[Nored]

Originally Posted by Konradz

[as a reply to fooleh]
I think you're really going too far with the biological stuff. Darwin may be cool, but let's not push it.

The reason we can choose who we fuck cannot be "to better our genetic pools" ; that would imply someone, something designed us that way. As you're quite into nature, I don't think you'd agree with that. So, we don't choose who we fuck because it helps better our genetic pools ; perhaps we do so in order to, though.
And I don't think we do, either : us Humans have gone quite beyond animalistic instincts, as far as I know, thanks to dearest education. I don't see myself acting like an animal, nor even thinking like an animal. So, of course there's a biological influence, but I don't believe that biology is the only factor, or that it fully dominates us ; else, we'd just be apes running in the forest, having buttsex and eating berries.

I agree with you that we're firstly going to look for the obvious, boys and girls alike. But the obvious is not necessarily "big tits and hips", or "muscles and... angles" : "beauty" usually was, as far as I know, never really judged by such criterias : rather, the size of women's belly (being obese was important in many countries, and still is in some nowadays, because it would show that said woman was wealthy (which has nothing to do with biology but rather society)), the amount of hair, etc. could be very important criterias in many parts of the world ; every culture had a different definition of beauty, and that beauty had nothing to do with breast size or hips.
Nowadays, just check any survey on breast preference, and you'll notice that a lot of men, if not more than half of them, prefer the C cup (or less) size. Why doesn't an outstanding majority of men prefer D cup? Why, if we only look forward to good reproduction, is there only a minority(10-15%) of women who have D cup+ sized breasts?
I believe that this shows that we are not influenced that badly by our biological needs and instincts, as we are Humans, and only technically animals (something which can be argued as well)

First off, where did you come up with these statistics?

Besides that, having good-sized breasts and a well-made frame is indicative of being able to bear a child, yes, but there is such a thing as 'too big'. Bigger breasts do mean better milk producing capabilities, but the fact is that you don't need any more after a certain point. A baby can only drink so much.

As for 'bettering our genetic pool', no one wants to have a social outcast for a child. It's instinct to think that two beautiful people having a baby means that the baby will be beautiful as well. Although we (as humans) have a certain extent of self-awareness, we are still bound by our primal instincts. The only reason we are civilized is because (nearly) everyone else is.

Think about it this way: animals live for one purpose; to reproduce. In nature, animals are not picky about their mates, because a majority of species do not return to the same mate year after year. They also do not have to worry about their offspring being teased by other young. However, as humans, we are expected (in fact, we have a 'legal reponsibility') to take care of our young. If we were simply allowed to have sex and not care for the child, no one would really care who they fucked unless it would affect who they would later fuck. Having sex is also a big part of 'marriage'. If you found your spouse to be completely repulsive, you would not enjoy spending the rest of your life with her.

However, that's the peculiar thing about humans: whomever we love, we deem to be 'beautiful'. I'm not talking about obligatory love (though that should be obvious); I'm referring to what some people might call 'the one'. However, in order to develop feelings for a person, they must first meet our physical standards. If they are so ugly as to make us vomit every time we gaze upon them, we definitely would not be able to establish any sort of relationship (friendship) with them thereby destroying any chance of us loving them. That is why everyone chooses based on social standards. A beautiful person will not enjoy an ugly person's company, however, another ugly person would be used to it (themselves being 'ugly') and would not mind.

There is also the matter of defining 'beautiful'. What is 'beautiful'? Sure, we can go with the dictionary definition of 'pleasing', but then we would have to define what 'pleasing' is. There is no 'universal beauty'. No one is going to have everyone consider them beautiful as they are. Regardless of who you are, someone out there is going to think you're ugly.

In order to answer the question of 'what do you find attractive in a member of the opposite sex', you have to know what you are looking for. Are you searching for a partner to spend the rest of your life with, or just someone to bear your offspring? If it's the latter, it's quite obvious that as long as you are of the correct gender and you meet the person's physical standards, you're good to go. However, as a 'life partner', more standards are set. Everyone has their own preferences. No one else's answers are going to help you in any way (that's most definitely what you're looking for; no one is simply 'curious' about what complete strangers are attracted to). Even if the majority of guys say they want a girl with a nice rack and toned ass, maybe the guy you're after wants a tsundere loli. Do not attempt to change anything about yourself just to be together with a guy. The first thing anyone should be looking for in a partner is to love them for whom they are. Only after that can you start to think about physical appearances.

[manubishe]

Please Stop Making This Topic PhilosoPHICAL .onegai

[Konradz]

Originally Posted by Nored

First off, where did you come up with these statistics? [...]. Only after that can you start to think about physical appearances.

Which statistics? For breast preference, I base myself on a lot of what I have seen before, whether it be on magazine surveys, forums, etc. Anyway, I did make a google check about it and had troubles finding any survey at all. I did find [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and was satisfied with it, though. I do apologize about the "D cup = 10%" bit, as I didn't notice that the DD cup portion was also rather big. Anyway, without basing myself on statistics, I think that we can at least all agree that breast size preference depends a lot on the individual, and that big breast / small breast preferences are quite even. We can also agree that D+ sized girls are not a majority.

"The only reason we are civilized is because (nearly) everyone else is."
We are all civilized because we are all civilized? That doesn't seem like a great reason to me, more like circular reasoning. Nobody wants a social outcast, but nobody thrives to get the theory of evolution going, either.

"However, as humans, we are expected (in fact, we have a 'legal reponsibility') to take care of our young"
That is not limited to humans. Animals have to take care of their young in order to keep the reproduction cycle going (IE theory of evolution). Example : adult penguins protect their children until death, by giving them safety and food ; female crocodiles protect their children within their mouth (I don't know the word for an animal's "mouth") ; etc.
Anyway, humans dodge this issue quite well, and could care less about children. Condoms are a very good example of how humans can twist the laws of nature and master them : with condoms, nomore worry about children. The only thing that matters is sexual pleasure. Pretty bad for the preservation of our species.

"That is why everyone chooses based on social standards."
I agree with you and I believe this goes along well with what I said in my earlier post : it's not about biological instincts, it's about social standards.

As you say, everyone has their own preferences, I agree with you fully. But, although I agree with you that "he first thing anyone should be looking for in a partner is to love them for whom they are. Only after that can you start to think about physical appearances.", does this mean that is the way it works? I don't think so, and I think you stated earlier that it, indeed, did not. People do care about appearance, in the end, as silly as that is.

In the end, I believe we're thinking quite alike.

[fooleh]

Originally Posted by Konradz

[as a reply to fooleh]
I think you're really going too far with the biological stuff. Darwin may be cool, but let's not push it.

The reason we can choose who we fuck cannot be "to better our genetic pools" ; that would imply someone, something designed us that way. As you're quite into nature, I don't think you'd agree with that. So, we don't choose who we fuck because it helps better our genetic pools ; perhaps we do so in order to, though.
And I don't think we do, either : us Humans have gone quite beyond animalistic instincts, as far as I know, thanks to dearest education. I don't see myself acting like an animal, nor even thinking like an animal. So, of course there's a biological influence, but I don't believe that biology is the only factor, or that it fully dominates us ; else, we'd just be apes running in the forest, having buttsex and eating berries.

I agree with you that we're firstly going to look for the obvious, boys and girls alike. But the obvious is not necessarily "big tits and hips", or "muscles and... angles" : "beauty" usually was, as far as I know, never really judged by such criterias : rather, the size of women's belly (being obese was important in many countries, and still is in some nowadays, because it would show that said woman was wealthy (which has nothing to do with biology but rather society)), the amount of hair, etc. could be very important criterias in many parts of the world ; every culture had a different definition of beauty, and that beauty had nothing to do with breast size or hips.
Nowadays, just check any survey on breast preference, and you'll notice that a lot of men, if not more than half of them, prefer the C cup (or less) size. Why doesn't an outstanding majority of men prefer D cup? Why, if we only look forward to good reproduction, is there only a minority(10-15%) of women who have D cup+ sized breasts?
I believe that this shows that we are not influenced that badly by our biological needs and instincts, as we are Humans, and only technically animals (something which can be argued as well)

That was long, sorry.

I agree completely. Societal influences have always been a very large part of who we find attractive, but I didn't focus upon this because I was trying to touch upon the more fundamental factor: biology. I think it was wrong of me to go directly to this, though, because as you pointed out, humans and animals aren't directly similar. We're top for a reason, right? I guess it becomes a discussion between whether societal pressures guide biological advances or the other way around.

I don't understand how fucking to improve our gene pool, or as a result of a need to improve it, makes us animalistic in any negative sense (acting like an animal, thinking like one.)

I disagree that we have progressed passed basic animal instinct -- what happened to "fight or flight?" Corner a dude who feels threatened and hes gonna fight or cower. This behavior is instinctual and possessed by all animals that I'm aware of. I agree that some instincts are put in check through education, morality and a set of ethics, but we still have some animal in us. Some fuckhead cut me off in traffic and I felt like rear-ending his ass over the side of the Golden Gate, but didn't do it. Why? I'd feel guilty after, be incarcerated, and probably raped by a guy who calls his dick Earl and colors his lips with strawberry koolaid powder. This doesn't indicate an erasure of animalistic instincts, which I interpreted from your post, but more of a transcendence.

[sasasaa]

looks is not important in loving a person
looks will fade when ur getting old

'coz we're all humans with diffrent looks

we got two eyes,two eyebrow
two ears
one nose
one mouth
one head

so why choose?




"sometimes we look for a perfect person to love,but people will be perfect if we loved them sincerely"

...see "love is blind,but love can also open your eyes"


i hope i enlightened ur minds and hearts

[Konradz]

Originally Posted by fooleh

I don't understand how fucking to improve our gene pool, or as a result of a need to improve it, makes us animalistic in any negative sense (acting like an animal, thinking like one.)

I disagree that we have progressed passed basic animal instinct -- what happened to "fight or flight?" Corner a dude who feels threatened and hes gonna fight or cower. This behavior is instinctual and possessed by all animals that I'm aware of. I agree that some instincts are put in check through education, morality and a set of ethics, but we still have some animal in us. Some fuckhead cut me off in traffic and I felt like rear-ending his ass over the side of the Golden Gate, but didn't do it. Why? I'd feel guilty after, be incarcerated, and probably raped by a guy who calls his dick Earl and colors his lips with strawberry koolaid powder. This doesn't indicate an erasure of animalistic instincts, which I interpreted from your post, but more of a transcendence.

Well, did you not say that it was natural to want to better our gene pools? That it was instinctive? That's what characterizes animals (instinct, not the will to better the gene pools), so I'd say it's an animalistic behaviour ; unless it is like eugenics, then sure : we fuck and try to "improve our gene pool" (that is, just have a child we can be proud of). We don't fuck in order to do that though, but we take that factor into account when we do. We don't fuck for the only sake of reproduction, unlike animals.

Yes, there is no erasure, but rather a transcendence(although I don't understand the word well) as you said. When i said that we "have gone past" our animal intinct, I meant that sure, we did have basic animal instinct, but that education went to master them. Perhaps not the most basic animal instincts, but at least the behaviours that are the consequence of said instincts. Our wisdom goes against our animality.

Well that was something fun to talk about. I'm pretty sure we're both saying a lot of wrong things, but at least this is a bit more thoughtful than what's posted 99% of the time in this forum.

[eaz51]

what i look for in a women is simple to me a person that knows how to smile and have fun for starters isn't completely overly self-conscious about her weight and appearance.

Also I have to say it can go ways as well though i cant stand anorexic skinny girls but at the same time i cannot stand the stereotypical fat girl and thats because shows they dont know how to take care of themselves or they just don't want to, i'd rather then both of those see a girl with a little bit of a stomach on them because in my opinion it makes them look healthy.

As for appearances average or anywhere above is fine with me normally but i have gone out with a girl that was considered ugly once because i formed a deep bond with her, and the only reason i broke up with her was because she got afraid that i was going to leave her and would only continue dating if i got her pregnant the next time we had sex, needless to say i was 17 but not stupid at least.

I don't know how much that helps but that's all i got to say along with the fact that im the exception most guys in my opinion when it comes to women so keep that in mind as well as the fact that i know that a lot of guys do not find it sexy for a girl to be so skinny that you can see her ribs and shit at that point to most guys it becomes a major turn off then.

[Nored]

Originally Posted by Konradz

[/b]We are all civilized because we are all civilized? That doesn't seem like a great reason to me, more like circular reasoning. Nobody wants a social outcast, but nobody thrives to get the theory of evolution going, either.

I meant that a newcomer entering society will act civilized and pick up the proper etiquette for where they are residing due to the fact that everyone around them teaches them to do so.

Originally Posted by Konradz

That is not limited to humans. Animals have to take care of their young in order to keep the reproduction cycle going (IE theory of evolution). Example : adult penguins protect their children until death, by giving them safety and food ; female crocodiles protect their children within their mouth (I don't know the word for an animal's "mouth") ; etc.

There are many animals (for example, turtles) that leave their young once born (or, in the case of turtles, laid).

Originally Posted by Konradz

Anyway, humans dodge this issue quite well, and could care less about children. Condoms are a very good example of how humans can twist the laws of nature and master them : with condoms, nomore worry about children. The only thing that matters is sexual pleasure. Pretty bad for the preservation of our species.

Not necessarily. We (as a whole) are depleting our planet's natural resources. The more people there are, the more we will use. We are not currently using the resources at a sustainable rate. In the long run, having condoms and other methods of birth control will actually help keep our species alive, at least until we have found better, more efficient ways of utilizing resources.

As for dodging the issue, again, once we have a child, we are 'legally responsible' for them. That is the main reason people use birth control. If no one cared what you did with your offspring, the only people that would use condoms are those afraid of STDs and those that would care about their young.

Originally Posted by Konradz

I agree with you and I believe this goes along well with what I said in my earlier post : it's not about biological instincts, it's about social standards.

Social standards are based on our biological instincts. Humans belong to the group of animals that take care of their young, and as such, it has become a 'social standard'. If you see a parent abusing his/her child, you call child services. If we were more akin to turtles, 'child services' would probably not even exist.

Originally Posted by Konradz

As you say, everyone has their own preferences, I agree with you fully. But, although I agree with you that "he first thing anyone should be looking for in a partner is to love them for whom they are. Only after that can you start to think about physical appearances.", does this mean that is the way it works? I don't think so, and I think you stated earlier that it, indeed, did not. People do care about appearance, in the end, as silly as that is.

That is mainly due to the fact that it is statistically improbable that you will actually find someone to love you for whom you are. Ask any couple that has been together for a long time (at least 10 years). Each of the partners will most definitely have something that they disliked about the other which has probably changed. People change to suit other people (be it lovers, friends, or simply because it's 'popular'), so it is insanely difficult to find a 'perfect' person.

Originally Posted by Konradz

In the end, I believe we're thinking quite alike.

Quite, though minor differences are still present.

Originally Posted by manubishe

Please Stop Making This Topic PhilosoPHICAL .onegai

We are merely voicing our opinions, as are you. If you cannot (or do not want to) comprehend what we are talking about, you do not have to read it. Just skip over any walls of text that you see and you'll be fine.

[Konradz]

"There are many animals (for example, turtles) that leave their young once born (or, in the case of turtles, laid). "
But there are many examples of animals that do not, thus showing that this behaviour does not characterize animals as a whole.

"Social standards are based on our biological instincts. Humans belong to the group of animals that take care of their young, and as such, it has become a 'social standard'. If you see a parent abusing his/her child, you call child services. If we were more akin to turtles, 'child services' would probably not even exist."

Child services did not always exist. It is thanks to the way humanity has evolved, and thanks to morals and education, that these child services now exist and that the abuse of children has become something ammoral, not to do. Not necessarily because of biology. Some animals eat their children. Why should we not do that? How can you really claim that we belong to a specific group ("akin to turtles") ?

All I'm saying is that we're pushing the influence of nature too far. The fact that we are Humans, with reason and thinking, who invented arts and leisures for themselves, new technology, etc. shows that nature does not fully influence us to the point of making us animals like any other on this planet. This is what makes us human ; animal(biological classification and basic animal instinct such as keeping care of children, etc.), sure, but also human.(civilization, education, reason, etc.). That is why I believe that nature DOES have an influence on us, and that we do remain animals in some ways, but that along with nature, there are many other factors that can come into play, in order to explain human behaviour.

[fooleh]

Originally Posted by Konradz

Well, did you not say that it was natural to want to better our gene pools? That it was instinctive? That's what characterizes animals (instinct, not the will to better the gene pools), so I'd say it's an animalistic behaviour ; unless it is like eugenics, then sure : we fuck and try to "improve our gene pool" (that is, just have a child we can be proud of). We don't fuck in order to do that though, but we take that factor into account when we do. We don't fuck for the only sake of reproduction, unlike animals.

Well that was something fun to talk about. I'm pretty sure we're both saying a lot of wrong things, but at least this is a bit more thoughtful than what's posted 99% of the time in this forum.

I did say that it was natural, but I think we're making the same point colored differently. You're stating that an instinct to improve a gene pool is animalistic, which I agree with. However, I'm arguing that the process isn't necessarily negative or 'basic' by a civilized standard. We're saying the same thing, I'm just going into it further than need be.

Yeah, that was definitely fun to talk about.