Quote:
Originally Posted by Straylight
It's biological I'm afraid. Just like men are hard-wired to want attractive women, women are hard-wired to want men who can defend their babies from a (no-longer-relevant) harsh world. This can manifest itself in several different ways. In order of most primitive to least:
1) If you know that a sabretooth tiger can devour you and your kid at any moment, who do you want protecting you, a sillynanny who understands your feelings but doesn't know the business end of a spear from his own elbow, or a jerk whose outfitted his entire hut with Tiger hide rugs?
2) Some people have enlightened enough unconsciouses to recognize that we no longer live by Tiger-fiat, so instead they seek someone who can conquer the modern world -- usually the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, the markers for richness are very similar to the markers for tiger-killer: assertive, aggressive and ambitious. These folks are looking for a tiger-killing mate, they just want him to have a good job too.
3) The truly enlightened, who are actually looking for someone with whom they connect and can have an enjoyable (tiger-free) relationship with. These are rare bunnies indeed, but worth hunting for. You'll usually start to find more of them as you (and your mate-selection-pool) grows older.
Of course, there are tricks you can use to make women think that you're a tiger-killer even if you're not, but all that results in is a relationship based on lies and method-acting, which is incredibly hard to maintain, drains the energy and isn't really love anyway.
|
That's all well and fine but I think too oversimplified.
Men do like attractive women but what's considered attractive is the catch. At onetime women we consider "fat" were prized in Europe now that's considered unattractive. So, is that more rooted in biology or sociological factors?
I think it's in Thailand where there is a tribe where women put rings around their necks and develop elongated necks. Apparently the men of this tribe find that physically attractive but I don't. I fail to see the biological factors in that.
Women's attraction to men with high social status or with wealth has some biological bearing perhaps, but I'm not moved to believe that is the overwhelming factors.
For most human history wealth was largely inherited. So, I fail to see the attributes of ambition and tiger-killer in a bloated, pompous aristocracy. Unless of course you are talking about that crazy son-of-bitch King Richard the Lion hearted.
The white rock bands of the 1980s in the USA were rather effeminate in costume. But they played the shit out of music and had stardom, they made young girls cry and flash their tits. Of course the late John Paul II made young girls cry just driving by in his Pope mobile but he didn't have them flashing their tits - not that I know of at least. Within Black-America during the early 1980s, light-skinned, "pretty boys" were favored by young Black-American girls too. Now dark-skinned, thugged out, hyper violent criminal types are more favored by young Black-American girls. I fail to see biological and not sociological factors prevailing in all this.
From what I have read, I believe in a sociology book of mine, generally speaking most college educated women in the upper-middle-class strata, prefer men that are not just educated but display compassion and patience with others. On the other hand women from the lower-classes without college education, were contrasted as preferring males that were simply dependable and had little regard if they were violent.
Personally, I have seen a major cultural
difference in the Black-American women at my college from the Black-American women in the inner-city and within my specific neighborhood. I mean the difference is huge. Without a doubt the most prized young men within my specific neighborhood and throughout the inner-cities are
successful narcotic dealers, young men willing to visit violence on others, young men willing to rob, murder, and do prison time to get what they want or provide jewelry on the writs and neck on their lady or their several ladies.
The Black-American women attending college, if they are from the inner-cities, usually appreciate those male types too. However, they also value young men pursuing law abiding vocations through education and that patient struggle. And they have an appreciation for more refined men also.
If we were to assume your model held true and constant from only a biological stand point. Then I think we would have to say Mohammed epitomized manhood and masculinity more than Jesus. I often like to say - and I don't mean it to be exactly offensive to Muslims - that Mohammed was La Cosa Nostra (he supposedly robbed caravans, led crews in violent clashes, and took the pussy of more than one woman). Jesus on the other hand, lived with his mother all his adult life, apparently remained virgin, and apparently became an unemployed carpenter (trades that gave you a suntan were looked down upon in those ages), who would go on to be spat upon, beaten, stripped naked and paraded around before crowds while insulted. Jewish women and not just Jewish men screamed for and cheered her abuse and finally tortured death. Jesus preached "turning the other cheek" (he also encouraged picking up a sword for self defense too) and not ambitions to tiger killing conquer of the world. In fact he had a few words about the pursuit of wealth and about a man obtaining the world but losing his soul.
