Kells musings

Kell

I was reading through a lot of threads on the PI forum in relation to pulling girls, scoring and so on and one thing that repeatedly comes up is the male perception that most Irish women are gold diggers- only interested in you if you have the flash car and oodles of cash to spend on them.

This got me thinking about male and female interaction between different species in the wild. If you take say a lion that is head of the pride, all the females flock to him as he is the strongest of the available lions and is therefore capable of protecting their patch and fending off any threat to the pride.

Now equate lion to meathead poser with wads of cash in a nightclub that has a nice car. Subconciously, are these gold digger women looking for peace of mind, protection from the evils that abound and someone to protect their young?

Now move on slightly to when lion is past it and is no longer the head honcho of the pride. What happens? Some upstart comes along, fights the head lion and deposes him and what happens? The pride go "ooh he's nice, and he's stronger than the last one, lets be with him". Not one shred of loyalty.

Same situation exists in parallel among society. Your dating some foxy chick and another bloke comes along with a faster car, bigger muscles and more wads of cash, and phoom, she's off like a scalded cat leaving previous meathead thinking "bítch. Fúcking gold digging bítch. I hate women".

Although I do not condone people who are out to screw people over for what they can materially achieve from a relationship, it would seem to be a natural thing to do from a female perspective. Even early woman chose the man that could at least pronounce "ook" and was capable of bringing home at least a half decent wildebeast. Is what separates us from our beastly relatives conscience? I mean what skinny runt of the pack lion gets laid let alone survives on the serengetti whereas humans and their damned conscience say "ah but he/she was so nice".

K-

bonkey

Ah yes, but there are other species which are entirely monogamous. Should we conclude from them that human activity is entirely depraved and wrong?

jc

DeVore

Read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Answers a lot of your questions.

In short, yes. Genetically we are predisposed to mates who give our offspring the greatest chance of surivival.

Note one thing of interest. Most women like clean, healthy guys. Greasy hair is a sign of poor health and lifestyle and is generally considered "unsexy" by everyone.

It doesnt have to be this way, we arent slaves to our genes but we have to recognise that we are overruling millenia of wiring and reinforcement (not to mention natural selection!)

DeV.

DeVore

Actually you touch on one point of great interest to me when you talk about our conscience and unwillingness to seperate out the weak from the herd.

Man is the only animal with Social Welfare (afaik). In some packs of animals they will assist the wounded but only because it helps the pack as a whole.

Man no longer is operated on by the basic "survival of the fittest" law of Darwin's. Survival is pretty much assured for everyone in a 1st world country.

In fact the "strong" and successful people in our society tend not to reproduce because they are too busy with husband and wife holding down top jobs.

We've escaped from basic evolution but you cant escape a force like "selection" in all things there are winners and losers... all we have done is altered the basis on which "fittest" is measured.
Unfortunately we've gone from fittest meaning the physically most fit and most able to bring home a wildebeast to "fittest" meaning "who can work the corporate system / social system the best".

DeV.

Kell

Originally posted by bonkey
Ah yes, but there are other species which are entirely monogamous. Should we conclude from them that human activity is entirely depraved and wrong?

jc

I know of very few species that are entirely monogamous and no we should not conclude from their example that we are depraved and wrong. But surely the monogamous species also go through a stage of deciding which prospective mate is capable of providing food, protection and stability?

Thats the point that in a way I was trying to get across Dev, that the standards by which we measure mate suitability have been altered. What perhaps is beginning to emerge from the amount of blokes crying about being a nice guy and still not getting laid is that women might just be reverting back to the "He's got great muscle tone. I am sure he could heft a fairly large wildebeast or two" days.

For fear of being shot, I hate the first world social welfare state where even if you are a loser some other schmuck is going to pay for you through taxes to have a better life. A question that has always struck me is that if we left the weakest of the herd to die, over time would it mean that whatever they died of would cease to be a problem because we would have developed stronger hearts, lungs whatever? Makes me wonder if some forms of science have scuppered evolution and merely offered us crutches by way to get over disease & infection rather than be immune to them.

K-

K-

amp

Ok, I'm being picky and stuff, but could you title your threads with what they're about? Make it easier for Mods to keep it on topic.

Otherwise get a blog, now only 5 euro a month from Boards.ie Corp.

Cheers, thanx!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Should we conclude from them that human activity is entirely depraved and wrong?

But it feels devine...

Kell

Originally posted by amp


Otherwise get a blog, now only 5 euro a month from Boards.ie Corp.

Thought it was still in Beta testing.

K-

amp

Coming Soon!

Now, back on topic.

rubadub

male primates will have sex as much as they can to have as many children as possible. female primates are concerned about their children and themselves so they look for the dominant alpha male who will give strong children and provide food. primates have testicles in proportion to the females promiscuity. chimpanzees have large balls since the females mate with many males. gorillas are small. humans are above average since women are promiscuous in primate terms, filthy monkeys ;-)

some women will go for the "old style" alpha male who is big, strong, aggressive, hairy.
but the "new-age" alpha male is wealthy - can provide a good home and food and will have intelligent children.
the best attraction is to be both wealthy and big and strong.

have you ever met a man you would describe as a gold digger? they should be on the rise as women are getting higher salaries than ever before so we may see a reverse with "sugar mammies" looking after a few young bodybuilders with no brains.

the female primates arent gold diggers more like "food and heathy children diggers" which is the equivalent. a guy who has money is usually intelligent to be ale to make it (unless they won it or inherited it) so they not only can provide food and shelter but intelligent (rather than strong) children which is the real "strength" for humans.

it is a usual notion that men are "after one thing" and most will "stick it in anything" and that women are the opposite. so why do women spend so much time and money on their appearance? shouldnt it be men tarting themselves up to try and score a woman? the women dont have to dress up at all, they could go out looking like a bag lady and could still go home with a man no problem. the fact is they do themselves up to attract the "alpha male" away from all the other female competition. the male will still ride anything he can get, just like the male primate

DeVore

Um... I dunno if I like that way of thinking. I certainly do NOT ride "anything I can get" and have surprised a few ladies [1]
by saying "right its time we called you a cab" when they were clearly on for the beast-with-two-backs. I wasnt ... so they got a bit of a land when... *shock* *horror* the bloke didnt just drool and say "we make fukey now?!"

DeV.

[1] Amp will undoubtedly take this as a declaration of hetrosexuality.