Discussion from the thread "is homosexuality unnatural"

[HydrogenBond]

The colorful male, in nature, is the biological norm, in terms of the preponderance of the data. This goes without researched proof and only requires eyes to see. In western cultures, the female spends more time and effort being colorful. In Muslim cultures, the male is more decorative and the female more camouflaged. This actually is closer to the rest of animal nature. The question is, which is natural and which is learned behavior or are they both learned?

 

In western cultures, when woman are more dolled up, she can attract mates, sort of like the male animals in nature. The males in dating, often do their male animal song and dance (figuratively) to attract females. This may involve verbal make-up as they spin their attributes. Males also get more colorful during dating but the males are less likely to get colorful when not on the hunt or required. This is changing due to market pressures. Without this free market training, the natural default is different. It has taken a lot of dollars to market the change since it does not come naturally.

 

One interesting aspect, is when a woman is married, her husband will be the one male who will see her not dolled up the greatest percent of the time. When she goes out into public, stranger type males will see her dolled up a higher percent of the time during chance encounters. In other words, the female is comfortable sitting at home with old sweats and no makeup with her husband or mate, like the plain female in nature. But when she goes out into public shopping, job, etc., she feels more comfortable getting more dolled up, like the male animal.

 

Logically, if being dolled up helps attract mates and she gets more dolled up (time averaged) around males who are not her mate, could this create a false positive with respect to what science calls natural behavior? In other words, the male human animal is receiving visual signals from unknown females, who are not interested, yet dolled up to attract mates. Their husbands will also see stranger women more dolled up a higher percent of the time. Does the underlying cultural conditioning set the stage for the unconscious assumption all women are trying to attract mates, all the time, even when they have mates, creating a false positive in some science correlations.

 

Picture the situation where the females only dolled up to attract mates and/or for their mates. In public, they dress down to make themselves look less attractive to all the stranger males, so a mating colorful green light is not creating a false positive between intent and expectation. How would this effect correlation data?

[Moontanman]

I agree Pamela, I know that for me scent plays a huge role and I don't mean perfume either. I can always tell the first few minutes after I meet a woman if I could potentially like her just from he pheromones. Of course if she's an ******* then the pheromones don't help much but the smell is paramount. After the pheromones certain other parameters come into play, for me intelligence is the next most important, personality comes next, looks are far behind the first three and can vary wildly as long as the first three are right. I think most men see this if not consciously then subconsciously. Some ignore the important and go for looks only but these parings most often fail because looks fade and the "prime" in looks is a fleeting moment in life, seldom lasting long.

[dannieyankee]

The colorful male, in nature, is the biological norm, in terms of the preponderance of the data. This goes without researched proof and only requires eyes to see. In western cultures, the female spends more time and effort being colorful. In Muslim cultures, the male is more decorative and the female more camouflaged. This actually is closer to the rest of animal nature. The question is, which is natural and which is learned behavior or are they both learned?

 

In western cultures, when woman are more dolled up, she can attract mates, sort of like the male animals in nature. The males in dating, often do their male animal song and dance (figuratively) to attract females. This may involve verbal make-up as they spin their attributes. Males also get more colorful during dating but the males are less likely to get colorful when not on the hunt or required. This is changing due to market pressures. Without this free market training, the natural default is different. It has taken a lot of dollars to market the change since it does not come naturally.

 

One interesting aspect, is when a woman is married, her husband will be the one male who will see her not dolled up the greatest percent of the time. When she goes out into public, stranger type males will see her dolled up a higher percent of the time during chance encounters. In other words, the female is comfortable sitting at home with old sweats and no makeup with her husband or mate, like the plain female in nature. But when she goes out into public shopping, job, etc., she feels more comfortable getting more dolled up, like the male animal.

 

Logically, if being dolled up helps attract mates and she gets more dolled up (time averaged) around males who are not her mate, could this create a false positive with respect to what science calls natural behavior? In other words, the male human animal is receiving visual signals from unknown females, who are not interested, yet dolled up to attract mates. Their husbands will also see stranger women more dolled up a higher percent of the time. Does the underlying cultural conditioning set the stage for the unconscious assumption all women are trying to attract mates, all the time, even when they have mates, creating a false positive in some science correlations.

 

Picture the situation where the females only dolled up to attract mates and/or for their mates. In public, they dress down to make themselves look less attractive to all the stranger males, so a mating colorful green light is not creating a false positive between intent and expectation. How would this effect correlation data?

 

Oh lordie, it took me three times reading it over to fully understand that :)

 

But I think I got it, and that makes more sense than my argument.

[pamela]

One interesting aspect, is when a woman is married, her husband will be the one male who will see her not dolled up the greatest percent of the time. When she goes out into public, stranger type males will see her dolled up a higher percent of the time during chance encounters. In other words, the female is comfortable sitting at home with old sweats and no makeup with her husband or mate, like the plain female in nature. But when she goes out into public shopping, job, etc., she feels more comfortable getting more dolled up, like the male animal.

is this because she has him and no longer on the hunt;)

Logically, if being dolled up helps attract mates and she gets more dolled up (time averaged) around males who are not her mate, could this create a false positive with respect to what science calls natural behavior? In other words, the male human animal is receiving visual signals from unknown females, who are not interested, yet dolled up to attract mates. Their husbands will also see stranger women more dolled up a higher percent of the time. Does the underlying cultural conditioning set the stage for the unconscious assumption all women are trying to attract mates, all the time, even when they have mates, creating a false positive in some science correlations.

now, why do you assume these women are dolling up for men?women typically notice what other women are wearing and make comparisons to themselves.It is not always about attracting males, but how they view themselves in relationship to other women

Picture the situation where the females only dolled up to attract mates and/or for their mates. In public, they dress down to make themselves look less attractive to all the stranger males, so a mating colorful green light is not creating a false positive between intent and expectation. How would this effect correlation data?

i do not dress up or paint my face but i do wear sweats, jeans , hiking boots, let my hair look like i was electrocuted both at home and out in public. I dress for me and no one else and it is based upon comfort and minimal effort. I am approached often, Hydro, because.....i smile and am friendly and like to laugh. The attraction is the personality, and certainly not my grunge meets LL Bean style:D

[Moontanman]

Well I am sure your grunge meets LL Bean style does it for many males but I agree it's personality that rules.

[Boerseun]

Well, now.

 

Now you're obfuscating matters with "primeness", and the meaning thereof.

 

It should be crystal clear:

 

Females tend to emulate the appearance of the "alpha female", because men will knock each others' lights out to be in the enviable position to have sex with and procreate with the "alpha female" - with the nett result that only the strongest and most persistent male will get to score - bringing good genes to the party. And there is an entire industry dedicated towards making the "glamour" and "desirability" of what we perceive to be the "alpha" or "prime" females accessable to the more ordinary, mousey women who simply want to get laid.

 

It's called the Fashion Industry, and each and every stick of lip gloss, tube of mascara, undergarments like wonderbras wo make a female's breast look like they can take good care of a kid, bottles of skin products to make the female look younger (ripe and ready for mating - in their sexual prime) points to the validity of the argument being made here.

 

All men want to get it on with Claudia Schiffer, for instance. And now you have queues and queues of women lining up at the beauty counter to buy the lipstick Claudia Schiffer is wearing in the vain hope that some of her desirability might, somehow, rub off on them.

 

Pathetic, really.

[Moontanman]

Claudia Schiffer? Who's that, I like Jessica Alba ;-) It is very disturbing how young girls are portrayed as adults in commercials to make products look sexy. I wonder if young boys being portrayed that way would be allowed much less a given?