Shopping-lists
Replies
-
Take my word...there isn`t more then one. :smokin:
Love it...We'll battle it out for you, Carl! I think I can take her
CATFIGHT!!
Get the pudding vat ready :smokin:0 -
CATFIGHT!!
Get the pudding vat ready :smokin:
I knew you were a perv all along, Carl!! Oh wait, I forgot to put that on my list, haha!!0 -
All any man has to do is intrigue me, thrill me, connect with me and fully follow through - intellectually, emotionally and physically. Other than that.. I'm open!
I thought my list was short, but I didn't even consider follow through. Super important.
My non-negotiables seem to be intelligence, subversive humor, kindness, and overall progressive attitude (although progressive attitude is a vague term).
I'd prefer someone who's compassionate/empathetic, but I've been accused of having this kind of quality enough for two people, so maybe I could use some balance on this.
When I was younger I might have had some physical preferences that were more important as filters, but within a relative range I've dated/crushed on men of most sizes and races. But- short fingers gross me out, and apparently it's something that I can't get over. Barf. I guess disproportionally short arms are in this category, too. This makes me hate myself a little bit.
Why would you hate yourself for it? It's our basest instinct to want the best we can get. I'm pretty sure the peahen doesn't hate herself for not mating with that other peacock because his feathers just weren't as bright as this handsome fellow.
I'm a human that forgets about being an animal. Executive functioning sucks sometimes- I'm convinced my values override biology.0 -
I'm a human that forgets about being an animal. Executive functioning sucks sometimes- I'm convinced my values override biology.
A very interesting observation, pregnant with possibilities.
Do civilized values drive selection, or does animalistic instinct? Obviously both, so a better question is which is dominant, and which should be? Are you better off marrying a man who is smart, kind, and empathetic? Or who you want very much to have sex with, perhaps even irrationally so (or so it appears to you)?
Of course it's not black and white. Most of us value intelligence, which clearly is a positive trait. Some people believe the high percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners reflects over 2000 years of natural selection where intelligence was critical. This is because Jews, forced to live as minorities in most states, had to live off their wits more than their brawn. Over time, the smart men got to have more kids, etc., etc.
But what about height? That doesn't seem like a positive or negative value. Or breast size. Or natural smell? I hardly think people would say (or admit, or even understand at a conscious level) that they really value how a man smells when he sweats...
It's a very complex process, heavily impacted by 50,000 years of evolution (probably more, but just to keep it simple). And during that time, our values have changed, which also impacts selection criteria.
It's a very interesting topic, and many here are more qualified than me to answer (biology majors?). I know I value intelligence and kindness. But when I see a super attractive woman in a bar making eye contact at me, her IQ is not my primary concern at that moment. My Darwinian impulses take over. Or at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
--P0 -
Take my word...there isn`t more then one. :smokin:
Love it...We'll battle it out for you, Carl! I think I can take her
Not if I sing at you!! :laugh: I burst someone's eardrum once... Maybe we'll be lucky and find one each - we are on different sides of the Atlantic, after all. :happy:0 -
Gee, after looking at the long list of requirements for a lot of the ladies on here, my list of requirements doesn't seem so outrageous as I originally thought.
I don't know... I thought my list of absolutes was fairly short and to-the-point. Everything else is negotiable in some degree or other. Are you willing to share your real list?0 -
I'm a human that forgets about being an animal. Executive functioning sucks sometimes- I'm convinced my values override biology.
A very interesting observation, pregnant with possibilities.
Do civilized values drive selection, or does animalistic instinct? Obviously both, so a better question is which is dominant, and which should be? Are you better off marrying a man who is smart, kind, and empathetic? Or who you want very much to have sex with, perhaps even irrationally so (or so it appears to you)?
Of course it's not black and white. Most of us value intelligence, which clearly is a positive trait. Some people believe the high percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners reflects over 2000 years of natural selection where intelligence was critical. This is because Jews, forced to live as minorities in most states, had to live off their wits more than their brawn. Over time, the smart men got to have more kids, etc., etc.
That's a very interesting theory... I've wondered idly if it might also have something to do with the many historical prohibitons on Jews entering certain professional fields (law, politics etc), which lead to a preponderance of Jewish scientists and medics (and authors) - professions that were historically less-regulated by the state - creating a tradition that is still strong today. Perhaps a combination of the two!
My personal theory is that the general innate preference for height in males, and larger breast size in females is a remnant of an evolutionary system that kept the human race in existence through the period in which Darwin's theories were most applicable - height indicating greater speed/strength/superior nutrition-providing skills and larger breasts indicating a woman with the greatest chance of bearing and rearing surviving children. Individual smell, when not masked by scented products, is a potent indicator of genetic inheritance, and I believe studies have shown that we tend to prefer the scent of those most genetically-compatible with us. Despite the shift in conscious values over the last several hundred years, I don't think we have yet overridden our inherent biological instincts for survival and procreation of the offspring most likely to survive. We try, though, and we tie ourselves in knots!But what about height? That doesn't seem like a positive or negative value. Or breast size. Or natural smell? I hardly think people would say (or admit, or even understand at a conscious level) that they really value how a man smells when he sweats...
It's a very complex process, heavily impacted by 50,000 years of evolution (probably more, but just to keep it simple). And during that time, our values have changed, which also impacts selection criteria.
:laugh: But your Darwinian instincts are probably making you find a different woman super-attractive than the man next to you, unless his genetic code is similar to your ownIt's a very interesting topic, and many here are more qualified than me to answer (biology majors?). I know I value intelligence and kindness. But when I see a super attractive woman in a bar making eye contact at me, her IQ is not my primary concern at that moment. My Darwinian impulses take over. Or at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
[/quote]0 -
Can do the worm
Knows all the words to "Ice Ice Baby"0 -
My list is pretty short: loves God, confident likes to do things together, likes conversation, subscribes to the Marriage Builders relationship mindset, and doesn't need my paycheck (though I will definitely contribute).
Physical looks aren't the most important thing, as the guys who have most wormed their way into my heart have been those who aren't what I'd have initially gone for looks wise.0 -
[/quote]
:laugh: But your Darwinian instincts are probably making you find a different woman super-attractive than the man next to you, unless his genetic code is similar to your ownIt's a very interesting topic, and many here are more qualified than me to answer (biology majors?). I know I value intelligence and kindness. But when I see a super attractive woman in a bar making eye contact at me, her IQ is not my primary concern at that moment. My Darwinian impulses take over. Or at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
Yet, most men from the "axis of good" (Western world) would be attracted to the same woman, so I think that the real determining factor in who we are attracted to physically is "society" (not genes), with differences and deviations at an individual level. So we're all just fetishists of the images we've been fed with.
I also very much doubt a bushman tribesman would find Scarlett Johansson necessarily more attractive than any other random woman in the street. They just don't have the same frame to evaluate "attractivity".
I don't think smart men have more kids, especially in our modern societies (kids are costly) - it could still be true in Egypt though (where a smart man will have as many kids as a less smart one). My observation would rather be that uneducated or religious people have more kids (for their own reasons each).
That's a very interesting theory... I've wondered idly if it might also have something to do with the many historical prohibitons on Jews entering certain professional fields (law, politics etc), which lead to a preponderance of Jewish scientists and medics (and authors) - professions that were historically less-regulated by the state - creating a tradition that is still strong today. Perhaps a combination of the two!This is because Jews, forced to live as minorities in most states, had to live off their wits more than their brawn. Over time, the smart men got to have more kids, etc., etc.
Being smart give you a higher chance of generating money. Money is clearly an asset in our society, so intelligent people can still sprout some offspring.
Also when we say "I value intelligence", we are assuming then that there are less intelligent people (and there probably are, that's not my point). But then those less intelligent people (who exist in both genders) probably don't value intelligence as much as you do, or they see intelligence differently (not as in "science and degree", or even entrepreneurship but maybe simply in the ability to wipe the *kitten* of the child and make the washing machine work, fix the electricity in the apartment and stuff like this). The point anyway is that "not so intelligent people" will find each other and breed in their own circuits and networks.
Anyway, lots of good things to discuss here...0 -
LMAO the sad thing is I don't think what he really wants seems that far off.Between 5'5" and 5'9"
Under 105 lbs
Perfect tan
Incredible dresser
Luxury vehicle (not a 3-series or a C-class)
Wealthy prestigious family
Fake boobs.
Must be waxed, nails done, and hair done to perfection.
THESE ARE ALL NON-NEGOTIABLE.
That's quite the catch there. A woman like that will have plenty of options. :bigsmile:0 -
LMAO the sad thing is I don't think what he really wants seems that far off.Between 5'5" and 5'9"
Under 105 lbs
Perfect tan
Incredible dresser
Luxury vehicle (not a 3-series or a C-class)
Wealthy prestigious family
Fake boobs.
Must be waxed, nails done, and hair done to perfection.
THESE ARE ALL NON-NEGOTIABLE.
That's quite the catch there. A woman like that will have plenty of options. :bigsmile:
You're 100% correct.
However, I think it's natural that men are nit-picky about physical characteristics of their partner. Girls can get a free pass on just about everything (job, education level, conversational skills, personality, etc), it's only fair that they need to make it up when it comes to physical traits.
Men can't get away with this. Most women want a man who has a job, college degree, volunteers, charming, close with family, etc etc (and want a good looking guy to top it off). At the end of the day, women are much, much pickier when it comes to their partner.
And no, I'm not an anomaly. Most men think exactly how I do.0 -
Mike, I only questioned your height/weight requirements because I KNOW that 5'9 and 105 pounds is VERY unhealthy. Actually 5'5 and 105 pounds is too. I'm 5'11 1/2 and 145 and I have bones sticking out of places. I didn't realize you were "kinda" joking when I asked if you lived in a different world. I also wonder if weight is a non-negotiable if you require the women you are with to do daily weigh-ins? LOL Seriously, how would you make sure this woman is actually in the weight category that you require?
I realize the "height of man" thing is a real hot button issue with men. I get it . But when you are almost 6'0 yourself, asking a guy to be 2-3 inches taller than you isn't asking for much. I've heard women who are 5'-5'7 require that their guy is 6'0 and above, which I do find a bit odd, but we all have our preferences. I'm not saying that a taller man is a better man, far from it. But it's what makes me feel feminine. It's my issue, it's been one since I reached 5'10 when I was 11 years old.0 -
[/quote]
:laugh: But your Darwinian instincts are probably making you find a different woman super-attractive than the man next to you, unless his genetic code is similar to your ownIt's a very interesting topic, and many here are more qualified than me to answer (biology majors?). I know I value intelligence and kindness. But when I see a super attractive woman in a bar making eye contact at me, her IQ is not my primary concern at that moment. My Darwinian impulses take over. Or at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)Yet, most men from the "axis of good" (Western world) would be attracted to the same woman, so I think that the real determining factor in who we are attracted to physically is "society" (not genes), with differences and deviations at an individual level. So we're all just fetishists of the images we've been fed with.
I also very much doubt a bushman tribesman would find Scarlett Johansson necessarily more attractive than any other random woman in the street. They just don't have the same frame to evaluate "attractivity".
I think there's still a fair amount of deviation between regions and countries, even within the western world, of what is considered 'attractive' in either gender. Newsreaders/Weather presenters are a good indicator - compare and contrast a Spaniard to a Scandinavian, for example. Similar in some ways, yet very different in others.
Yes, there are certain 'pan-Western' stars who probably override that to some extent, though I can't tell you how many very serious discussions I've overheard between male colleagues in which one expresses the idea that Scarlett Johansson/Christina Hendricks/Charlize Theron is the 'ideal' woman, while the other loudly denigrates his choice, and plumps instead for Angelina Jolie/Megan Fox/Halle Berry etc... Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet that genetic compatibility has more to do with our physical preferences than you'd think. After all, the great 'stars' of other, distinctively-different cultures with very different genetic make-ups (and there is a fairly high genetic homogeneity across most of the Western world - not surprising given the settlement patterns of the last 300-odd years) often display quite different features and physiques to those we most highly prize. There are very few Bollywood stars, for example, who make the transition to Hollywood, where the aesthetic is very different. Even in the scenario described above, more often than not, the man arguing for the fairer-complexioned star is of similar colouring, while the man arguing for the darker actress is also darker-complexioned.
As a culture, do we prize certain appearances because they exemplify the 'best' genetic material to meld with our own, and are therefore most attractive at a fundamental level as potential partners in genetic combination, or because 'society' tells us what we 'should' think is most attractive? I find it interesting that even after several decades of "the thinner, the better", poll after poll still returns Marilyn Monroe, with her less-than-waiflike, very 'womanly'/fecund figure, as the "sexiest" woman ever, across a wide range of age groups... To me, that suggests that society's preference-du-jour is less powerful than the urge to procreate successfully, and the consequent imperative to seek out the genes that make that outcome the most likely.
[/quote]
I don't think smart men have more kids, especially in our modern societies (kids are costly) - it could still be true in Egypt though (where a smart man will have as many kids as a less smart one). My observation would rather be that uneducated or religious people have more kids (for their own reasons each).
That's a very interesting theory... I've wondered idly if it might also have something to do with the many historical prohibitons on Jews entering certain professional fields (law, politics etc), which lead to a preponderance of Jewish scientists and medics (and authors) - professions that were historically less-regulated by the state - creating a tradition that is still strong today. Perhaps a combination of the two!This is because Jews, forced to live as minorities in most states, had to live off their wits more than their brawn. Over time, the smart men got to have more kids, etc., etc.
Being smart give you a higher chance of generating money. Money is clearly an asset in our society, so intelligent people can still sprout some offspring.
[/quote]
Nowadays, yes, highly-educated professional men have fewer children than those further down the socio-econonomic scale. Historically, though, which is what we were talking about, intelligence/education had little impact on the number of children a man had, though it did impact wealth, and historically, wealth gave you a higher chance of having offspring survive long enough to have offspring of their own. The numbers of children born to the intelligent and less-so - pre-reliable birth control - may have been roughly the same, but the more-intelligent man, who often had greater wealth, had more chance of a continued line and the perpetuation of his genetic material than the poor man, because his children were better-nourished, had more space, had more access to medical care (not always a blessing in pre-Industrial Revolution days, but still...), and perhaps grew up in a cleaner environment than the children of the average less-affluent peasant or city-dweller of mediaeval Europe.Also when we say "I value intelligence", we are assuming then that there are less intelligent people (and there probably are, that's not my point). But then those less intelligent people (who exist in both genders) probably don't value intelligence as much as you do, or they see intelligence differently (not as in "science and degree", or even entrepreneurship but maybe simply in the ability to wipe the *kitten* of the child and make the washing machine work, fix the electricity in the apartment and stuff like this). The point anyway is that "not so intelligent people" will find each other and breed in their own circuits and networks.
Anyway, lots of good things to discuss here...
Absolutely. The difference is that now the children of the less-intelligent (objectively-speaking) have similar survival odds to those of the offspring of higher socio-economic strata. They also tend to have higher birth-rates... which strikes dread into the heart - eventually we'll be over-run! :laugh: It's actually one of the things that perturbs me about the general preference I observe in men to marry women of lower intelligence than themselves. As women are now much more inclined to develop and nurture their intellect than in previous generations, too much of the best female genetic material (in terms of intellect), is being lost, which can only be detrimental to the pool of genes and the human race.
BTW, before someone pulls me up on it, I am aware that socioeconomic classification is not necessarily an indication of intelligence. It was just easier to write that than convoluted sentences about more-intelligent/educated and less-intelligent/educated!0 -
Born in December.
Lives in California.
Been to Chicago and NYC in August this year.
Gorgeous.
Smart
Affectionate
Loving.
Loyal0 -
LMAO the sad thing is I don't think what he really wants seems that far off.Between 5'5" and 5'9"
Under 105 lbs
Perfect tan
Incredible dresser
Luxury vehicle (not a 3-series or a C-class)
Wealthy prestigious family
Fake boobs.
Must be waxed, nails done, and hair done to perfection.
THESE ARE ALL NON-NEGOTIABLE.
That's quite the catch there. A woman like that will have plenty of options. :bigsmile:
You're 100% correct.
However, I think it's natural that men are nit-picky about physical characteristics of their partner. Girls can get a free pass on just about everything (job, education level, conversational skills, personality, etc), it's only fair that they need to make it up when it comes to physical traits.
Men can't get away with this. Most women want a man who has a job, college degree, volunteers, charming, close with family, etc etc (and want a good looking guy to top it off). At the end of the day, women are much, much pickier when it comes to their partner.
And no, I'm not an anomaly. Most men think exactly how I do.
Maybe where you are, but I know very few men whom I respect who have chosen wives/long-term partners solely on looks. Where I'm from, men might date the Barbie-dolls for a little while, when very young, but in the longer-term, the majority tend to look for something rather more lasting - intellect, wit, personality - to settle down with. After all, marriage is, at least theoretically, for life, and plastic breasts on a sagging 80-year-old body with sun-ravaged skin is probably going to be less than attractive... With increasing life-expectancy too, a pleasant and engaging personality and an active mind seems highly desirable for seventy-plus years of marriage!
Interestingly, there have been a number of reports in the press recently about the increasing percentage of women who "marry down", in terms of education/job/income. Sounds to me more like men are getting the free pass than women...0 -
Born in December.
Lives in California.
Been to Chicago and NYC in August this year.
Gorgeous.
Smart
Affectionate
Loving.
Loyal
I guess you've found her already, then?! Very pleased for you :flowerforyou: Hope your trip was a success.0 -
Let's see,
Absolutes:
Honesty
Common Sense
Must be able to crank on his own vehicle
Humor
Respect
Highly Desirables, but able to be negotiated some:
Non smoker - chew ok only if he's super clean about it
Patient with children
Open Minded
Old fashioned values
Patience
Wears Wranglers (preferably have the wrangler butt to go with it) negotiable
Wears Boots
Understands that being dirty (the mud kind) is ok
Some facial hair
Broad shouldered
Ablity to crank on my vehicle
A sense of how to be romantic - couldnt' find a word for that
Hmmm all I could think of now.
"Crank on his own vehicle [required]," and "Crank on your vehicle [preferable]." Is this some sort of euphemism I'm not are of?? And it seems you should be more interested in his ability to crank your vehicle, no?
Also, what are "Old fashioned values"??
Thanks,
--P
Ha Ha ....no euphemism, Um, I guess it's just another word I use for "work" he must be able to work on his own vehicle, like change the oil, tires, simple parts, and at least trouble shoot minor issues, preferably I'd like him to be able to do the same on my vehicle. I can do most of my own work on my own vehicle, but it would sure be nice if he knew how. It's something that I feel most guys in my region should know how to do that.
Old fashioned values...the ones I can think of quickly are.... to have the mind set that not everything is disposable, hang onto the things that last, work hard to earn your dollar..... sorry short list but my mind is on something else right now. (project) 0 -
Born in December.
Lives in California.
Been to Chicago and NYC in August this year.
Gorgeous.
Smart
Affectionate
Loving.
Loyal
I guess you've found her already, then?! Very pleased for you :flowerforyou: Hope your trip was a success.
Yah she's sticks her in head in here every now and then
Yeah trip was great, the first part with my girl was amazing. Hd the best time. Saw lots of amazing places, drank and ate like i was my last meal lol. Put on a few lbs too. Oooops!0 -
Yet, most men from the "axis of good" (Western world) would be attracted to the same woman, so I think that the real determining factor in who we are attracted to physically is "society" (not genes), with differences and deviations at an individual level.
Don't know about you, but I like women who gravitate towards the axis of evil. Or at least the nexus of naughty.
;-)
--P0 -
Don't know about you, but I like women who gravitate towards the axis of evil. Or at least the nexus of naughty.
;-)
--P
Yeah! I'm on your list! Woot!0 -
I don't necessarily have a long list, he just has to have a great personality, nice smile, can carry a conversation, likes me for me but most important, there has to be chemistry between us!!0
-
Well I used to say they had to be taller than me ... Than I met Mr. Nice Guy and hes my height...
Be able to interact with my male/female friends since they are pretty much my family
Hold a conversation
has a Pulse
and good sex ,preferably great sex lol
Holy crud maybe I am a guy lol0 -
I am so disappointed I missed out on the evolution discussion 8(
I am also starting to wonder if everyone though my first response was serious.0 -
I'll play....
Non Negotiables
-Not currently on probation (oh the joys of online dating)
-Respectful (ie to parents, servers, people in general)
-Accepts & embraces my flaws
-can make me laugh but also can have intellectually stimulating conversations when the time calls for it
-Has a job or is in school
Preferable but not saying these are deal breakers in any way:
-non smoker
- at least 5'7"
-no kids.. just not ready at this point in my life but if he happened to have one/them and something developed I wouldn't run away
-is at least not revolted by country music.....cause he'll be hearing a lot of it
-has a car
I'm a sucker for brown hair and brown eyes but lately I've learned to expand my horizons....expecially to gingers..haha
I wouldn't say I'm too picky........ :huh:0 -
I'm a sucker for brown hair and brown eyes but lately I've learned to expand my horizons....expecially to gingers..haha
I'm definitely in this boat lately. My work crush is a ginger and a total cutie, though he is 5 years younger, haha...Maybe I should add some of that to MY list
0 -
I think there's still a fair amount of deviation between regions and countries, even within the western world, of what is considered 'attractive' in either gender. Newsreaders/Weather presenters are a good indicator - compare and contrast a Spaniard to a Scandinavian, for example. Similar in some ways, yet very different in others.
Yes, there are certain 'pan-Western' stars who probably override that to some extent, though I can't tell you how many very serious discussions I've overheard between male colleagues in which one expresses the idea that Scarlett Johansson/Christina Hendricks/Charlize Theron is the 'ideal' woman, while the other loudly denigrates his choice, and plumps instead for Angelina Jolie/Megan Fox/Halle Berry etc... Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet that genetic compatibility has more to do with our physical preferences than you'd think. After all, the great 'stars' of other, distinctively-different cultures with very different genetic make-ups (and there is a fairly high genetic homogeneity across most of the Western world - not surprising given the settlement patterns of the last 300-odd years) often display quite different features and physiques to those we most highly prize. There are very few Bollywood stars, for example, who make the transition to Hollywood, where the aesthetic is very different. Even in the scenario described above, more often than not, the man arguing for the fairer-complexioned star is of similar colouring, while the man arguing for the darker actress is also darker-complexioned.
As a culture, do we prize certain appearances because they exemplify the 'best' genetic material to meld with our own, and are therefore most attractive at a fundamental level as potential partners in genetic combination, or because 'society' tells us what we 'should' think is most attractive? I find it interesting that even after several decades of "the thinner, the better", poll after poll still returns Marilyn Monroe, with her less-than-waiflike, very 'womanly'/fecund figure, as the "sexiest" woman ever, across a wide range of age groups... To me, that suggests that society's preference-du-jour is less powerful than the urge to procreate successfully, and the consequent imperative to seek out the genes that make that outcome the most likely.This is because Jews, forced to live as minorities in most states, had to live off their wits more than their brawn. Over time, the smart men got to have more kids, etc., etc.
That's a very interesting theory... I've wondered idly if it might also have something to do with the many historical prohibitons on Jews entering certain professional fields (law, politics etc), which lead to a preponderance of Jewish scientists and medics (and authors) - professions that were historically less-regulated by the state - creating a tradition that is still strong today. Perhaps a combination of the two!
I don't think smart men have more kids, especially in our modern societies (kids are costly) - it could still be true in Egypt though (where a smart man will have as many kids as a less smart one). My observation would rather be that uneducated or religious people have more kids (for their own reasons each).
Being smart give you a higher chance of generating money. Money is clearly an asset in our society, so intelligent people can still sprout some offspring.Nowadays, yes, highly-educated professional men have fewer children than those further down the socio-econonomic scale. Historically, though, which is what we were talking about, intelligence/education had little impact on the number of children a man had, though it did impact wealth, and historically, wealth gave you a higher chance of having offspring survive long enough to have offspring of their own. The numbers of children born to the intelligent and less-so - pre-reliable birth control - may have been roughly the same, but the more-intelligent man, who often had greater wealth, had more chance of a continued line and the perpetuation of his genetic material than the poor man, because his children were better-nourished, had more space, had more access to medical care (not always a blessing in pre-Industrial Revolution days, but still...), and perhaps grew up in a cleaner environment than the children of the average less-affluent peasant or city-dweller of mediaeval Europe.Also when we say "I value intelligence", we are assuming then that there are less intelligent people (and there probably are, that's not my point). But then those less intelligent people (who exist in both genders) probably don't value intelligence as much as you do, or they see intelligence differently (not as in "science and degree", or even entrepreneurship but maybe simply in the ability to wipe the *kitten* of the child and make the washing machine work, fix the electricity in the apartment and stuff like this). The point anyway is that "not so intelligent people" will find each other and breed in their own circuits and networks.
Anyway, lots of good things to discuss here...Absolutely. The difference is that now the children of the less-intelligent (objectively-speaking) have similar survival odds to those of the offspring of higher socio-economic strata. They also tend to have higher birth-rates... which strikes dread into the heart - eventually we'll be over-run! :laugh: It's actually one of the things that perturbs me about the general preference I observe in men to marry women of lower intelligence than themselves. As women are now much more inclined to develop and nurture their intellect than in previous generations, too much of the best female genetic material (in terms of intellect), is being lost, which can only be detrimental to the pool of genes and the human race.
BTW, before someone pulls me up on it, I am aware that socioeconomic classification is not necessarily an indication of intelligence. It was just easier to write that than convoluted sentences about more-intelligent/educated and less-intelligent/educated!
Castadiva- Girl, I am totally applauding your effort! I'm feeling dumber by the minute today- you are awesome. I found my shoes (awesome brand new open toe Cole Haans) effing buried in my backyard this morning (thanks to daughter). I need to get off of the procreation/evolutionary train. I'm not passing on anything good.
I'm super curious about so many things related to biology/mate selection, but too foggy to ask the questions today- glad to know there are lots of smarties here to answer, though.0 -
But when I see a super attractive woman in a bar making eye contact at me, her IQ is not my primary concern at that moment. My Darwinian impulses take over. Or at least that's my story, and I'm sticking to it... :-)
--P
I'm not really ashamed to admit that at one point in my life I actively targeted slightly dumb hot guys because I didn't want to form any attachments at a young age. Birth control= recreational activities for both sexes. The immediate advantages of technology?0 -
I'm a sucker for brown hair and brown eyes but lately I've learned to expand my horizons....expecially to gingers..haha
I'm definitely in this boat lately. My work crush is a ginger and a total cutie, though he is 5 years younger, haha...Maybe I should add some of that to MY list
I
gingers. 0 -
I am so disappointed I missed out on the evolution discussion 8(
I am also starting to wonder if everyone though my first response was serious.
Jump on in!!
I'm a bit surprised no-one jumped in on that, as well :laugh: Go on, then...tell us what you really can't live with/without!0
