4 ms·

The guy with the suit, house, and car is doing that too.

by aianus 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
So? If they're that shallow to prefer the fancier suit and car over the more appropriate soul mate, let them fucking have them...
- wyager 10y ago
  Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Being shallow is exactly that: being "evolutionarily sensible". Unlike animals, that can be only (or mostly) "evolutionarily sensible", we have critical and self-critical faculties, and can see beyond what's "evolutionarily sensible". And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has a fast car and a fancy suit, or the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring". >Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring. If they see the world as some kind of jungle where what matters is a partner who can "provide for themselves and their offspring" then they're not just shallow, but also regressive.
    - wyager 10y ago
      You are allowed to have more than one factor in your preferences. > And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has ... the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring". Which billions of people? Females? Yeah, they're typically not looking for milk production in a mate. On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures. As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. (Although personally, I would place substantial value on a mate driving fast cars! I love driving.) In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures. Yes, when you're 16 years old. Or maybe 20. At some point people (not everybody, but I'd say most) learn to see beyond "boobz" in a mate. Especially one they'll marry. >As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. A small penis? >In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children? In the 20th and 21th century we had this women's liberation thing, where both mates should be able to provide for their children, instead of picking the mate that will provide for you.
        aianus 10y ago
        A 30+ career-oriented woman interested in marriage and children is the antithesis of who I'm trying to attract :)
        barrkel 10y ago
        A hooker would be cheaper, frankly.
        aianus 10y ago
        I don't think they would be. Stupid crap to keep up with the Joneses is running me $1000 a month whereas a hooker is what, $200 an hour plus risk of jail time and disease? Plus there is some inherent value in a nice place and a nice car besides showing off :)
        wyager 10y ago
        I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive. Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring, which is exactly what you've said here in slightly different words.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive. So you've transformed my argument into the ultimate straw-man? Impressive. What I've said is that we are (and have been for millennia) far more nuanced that merely following evolutionary urges. Even the "desire for physical attractiveness" that we have today has little to do with "big boobs, lots of fat, she will endure and raise healthy children among snow, animal predators, and scarcity of food", to the point that it's not even much relevant anymore. There are people who like women with small breasts for example, contrary to naive evolutionary-instincts conceptions. And all kinds of sexual preferences, even down to kinks, that are are adopted by tens of millions, and don't have anything to do with revolutionary urges and instincts. Including, of course, being gay, lesbian, etc. Heck, at this point, the movies and star system drive our sexual preferences towards appearance, etc, more than evolutionary instincts. Fashion too. >Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring And I said even that's not related to fancy cars and suits for the huge majority of people.

The guy with the suit, house, and car is doing that too.

by aianus 10y ago

The guy with the suit, house, and car is doing that too.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 10y ago

So? If they're that shallow to prefer the fancier suit and car over the more appropriate soul mate, let them fucking have them...

wyager 10y ago
Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Accusing someone of being "shallow" because they have evolutionarily sensible sexual preferences is incredibly puerile. Being shallow is exactly that: being "evolutionarily sensible". Unlike animals, that can be only (or mostly) "evolutionarily sensible", we have critical and self-critical faculties, and can see beyond what's "evolutionarily sensible". And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has a fast car and a fancy suit, or the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring". >Any evolutionarily rational person would place substantial value on a partner who can provide for themselves and their offspring. If they see the world as some kind of jungle where what matters is a partner who can "provide for themselves and their offspring" then they're not just shallow, but also regressive.
  - wyager 10y ago
    You are allowed to have more than one factor in your preferences. > And of course, billions of people don't give a rats arse about whether the person they'll fall in love with has ... the body type that signals "I'll have plenty of milk for our offspring". Which billions of people? Females? Yeah, they're typically not looking for milk production in a mate. On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures. As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. (Although personally, I would place substantial value on a mate driving fast cars! I love driving.) In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children?
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >On the other hand, breasts are a huge component of male attraction in most cultures. Yes, when you're 16 years old. Or maybe 20. At some point people (not everybody, but I'd say most) learn to see beyond "boobz" in a mate. Especially one they'll marry. >As for fancy cars, it's not the car itself; it's what it signifies. A small penis? >In what way is it "regressive" to seek a mate who can provide for one's children? In the 20th and 21th century we had this women's liberation thing, where both mates should be able to provide for their children, instead of picking the mate that will provide for you.
      - aianus 10y ago
        A 30+ career-oriented woman interested in marriage and children is the antithesis of who I'm trying to attract :)
        barrkel 10y ago
        A hooker would be cheaper, frankly.
        aianus 10y ago
        I don't think they would be. Stupid crap to keep up with the Joneses is running me $1000 a month whereas a hooker is what, $200 an hour plus risk of jail time and disease? Plus there is some inherent value in a nice place and a nice car besides showing off :)
      - wyager 10y ago
        I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive. Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring, which is exactly what you've said here in slightly different words.
        coldtea 10y ago
        >I see. So you've completely transcended any desire for physical attractiveness? Impressive. So you've transformed my argument into the ultimate straw-man? Impressive. What I've said is that we are (and have been for millennia) far more nuanced that merely following evolutionary urges. Even the "desire for physical attractiveness" that we have today has little to do with "big boobs, lots of fat, she will endure and raise healthy children among snow, animal predators, and scarcity of food", to the point that it's not even much relevant anymore. There are people who like women with small breasts for example, contrary to naive evolutionary-instincts conceptions. And all kinds of sexual preferences, even down to kinks, that are are adopted by tens of millions, and don't have anything to do with revolutionary urges and instincts. Including, of course, being gay, lesbian, etc. Heck, at this point, the movies and star system drive our sexual preferences towards appearance, etc, more than evolutionary instincts. Fashion too. >Did I say anything about men or women in particular? I said its desirable to have a mate who can provide for offspring And I said even that's not related to fancy cars and suits for the huge majority of people.