND men). But that's a whole other discussion entirely. When it comes to those who can not mate because they can not find a willing partner, it absolutely is survival of the fittest. Your post proves the point when you describe how many seemingly unattractive people mate with ease. Link to post Share on other sites
salparadise Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Ha. It wouldn't work with me guarantee. :sick: Isn't it interesting how we all run around in denial of our true nature and underlying motivations? Sweetie, if the right guy caught you on the right day (ovulating) and laid a kiss on you that really flipped your switch... at that point it's pretty much out of your hands. The illusion of self-determination and free will might seem real on the micro scale, from the inside looking out, but every synapse you use to conjure up these notions is biologically determined... and the same algorithm that brought you into existence permeates every cell of your body, which includes your mind. Oh, by the way, it wouldn't work on me either. ;-) Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Isn't it interesting how we all run around in denial of our true nature and underlying motivations? Sweetie, if the right guy caught you on the right day (ovulating) and laid a kiss on you that really flipped your switch... at that point it's pretty much out of your hands. The illusion of self-determination and free will might seem real on the micro scale, from the inside looking out, but every synapse you use to conjure up these notions is biologically determined... and the same algorithm that brought you into existence permeates every cell of your body, which includes your mind. Oh, by the way, it wouldn't work on me either. ;-) I can't speak for Rosebud, but in general there's a splitting line between attraction and animal instinct and humanity, and it's grey. For instance, if I was just about attraction and animal instinct, I'd probably be only attracted to pretty white women with thick or athletic bodies and big boobs. But because of humanity, my tastes have evolved over the years to include, well, just about everybody. Not quite everybody, but a lot of women. So, you can alter your sense of attraction significantly. Link to post Share on other sites
Camaro Guy Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 As a woman, I don't consider the womanizers "top tier". Is getting a lot of women in bed the height of dating success? It's better than no women in the bed. Sometimes you need quantity to get the quality. Link to post Share on other sites
BronzeAgeJaeger217 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, even though us humans and dolphins I believe are the only sole animals on this planet that don't engage in sex just solely for making babies, I believe the pickiness is still rooted deep in the human female brain to pick the best sperm, don't blame them at all for that Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I can't speak for Rosebud, but in general there's a splitting line between attraction and animal instinct and humanity, and it's grey. For instance, if I was just about attraction and animal instinct, I'd probably be only attracted to pretty white women with thick or athletic bodies and big boobs. But because of humanity, my tastes have evolved over the years to include, well, just about everybody. Not quite everybody, but a lot of women. So, you can alter your sense of attraction significantly. Seems to me in most animal behaviour, the male tends not to be the one that picks the sexual partner. Males fight amongst each other for females, but once they win and they have their little harem, they do not then pick out the females they want to be with, and discard others, they just get on with it, as long as the female is receptive, the male is happy to oblige. Females may fight amongst themselves for the attention of the male and for territory/resources, but males tend to just take what is available to them. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Mating has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest genes". Maybe it did at one time, but definitely not today. Have you seen the people in the US with the most children? You used the phrase "survival of the fittest" and then made comments that make me believe you have no idea what it means. Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive ... While that is true, carrying the child to birth, the risk of birth, and then nurturing it (for years in the case of humans) is the really expensive part. Link to post Share on other sites
salparadise Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Seems to me in most animal behaviour, the male tends not to be the one that picks the sexual partner. Males fight amongst each other for females, but once they win and they have their little harem, they do not then pick out the females they want to be with, and discard others, they just get on with it, as long as the female is receptive, the male is happy to oblige. Females may fight amongst themselves for the attention of the male and for territory/resources, but males tend to just take what is available to them. Yup, the female usually chooses because she's one with the rare commodity - ability to carry a baby to term, nurse, nurture, etc. Capacity is only about a dozen in a lifetime. Males fight for reproductive rights, or dominance over other males. Females will cuckold the dominant make sometimes. One dominant male with reproductive rights mating with all of the females is how nature optimizes genetic quality (in males) and maximizes the reproductive capacity of all the females. For males, an effective strategy is to play it like a numbers game - the more females he fertilizes the more his genes are replicated. But since the females are limited in capacity and and need help/protection, they are selective and have to balance genetic quality against familiar investment on the part of the male. Link to post Share on other sites
LookAtThisPOst Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I wonder...why compare ourselves to the animals. Aren't we better than that? Link to post Share on other sites
endlessabyss Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I wonder...why compare ourselves to the animals. Aren't we better than that? It's the modern day dogma... You might not accept it, personally, but you get used to it after a while. Link to post Share on other sites
LookAtThisPOst Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 It's the modern day dogma... You might not accept it, personally, but you get used to it after a while. I'm just saying, we're human beings. We rule over the animal kingdom, we're sentient beings. We have self-awareness. I think that's why I'm likely still single though, I think I set myself apart from most people when it comes to this. I'm not driven entirely by the urge to hop from woman to woman to "spread my seed." 1 Link to post Share on other sites
endlessabyss Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I'm just saying, we're human beings. We rule over the animal kingdom, we're sentient beings. We have self-awareness. I think that's why I'm likely still single though, I think I set myself apart from most people when it comes to this. I'm not driven entirely by the urge to hop from woman to woman to "spread my seed." I'm the same way. That type of worldview is primitive, and most of all, it's bull****. Link to post Share on other sites
loveweary11 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Seems to me in most animal behaviour, the male tends not to be the one that picks the sexual partner. Males fight amongst each other for females, but once they win and they have their little harem, they do not then pick out the females they want to be with, and discard others, they just get on with it, as long as the female is receptive, the male is happy to oblige. Females may fight amongst themselves for the attention of the male and for territory/resources, but males tend to just take what is available to them. Pretty much sums my post divorce dating experience up. I get rid of all men and have a little group of girls that I take what I can get from. When one of them is feeling receptive, I'm happy to oblige. Also, I do notice my cache (nod to 123321) fighting amongst themselves for top attention and resources. Frightening how accurate this is. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts