Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Sexual selectivity

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 15, 2008, 11:28:10 AM
Quote
being a musical prodigy or at least competent will help in this regard too.


You sound terribly weak...

The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 15, 2008, 07:39:56 PM
Quote
What do you even mean by 'proving'?


I'll rephrase the question. Are there any credible sources of information that accurately document this practice?

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 16, 2008, 03:08:53 AM
Quote

You sound terribly weak...


Perhaps so, but it is quite established that females pay attention to musicians creating valid (or shallow for that matter) music, and while this cannot be a basis for any real relationship, it can get the ball rolling, and some actual contact with females. My point was simply the social aspect of musicianship (which is a group action historically and still presently) could be a vehicle for someone to find someone of worth if they are social outcasts in other settings. Someone being attracted by music is relatively more benign than by anything else short of true reasons such as ideals and character (i.e. go to same school, shop at same mall, etc.)

Only one lacking in himself what he desires lashes out at a contributor of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. I'm sorry that you can't enjoy success in music Hlidskjalf.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 16, 2008, 06:38:37 AM
Quote
Is there any documentation proving the practice of abandoning sick or defective children? Sorry in advance for the dumb questions.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=957103

Like Wikipedo, I would consider this a list of sources to check, and not a source itself.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 09:29:37 AM
The big contradiction I find with Nihilist belief concerning love is the idea of finding and protecting true love but also being extremely selective about the race, the intelligence, the cultural background, etc. of a person. But shouldn't love truly be for love's sake?
Talking about love transcends into societal standards. Is love supposed to be approached in a thoughful manner or is it suppose to be a rush of feelings? The former implies a perfectionist society where everyone is perfect but there are no feelings, no expression, and no humanity (a big brother society). The latter implies a whimsical, "I wanna do what I wanna do" that usually leads to degeneration and kids coming out retarded and people getting into shit they shouldn't have gotten into in the first place. It seems rather logical to have a bit of both nonetheless.
Also, do we know enough about race to say that a negroid and a caucasoid can never fall in love with each other? To prevent dysgenics they probably shouldn't but what if it is a positive and possibly the happiest relationship?
The ultimate question: Do we allow ourselves to be in love while destruction takes its course and we accept it or do we take fearful action at the cost and expense of the feelings of others and of love itself?
Signature: Something I didn't sign up for but found inherently true.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 05:25:16 PM
I forgot where I found the research, I think in Scientific American a few years back, that the "in love" feeling we get when we meet someone attractive, is simply the release of pheremones in respnse to the pheremones of the other person. To me this would signify health in itself. In healthy people, you'd think that, as a healthy individual, you would react to pheremones of someone healthy, and valid for eventual baby making. I tend to be very intuitive by nature, so I would assume if I mean someone, and the sparks go off, it means they are fit for eventual breeding(not that I think in those exact terms at the time).

You can't suck all the fun out of "love" by trying to constantly categorizing and classifying every single reaction, but it's important to understand these underlying physiological processes and biochemical responses, and how they really work when trying to find someone suitable for a long term relationship.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 06:49:05 PM
Glinda's comment is interesting. I wonder if we're made to stick to one mate forever like the Northern Gannet or the Albatross or if we're just made to make babies and live in communities like hippies and other animals.
Because I am more intelligent than you are.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 06:49:47 PM
Quote
I forgot where I found the research, I think in Scientific American a few years back, that the "in love" feeling we get when we meet someone attractive, is simply the release of pheremones in respnse to the pheremones of the other person. To me this would signify health in itself. In healthy people, you'd think that, as a healthy individual, you would react to pheremones of someone healthy, and valid for eventual baby making. I tend to be very intuitive by nature, so I would assume if I mean someone, and the sparks go off, it means they are fit for eventual breeding(not that I think in those exact terms at the time).

You can't suck all the fun out of "love" by trying to constantly categorizing and classifying every single reaction, but it's important to understand these underlying physiological processes and biochemical responses, and how they really work when trying to find someone suitable for a long term relationship.


This is pretty much true. Apparently, the "natural scent" people have is sort of a good way to find mates. If someone likes another person's natural scent, it means something like that person has a different immune system than theirs, and apparently that makes them a good mate. Too bad perfumes/colognes cover that up nowadays.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 07:59:08 PM
Quote


Only one lacking in himself what he desires lashes out at a contributor of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. I'm sorry that you can't enjoy success in music Hlidskjalf.


I'm into visual arts actually...

Secondly, the whole statement made you seem even weaker, which makes me think why are you here in the first place...

Third, and the most important, you should not use your musicianship to "meet girls"

You should rather use your personality and intelligence, but honestly, do you have what it is required?

...
The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 08:24:52 PM
Chicks don't dig personality or intelligence.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 17, 2008, 09:42:42 PM
Quote
Chicks don't dig personality or intelligence.


id say about 90% of them dont, unfortunately.

theyre after fast cars, money, and blowout haircuts.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 18, 2008, 02:16:23 AM
I think that due to the consumerism that creates that illusion of "stability" for women, most women do gauge guys by their paychecks. It's pathetic. I've talked to many women that stay in relationships where they are completely miserable, because they want that illusion of financial stability so badly, they sacrifice spending time with someone who would actually add any meaningful interaction in their lives.

Looking back to different times in human evolution, when we lived in packs/clans, or small villlages/communities, it was pretty common for relationships to last for just a few years, then one or the other partner would move on. It served an evolutionary purpose, to widen the gene pool. Even in more organized societies, choosing to live with someone or have children with them did not mean a permanent commitment. There was always the option to "move on if something better came along".

Humans crave affection/attention from each other, but I don't think we're genetically set up to be monagamous.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 18, 2008, 02:58:29 AM
Wishful thinking ...
Yet, primitive societies had a tendency towards imitating the "social" organization that already existed between animals. Some examples are wolves and lions among many others.

Wolves choose their male/female for life.

The essence of balance is detachment. To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance, after which, no action can be trusted. Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit.

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 18, 2008, 02:18:21 PM
Quote
Wishful thinking ...
Yet, primitive societies had a tendency towards imitating the "social" organization that already existed between animals. Some examples are wolves and lions among many others.

Wolves choose their male/female for life.



Actually, humans are neither monogamous nor polygamous by design; the structure of the group is what determines these predilections. We're far more closely related to gorillas or bonobos than wolves, yet gorillas operate like Ghengis Khan, while bonobos are more like the decadent times in Rome. Of course, we fall into neither category absolutely, given the above two examples and the multitude of others, proving our social malleability.

And, while the method of choosing a mate based solely upon his or her skill as a musician may be insipid, musical display is a genuine form of courtship which has been practiced since the advent of music itself. In depleting energy reserves, traditional song and dance serve no other evolutionary function than to say, "I am healthy enough to perform this song and dance," and are therefore likely to be an indirect form of sexual selection (see: songbirds). How ironic it is that a physical activity with no explicit purpose -- one which on the surface appears to be a waste of time and energy for a hunter-gatherer -- sends off instinctive signals of strength, despite your claims to the contrary!

Re: Sexual selectivity
April 18, 2008, 05:58:17 PM
Quote

They're after fast cars, money, and blowout haircuts.


Blowouts are still cool? I thought they were sooo 5 years ago lol??
Perfume...natural scent...can't it be said that in our current society we have neglected our sense of smell?
Is there any way to enhance this sense? Maybe coming to new and beautiful experiences involving this? Yeah, I sound like some coke addict lol...

Signature: Something I didn't sign up for but found inherently true.