Eye-Tracking of Men's Preferences for Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Breast Size of Women.

[FarCenter]

Dixson BJ, Grimshaw GM, Linklater WL, Dixson AF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688590?dopt=Abstract
School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand, [e-mail].

Studies of human physical traits and mate preferences often use questionnaires asking participants to rate the attractiveness of images. Female waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), breast size, and facial appearance have all been implicated in assessments by men of female attractiveness. However, very little is known about how men make fine-grained visual assessments of such images. We used eye-tracking techniques to measure the numbers of visual fixations, dwell times, and initial fixations made by men who viewed front-posed photographs of the same woman, computer-morphed so as to differ in her WHR (0.7 or 0.9) and breast size (small, medium, or large). Men also rated these images for attractiveness. Results showed that the initial visual fixation (occurring within 200 ms from the start of each 5 s test) involved either the breasts or the waist. Both these body areas received more first fixations than the face or the lower body (pubic area and legs). Men looked more often and for longer at the breasts, irrespective of the WHR of the images. However, men rated images with an hourglass shape and a slim waist (0.7 WHR) as most attractive, irrespective of breast size. These results provide quantitative data on eye movements that occur during male judgments of the attractiveness of female images, and indicate that assessments of the female hourglass figure probably occur very rapidly.

---

Combining this result with the other study on how attractive women affect men's intelligence, they would appear to get stupid within about 5 seconds.

[undeterred]

1. Why do we need this sexist crap in GD?

Can't you take a dump somewhere else?

[FarCenter]

9. It is a legitmate article in Archives of Sexual Behavior

"Archives of Sexual Behavior, the official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, is dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual science, broadly defined. Contributions consist of empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative), theoretical reviews and essays, clinical case reports, letters to the editor, and book reviews."

http://www.springer.com/psychology/sexual+behaviour/journal/10508

[undeterred]

72. Is that from the Jerry Springer archives?

[niceypoo]

245. Face it

Men are physically attracted to women

Deal with it

[seabeyond]

247. no shit. women are attracted to men too. duh. nt

[niceypoo]

251. Indeed!

Isn't nature awesome?!?!

[seabeyond]

253. but these evo psych studies are bullshit

wink

yes

nature truly is awesome. would like to get back to that instead of this shit

[niceypoo]

258. Science isnt always politically correct...

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it...

[seabeyond]

260. then there is also junk science. people should not allow self suckered in cause it works

for agenda or strokes their ego.

still a sucker

[niceypoo]

280. One man's trash...

...is another man's treasure!

[seabeyond]

283. as long as it stroke male ego..... fuck consequences. nt

[niceypoo]

295. Nothing to do with ego

Everything to do with physical attraction. It's a birds and bees sorta thing caused by hormones. I'm with mother nature on this one.

Perhaps you could design some sort of beachwear made from a cardboard box with arm and leg holes cut out of it and champion, 'test tube only,' reproduction. Round out the ensemble with a mask made from a paper plate with eyeholes cut out of it, then lobby for outlawing makeup. Im sure my loony right wing next door neighbor would buy three of them right off the bat for her teenage daughters.

Personally, I will stick with the 100% natural, standard, means of attraction and reproduction.

I've had this same conversation with the Republican baptist minister that I work with at least once.

[seabeyond]

300. and once again, i will agree with this post.

about the nature bit

[defendandprotect]

82. Any woman -- no matter her age -- will tell you of the male fixation on breasts . . .

Just ask women!!!

Repeating my post from lower on the thread . . .


Same with the male V . . . but we have to stop pretending that the male

attraction to breasts is anything but a mother fixation --

I have a terrific quote on that which I can't find right now . . .

But here's part of Marc Chagall's writings re his mother ---

Many years after his mother's death, Chagall said:

"If I have made pictures, it is because I remember my mother, her breasts,

which warmly nourished and enraptured me, and which made me reach for the stars."


We're waiting for the Colostrum Revolution --

Humanity has suffered from a lack of breast feeding --

[paulsby]

132. breasts (and cleavage) mimic the buttocks cleft

and it's thought by many that as man evolved into an upright posture, women developed the enlarged breasts as a visual analog, close to eye level of the buttocks cleft, which would be close to eye level for animals on all 4's.

the VAST majority of breast tissue does not serve the function of milk production. mammary glands are actually quite tiny, especially in non-lactating females. it's the non-functional tissue that serves as a visual stimulus.

[defendandprotect]

148. That, I think, should be rethought . . .

There was an article on that subject recently here --

and as I thought it over, it didn't seem right any longer.

But, I can't remember exactly what I said then -- so now, I'll just say that

women would have had the same view of a buttocks -- did males grow a penis on their chest?


The main purpose of the female breast is indisputably to nourish an infant, or even a toddler.

You might even say, as Chagall says below . . . "to enrapture" ----

What child of any age hasn't sought and found comfort in a mother's arms, head against her breast?

And, no . . . the female breasts are not about the male -- they are about the female!!

Remember that the male has to displace the child at the breast in order to fulfill his

obsession.

You might also be interested in this which I posted elsewhere on this thread --

Same with the male V . . . but we have to stop pretending that the male

attraction to breasts is anything but a mother fixation --

I have a terrific quote on that which I can't find right now . . .

But here's part of Marc Chagall's writings re his mother ---

Many years after his mother's death, Chagall said:

"If I have made pictures, it is because I remember my mother, her breasts,

which warmly nourished and enraptured me, and which made me reach for the stars."


We're waiting for the Colostrum Revolution --

Humanity has suffered from a lack of breast feeding --

Also keep in mind that they're still note even close to figuring out all the hormones

and benefits of breast milk which is very complex -- in fact, they have found it is

even still kicking in to help you in your 80's . . . !!!

[paulsby]

220. this is demonstrably false

the main FUNCTION of a breast is to provide milk

but the VAST VAST majority of breast tissue in HUMANS is not related to milk production. it's fat.

ever seen an autopsy? that's the easiest way to see it.

this makes humans very unique. in most of the animal kingdom, there is very little non-functional breast tissue, APART from mammary glands.

WHY did humans, out of ALL the other animals develop breasts?

that is the question you have to answer.

and if you take photos of JUST the cleavage area and put them next to photos of the buttocks cleft, they are REMARKABLY similar.

there are other analogs. lips for example become significantly more red and flushed during sexual excitement, for example.

[defendandprotect]

316. Here's what's demonstratably false . . .

Here's what's demonstratably false . . .

and it's thought by many that as man evolved into an upright posture, women developed the enlarged breasts as a visual analog, close to eye level of the buttocks cleft, which would be close to eye level for animals on all 4's.

Again . . . women had the same view - of the male buttocks.
Why didn't male breasts grow in imitation of the male buttocks?
What are male nipples for? Nothing really, they are there because female is the model for
life. Of course, they are sensitive . . . but something which most males have rarely acknowledged.

Presumably, what you are saying is that this only applies to male? And that's your "science"?
You've just made clear what the other poster is saying to you!

The female clitoris has ONE purpose . . . sexual pleasure.

That's not true of the penis -- which serves the additional purpose of delivering urine and sperm.

Nature prefers females, that's why she has made us the majority gender.
And that's why males are at war with nature and women.

[WillyT]

168. Wow... I Thought I Was The Only Person To Read Desmond Morris' 'The Naked Ape'

Who knew???

:hi:

[paulsby]

221. hey!

it is sad that when it comes to gender differences, many people are stuck in the creationist era of thinking.

i fucking CELEBRATE the difference. many (and unfortunately MANY on the left) WANT to diminish biological differences because they THINK this will make it easier to create a truly equal society.

i don't dismiss facts in order to bring about (or attempt to) a social good.

we can have a society that TREATS men and women equally, w/o ignoring that , as a group we are very different and very unequal in many traits
one example: women are much weaker and s lower than men, as a group

i train with an olympian female who is MUCH stronger, on a proportional basis than i am.

i also know i couldn't outrun marion jones in the 200, but women are still slower than men.

i know that men, in GENERAL, seek certain waist/hip ratios preferentially. it doesn't mean any man HAS to choose such a ratio;d person for their mate.

free will, choice, and equality under law. it's what's for dinner!

[pipi_k]

254. Nope...I read it too, many years ago.

:)

[Blue_In_AK]

282. I read that book, too,

quite a while ago.

[defendandprotect]

86. It's a good subject . . . and threads like this often spread a little enlightenment .. .

[paulsby]

131. only a close minded ideologue would consider the OP's post sexist

here's a hint. there are differences between men and women, and many of these differences are hard wired.

studying gender differences is an exceptionally important area of scientific research.

people who don't want to look at scientific evidence, need to be lumped in with creationists and other anti-science people.

men and women evolved with different traits and we can't put our head in the sand and pretend it's all just socialization. that tabula rasa myth has been thoroughly debunked.

VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!!!

[defendandprotect]

149. I've started to wonder if . . .

a closed mind has any connection to a closed heart?

I think I'm starting to see that connection -- !!!

Liked your post!!

:)

[girl gone mad]

184. Interesting perspective.

I don't really see it that way at all. I see it as a fairly meaningless, irrelevant study. There are far too many variables and uncertainties in human behavior to draw a serious conclusion from this type of analysis.

If w/h ratio was such an important determinant for mate selection, it's likely that women would easily be able to maintain the proper ratio throughout the entirety of their fertile years rather than losing it so easily. It's also more likely that any w/h preference is related to the need to determine whether a female is already pregnant, thus unavailable to reproduce and already attached to a protective male.

My experience with this field has been that it is populated by a significant number of older, beta males who are unhappy with their diminishing influence in culture and would prefer a return to the dark ages where young women knew their place and weren't so free to choose the young, healthy attractive mates that they naturally prefer.

[Hello_Kitty]

200. I'll post this again. Just for you.

Funny how "vive la difference" seems to be so beneficial to the men.

[slackmaster]

201. What's sexist about it?

:shrug:

[undeterred]

217. I don't need a "scientific post" explaining to me

precisely how men objectify women. Post it in a men's magazine.

[slackmaster]

224. That doesn't answer my question

I commend you on your personal insight into the nature of male humans.

What's sexist about it?

[FreedomTrain]

324. This is not sexist, it's scientific. Get over yourself.

Biology cannot be explained away, no matter how much you and your ilk try. It's a sad state that science should be attacked from both extremes of the ideological spectrum. Feminists and fundies deserve each other, apparently.

I would be interested in seeing this study conducted on women, too.

[aquart]

2. How sick and stupid do you have to be to post this crap?

On a scale of one to ten?

[TahitiNut]

84. Spinal Tap?

:eyes:

[paulsby]

136. the stupidity is those that willfully ignore this stuff

because it offends them

here's a hint. scientific research and discovery will ALWAYS offend those who are so prejudiced that they would rather believe myths than confront the truth.

we have seen it umpteen times through history, quite frequently from religious authority (see: galileo etc.) but also frequently with ideologues of all sorts.

those who WANT to believe anti-scientific notions that male/female differences are solely socially constructed will give responses such as yours, engaging in name calling (sick and stupid) because science, the real world, and evidence that might upset their fragile prejudices offend them.

tough! science marches on.

[girl gone mad]

196. It would be a lot easier to take the field seriously as a science..

if so much of it didn't revolve around attempting to prove that men are virtual prisoners to an evolutionary need to sleep with much younger women, constantly look at naked women, have sex with as many women as possible and act like pigs. Conversely women are too often presented as submissive, sexually passive creatures who don't really care at all about the appearance and age of their partner and would prefer to sleep with old men in exchange for shiny objects and a ride in a fancy car than to work for her own income and bed an attractive mate. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees, but to many of us on the outside looking in, this "science" appears to be a high-minded excuse to justify misogyny and socially unacceptable behavior on the part of males.

Can you at least acknowledge that evolutionary psychology has a long and sordid history of crafting very one-sided theory using flawed research as a means to confirm this predetermined bias and avoid real (and possibly unpalatable to the patriarchy) answers?

[Hello_Kitty]

242. Right backatcha

All I need to do is substitute one word from your own statement:

"those who WANT to believe anti-scientific notions that male/female differences are solely biologically constructed will give responses such as yours, engaging in name calling (sick and stupid) because science, the real world, and evidence that might upset their fragile prejudices offend them."

[TentRevival]

317. +10

[rockymountaindem]

3. I would post the popcorn dude but that would be stating the obvious n/t

[d_b]

4. it's all about the ass

[seabeyond]

7. it is all about a bunch of guys that never get any so they have to continually

talk about asses and tits.

[d_b]

19. but it's still about the ass

regardless of those sad individuals.

[kumbaya]

305. Right!

It's all about you!:rofl:

[seabeyond]

5. wtf is this guys, just grab your balls and make sure they are still there...

are you all really so very shriveled up that you have to continually assure yourself you are a man, in front of a bunch of anonymous people on a internet board.

geeeezus

and size really does matter

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Why so hostile?

Do you disagree with the findings?

[Hello_Kitty]

23. I don't know about her but I do.

Extrapolating the behavior of modern people to prehistoric ancestors is just silly. And bad science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Did the article make that claim?

If it did, do you have a better explanation to explain the results?

[Hello_Kitty]

27. It doesn't but that will come next.

Because when you explain why there are cultural reasons for the findings, the defenders of the status quo will trot out "evolution". Just anticipating them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Do you have any evidence it's cultural and not biological?

[Hello_Kitty]

42. The evidence that it's cultural is all around us.

The evidence that it's biological is highly speculative.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. The provide any evidence.

Is this behaviour present in one culture and not another?

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Huh? eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. You claimed there was evidence it was cultural.

I asked you to provide it.

Saying it's "all around us" is meaningless fluff.

[paulsby]

140. you sound like a creationist

but most "all gender differences are socially constructed" types usually do.

same mindset. science disputes prejudice, ignore science.

lather, rinse, repeat.

[Hello_Kitty]

203. You sound like someone using his very shallow understanding of science

To justify his privilege and entitlement. There is a lot of scholarly criticism of poorly done studies and the even worse presentation of them in articles but don't bother with that because it doesn't neatly fit your world view like "men are hard wired to be polygamous and want hot young babes while women are hardwired to want an old fart with money to support her and her baybeeez" does.

You evo psychers are the ones who sound like creationists, in all honesty. You can't use the Bible and Gawd to keep women in line anymore so now you use "science".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

235. You sound like somebody with no understanding of science whatsoever.

"To justify his privilege and entitlement. "

Evolutionary psychology doesn't justify anything and has never pretended to.

[Hello_Kitty]

244. Really? Then what are you doing?

Seems to me that dudes like you spend an awful lot of time marshaling these "scientific studies" to explain why your poor widdle male brains find it impossible to see women as anything but fucking and housecleaning machines. No different than fundie men except they're not so goddamned pedantic about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Debunking your shit.

You're arguing points the article doesn't claim. You make claims you cannot support.

[Hello_Kitty]

252. I'm talking about evo-psych in general, sport.

And dudes are spouting it all over this thread.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

335. you mean. . . women can do more than that? Cool!

I never suspected.

[defendandprotect]

313. On the contrary, those who want to suggest that male behavior is all

based on genes -- the male and the female stereotype -- are the Bible thumpers.

Granted, the female hourglass and the male V are indications of our each having
a sexual grid, but that is only the beginning -- just as we now understand that in
race there is more difference between individuals than there is between people of
different "races."

And, of course, Kinsey's guidelines are usually ignored, but evidently most of us
are not strictly either hetereosexual nor homosexual -- those being the two extremes.

What we've had for 2,000 years and more is MALE science --
and the propaganda of white male history.
New knowledge brings new understanding.
In many cases, old knowledge is returning.

It doesn't take science to understand why so males males will spit in the street,
despite the fact that it's a filthy, disease spreading habit.

It doesn't take science to understand that the Bible was used to cement patriarchy
and to do damage to women.

It doesn't take science to see patriarchy's war on nature and women.
Did nature create a male who would destroy nature? I don't think so.

[Juche]

52. What cultural reasons

What cultural reasons drive men to prefer a 0.7 waist/hip ratio, and what other shapes do different cultures prefer?



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbieshaped-women-more-fertile.html


Large-breasted, narrow-waisted women have the highest reproductive potential, according to a new study, suggesting western men's penchant for women with an hourglass shape may have some biological justification.

Women with a relatively low waist-to-hip ratio and large breasts had about 30 per cent higher levels of the female reproductive hormone estradiol than women with other combinations of body shapes, found Grazyna Jasienska, at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland and colleagues



Two of the team, Peter Ellison and Susan Lipson at Harvard University in the US, have previously shown that higher levels of estradiol are indeed related to higher fertility in women trying to get pregnant.

"If there are 30 per cent higher levels, it means they are roughly three times more likely to get pregnant," Jasienska, a human biologist, told New Scientist.

[Hello_Kitty]

77. There are many ethnicities where women have a higher WTH ratio

Polynesian and Native Americans, to name a few. Somehow, the women of those ethnicities manage to attract men and have babies.

Honestly, the best predictor of fertility is prior childbirth. Women who have already had babies have already proven their fertility. Women who have already had babies are more likely to have a higher WTH ratio. If men's sex drives were really driven by the desire to impregnate a woman, you'd think they'd go for women with bigger bellies, since those women are more likely to have proven their fertility. I mean, we're talking about what men perceive by looking at a woman, right? Doesn't matter what the hormone level is. A woman with a big belly and a baby on her hip vs. a woman with a small waist and no baby. Who is more likely to be fertile? This bullcrap about "small waists to big hips" seems to be a modern beauty standard fishing about for a scientific justification. Why have empire waists ever been in style, as they have been at many times in modern human fashion, since waist size is such an important consideration for men in their mate selection?

[Juche]

104. Big waists would be a turnoff in that case

Ideally a man is going to want a woman who has not had children yet, who is fertile and who is young. A woman who has already had children (by other men) is not going to devote as many resources to that man's children, and her health may be worse because she has given birth to other children. Plus she will have fewer reproductive years left before menopause. So I don't think men would choose women who have had children by other men as their ideal partners from an evolutionary perspective.

Being heavy is considered attractive in some cultures. In the US it was attractive up until the beginning of the 20th century because only rich people could afford the life of leisure and diets that made them fat. Poor people and working class people had to perform manual labor and eat coarse diets, and as a result were thinner. Then when poor people started getting fat around the 1920s due to better nutrition, obesity started becoming unattractive.

I don't think evolution is the only thing that plays a role in attractiveness. Things like social atmosphere, whether you like the person, etc. all play a role. But I don't think a person can totally discount evolution's role in our attraction to each other.

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW13.pdf

In that study, roughly 30-60% of how attractive we find people is based on how we feel about their personality. A bitchy, rude woman with a 0.7 WHR is going to be less attractive than a nice woman with a 0.9 WHR. A mean, callous guy who is wealthy will be less attractive than a nice, understanding guy who is working class. And in a culture where poverty is associated with thinness, obesity is going to be more attractive.

But the fact that evolutionary attempts to find the most fertile women isn't the only thing motivating people doesn't negate the role it plays in human relations.

[paulsby]

143. BINGO!

nice post.

[paulsby]

142. the gender fantasists don't want to confront scientific evidence

the 'it's all socially constructed' types. there arguments are EERILY similar to creationists, fwiw.

it's like a religion with them . i've dealt with this for decades.

[Gwendolyn]

179. Then how would you explain the fact that when I was seriously bodybuilding...

with a very decent physique, men slobbered over that bod like you can't believe. Mine is personal, anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it changed my perspective forever. They weren't just "schmoes" (muscle fetishists) either. Young, black, white, good 'ol boys, wealthy older men, business and nerdy types, the whole spectrum. And during those days, I got the most desperate, weird, "please don't go" come ons you can imagine. Sometimes, visible erections. In days gone by, the roly poly cuddly woman was placed on a pedestal. How does evolution explain this?

[girl gone mad]

187. Even in my short lifetime..

body type preference has changed. It used to be that a woman with toned abs and arms was seen as too masculine, now it's very desirable. I don't remember large rear ends being considered sexy until the 90s. Recent research indicated that at one point, men began to prefer the look of implants to natural breasts. I'm not sure if that's still the case. The idea that there is one fixed standard of beauty strikes me as being completely absurd.

[Gwendolyn]

194. I think there's been a backlash against the breast implant ideal in the last few years.

But I agree with your post completely. Take a look at men for example. There was a time when men were exceedingly well-groomed and this was considered attractive and the norm. That gave way to the more rugged Stanley Kowalski/Marlon Brando look, mid-twentieth century. Today, exceedingly well-groomed men are called metrosexuals. People regard them as being fey and feminine. What we call "jacked" today, with a thick musculature, is far more extreme than the Robert Mitchum, Marlon Brando look of the 50s. Those guys are average looking and not particularly sexy by today's standards.

I imagine there are certain hard-wired traits we've inherited, and would say probably the whole "conquering" thing related to sexuality is part of that. But even then, the idea of conquering seems to flow back and forth between the genders.

[Juche]

273. Because evolution isn't the only factor in attractiveness

As far as I can tell there are at least 4 causes of attraction off the top of my head.

Evolution in all its factors

Personal taste and preference (I used to love goth women a long time ago, and would've found a goth woman with a worse body more attractive than a beach woman with a better body)

Culture

Whether you like the person's personality



It seems to me that people rejecting evolution are almost saying that men who are wealthy and powerful are not, on average, more attractive than men who are poor and ridiculed, or that women who are young and have 0.7 WHR are not more attractive on average than women who are older and do not. I can't see any reason why that would be true.

I'm not saying evolutionary psychology and the attempt to find the most physically fertile mate is the only thing motivating us to find each other attractive or unattractive. It is one of several. However people seem to be discounting wholesale the role of evolution in why we find people attractive, which makes no sense to me. We are creatures that have evolved not to die, so naturally you can safely assume we have evolved to find people attractive who will help us not die.

[seabeyond]

274. what women on this thread is discounting that it is exclusively, ergo

what do you expect of men. all that they are. a natural patriarchal privilege, see just look at the studies. that is what people are calling bullshit. and these piss poor studies that conclude evolution is reinforcing that.

and woman are calling bullshit knowing damn well that it is just a mere factor, probably a very small, insignificant factor if factor at all. and who the fuck cares....

there are so many things today that bring so many other variables into play and it is these stupid evolutionary studies that dismiss all that and we women are suppose to say..... ok. gotcha. none of that matters. all about male in caveman time. club me over the head.

[Gwendolyn]

294. Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you.

I'm at a loss as to why women are up in arms against this study when it doesn't really promote any findings other than what constitutes attraction.

As I said downthread, even if it were about evolution, there is nothing patriarchal about it. Women are naturally attracted to the narrower hipped man with a good behind and strong upper body. Considering how sex actually works, that would coincide well with the male attraction to broader hips. It's not rocket science. One = thruster. The other = undulater.

I do disagree with your observation about women being attracted to wealth as opposed to a poorer male. Many, many women are attracted to bad boy screw ups, simply because they exude animal sexuality and/or are well endowed. The attraction to wealth is an acquired, conscious decision I believe. Take all affectations out of it, and women will choose the male who exudes excitement and animal sexuality. That's just my opinion based on what constitutes overall gut attraction, and not personal preferences.

I don't get this spanking of men over breast fascination either. I always look at big breasts. I don't have them, and am fascinated when I see a woman with really large breasts.

Lol at the goth thing. :hi:

[paulsby]

138. t's only "bad science"

to creationists who pretend that gender differences are socially constructed. i call them creationists, because they are just as virulently absurd in ignoring science that threatens their prejudices as actual creationists.

i care about reality, not prejudiced gender beliefs.

and here's a hint. the more scientific research that is done, the more clear it becomes HOW different men and women are. evolution is cool.

[EndersDame]

6. It aint sexist its Biological Evolution!

We went over this in psychology it is all about judging who would best carry their genes to term.

[seabeyond]

11. oh bullshit. it is todays psycho babble to make men feel like men. when did yawl lose your way

:thumbsdown:

[Hello_Kitty]

13. I think she's making the same point, with sarcasm. eom

[EndersDame]

16. It kinda makes sense to me as a early human survival tactic

but whatever you obviously have more experience in evolutionary psychology than the writers of my psychology text book (some women) , my professor people who conducted the study and the people who published it. Not to say however that these days we can over come our cave people urges

[seabeyond]

18. everything to pump the male ego is evolution. so tell me... why arent women fuckin 3, 4, 20

alpha male, (the beta male is tough fuckin out of luck, no sex for him)during every cycle....

evolution would say they wouldnt give a flying leap how many they are screwin as long as that egg gets one. and they dont want beta, they want only alpha

is that really what you are ever seeing promoted with this garbage. is that ever what you see women doing.

[EndersDame]

21. Because we can and have over come some cave people urges

but some may still be lingering.Also forming relationships is advantageous in rearing the offspring (more protection and resources) . Let me just again reiterate that we are not slaves to our impulses but they are still there

[seabeyond]

24. we can throw in "guesses" to anything we want and pin it to evolution.

what if it isnt just plain ole conditioning and fucin has nothing to do with evolution. what if it is just seeing a female body and nothing to fuckin do with evolution or anything else for that matter. just simple biology

cuase we make it about evolution without any basis what so ever

that last study.... guy cant give address when looking at attractive woman

evolution

guys also think with left brain exclusively. focus on single thing. women connectors to both brain, multiple thinker

throw something else in front of male that has nothing to do with sex, something for him to focus on. bet still he cant give address. but do they check that out.... no. scientific studies have proved it. pretty logical. but no.... evolution

a guess. threw it out and hopes it sticks

[EndersDame]

34. Are Female Peacocks sexist when they choose males with more colorful plumage?

No they are just animals doing what comes naturally .The beauty of modern humans is when we overcome those primal basic thought pattern. If you think about how old the Earth is and how long modern humans have been around we are not that far from flinging shit around and beating our chests

[create.peace]

71. obviously we women should be running the whole

shebang, cause not only can we chew gum and walk while looking at some guy's ass, but we have a longer running cycle where we are NOT obsessed with sex, men just having to see a particular ration of body measurements to want to jump her. really, we post menopausal women should be running it....older and wiser, and not having to fend off men under 40. they're mostly over a certain age...

[paulsby]

144. nice to hear from our resident gender creationists

if it doesn't fit your "all gender differences are socially constructed' sacred (nonscientific texts) its HERESY.

best you resort to ad hominems, ricidule, and evasions.

just like creationists do.

science. evolution. it's what's for dinner

and

VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!

[seabeyond]

157. nah. i just have us evolving. you have man, anyway, sittin in caveman still. nt

[paulsby]

219. you ignore science. just like a creationist. go back to yer fundie church

here's how evolution works...


wait for it...

slowly...

men and women, as biological organisms have changed VERY little in the last thousand years.

society, culture, law, religion, etc. has changed GREATLY

Men and Women are largely the same in our biological urges, dispositions, DNA, etc.

our CULTURE (and w.culture i include religion, law, taboo, social mores, customs, technology, etc.) has changed greatly

that is what you creationists fail to realize. our CULTURE has changed significantly. our BIOLOGY hasn't, certainly not in the last thousand years.

you creationists want to ignore biology, science, and evolution, because in your dreamworld and according to your religious texts and fables, men and women are the same. it;s just social construction that makes them act differently. the most obvious differences are biological. thats why the olympics has to discriminate. women could not compete otherwise. politically incorrect, but true.

our differences don't just result in differences on the sports field. they also have BEHAVIORAL differences. anybody can understand why! men and women have different organs (reproductive), different chromosomes (XX vs. XY etc.) because they EVOLVED to perform (somehwat ) different tasks

the wonder of modern society, which to your detriment recognizes SCIENCE, is that our law can treat the genders equally. equal does not mean we are the SAME. we aren;t. individuals also have great variation, but the law TREATS us all the same.

you creationists fail to recognize that the reality of biological differences does NOT mean we can;'t have a society where people are treated equally.

you, however, choose religious fables and close mindedness out of a desire to force a false reality, in the face of scientific discovery.

how sad.

go back to your fundamentalism.

[Uzybone]

321. Brilliant. Score another one for science and logical thinking.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Evo-psych is always good for a laugh.

[Odin2005]

15. LOL, great image!

[Juche]

54. So do you feel there are no evolutionary underpinnings to human behavior?

Do you feel it is all cultural? What is your evidence for that?

[Hello_Kitty]

98. What is your evidence that it's all biological.

None!

Next.

[Juche]

127. When did I say it was all biological?

Attractiveness is based on evolutionary psychology, personality, culture and probably other things all working together. You seem to be discounting evolution wholesale.

[seabeyond]

129. for the last couple years it has been exclusively and specifically evo-psych

hence the issues today.

and if you are really arguing evolution you would be arguing we have evolved beyond caveman instead of insisting we are still sittin in cave man era, well.... the men are, women, not so much cause it doesnt benefit the male

can you comprehend at all, even a little bit why women may be wary of this fad to push this bullshit on us all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

175. "evolved beyond caveman"

That's a common scientifically illiterate misunderstanding of evolution.

[Hello_Kitty]

198. As is applying cartoonish stereotypes to men and women with it.

That is the most common scientifically illiterate misapplication of the study of evolution. The Flintstones isn't a documentary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

171. Common sense, mostly.

Animals evolved and animal behaviour can be explained with regards to evolution.

Humans are animals. Humans evolved just like all the other animals. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that some, if not most, of our behaviour has a basis in evolution. Particularly base behaviours, and those that cross cultural boundaries.

[girl gone mad]

311. I'd have to disagree strongly.

I think much of our sexual behavior is culturally determined. Look at Japan, for instance, where gay male porn is all the rage for young girls and women. Or Mauritania, where obese women are considered most desirable. Or African tribes where large rear ends, tons of facial piercings, scars, stretch marks and various body alterations we would consider strange are prized. Or the study I mentioned, which said American men preferred the look of breast implants to natural breasts by the mid 90s, a dramatic shift.

Evo. psychology is a field that's devoted itself to denying many of these obvious societal realities. Our sexuality is extremely conditioned, and far too susceptible to cultural, group and familial influences to be merely an artifact of our prehistoric days. You say that we are just like all other animals, but we are actually quite different from almost every other animal when it comes to sex. No other animal devotes the same amount of time and energy to sex. Many species have sex just once a year or once in a lifetime, while most of the individual males in the species may never have sex. It's a bit much too extrapolate that because we have evolution in common with all animals, our sexual behavior is mostly based in evolution.

Yes, our sexuality has evolved, but I think it's evolved more in the sense that society and culture evolve. Modern sex has about as much to do with our cave man days as computers, cell phones and methamphetamines do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

312. Evolutionary psychology does not deny cultural differences.

I don't know where y'all are getting that idea.

"Or Mauritania, where obese women are considered most desirable. Or African tribes where large rear ends, tons of facial piercings, scars, stretch marks and various body alterations we would consider strange are prized. Or the study I mentioned, which said American men preferred the look of breast implants to natural breasts by the mid 90s, a dramatic shift"

Yet in all those cases, you've got men judging women in terms of physical appearance.

"You say that we are just like all other animals, but we are actually quite different from almost every other animal when it comes to sex."

Nonsense.

"Modern sex has about as much to do with our cave man days as computers, cell phones and methamphetamines do."

We were "cave men" a few thousand years ago, an insignificant amount of time on the evolutionary scale. Our sexuality is as much biological as any cave man's.

[comrade snarky]

150. Oh, do I wish I'd had this 20 years ago

Would have made some classes a lot more fun.

"The gender dynamics of our savanna ancestors looked curiously like those of 1950s America"

Perfect example of evolutionary psychology! Out of all the variations of family type expressed by humanity only one is correct because it's what I was raised with and so must be justified by our ancestry. I wish I was joking about that argument.

Such a disappointing branch of Anthropology.

[Matariki]

162. Oh this is funny.

an oasis in an otherwise predictable thread.

[treestar]

227. LOL, so funny

It's all about it being Men's choice and in Men's control, we have nothing to say about it!

Oh, and if they want to see which men women prefer? Tune in to any soap opera. :rofl: Gonna see a lot of old men with $$ getting all the cute young ladies there. :sarcam: :rofl:

[seabeyond]

234. the most telling from poster above, breast was created solely for men

ya.... breast feeding is there, but really, didnt need them to be all fatty and all, that was purely created for man.

fuck all that it has anything to do with belonging to woman as another posted try sharing with him

"And, no . . . the female breasts are not about the male -- they are about the female!!"

[treestar]

236. yeah, they are for feeding babies

One of those things women can do that men can't, ya know?

(Why do men have nipples? Do they ever do scientific studies on that?) :rofl:

[seabeyond]

238. Why do men have nipples?... certainly wasnt created for women. have to figure for them to fondle

til they can get a hold of the real thing. god only knows.... bah hahaha

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Obvious stuff.

This I didn't know?

[ddeclue]

12. Thank you Captain Obvious!

[Deja Q]

14. Boobs are cool, but is there a study on gay/bi guys looking at each others' pouches for sausage?

:D

[Gold Metal Flake]

22. .

Now I'm confused.

[XemaSab]

87. Why are you not

my best friend on this site? :shrug:

[Gold Metal Flake]

214. Best reply in months!

It's like this: XemaSab, you are awesome. I am a social misfit toy. But now I have a private little smile.

[Mari333]

17. zzzzzzzzzz.

[girl gone mad]

26. I couldn't give a shit..

honestly. I've yet to meet the woman who couldn't get laid because of a bad waist/hip ratio..

[Liberal In Texas]

30. True, and glad you did the edit.

Cause I was going to take exception.

[cliffordu]

50. That's certainly true.....And although I had never actually

considered the 'waist to hip ratio' before, my recollection is that my sexual partners have represented an egalitarian cross-section of the major categories of the 'waist to hip ratios' available in the US during my bachelor days.

Either that or I'd have sex with anyone who would say yes and hold still long enough.\


Your choice; This is science, after all.....

[Liberal In Texas]

28. This reminds me of an old joke, Here it goes:

There is a man who has three girlfriends, but he does not know which one to marry. So he decides to give each one $5000 and see how each of them spends it.

The first one goes out and gets a total makeover with the money. She gets new clothes, a new hairdo, manicure, pedicure, the works, and tells the man, "I spent the money so I could look pretty for you because I love you so much."

The second one went out and bought new golf clubs, a CD player, a television, and a stereo and gives them to the man. She says, "I bought these gifts for you with the money because I love you so much."

The third one takes the $5000 and invests it in the stock market, doubles her investment, returns the $5000 to the man and reinvests the rest. She says, "I am investing the rest of the money for our future because I love you so much."

SO you ask, which one did he marry?




The one with the big tits.

[seabeyond]

31. thank you very much for putting every woman in their place and showing us our worth. just so funny

lets tell a black joke. gay joke. jew joke

would ask to tell a white male joke, but i dont know of any

[Liberal In Texas]

33. Actually it's a MAN joke in the end. Because that's how we seem to operate on that level

We're pretty basic when you come down to it.

[seabeyond]

38. no you men really are not. but you sure are taking pride in this illusion here the last handful

of years. why you would be so very proud of this, boast about it, and pump chest about this i do not get. except society has convinced you this is who you are to be a "man"


but this is exactly what these psych evo studies are producing. this mentality. this is all that you are.

[Liberal In Texas]

41. You make no sense. Go to bed. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Evolution explains your behaviour right now.

You percieve a threat. So you become hostile. Probably unbeknownst to you, your blood pressure has increased and your heart rate has gone up.

Classic flight or fight response.

[Liberal In Texas]

160. No, I'm a puzzle solver. I also tackle the strange and odd

projects.

[AuntPatsy]

169. If what you say is true..delete now before time runs out..don't you know...

the site that cannot be named crowd and freeperville do what they can to ensure durs get fired and such, it has happened before and never forget Andy...they have no pity, compassion or souls..delete now if what you say is true..

[Liberal In Texas]

180. Andy always brings tears to my eyes. Andy and I used to

mix it up. No, not that we disagreed. Not at all. I supported him and once in awhile he stood by this novice.

He was a DU star and light. He fought for the good fight. He left us too soon and I believe was murdered by the RW crazies.

I wish I was braver, but yes, I must delete. Because I'm afraid. They killed Andy. They might kill me if I leave too much information haunting the net.

It's not seebeyond....that's an argument between friends. It's the freeps that might find out who I am from some internet investigation.

I ran into a former co-worker last week. He said before he made his exit from you know where, they were following him around. OK, he might be nuts. But he is just this guy, a photographer who shoots news. Oh, I forgot, he's a lib. They hate that there.


I'm listening to the soundtrack from "Blade Runner" right now. How appropriate.

LinTX
=P

[AuntPatsy]

190. I recall I think at least six years ago seeing two well known people in the media

who were forced live to admit they were being watched by their superiors, bosses? Not sure how..the one forced the other well known now brain dead counterpart to admit they even looked through their offices, their correspondence, anything that was personal and left in what they believed private offices were looked at..

The one seemed not only outraged but terrified and was going on and on wanting the other to admit that he too had experienced the same....he finally did, reluctantly..looked sad..a bit fearful but then cut the other guy off and it went to commercial....I watched the rerun later..that part was completely cut out, gone..

I never forgot it but I also have not forgotten the two involved and how now every time that I accidental hear their voices or see their faces and hear what they have to say in defense of the very people who obviously own them now I want to scream at them..I want to just knock some sense into them..

And then I wonder..why are the two of them still there..in fact more radical and loud mouthed than they ever were and I wonder...what exactly was found out and used against them or....is it simply monetary...did they sell out or were they held hostage unable to escape because what was found out about them could ruin them...

Not sure..at this point it makes no mind..they could have helped stop whoever it was...they could have attempted to be the hero's they constantly brag about being so notable..but in my mind they are nothing more than fearful and ignorant losers who have not only sold out their very country they claim to love..but they have also sold their soul to the very devils they now so easily stand side by side with..

Its amazing and heartbreaking and terrifying all in one to realize the power some seem to have amassed insider our very country's once cherished freedom of the press....

Glad you deleted..go check I hate going there and make sure they did not see it and are even now plotting to destroy you..you knew andy..you know they are more than capable and you know they hate...blind hatred that comes from the very evil side of humanity....they are no longer trustworthy or honorable for they too like the ones I just spoke of no longer have a soul as weird as that might sound to some..

God I hate those people..evil itself...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. Well, I wasn't talking to you, goofy.

But yeah, it still applies.

[JNelson6563]

349. Primal would be better word.

In reality, second to survival, our strongest instinct is to perpetuate our species (like all the other animals). That is why imposing celibacy or unrealistic abstinence expectations doesn't usually work. It's not our natural instinct.

Julie

[TCJ70]

51. Doesn't that joke kind of reflect...

...the stupidity of the man making the decision? How is this sexist towards women?

[seabeyond]

55. womans only worth is her tits. hm.... how does that reflect poorly on women

man

that is really a tough one.

[TCJ70]

59. Well, it seems we took two different messages from that joke.

Sorry you were offended.

[defendandprotect]

91. I agree . . . it cuts to the chase on what men are really interested in . . .

and distracted by . . . and it's hard for them to ignore -- !!!

And, if women understand this reality, it's easier to understand the male mind . . .

such as it is!!!



:evilgrin:

[dem629]

341. Some people are just always looking for something to complain about.

And never miss an opportunity to tell others what they can and can't say.

[dem629]

340. Waaaaah.

[omega minimo]

243. Which was one of the first two -- the third one took her money and left him.

[Stephanie]

29. I thought it was the wingnuts who hated science.

DU never ceases to amaze me. It's science, folks. Sorry if you don't like the conclusions but them's the facts.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060213_attraction_rules.html

[seabeyond]

32. so the science is embracing evolution where we never evolve. or.... women evolved, men just didnt

and that is what i am suppose to buy.

[EndersDame]

49. Did you know that we are not that evolved either

Seems that we rely on our olfactory senses just as men rely on their visual
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796

[Fumesucker]

210. Evolution takes a long time in an animal with as long a generation cycle as humans.

Genetically we are still cavemen and women, cavepeople if you will.

You speak of evolution when you clearly mean our culture should change.

[girl gone mad]

40. I'm a trained scientist and I consider this junk science.

One of my roommates in college did a similar study about facial symmetry where she concluded that more symmetric = more attractive. The problem is that this her theory was very easy to disprove just by analyzing the faces of models, then adjusting for symmetry. Most models were rated less attractive after using photoshop to create perfect facial symmetry. Yet her research got widespread media coverage and was reported as hard fact. It's possible that she picked photos of unattractive asymmetrical models and attractive symmetric models.

The point being that this isn't good science because the data is too easy to manipulate and there are too many variables present to draw any strong conclusion.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. And human beings are too diverse.

Our brains are highly adaptable. Yes, we are like animals in that we do what we need to do to survive. But our intellect leads us to justify whatever it is we choose to do to our surroundings. IOW, if "getting a man to marry you and having his babies" is the best way to ensure your survival, you will do that. If "getting a job" is the best way, you will do that.

[girl gone mad]

122. Here's an example..

of the symmetry thing:



Sometimes nature actually does get it right and these types of "studies" should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. I love science. I hate junk science.

Science used to justify sexism is worth as much to me as science used to justify racism.

[Juche]

60. Why do you feel this science is used to justify sexism

Maybe they are learning it to overcome sexism. Sexism has been a part of the human condition for as long as we can remember. Cultures (up until recently) that offered women equal treatment to men have been few and far between in human history. If people want to understand why we do it, it isn't to justify it it is to overcome it. Malaria is natural too, but we don't study it to justify its existence. We study it to overcome it.

I don't see how anyone has used evolutionary psychology to claim women don't deserve to vote, or use their minds or go to school.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. You don't see that? Really?

Seems to me that's the whole point of evo-psych. It takes off where religion left off, in terms of giving men a "story" to justify patriarchy.

[Juche]

93. I don't see it

I know quack science has been used to justify social prejudice in the past. But I am not seeing how evolutionary psych is designed to oppress women nor do I see it as quack science on par with phrenology or other fields that have been used to justify white, male dominance. If anything I think it is used as a tool to understand our destructive urges so we can overcome them.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. Sorry, but I see it used far more often to justify the destructive behavior

Than to incentivize better behavior. YMMV.

[Juche]

117. I honestly don't see it

The way I see it, sexism may be ingrained into the human race because almost every culture in human history has been sexist. I think evolutionary psychology is an attempt to understand why we act that way so we can overcome it.

[seabeyond]

120. then why are they not suggesting us women not fuckin beta men, only alpha and

fucking 2, 3, 20 times with whomever during our cycle.

no sex for the beta dudes

why arent there studies saying you know beta dudes, shouldnt be gettin it

[Juche]

128. Women who aren't pretty get laid too

A person's genetic fitness and reproductive capabilities are only part of attractiveness. Besides, not everyone is going to be able to end up with supermodels or wealthy, powerful men. So people have to accommodate.

And a little bit of googling found a study where women preferred alpha males during fertile periods.


http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/256.full

Body odour may provide significant cues about a potential sexual partner's genetic quality, reproductive status and health. In animals, a key trait in a female's choice of sexual partner is male dominance but, to date, this has not been examined in humans. Here, we show that women in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer body odour of males who score high on a questionnaire-based dominance scale (international personality items pool). In accordance with the theory of mixed mating strategies, this preference varies with relationship status, being much stronger in fertile women in stable relationships than in fertile single women.

[Stephanie]

155. "Short men are more likely to stay childless"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/short-men-are-more-likely-to-stay-childless-728604.html

Tall men are likely to father more children than shorter men, according to scientists who have analysed the reproductive success of more than 3,000 males.

Tall men are likely to father more children than shorter men, according to scientists who have analysed the reproductive success of more than 3,000 males.

The findings, published in the journal Nature, suggest that women find tall men more attractive and are therefore more inclined to have their children. If the results are to be believed, they show that male height was an important factor in human evolution with women exerting "female choice" that favoured taller men over shorter men.

[seabeyond]

158. i can buy that but what does it have to do with evolution....

we all have grown in height and i can find a number of reasons why women would chose taller men over shorter men. the largest reason i see is since we are little we are conditioned the male is to be larger than female and it is a norm we see on a regular basis.

why would that be concluded as an evolutionary conclusion?

[Hello_Kitty]

271. I've never seen evo psych presented with an eye toward overcoming sexism

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I have always seen evo psych aimed at trying to convince people, especially women, that sexism and male privilege are hardwired and immutable, so there's no point in trying to change the status quo. If you can provide a link to something that discusses evo psych in the context you describe please do so. Because I have never seen it.

[Juche]

275. The moral animal by Robert Wright and How the mind works by Pinker

Yay, I'm referencing Pinker.

In Pinker's book he said evolution was about behaviors that help us survive, not behaviors that contribute to human happiness or that are morally acceptable. So he made that distinction, that there is a difference between the behavior that helps us survive in prehistoric times and the behaviors that are morally acceptable and conductive to human happiness.

Robert Wright, in his book, takes an even harder stance pretty much saying that anyone who chooses to associate destructive evolutionary tendencies with religious concepts like 'the Devil' would be right to do so and more or less (from what I remember) calling for a war against those tendencies.

So you have 2 major thinkers who have both said that evolution can drive us to engage in destructive urges, but that those urges are not morally acceptable just because they slightly increase the change of survival in an environment we no longer find ourselves in.

I don't have the books on hand so I can't give page numbers of these statements, but they were in the books.

[Hello_Kitty]

288. I don't know about Wright

But Pinker is famous for throwing out a platitude or two about how it's really wrong to discriminate against women, followed by 90 paragraphs explaining how inevitable it is that women will never be scientists in great numbers. He's really not a great example.

[defendandprotect]

100. Unfortunately, there was a time when psychology did claim all those

things about women . . . !!!

But I do agree with your opening thoughts - !!


Think there have always been studies pointing to the fact that we all also have an

individual "sexual grid" . . . but right now that only brings up articles on Yahoo

re orientation.

But -- I'm sure everyone recognizes that there are just terrific people out there

we meet and know they'd be great for us but there's no chemistry!

If you're especially attracted to tall, slim males -- that's pretty much the way

it's gonna stay!

[Juche]

56. Thank you

I don't like nuclear weapons but I don't make fun of nuclear technicians. Except Homer Simpson.

[flvegan]

36. This thread? That's not gone well.

[JVS]

161. Yup. What a shitstorm.

[cliffordu]

37. In the olden days men used to look at ankles.

It might have been easier to say men look at women. A lot.


Oh, yeah....

INBEFORETHELOCK!!!!!!!!

:popcorn:

[Liberal In Texas]

39. Men are visual. Women are into fantasy.

NBD, just the way it is.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Women aren't visual? That's funny.

Why, then, are so many women into fashion and decorating?

[Liberal In Texas]

75. You miss the point. Women are quite visually adept.

My point is about what turns us on. Men are more into the visual. Women are more esoteric. I'm not saying that women can't be turned on by visual stimulus, but it's more likely that it'll be fantasy for women than naked bodies.

Sure, once in awhile you may like to see the odd male stripper missing his cod piece, but normally - you must admit - you would rather have (or just see) some guy who just threw his motorcycle over and scratched at his white undershirt as he gazed up into your room when you awoke from a long and disturbed nap after having a terrible time at work.

Women like the fantasy by and large. Men are into raw sex also by and large. It's just the way it is.

[Hello_Kitty]

90. Oh right. So women are visual.

But they are visual in the way that is appropriate for their role in society. Which so happens to be directed toward making themselves and their surroundings pleasant for the men in their lives. When it comes to sex, women totally forget they have eyes in their heads, and get turned on by the money power little intangible things that men bring to the table.

I just love how you assume I woke up from a nap, instead of working at a job of my own (I guess you assume I was being taken care of by my dad?), to greet my hard working lover. Really adds a nice touch to the whole Evo Psych bullshit fable.

[AuntPatsy]

174. lol men are umm....dare I say clueless sometimes? Now I understand the other thread...

I had ignored this one..knew from the op what would happen...men are so easily manipulated..kind of scary sometimes...how easy they allow themselves to be viewed..sad too.

[Starry Messenger]

207. Thank you for mansplaining. n/t

[treestar]

228. Overgeneralization

Like any such. Plainly not true. People are individuals. That's just the way it is. There is no way to control everything by ascribing characteristics to people based on broad generalizations. You are not in total control of any woman, no matter what you do.

[girl gone mad]

46. Yeah, that explains Brad Pitt's career.

It was his brilliant acting abilities that made him such a star.

[proteus_lives]

61. Hell, I'm a hetero dude and I still think Brad Pitt is sexy!

In Fight Club and Troy, he's carved out of wood! I'd kill for a body like that!

[cliffordu]

63. You and me both, bruddah.

[girl gone mad]

68. Very sexy..

and his visual sex appeal sells movies to women. That's why he takes his shirt off in every movie. Hollywood seems to have figured out that women really like to look at attractive young men. Maybe someday the "evolutionary biologists" will catch on, too.

[seabeyond]

70. nah... we want the old fart with the shrunkin up weenie. nt

[cliffordu]

76. And the yacht, and the mercedes, and the condo in Venice, It.....

Hey, wait a minute, that's what I want.....


Nevermind.

[girl gone mad]

81. Clifford, I think you have a..

very sexy personality, btw. I'm taken, but a lot of women are into that sort of thing. :)

[cliffordu]

89. How sweet!!!

I'm blushing a little, here.......

HAHA ahHAHah Ah a (can't remember the last time THAT happened...)

[Matariki]

170. Just look at home decor magazine in recent years

full of shirtless hot young men with lovely pectoral muscles and rippling abs. advertising faucets. for real.

[Liberal In Texas]

64. Because that is a fantasy.

Because he looks dangerous. And unavailable. And totally not what you would want as a mate. It's just a fantasy. And you know it.

[seabeyond]

67. ah ... gfc. and size really really doesnt matter.

rollin eyes.

[girl gone mad]

135. That totally explains why..

Mr. Pitt has had such a difficult time attracting mates in real life.

Women never actually wanted to gaze into his sky blue eyes, run their fingers through his silky hair, jump his bones, bear his alpha children and live happily ever after. They just wanted to imagine what it would be like for a few minutes before coming to their senses, remembering what a "bad boy" he is and running straight into the open arms of the nearest beta male. Yeah, that's the ticket.

You and I should write a paper on why Brad Pitt and other alpha males don't actually have intimate relationships, they just exist in some sort of ethereal state as the walking, talking embodiment of fleeting female fantasies. We could be the toast of the next sociobiologist convention (for whatever that's worth).

[Matariki]

172. No. It's the abs. Definitely the abs.

[BuelahWitch]

342. Not any more of a fantasy than the airbrushed women in men's magazines

Just sayin'.

[omega minimo]

110. Men are stupid. Women are why the species survives.

NBD, just the way it is.

Not ALL men are stupid but this is a prime example of ALL the various ways that malecentric culture really is stupid.

[treestar]

229. Muslim men look at hands

That's all they can see in the areas where the full veil is worn.

An Iranian guy told me this, so don't yell at me. I imagine it is not so now, he was older.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Man .... lotsa comments in a thread so many profess to think is useless.

:snicker:

[seabeyond]

58. useless? far from useless. it is very useful to promote a male dominated world

now that women are not submissive, we are things, cause evolution tells us so.

i think the male world is finding it incredibly useful

[AuntPatsy]

176. True....one of my biggest fears these past eight years..it was so obvious at least to myself...

what was occurring seemingly behind the scenes of our present day political sphere..

Pretty horrifying in it's own way to realize that in reality men would much rather us back where they "believe" we started..or choose to believe..which ever it is..

[seabeyond]

178. it was clear. it is clear. exactly. and to pretend otherwise wont behoove

any of us. males or females.

[AuntPatsy]

193. So true and in the same sense...I am blown away like deminblue that so many act ignorant of that

which is so obvious to many of us..she is right...I too wish more du males would have defended us..makes you wonder..makes you sad..makes you fearful of those you feel are friend and not foe...

[Stinky The Clown]

304. Please re-read what I said

I didn't comment on the thread's usefulness or uselessness. I commented on the commenters.

[treestar]

230. These threads are flamebait for women

We just can't help it. :rofl:

We just love being told that science justifies men getting the upper hand in every relationship.

[seabeyond]

237. you are right there, but there is the frustrating illusion. they spout it out on threads like these

with the stupid studies. yet on the other hand, in personal experience watching males in relationships, love, ect.... it so doesnt jive with what they promote in this. bottom line

their reality does not fit what they are spouting and then insist on being taken seriously

[Joey Liberal]

62. I like broads with big hooters. nt

[seabeyond]

65. i like guys with big dicks. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

85. You're drunk.

[seabeyond]

92. i am? fresa will do that to a person. see how clever you are, can see it in your posts

all these assumptions as a truth.

[Liberal In Texas]

101. fresa = strawberries.

In Spanish.

Unless I don't know the code, WTF?

[seabeyond]

105. lol. fresca is also a soda. nt

[AuntPatsy]

177. Why would you accuse her of being drunk? Are you?

[leftstreet]

113. Well now. See here, what do you consider big?

:)

[seabeyond]

116. scotlands extra large condom dudes. nt

[leftstreet]

133. Oh my. Well, ignore my PM then

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

139. lol lol

cute

hey

there was a thread the other day on the scottish condom use and size. they had to make them bigger for them, hence my post.

[onestepforward]

186. LOL! n/t

[Joey Liberal]

303. You've come to he right guy:)................ nt

[dem629]

345. You shouldn't settle for less.

[Skittles]

166. scheduling Joey Liberal for a righteous ass-kicking

I'll don a push-up bra while I do it

[October]

354. Smaller are more sensitive. Just saying.

[Book Lover]

73. because it's going to piss of the people I want pissed off...

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

[defendandprotect]

74. Same with the male V . . . but we have to stop pretending that the male

attraction to breasts is anything but a mother fixation --

I have a terrific quote on that which I can't find right now . . .

But here's part of Marc Chagall's writings re his mother ---

Many years after his mother's death, Chagall said:

"If I have made pictures, it is because I remember my mother, her breasts,

which warmly nourished and enraptured me, and which made me reach for the stars."


We're waiting for the Colostrum Revolution --

Humanity has suffered from a lack of breast feeding --

[cliffordu]

78. I'm certainly glad to have Chagall speaking up for me.

Viva la Colostrum!!

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

79. you know, and if evolution was really serious, that is exactly what they would be addressing

the breast thru breast feeding instead of only and all about sex.

and all the relationship with the breast in infancy and older. how many of us women held children (including sons) against breast creating the love and nurturing and security so vital for a child.

havent heard chit about that

[cliffordu]

80. Hence the song, " I want a gal just like the gal that married dear old dad..."

[Liberal In Texas]

97. going to self delete

[seabeyond]

102. liberal in texas

how many studies have been done to look at the conditioning of our society and the effects it has on our males and females?

until i start seeing studies done where they actually take these things into consideration instead of coming out with a study and then concluding

must be evolution

not looking at any other conclusion what so ever.... just throw out an assumption

must be evolution

then no

i dont buy it. and i wont be sold on it.

all things that are due to "evolution" is in male patriarchy advantage. not a single "evolution" conclusion where it is advantage to female and a jab at male ego exists. we have just evolved beyond that

how stupid would i have to be to buy this bullshit boys will be boys bullshit as they rape and all kinds of anti social behavior because i am told to by a bunch of quacks with agendas

women have already gone thru this bullshit with submissiveness thru religion and male is the boss bullshit

[defendandprotect]

109. Great post . . .

all things that are due to "evolution" is in male patriarchy advantage. not a single "evolution" conclusion where it is advantage to female and a jab at male ego exists. we have just evolved beyond that

how stupid would i have to be to buy this bullshit boys will be boys bullshit as they rape and all kinds of anti social behavior because i am told to by a bunch of quacks with agendas

women have already gone thru this bullshit with submissiveness thru religion and male is the boss bullshit

Thank you!!

I'd just add that at least in regard to animal-life, as I understand it there isn't one species

which patriarchy hasn't altered -- not usually for the better -- !!

Mary Shelley/"Frankenstein" and Mel Brooks are correct . . .
the male war on nature and women has solely to do with the fact that womb-man was given the power
to bring forth life and they weren't!

:)

[Liberal In Texas]

126. "...how many studies...?"

I would guess in the thousands.

You know, you can't just throw evolution out. And you can't throw out the genetic and the obvious differences in males and females. Socialization has had a far more awful effect than the natural differences in the two sexes. We have been (almost) tortured from birth to think of sex as being this unnatural thing and to be ashamed when it comes up.

If you are not into sex, that's fine. But don't accuse people that still are that they are into raping only because they still enjoy sex!

If you're one of those who hates men, so be it. You'll probably be left alone. You've made that decision.

If in the past you were raped and have issues, I'm sorry, but I can't help you. It's an awful thing but I don't do it and please stop thinking that we all do.

This message will self destruct...

[Liberal In Texas]

83. It might be "mother fixation". It also might be we like breasts.

And, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Is a young woman's fixation with an older man a result of her "daddy fixation?" Possibly.

Possibly not. Maybe she just likes older guys.

Why parse it?

[seabeyond]

88. firstly, backing off evolution once your mama is brought in. now just a cigar is a cigar

and yes

studies show females tend toward like father, males tend toward like mothers. and they female is closest to father 4-6ish gaining her perception of sexual self at that age and the same with male 4-6 with mother gaining his sexual self.

later years they connect with same gender parent.

[defendandprotect]

103. "Older men" isn't a gender-wide fixation . . .

the male attraction to the point of distraction with breasts is . . . !!

[Matariki]

95. Wake me up when someone does an eye tracking study of penis size.

:yawn:

[seabeyond]

96. they wont do that. male ego just might.... might take a hit. and we know how delicate

male ego is

[Liberal In Texas]

99. Hey Hey WAKE UP

We have a 8 incher over here!

[Matariki]

107. Not good enough.

I want a study, damn it.

Eye tracking. Penis size.

[seabeyond]

115. worthless without pictures. nt

[defendandprotect]

111. With or without the sock?

[seabeyond]

118. rofl.... now that one got more than a chuckle. nt

[Matariki]

121. mwahahahaha

:rofl:

[EndersDame]

204. How about nose tracking of men's sweat

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html

[omega minimo]

106. Oh you've got to be fucking kidding.

Men are so disproportionately studied vs. medical studies on women. They're gonna take malecentricism to THIS degree and waste research dollars on fucking bullshit?

[seabeyond]

108. yup. all about a continual pumping male ego... keeping them on track for agenda

of continually promoting,

me man

you

dont matter

[omega minimo]

112. Me Tarzan. You Irrelevant.

:rofl: you funny :hi:

[seabeyond]

123. yup

:hi:

so tired of this sheeeit.

[omega minimo]

125. "Eye tracking"?

:banghead: :freak:

[defendandprotect]

114. Right . . . there's nothing important about human sexuality . . .!!!

Cut it out -- !!!

[omega minimo]

124. it's parsing malecentricism a bit fine when so much else goes neglected regarding women

Be honest

[defendandprotect]

152. Such as . . . ????

[omega minimo]

156. If you don't know

please educate yourself. A simple google would reveal, if you can put three words together.

[defendandprotect]

159. I think that one of us misunderstood the other's post . . . ???

I think we're on the same side here --

but, I'm still not sure of all that you were trying to say with your post -

and thought you should have enlarged on it --

Maybe some other time?

[omega minimo]

163. I'd be happy to

if I believed if it was possible to be that clueless.

If you're really at a loss, google the keywords in my post and see what pops up. :thumbsup:

oh a clue: it's regarding medical research.

[defendandprotect]

164. Reread my post . . .

which I've just changed to make clear we're on the same side . . .

Please -- reread it!!

[Hello_Kitty]

233. So what benefit do we get from these studies?

Other than giving people a rationale for stereotypes?

[defendandprotect]

277. Currently the UN is trying to ensure children are educated in human sexuality . . .

Granted, this particular study may just be stating the obvious, however,

it seems mainly obvious to women ...

But if you look at the thread it has elicited many comments which I think

help us all to understand one another better --

Seems to me it suggests the need for more articles on human sexuality.

[Hello_Kitty]

291. I fail to see how crappy evo psych is going to teach children anything useful.

I mean, what's the point? So that little boys learn early in life to blame boorish behavior on their genes?

[defendandprotect]

308. Have you seen the UN material . . . ?????????????????????

THIS is not it --

I was simply making a comment about the need for enlightenment and discussion, in

general -- but especially children's right to have information about normal human

sexuality. And the fact that the United Nations is taking steps in that direction --

hopefully, worldwide.

Meanwhile, you don't need a study to discuss human sexuality --

This article -- here, today - merely provided an occasion to do so.

And, sadly, I don't see boys or males examining at all what we might term male

"boorish behavior" -- or, in fact, male violence. Our society doesn't even

acknowledge it! Nor, IMO, does male violence have anything to do with genes . . . !!

But we're not going to learn anything about anything by not discussing it!



:)

[Hello_Kitty]

310. Is it full of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" evo psych bullshit?

I sure hope not.

And, sadly, I don't see boys or males examining at all what we might term male

"boorish behavior" -- or, in fact, male violence.

Nor, IMO, does male violence have anything to do with genes . . . !!

But we're not going to learn anything about anything by not discussing all of this!

Thanks to evo psych, men everywhere have a handy excuse for everything from ogling women to infidelity to not helping around the house to (yeah) sexual violence. "It's hardwired into our brains! It's genetic!" If you haven't noticed this belief creeping into ordinary discourse, you lead a very sheltered life.

[defendandprotect]

318. I don't know because the UN program hasn't begun yet . . . but ...

I think we can be sure that since it does discuss masturbation and birth control
that the right wing will hate it! :evilgrin:

Agree with the rest of what you're pointing out -- it's male B.S.

And, yes I've noticed it!

Patriarchy is trying very hard, IMO, to recreate violence against women all over the globe!
And, have you watched TV lately?
The violence is breathtaking!
And women are still cleaning toilet bowls . . .!!

[defendandprotect]

119. dupe

Sorry . . . the message says the post didn't take -- then you repost it -- and

there are two!!

[EndersDame]

206. Just follow your nose

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796

[dem629]

348. March on Washington!!!!1! OUTRAAAAAGE!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

130. What about those who concentrate on feet to the exclusion of the rest?

Are they taken into account?

[defendandprotect]

279. Presumably they are in some studies . . ???

However, I think this is clearly dealing with a gender-wide obsession with breasts --

[omega minimo]

134. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6469506

[omega minimo]

137. What about those who will stick it into anything they can?

[seabeyond]

145. that horse's waist.... hey wait, where were the tits for ratio....oops. nt

[omega minimo]

151. we were having a very equine conversation, offficer!!!

[Contrary1]

141. Some years ago after my first mastectomy...

I needed to make a quick run to the grocery store. I decided to go sans the substitute blob of silicon that is supposed to resemble a female breast.

There was this character in the next checkout line that was so obviously checking out the females. It was finally my turn, so I positioned myself in such a way that my missing part was impossible not to notice.

I can still remember his face when he realized what he was/wasn't seeing. He spent the next 5 minutes unsuccessfully trying not to look.

I loved it.

[demmiblue]

147. Ha!

Glad you loved it! Glad he was perplexed!

Glad...

[omega minimo]

153. you GO Girl!!

:rofl:

[Skittles]

181. wow - what a gal you are!

I'd have to say one of my favorite men is a co-worker's husband - she fretted badly over her double-mastectomy - her hubby told her, don't worry darling, if I'd wanted someone who was all there I wouldn't have married you in the first place. Didn't faze him squat. :D

[winyanstaz]

146. Well I have a plan that will help women......

We need a law tht men will need to have their size tattoed on their forheads the moment they are of legal age.
That way there will be no last minute surprises :)
There you go guys...equal sexism :)

[omega minimo]

154. Unobtrusive and tasteful

"Shoe = 12"
"Penis = 10"

[Quantess]

182. Sorry, but your presumption about penis size based on shoe size is just more sexist stereotyping.

But I suppose you know that already.

[omega minimo]

183. Humor challenged, much?

[Quantess]

195. No, not at all. But it's easy to say this when we we do not have penises to be second-guessed.

Go ahead and laugh and presume that those jerks have have little dicks. But what about the nice guys who actually have small penises?

[omega minimo]

250. I'm sorry, I was going with winyanstaz's silliness of a label on the forehead

Thought it was clear that was a joke. Your points are well taken. The myth of the huge dick being what women want is the MALE fantasy........

[seabeyond]

256. putting head down in shame

i have stayed away from these comments for the longest of times for exactly the reasons you state. i have been good for years on this board about the word little associated with male.

and i am so damn tired of these nothing males with desire and intent to put female in their place at every turn, ....

i walked away from my own code of right and wrong.

so often the woman coddles male ego

so often woman keeps mouth shut cause we know the destruction

and males have run rampant without repercussion

[winyanstaz]

226. my sister once heard it was the size of the fingers that told the size of the man....

and when a man with extra large fat fingers came into her store and started waving his fingers in front of her nose...she fell down laughing so hard her boss had to have another person take care of the customer...:P

[onestepforward]

185. A slightly different formula...

Shoe size divided by 2, then add 1.

[winyanstaz]

223. rofl

[Dark]

165. Welcome to biology. We're all animals.

We want to find a mate who's attractive to us. Why is that a big deal?

[seabeyond]

167. it isn't. it is these psych evo studies that are bothersome. they are one sided

they are always patriarchal, and they are not well founded and concluded yet presented as fact.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

188. Men like women they think are hot, Women like men they think are hot...

Men like women they think are hot, Women like men they think are hot. What's so hard to understand about that? For the record, I think Paris Hilton is hot. So I quess that makes me fair game, so flame away!!!!

[omega minimo]

192. No it just makes you

very young... and unrepentant... and still not clear on what the threads about............

[omega minimo]

191. and

they $$$ are spent on this SHITE when basic research is not done on women's health studies. Men are still the "norm," despite all the biological differences

:evilfrown:

[EndersDame]

202. Women are not that much more evolved than men

although we rely more on our olfactory senses than men
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796

[omega minimo]

189. Some animals are more equal than others

Why is this a big deal? The fact that you don't know why this is a big deal is why it's a big deal. The fact that there's more than one answer and you can't come up with ONE is why it's a big deal.

:thumbsdown:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

197. Do you people really have nothing else to do with your lives?

I mean really. To sit on an internet message board and argue about this shit?

Go watch reality T.V. It has about the same relevence! Get a life.

[DireStrike]

199. Wow... So much hostility to a study based purely on its subject matter...

Sigh.

[seabeyond]

211. well, there is where you have it totally wrong. the hostility has nothing to do with subject matter

that is exactly NOT what this thread is about

[Hello_Kitty]

248. If someone posted a study "proving" racial stereotypes

Would you feel people were justified in feeling hostility? Why should it be different with gender? Why are we just supposed to accept this stuff uncritically because it's about people's beloved traditional sex roles?

[DireStrike]

352. I would pick apart the study

If I could find nothing wrong with it, I'd ask for more studies to confirm or disprove its results.

There's no reason to get upset about it. Either the study is demonstrably wrong or it's not.

[lunatica]

205. And where is the study done on women to track their eye movement?

Every woman is well aware of what men look at. Men aren't really good at keeping those secrets. But it would be interesting to similarly track what women look at in males.

We might be surprised.

[EndersDame]

209. Just follow your nose

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796

[lunatica]

212. thanks, both articles were interesting

Maybe it explains why some men think women seem to have stuck up poses as if they can't abide the smell.

Now that I think about it being described as 'stuck up' is mostly a used as a description of women. Very rarely is a man described as 'stuck up'.

[EndersDame]

215. I have known quite a few stuck up guys

Allot of them are music snobs and allot of the guys I have gone to school with are very fashion brand conscious (FUBU early on RHINO Polo and now Ed Hardy)

[omega minimo]

246. Hip to brain ratio

:hi: a heart in the breast...

[Gwendolyn]

259. Not in any particular order, but these keep topping the lists of women surveys.

1. Adorable, juicy butt.
2. Good biceps
3. Luscious kissing lips
4. Well developed pecs
5. Sexy eyes (not the stalker stare)
6. Sixpack abs
7. Strong, big hands
8. Striated, wide shoulders
9. Tight, narrow hips
10. "Nice ones"

Good butt usually heads the list, but chest and eyes are also chart toppers. The last one is less of an attracting feature and more of a keeper item.

This stuff is common knowledge. And yes, women stare, melt, and sometimes forget their address when in the presence of male perfection.

[EndersDame]

208. Are Female Peacocks That Choose Males with More Colorful Plumage Sexist?

Or are they merely animals following basic primal urges? Just for the record men who judge potential mates soley on a nice hip to waist ratio and boob sizes are unevolved creatures in my book although there are plenty of smart creative and wonderful women who happen to have a nice hip to waist ratio out there. We are selves are not that far from our early ancestors flinging shit at each other and beating our chests although right now we are overcoming those urges that is the beauty of humanity in my eyes. We females do use our nosesto find a good match and men use their eyes. Right now some of us are trying to emotionally evolve and mature past this now that the fucking and eating and shitting are no longer our primary goals.

[NoodleyAppendage]

213. A slim waist is easier to grip when thrusting...biological basis and reproductive success, people.

All of these reflexive anti-posts are just that. Whether you like it or not, males and females are attracted to certain physical attributes purely on the basis of reproductive success (WHR) and ability to care for young (breast size). Get over it...we're animals.

J

[EndersDame]

216. Its more likely if she has a good hip size (able to give birth) and small waist (physically fit)

I don't think it has to do with thrusting. I also think that we are really not as far as people would like to think from flinging shit like our earl ancestors. If you think about humanity on the scale of how old the earth is , we really are still a young species. The beauty of humanity in my eyes is that we are trying (emphasis on trying) to over come our urges and have a more emotionally evolved sense of being rather than just eating fucking and shitting

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

284. The truth hits too close to home with some. Lots of insecurity here.

I don't have a lot of the visual attributes women might like, but I've got great wife anyway. Why is it so tough for some to accept that physical traits can play a role in how we pair up? If you don't want to play this game, then don't. I didn't, and I don't hate Brad Pitt because he's good at.

[girl gone mad]

309. Not insecurity on my part.

I'll just come out and say it. I am a reasonably attractive person. I've never had a real problem with rejection and I've had my pick of men in life. I'm sure I have the "desirable" ratio. I just think these types of studies are stupid. What causes attraction is much more complex than any one supposedly evolution-based study could determine. The entire theory is completely flawed, in my view. Reality never quite matches the studies, as you yourself can attest. I've always been more attracted to short men, despite the myriad studies that say I'm not supposed to be. My youthful looks were sometimes an obstacle to dating men my age, despite the fact that all men are supposed to prefer young mates. This "science" doesn't jibe with the world that I see on a day to day basis, which is why I call bullshit, the same way I called bullshit on the housing bubble despite 99% of economists and financial professionals telling us everything was fine.

[ismnotwasm]

218. This is western culture bullshit

Not all cultures stare at tits. In no way.

I suppose I'll have to go access the whole study to see what it's really saying, since I do have access. My guess is it'll be sexist, racist and classist with an extreme western bias. In other words, a bullshit study. Gender studies often are.

[Hello_Kitty]

269. Yeah, most of them are utter shite.

Apparently the easiest way on earth to get grant money is to say you want to do a study that "proves" girls suck at math or that women are naturally suited to be fucking/baby/housework machines. You will be lavishly funded and publications will clamor to write crappy articles praising your research for "just pointing out the obvious". It's astonishing the way people lap this shit up and don't even consider that the studies themselves might be flawed and biased, never mind the way they are used.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

285. Some societies suppress some some do not. Western civ use to suppress

during the victorian era. Would you prefer that or what the taliban does? BTW it rubs both ways. How many young women have you seen with ass-ugly, old men who have money? I'd call that classism. Bringing up racism, which has nothing to so with anything in this thread just makes your argument look weak.

[ismnotwasm]

306. What the fuck are you talking about?

Suppress what? What argument are you referring too? That the study is most likely bullshit? My point is that tit worship is a western culture phenom not exactly shared throughout the world. I still haven't read the damn study. I'm still guessing here. I'd be simply interested in how it breaks down between race and income. Standard info for a lot of studies.

My guess still is that the info is garnered mostly from porn fed Western culture middle income white males, which STILL makes it a bullshit study AND racist AND classist AND sexist.

Calm down. Geez.

[Marr]

346. I tend to agree.

Our casual acceptance of these types of claims regarding beauty says more about our cultural chauvinism than it says about basic human nature. This study is not only a snapshot of one culture, but a snapshot of a specific *moment in* that culture. Go back just a couple hundred years, and the ideal female form was an ample rear end and apple-sized breasts. These things change-- it's absurd to take the tastes of the moment and assume they apply to all of human history.

I think our modern fixation with large breasts is little more than an unusually widespread fetish, more on par with foot worship than anything else.

[readmoreoften]

222. OOOOooooo. A study.

Yes, it's "a" study. One study. That confirms it!

(Yeah, ONE study doesn't mean all that much.)

[treestar]

225. When are studies going to be done

On what women prefer?

Oh, wait , I forgot. We prefer older, balding, paunchy men with $$. How many times have I been informed of this by such men? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If you use the scientific argument, men should prefer big hips, since that is best for carrying the babies. Isn't it all evolutionary or something? That's whey they prefer young women and why we prefer old, paunchy, balding men with $$?

:rofl: :rofl:

[winyanstaz]

231. I think a lot of men like very young women for several reasons...

One, they are still innocent and fairly stupid about men. Two, they are easier to manipulate..and three...they are eager to find a man to take care of them. And lets not forget four..they are very lovely.
Older women are too wise to their bullshit to be easily manipulated, two, they are not so eager to have a man to have to clean up after and lets not forget reasons three, four, five, six and seven...they are getting worn out from having babies, taking care of the men and working outside the home as well as caring for the family.

[treestar]

239. Easier to CONTROL

That is the answer about the younger women.

Why does Cher prefer younger men? :rofl: I guess we humans are more similar than different after all. :rofl:

[swishyfeet]

297. What an offensive pile of crap

Yeah, we're all just a bunch of pedophiles praying on young girls because we can't handle women our own age.

Look, I don't really know why my brain is attracted to the form of younger women (no, not children); that's just how it goes. I wouldn't want a relationship with one exactly because they are young and immature. As a man, there is nothing surprising about this study other than how many women are actually surprised by it. Am I surprised some women are offended by it? No, not so much.

[winyanstaz]

299. no one claimed men were a bunch of pedophiles..or that you personnaly were a pedophile..

We are just trying to figure out the reasons why your brain is attracted to the form of younger women.
Am I offended by it? nope..I could care less who you or any other man finds attractive or not as I am secure in my own self.
I am sorry if you were offended as that was not the reason for the post.
I myself find the form of younger men much more attractive than wrinkly, bald, skinny, or big bellied old men..and I don't think I am a pedophile because I can appreciate their beauty as I have no intentions of ever being with one young enough to be my son. (and yes I have had offers)
However, you must admit you will find many more old farts with women young enough to be their daughters or even their grandkid then you will older women with younger men.
For some reason that I cannot understand, a lot of men are more willing to screw with people young enough to be their children and that frankly..disgusts me.
(please note that I said "a lot of men" and not you personnally.)

[seabeyond]

301. and you dont think an older woman looks at a nineteen yr old guy and doesnt say

yum.

you think that is exclusively male, thinking a young female is attractive.

we are well aware too, that that is youth and a place for youth to play. it is not our playground. the very reasons you say, immaturity, youth, inexperience

again.

that is not what posters are saying in this thread.

[Hello_Kitty]

232. Of course! Because money existed in prehistoric times.

This is what gets me. Why would our prehistoric female ancestors have preferred old geezers? Of what possible use would they have been when trade and currency didn't exist? Seems to me women would have wanted mates who were strong and fast, giving young males the advantage.

[treestar]

240. Interesting that these "studies" never come up with that result

It's an amazing coincidence about these studies. They always end up with good news for men and bad news for women! Coincidence? :rofl:

[seabeyond]

241. and what was old in prehistoric time, 20? nt

[EndersDame]

249. Here you go on what women prefer

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/22/science/scent-of-a-man-is-linked-to-a-woman-s-selection.html
and this is what happens when we mess with mother nature
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91796

[Hello_Kitty]

255. Good. We need to mess with Mother Nature.

There's too goddamned many babies being born as it is.

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good. We thwart nature all the time.

[EndersDame]

264. Ooh I agree

I just find evolution and psychology on the whole very intriguing

[seabeyond]

257. you just dont get it. how trite.... we like similarity. now pat us on head and send us away. nt

[EndersDame]

262. We also like muscles

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0146167207303022v1
http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/07/11/are_muscular_men_more_attractive.php

I am a female myself but it I realize that humans are animals as well It is when we overcome our animal nature that we shine

[treestar]

320. What do they mean by genetically similar?

Not getting that. We don't find our cousins attractive? guys with the same color eyes?

[izzybeans]

261. I'm surprised by the response to this research.

It's about the physical response of heter men to women. The abstract doesn't even make any theoretical claims. It appears to be purely a descriptive study.

The Kinsey Institute performs similar studies for women.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/desire_detect.html

[Hello_Kitty]

263. I'm surprised you're surprised.

What do you think the value is of doing studies like this? To what purpose should they be directed?

[swishyfeet]

298. Seems pretty clear

that some women are not aware of this. Or are in denial...

[izzybeans]

336. I thought it was the right wing that was opposed to behavioral research.

[seabeyond]

337. the issue is it is disguised at behavorial research and falls short.

i am very much not opposed to behavioral research, love it. it is when something is presented as that, but falls short for agenda

then arent people obligated to challenge?

[izzybeans]

338. You got all that from an abstract?

The authors are graduate students who study both male and female attraction. What's their agenda?

You can find an A Dixson and B. Dixson on the postgraduate listings at the department website listed under the authors.

[seabeyond]

339. no. this particular thread has gone beyond this article as often happens

so if you just walk in now and listen to replies, may leave one to question. that particular night this thread was started, this was the third or fourth of such threads.... and there was a whole different something going on. hence the aggressive approach from many.

[izzybeans]

350. Ahh I see.

Thanks for the context. I thought I fell down a rabbit hole. :)

[EndersDame]

265. Men Like hips Women like muscles. We still are a very young species

http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2007/07/11/are_muscular_men_more_attractive.php
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0146167207303022v1


We are not slaves to evolutionary impulses though, my boyfriend has grown a paunch but I am not going to dump him for a guy with better muscles because producing genetically superior offspring is not my main goal in life although I fantasize about guys with yummy abs . Why is it so hard to accept that we are still only animals with urges but the beauty of humanity is we can over come

[Gwendolyn]

266. Why do we need to overcome anything?

Without insane urges the genders would probably never get together. :)

This thread is full of females denying animal desire. Not sure why, but whatever floats peoples' boats. The facts are, women desire just as much as men do, and are attracted to certain features that are deemed more attractive. The V shape probably subconsciously sends out the message of good performance... strong arms, narrow hips, strong, powerful buttocks are useful in that area.

[seabeyond]

268. no gwen, that is not what the female has issue with on this thread.

you can keep on making up what the issue is that you see, but you will continue to be incorrect and you will continue to not "get it"

[Gwendolyn]

270. The OP is not about evolution far as I can tell. It's about attraction.

A gay woman might be just as attracted to large breasts as a hetero man is. Some gay men prefer big muscle bears while others prefer hairless, thin types. Same goes for hetero men and women. And there are certain bodyparts that keep making the lists of both men and women. It's stupid to deny that men are attracted to breasts or a nice behind. I wouldn't bother denying that a nice male butt makes me smile and perk up. Why should I? I enjoy bodies. Most women will admit that they are sexually attracted to bodyparts. At least, men are honest. Some women seem to feel the need to deny their animal desires. What a waste.

I think I "get it" very well, am having fun in life, and just giving a more balanced view by including how other women think. This thread is not a microcosm of real life by any stretch.

[seabeyond]

272. Some women seem to feel the need to deny their animal desires

this here, if you are referring to the women on this thread, proves that you do not get it.

that is not correct either.

[Gwendolyn]

278. Again, the OP is about attraction, nothing else.

The women here are all arguing about evolution for some reason. And there's at least one post claiming that women are attracted to a man's soul. Oh please. Women salivate and look just as much as men do. It's only after you get to know someone that you fall in love with their heart, or soul.

You keep saying I don't get it, and I will continue to enjoy looking at men, and embracing my animal desires. Everyone wins.

Edited to add: I'll also continue to look at big breasts too... because well, they're big.

[Hello_Kitty]

319. I'm not arguing about evolution. I'm talking about "evo psych" as a cultural phenomenon

It's part of a big picture. I don't dispute that attraction has a significant biological component. But it's not either/or with that and socialization, it's both/and. What I object to is the endless studies being churned out and (badly) reported on that are using "science" to justify the patriarchal status quo. I'd have less of a problem with research on the male gaze if there were some balance. As you acknowledge, women have eyes too, and animal sex drives. But that doesn't fit the favored cultural narrative of the horny visually oriented male and the relationship-oriented female. So studies that are biased toward that get the funding and the attention in the MSM.

[seabeyond]

267. because we have already moved on.... evolved.... and this is only being used

in a patriarchal manner

look at this

there was a thread stating the men got dumb listening to an attractive female. that he could not remember his address in the first handful of minutes being with her. but women could remember their address being around attractive men.

concluded, must be because of evolution. what? it must. that is real fukin scientific, just must be

scientific studies show that the male exclusively uses his left side of brain. women has connectors going back and forth using both sides of brain

hence, women can multi task. men focus on single thing.

both has advantages and disadvantages.

knowing this to be a legitimate and established studies on activity of the brain (not guess of evolution), why did no one then do a study to see if a man focusing on something that has nothing to do with an attractive woman could not remember his address. and a woman focused on something other than an attractive man could still answer the question.

proving

that a man focused on something has a tough time redirecting that focus. and a woman can easily let go of focus to focus otherwise

no one did

they conclude, evolution

so men are ya man... no shit,.... that is all we are, .... give us tits, .... we are just animals

now tell me you do not see the issue here.

[EndersDame]

276. I can see that some studies might be and probably are biased

I can see that some of these studies are gendered bias but i still think that we all have some animal desire in us. I also know that evolution is not the only thing that shapes the way we think (our culture society and neurochemistry not to mention various other reasons) I rember one lecture last semester about how a females brain has a better functioning and bigger (the part of the brain that connects the left and right parts of the brain) which may account for why women can focus on many things. I find psychology a very fascinating subject and I find it kinda fun to see a reason why I want to bite some guys perfect ass ;)

[seabeyond]

281. i too find it fascinating

and have been immersed in it since very young.

no one is denying desire.

no one is denying animal instinct.

all of us are stating there are soooooo many factors and many of us feel that today those factors sooooo outweigh all this shit. you take this shit with a grain of salt, interesting. but learn the other shit too, cause awfully damn relevant today

many of us are watching these studies used to enforce and reestablish the male patriarchy and privilege rule

and many of us are challenging the really stupid, unscientific, junk science studies being fed us to stroke male ego.

that is all

[EndersDame]

307. I understand I think I had a bad case of internet flamitis

This would probably have been a fascinating and interesting conversation if we were having it face to face :)

[seabeyond]

334. it almost always is

more interesting face to face. hence the challenge of internet. but we persevere and fine tune our skills in flexible and creative communication to better understand, if we chose.

i will look forward to seeing you more on other posts and listening to your approach.... without the snarky comments, lol, next time.

[Gwendolyn]

315. Grow up!

Who are the worst people on earth today? Men of YOUR generation. Sodini and Garrido. For all you say about how great your generation was, and how much respect women got, well how about if you shut up as a woman and let us 30 and 20 somethings find our way;. Your whole thing about men being noble and how much better it was then, is just not where we want to go. Laughable really, but keep the noble male thing dream strong, while you don't do anything but get fat and complain.

[seabeyond]

333. lol, did you stomp feet in this tantrum. this is an issue for only 30 something, oh and 20

somethings? good of you to throw in the 20 somethings too. male/female, male privilige, being conditioned by junk science is exclusively your generations issue? pretty self absorbed gwen.

my teenage sons may feel your old ass should get out of his way. nah, he wouldnt be so stupid as to assume this issue is merely for his generation.

once again gwen, you have another post... that is incorrect all the way around.

[Gwendolyn]

287. How is it being used to further some sort of patriarchal agenda?

There are studies being conducted every second of the day as to the differences between the genders. It's probably more interesting to post the sexually-based ones on a message board rather than the more tedious ones that focus on other areas.

And even then, so what if it WERE a function of evolution. This article claims that the hourglass figure with wider hips is even more attractive to men than big breasts are. It's common knowledge, based on these types of studies, that women are generally attracted to strong, glorious man asses, narrow hips, and strong arms. Seems to me, since one is the pitcher and the other the receiver, so to speak, that would make the perfect fit. What's so patriarchal about that?

For every man who gets stupid after being in the presence of a beautiful woman for 5 mins, there is a woman who puts up with a complete jackass just because he has a huge penis. You could say these women "get stupid" too. Same behavior, different exhibit. It's all about sex.

You seem to be perturbed that men are more willing to joke about this stuff, whereas traditionally women have been taught to eschew anything "base" in favor of emotional bonding. I prefer to joke about this stuff as well, and would like for women to be allowed to acknowledge their own sexuality. That's freedom from patriarchy. Yet every thread ends up with this same commentary. Men shouldn't talk about salivating over women. What's the point in denying an essential truth. Why not just admit our own salivation over men. (or male to male, or female to female, if gay.)

btw... male nipples ARE there for women to enjoy. It's an erogenous zone for both genders.

[EndersDame]

290. I love Man Nipples!!!

[Gwendolyn]

293. Yay for all types of Nipples.

:)

[Liquorice]

289. Yes, in society we are all looking through the lens of patriarchy. It's difficult

for most people (men and women) to see around it. Most things are viewed from a default male position. When anyone looks at the world in another way, people get threatened and angry. It's not anyone's fault really... It's just the way all patriarchal societies operate.

[seabeyond]

292. excellent post

thank you. said it well. i agree.

[pink-o]

286. So for all you guys defending this study as "Science" consider this:

Y'all seem to think that "Science" is a subject being purported by Robots or maybe those big-headed Aliens from the original Star Trek. However, reality reveals that most "Science" is studied by human men with penises. Far more men than women, a reality that cannot be denied.

So you think these human men with sexuality aren't trying in some way to justify their own perceptions of females? Have any of you ever been around male science nerds???

I'm not saying this or that is true, only that most people "discover" concepts towards which they're already wired and curious about.

Think about it!

[niceypoo]

296. Science is the realm of men?

And it revolves around them justifying their egos?

That is about the most ignorant thing I have ever read on DU.

[Hello_Kitty]

302. And your comment is about the worst jump to a conclusion I've ever read on DU

Try reading the thread first before you react defensively.

[Gwendolyn]

323. Ms Kitty, you do know...

you are arguing some fashion of feminism, when you've chosen the most childish, girlish name for yourself on this site. Someone might even say it's flirty, in a girlish, really naive, kind of way. How do you explain that?

[Hello_Kitty]

325. And your user name means "white, fair, and blessed" according to Wikipedia.

How do you explain that?? Are you some kind of white supremacist??!?!

WTF is your point? I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that DUers could be selecting their names ironically?

[Gwendolyn]

326. Someone chose my name for me. I would have preferred Gudrun, because I like intrigue.

I don't think anyone in my family is a white supremacist. We're quite diverse in terms of color and religion. The holidays are never ending.

So Hello Kitty is an "ironical" choice. My point now is the same as it was my last post, but accept what you say.

[Hello_Kitty]

329. Love how people claim they can't be racist because they have relatives of color

As if they had anything to do with that and as if it negates their own attitudes. But never mind, because I take your word for it. So if you'll do me the favor of taking my word for my user name choice, WTF does any of this have to do with the subject of the OP?

[pink-o]

322. Oh puleeze! Of COURSE there are more male scientists than female!

I never said science was the "realm of men". Did you suddenly start working for Fox News with that idiotic talking point?

I only made the statement that scientific studies can be parsed by those doing the studying. 30 years ago, there were very few women scientists, and if you listed all the renowned scientists right now, more are male than female. And men have their own biases, as women do.

Look at medicine. It's been proven that there's been a male bias for years. It's getting better now, but to deny that it exists is as ignorant as denying that men and women are different for reasons of Political Correctness.

Your entire basis for posting, I believe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

327. You do a disservice to all women scientists.

Also, if you'd like to explain why the article is not science, speak now or forever cram it.

[Hello_Kitty]

331. Oh how cute! You're worried about women scientists.

Gee, I figured you evo psychers didn't think there were any. :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

355. Apparently people of your sort...

don't realize there are women "evo psychers."

Talk about sexist stereotypes.

[pink-o]

343. What next? Are you gonna call me unpatriotic? Why do I hate America.

You both know very well what I'm saying, and using RW tactics doesn't make it less truthful. Because of the fact that till a few generations ago, most women didn't have any kind of career at atll, there are more male scientists than female. So consequently, science is gonna have a male bias sometimes. Why is that? Because scientists are neither robots nor Vulcans. And all study is sparked by what makes one curious. Male sexuality has been the driving force behind many areas in our society. If you don't agree, try reading Freud.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It's just a fact. But if the little boys on this board can't own up to the idea that perhaps this study was done from a male perspective, then that's just sad.

[seabeyond]

344. "If you don't agree,"... then it is simply denial, ignorance, or agenda driven. nt

[kumbaya]

314. Have they/will they do a study on hetero women's preferences

for big vs. small packages? Have they gone to Speedo beach to do some 'research?'

That's the problem with these types of studies: they're not equal opportunity!:argh:

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

328. ...well I thought it was interesting!

I don't understand the "sexist" cries, it's simple biology.

[gadget]

330. I don't see the scientific ground work...

the article needs more visuals to back up its scientific research. I would like to see these breasts to make a conclusive judgement.

[BlooInBloo]

332. Golly. Straight guys like tits and ass. And water is wet.

[dem629]

347. Maybe there just aren't enough rallies and seminars to change how males behave.

:rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

351. Maybe there just isn't the expectation that they should behave

After all, they're "hardwired" to be pigs so why expect better from them? :sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

353. men are getting as hurt by this behavior as any woman. they dont recognize it

not yet. they are kinda slow on the draw. in their denial they refuse to see, how it is anything but a plus. but it isnt.

when a gender doesnt respect another gender, it is felt.... it is fed. adn it will effect any relationship, even when we deny it and pretend it isnt there. the female really wont respect the male. the female will adopt behaviors that is a fuck you back

and then

the male will be left on his own

whining

why he cant find any nice woman to connect to, love or anything else.

beat the nice out of women. (and not literally)

and this is what guys will get

as they pretend they really dont want anything but a fuck, they will come onto message boards adn "whine" how lonely they are. or their woman cheated on them. or they arent getting any. or or or

it doesnt behoove any of us

but some will pretend otherwise at all cost

i think i am remembering a post from you in the lounge....