Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pretty woman Yeah, yeah, yeah!

  1. Dec 11, 2003 #1

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/10/pretty031210 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2003 #2

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are they serious.. money to impress the 2D picture on the screen or what?
     
  4. Dec 11, 2003 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    In men, at least, visual stimulus seems to be hooked directly into deeper behavior sections of the brain. I have posted before my own crank theory why this might be so, and certainly the porn industry would suggest it is true.

    So it may be irrational, but it's not unexpected, that men would start courting behavior ("money to impress...") based on nothing more than a picture.
     
  5. Dec 17, 2003 #4
    Well, according to Professor J. Philippe Rushton (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton.html [Broken]), Northern men court women through their show of social status and money, while the women show off their sexuality. In other words, Northern men want looks, Northern women want money/social social status/intelligence.

    But, Rushton says that equitorial men attract women by showing off their muscles, penis size, and athletic ability, while equitorial women are the same as Northen women, or something like that. The evolutionary explanation for this is that in equitorial regions, high intelligence was not really needed to reproduce successfully, but in the North, larger brains were needed to figure out how to find shelter, make clothing, find food. Women were better off choosing intelligence over strength in the North. Plus, tribes were highly separated from each other in the North; finding shelter and food was more of a problem than fighting rival tribes. But inter-tribal conflict was much more of a problem in equitorial regions, such as in Africa and the Middle East. Here, strenth to fight off rival tribes was more important.

    Of course, though the above is the natural inclinations of people, it is possible to resist such urges and make wiser reproductive choices. I am part of an equitorial race and I am always thinking about female's naked bodies, but since I am a eugenicist, I will only reproduce with a female with good genetic stock (high intelligence, good behavioral traits, no genetic diseases) and sooth my sexual desires via masturbation.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  6. Dec 17, 2003 #5

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Forgive me, but the professor's explanation strike me as self indulgent fanasizing; just-so stories in fact.

    As to your eugenic concerns, have you found anyone who measures up? Would you accept a woman who met your IQ and health constraints, but was of another race? Remember, you can't affect the population quality of the future if you don't reporduce!
     
  7. Dec 17, 2003 #6
    This seems to perpetuate the myth that women don't care about what a guy looks like. Before you even have any chance with a woman, you have to pass her physical attraction test, at least in the beginning.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  8. Dec 17, 2003 #7

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's usually "common sense" that women are not as concerned about looks as are men -- I don't have any real numbers to back it up, but it sure does seem to be true in my experience. (Hey, don't throw any tomatoes!)

    In fact, I once saw a website gallery of photographs of beautiful women with horrifically ugly boyfriends.

    Yes, women do generally care about whether or not a man is attractive -- but much less so than men care about whether or not a woman is attractive.

    - Warren
     
  9. Dec 17, 2003 #8
    His site which I posted has ample physical and psychological data. But I do understand your emotional reaction, most of us are like that when presented with an argument antagonistic to our individual world views. It takes time getting used to new data.


    IQ and health are just two of the factors, I also want a mate with good personality/behavioral traits, such as high conscientiousness, Typical Intellectual engagement, healthy ethnocentrism, balanced altruism, and creativity. Once I find such a mate, I will produce 3 offspring.

    With regards to race, I am only attracted to East Asians, Whites, and Hispanic women.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  10. Dec 17, 2003 #9
    First, according to the professor, you can't generalize all women as the same, but you must divide them into Northern women (East Asians and Europeans) and then Equitorial women (South and South-East Asians, Arabs, Africans, Mullatos, etc.) What Professor Rushton says is that the Northern women place more emphasis on social status/intelligence/wealth than do equitorial women. But yes, all women do value good looks too, after all, what female wants to have sex with a very hideous male?

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  11. Dec 17, 2003 #10
    Beating my wife is illegal and I obey the laws.

    Second, such things as number of offspring desired is something we must agree to before getting married. If we have different idealist viewpoints, we would not get married.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  12. Dec 17, 2003 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A) Why get married then? It seems you've already assigned your wife a purpose: as a concubine to produce your three offspring. You certainly don't need to marry her. Just use her as a breeding machine, then throw her out the door and raise the kids yourself. After all, she'll probably try to get involved in decisions about their parenting, and that would be intolerable!

    B) You don't date much, do ya?

    - Warren
     
  13. Dec 17, 2003 #12
    Please learn the rules of rational debate at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  14. Dec 17, 2003 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't recall engaging in a debate. I recall making fun of you for your views on the utility of women.

    - Warren
     
  15. Dec 17, 2003 #14
    Please don't reduce the quality of this forum by engaging in ad hominem.

    Second, I consider both males and females as utilitarian objects. I am a pragmatist and stoic, you obviously are a sentimentalist. To each his own.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  16. Dec 17, 2003 #15

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And, like I said, that attitude probably means you'll never get laid -- much less the requisite three times.

    - Warren
     
  17. Dec 17, 2003 #16
    Heil Heil ve vait for the 4th Reich...
     
  18. Dec 17, 2003 #17
    Argumentum ad hominem

    red herring.

    More details at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

    But, if you would like to change the topic to sexual practices of both individual and groups, perhaps at the level of differential psychology, I can start a new thread.

    Charlos Hernandez
     
  19. Dec 17, 2003 #18
    Argumentum ad hominem

    red herring.

    But, if you want, we can start a new thread on National Socialism.

    You seem to also be implying that I am a National Socialist, but I am Mexican and am not allowed into the movement. The leading National Socialist organization is the National Alliance based in America. According to them, I should be deported back to Mexico. But that is obviously not in my best interest.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  20. Dec 17, 2003 #19
    Nope... I am impling that you are a faciast, I dont care where you are from or what colour your skin is, the bottom line is your "Tone" and attitude seems to be in parralles with "The master Race"

    People are not objects or any type of utility....

    Anyway good luck finding your "Suitable Mate"
     
  21. Dec 17, 2003 #20

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, you're wrong. I was not arguing ad hominem. I don't know who you are, what your credentials are, or anything of that sort, and therefore was certainly not using such information against you.

    Instead, I was directly attacking your statements -- your attitude is generally the sort of attitude that will not result in much luck with concubi.. I mean women. That is all.

    - Warren
     
  22. Dec 17, 2003 #21
    So you don't care for my world views. That is all you had to day. For example, I have no interest in your sentimentalism, and that is all I have to say to make my point. I value pragmatism.

    Regards,

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  23. Dec 17, 2003 #22
    How does one define "fascist"? It is a subjective term. Basically, if one disagrees with a political opponent, he is termed a "fascist." Democrats think Republicans are "fascist" and vice versa. Americans think Arabs are fascist, but Arabs themselves are satisfied with their tough Islamic laws. Europe thinks Israel is fascist, but Jews feel quite happy with Israel's politics. So, "fascism" is in the eye of the beholder. You can't objectively define the word. I support direct democracy. Many would consider that fascist.


    I believe all races are genetically lacking: I don't see any Master Race. I think each race has their unique strengths and weaknesses and I would like to see each race work out their unique genetic problems.


    All people are matter, made up of atoms. We are objects, albeit more complex objects than a table or chair.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  24. Dec 17, 2003 #23
    Genetically lacking? Lacking what may I ask... The power to leap tall buildings?? I think the fact that the Human race has come so far is a tribute to how good our DNA is...

    "The Master race" I was refering to a Nazi Ideal, which you seem to subscribe to...

    We may consist of Atoms, however we have the power of thought and have the ablity to freely choose what to think/say and what to do, unlike a chair and thus I would not say People are "Objects"

    Sorry I just fundementally disagree with everything you say...

    I also dont know you and to be honest dont care to know you!! I am European, and I dont believe that Isreal is a facist state, or Arabs are faciast... I also dont feel that you can tar a whole race with one brush...

    All I know with my inferior DNA is that your Ideals are very similar to a great evil that killed millions of our forefathers...
     
  25. Dec 17, 2003 #24
    Yes, for starters. I believe all races should be able to leap tall buildings. But, much more detail is at http://www.neoeugenics.com/

    It is my subjective opinion that humans are advanced than other animals, but we can always be better.


    I am confused. Can you please explain in further details what you mean by Master Race?

    All thought processes are mechanical: interaction of chemicals with ion conduction across axons, dentrites, and synapses. Our brains are just like computers, but instead of being designed by men, it is designed by nature/natural selection.

    Why do you believe you need to apologize for having different opionions from me?

    Irrelevant comment. Whether you have a desire to meet me one day is irrelvant to the topic at hand.

    You can make statistically accurate generalizations of population groups.

    Please describe to me the "inferiority" of your DNA.

    I don't wish to kill anyone.

    How do you define "evil?"


    Carlos Hernandez
     
  26. Dec 17, 2003 #25
    lol... Ok You dont seem to understand Sarcasim or wit, perhaps you dont have the "Funny" Gene or something (..T.H.A.T. W.A.S. A J.O.K.E..)

    "All thought processes are mechanical: interaction of chemicals with ion conduction across axons, dentrites, and synapses. Our brains are just like computers, but instead of being designed by men, it is designed by nature/natural selection."

    There are "Mechanics" behind thinking, as you described above however the process of thinking and inteligence cannot be described as above and Inteligence is hardly understood by humans and by you...

    I wont define evil for you, you can go and figure that one out.

    Why would a human need to Leap tall buildings, for a "pragmatist and stoic" person you are highly illogical.

    I will conclude by your lack of understanding of simple ethics and you right wing ideals that there is no point arguing with you...

    Ciao
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook