Agree or disagree? the level of physical attraction we feel is determined by..
Just doing a survey to see how many agree or disagree. I believe the level of physical attraction we guys feel towards a female is determined not by choice but by our more primitive male brain. It's an older part of our brain whereas our more intellectual brain evolved afterwards if you believe in evolution. Perhaps some might call our older part of our brain the subconscious. Anyway if I feel physically attracted towards a female, I do not believe I chose to feel that way but believe my brain chose it for me. I also believe our more primitive brain controls what physical features we find more attractive in females. I tend to believe our more primitive brain is programmed to spread our genes with as many good looking females as we can but that is suppressed by our newer conscious intellectual brains. I still believe the females who look attractive are appealing to the primitive brain. Agree or disagree?
I noticed that some females will enhance their lips and they look much better and are more physically attractive. Perhaps they change another physical attribute and look better. I may have never talked to the lady but yet she still looks better to me. I believe physical attraction is controlled by our more primitive brain. Pheromones and then personality eventually factor into the equation but I believe personality appeals to our intellectual brain not our more primitive, oh she looks hot part of our brain.
If you agree that our more primitive part of our brain wants to spread our genes with no morals, no intellectual concepts to hold us back, then I believe in reality when we are attracted to a dancer, we do have a desire or fantasy to spread our genes with her even if our intellectual part of our brain denies it. To deny that, you would have to deny any physical attraction to her in the first place in my opinion. It's true we aren't a bunch of primates expecting or even trying to fuck the dancers in a club, however I think our primitive part of our brain thinks this way or else we wouldn't be getting the feelings of attraction before we even talk to her. Agree or disagree?
I thought I would make a separate thread instead of hijacking another one.
I noticed that some females will enhance their lips and they look much better and are more physically attractive. Perhaps they change another physical attribute and look better. I may have never talked to the lady but yet she still looks better to me. I believe physical attraction is controlled by our more primitive brain. Pheromones and then personality eventually factor into the equation but I believe personality appeals to our intellectual brain not our more primitive, oh she looks hot part of our brain.
If you agree that our more primitive part of our brain wants to spread our genes with no morals, no intellectual concepts to hold us back, then I believe in reality when we are attracted to a dancer, we do have a desire or fantasy to spread our genes with her even if our intellectual part of our brain denies it. To deny that, you would have to deny any physical attraction to her in the first place in my opinion. It's true we aren't a bunch of primates expecting or even trying to fuck the dancers in a club, however I think our primitive part of our brain thinks this way or else we wouldn't be getting the feelings of attraction before we even talk to her. Agree or disagree?
I thought I would make a separate thread instead of hijacking another one.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
26 comments
quote from http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/women/9906/25/…:
According to an article in "Psychology Today," how our body odors are perceived as pleasant and sexy to another person is a highly selective process. We usually smell best to a person whose genetically based immunity to disease differs most from our own. This could benefit you in the long run, making for stronger, healthier children.
Once again our primitive part of our brain according to this idea is making other people smell better to us without our intellectual part of our brain necessarily being aware of it. Actually I've had several dancers tell me I smell good and I'm still not sure why because I don't put any cologne on. I never really thought a dancer might look good to me because my primitive part of my brain thinks she could produce genetically superior children when combined with my genes.
And I'm certainly not looking at hot women for breeding stock!
True, fertile instead of "good looking" would make it more accurate, even though genes would prioritize the most fertile women in terms of order of mating, and "good looking" (e.g more symetrical features) in modern parlance would generally be interpreted at the genetic level as being more fertile
As for conscious suppression of seed dispersal, that not surprisingly has little impact on innate desire, such suppression in this case would simply be a form of wishful thinking to (among other things) adhere to societal expectations , the same way a woman wishes and hopes she can meet a monogamous "nice guy"
2 points:
1. Accepting the idea that male nonmonogamy and widescale seed spreading was the evolutionary norm for the most successful males, if not most males -that is not particuarly controversial
2. As for the next issue whether women innately are attracted (due to some genetic predispostion) to nonmonogamous males. I would say all things equal, yes little doubt of this
In fact logic tells us it seem highly unusual for women NOT to be attracted to the very (million plus year) norm that had the most success keeping the species going - namely widescale male seed dispersal
Womens "choice" in mates will generally follow their DNA programming and (in the way genes look at it) - mating with monogamous males is a high risk strategy. Now of course its all about PERCEPTION and w/o any doubt today the typical monogamous male might have roughly the same odds of moving those (the female's) genes forward as the nonmonogamous male. However genes being very very slow to change, would not typically understand this any of this, and would be operating at an earlier and dominant in time - primoridial period
No doubt, but correspondingly I would argue that women in terms of the way they are attracted to men - are doing the same thing even though they carry out this charade that they are so civilized. This is part of the same explanation why one can convincingly argue that women in general are operating off their basic primordial urges when they have deep urges to mate with - controlling, deceptive, nonmonogamous and at times even violent - males
All these type arguments tend to have a very natural symmetry: for example one might say "yes, most men make decisions off their little head, and women (using their little, lets say clit) tend NOT to be attracted to men that DON'T make decision off their little head" Such men are sometimes referred to as "nice guys"
I think in the long run the more you LET it be biological, the happier you are. When you start going for a girl that you're "trained" to like -- for example someone with a lot of makeup which under low-light conditions might "fool" you into thinking is smooth complexion, but who actually isn't particularly "naturally" appealing -- you end up trying to fulfill society's "shoulds and shouldn'ts." I notice a set of females who appeal to me, but who are not stone-cold-solid 10s in our culture. Generally I not only really like their looks despite my culture's lessons otherwise; but also I "magically" turn out to like their ATTITUDES and minds more, as well. And conversely for them, if they're "my type" then I tend to be "their type" too. Must be something to that ... pheromones or immune systems matching, or something. So when I find a personal 10 whom everyone else rates as "only" a 7, I know I've got a better chance.
Still not getting anywhere with them, but at least it's a step in the right direction. :P
About 100% genes for me. What I like in a woman has been constant since I was a teenager. Short, slim, excellent skin and teeth. Clear eyes. Lips a little full to very full. Tall and full set women have almost no attraction for me. Yes, they can work at creating an attraction . . . it isn't the same. Oh yes, how could I forget . . . the teeth can have braces which for whatever reason I find very attractive. The gold teeth and the like (tats/branding) are pretty much a turn off. Although I've see a few funny tats or sick tats that were nice . . . like the girl with "White Boy's Money" tattooed large on her back, another young woman with property of so and so tattoed above her chest, etc.
Which picture would most males consider sexier?
Number 2 because it exactly equates the the standard evolutionary mating position, with genes mattering way more than a modern civilized construct, in this case the "missionay position"
Of course for women the missionary position itself in female orgasmic terms is highly disadvantageous compared to doggy/ape style (or on their stomachs with butt slightly up). Evolution once again talking. The dominant timeframe wins
I've only seen him a couple times . . . my gut reaction was negative. Seemed like a holy than thou prick. Of course, I don't care for Oprah either. The real slime ball was that guy from Cinncinati (sp?). Donohugh (sp?) put on a nice show although for the most I didn't appreciate his political views.
This one dancer with the braces cut me off after just under 20 dances. I asked her if I had done anything wrong. She says no, you just like me too much and have bought too many dances. Another guy came up and wanted to buy and she said she needed about a 3 dance rest, which shocked him and me.
I was watching this promo that kept comming up recently. This cop was interrogating young man and stated what type of 22 old man likes 16 year old virgins? The answer is supposed to be a sicko pedophile, of course. I was thinking a normal healthy man. Times change. And, a lot of it has to do with attacking males and promoting more government.
1) $$$$$$$
2) hornyness
3) $$$$$$$
4) lonliness
5) $$$$$$$
6) willingness
7) $$$$$$$
The presence of all that "extra" cash simply fueled my fire to get lappers. I didn't actually end up spending any more than I usually would have at a strip club, but it was somehow "more exciting" because I had this big buffer sitting below me. I could really blow it IF I WANTED TO. I didn't actually end up blowing it all, but somehow there was extra excitement just because of extra cash on hand.
And not, extra cash in the bank -- there have been plenty of times when I got a big check, but didn't cash it. I just deposited it. It's not a question of having a high or low available bank balance. It's a question of having a thick or thin wad of $20s directly in my pocket.
Weird? Am I dysfunctional? My horniness is directly proportional to cash on hand! Hey, I have something in common with the dancers after all! :)
*whew!*