This started out as an interesting article I saw in Psych Today. So I posted it in the forum that contained "psychology" in its listings. Little did I know it would devolve to this. This just proves that no matter what I post, the usual suspects and their friends will attack me and not the issue. I'm just glad it's over. And thanks, bells, for removing the statement. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, your piece of psychological show-n-tell seemed designed to advertise the cliché about blonds and beautiful daughters—I was beginning to imagine you strolling along Sunset Boulevard. With your dark friend. On another note, it was awkward not to suspect whether or not Xev did actually hit a little too close to home… But it was great fun anyways. :]
men do like blonde bombshells and brunette bombshells and red bombshells and black bombshells and asien bombshells and ... to know what guys like you only have to talk with a cosmetic surgeon and theirs the answer on do women want to look like them.
God I wonder what all those rural Chinese men have been up to falling in love with those dark-haired Chinese women. Thank God you are here to spread these truths and help them work through their denial.
what about these 2? I definately think we are polygamous, but I don't see how a woman would benefit from polygyny (sp?) Is that many husbands? I would die from the frustration of it all.
May I rephrase, and since this is in a psychology sub-forum: Much of racial hatred and bigotry seems tied to sexual desire. Not necessarily in a causative sense, but many racist canards are sexually charged -- one need only look at how prevalent castration or allegations of rape were in the lynchings of the old American South, or how Nazi propaganda often focused on the image of the lecherous Jew. Now consider Sandy's fervid anger at a simple remark, bearing on a hypothetical desire to have sexual congress with an African American man. He responded quickly with denial and anger (who are you, you troll) then moved to disavowel (pardon, spelling) and then to retribution: he reported the offending text. I'm sure that we've all read our Freud, or if he proved too much, at least Sartre's "Anti-Semite and Jew." *Shakes head* I have just demonstrated a psychological defense mechanism to you, and only a few of you were able to appreciate it. Well anyway, the original topic is uninteresting. Psychology Today is a peer-reviewed journal and nobody would ever contemplate interracial sex.
Yeah I haven't had any problems and have never been close to being a blonde.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not even close. You know nothing about me. And get the hell off my thread. You are nothing but trouble. And what you said to me was despicable. You owe me an apology. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On a note here, I was given an infraction of 5 (damn high) for once saying I would pull Sandy's wig off with a laugh at the end............ Funny how much of that went on.....for 4 points......and Bells defending the statements all in fun?????????????:wtf:
I presume you meant to say "polyandry." Since the advent of the one-child policy many Chinese couples abort female fetuses. A whole generation has grown up now without enough women to go around, and I've read reports (whose veracity I cannot vouch for) that the suicide rate among young Chinese men is skyrocketing. Whatever makes you hypothesize that blonde women look younger? Hair lightens with age. Statistically, more young women have gorgeous black and dark brown hair. Sandy, you're in no position to condemn trolling since you have popped up on so many threads solely for the purpose of telling us all how much you love the bible and the rest of redneck culture. To be fair I haven't noticed you doing that lately and I commend you for it, but you can hardly complain when someone comes to collect your back dues. You set yourself up as an opinionated, plain-speaking, easily angered person with a tenuous grasp of science, and this is how people of that sort are treated here. I would clean up a post like that on Linguistics but that's easy for me to say because Linguistics doesn't generate so much controversy. The other moderators don't always have the time or inclination to be so fussy.
as a guy i do feel i have to say we don't really give a damn bout hair color their are 2 things a guy normally looks at first one begins with the letter t the other with the letter a
In modern societies they usually do not. However, from animal studies an obvious advantage can be deduced. In contrast to males, a female usually knows that the offspring is hers. There are several models in which the female can exploit this (e.g. getting fed by more than one male partner, or copulate with an attractive partner, but getting fed by partners that are more reliable but less attractive, and so on). Benefit is here mostly meant in term of increase in general fitness. Most of these studies were conducted with different birds, but fatherhood disputes are not unknown among humans, either. Now that we know how genetic works and with the possibility to actually test fatherhood the advantages for human females is almost non-existent. However, males also benefit from polygamy, due to obvious reasons. Their cost of procreation is simply lower. But as they are unsure about their fatherhood it is beneficial for males to have monogamous females. As most societies are male dominated (or have male dominated origins) the society's attitude (and in some cases, laws) against polygamous females is arguably reflected by this biological imperative. Edit: if really polygyny (as opposed to polyandry or polygamy) is meant this post is obsolete. Please ignore (even more so that is).
Fred Reed has an article about these supposed "politically incorrect" facts. http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm Born to Sag Banana Boobs as Darwin's Clock July 8, 2007 Oh god, the endless, thumping, hope-draining, drab, repetitive soul-crushing tiresomeness of it. I find in Psychology Today a piece called “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature,” explaining various aspects of behavior in Darwinian terms.* The smugness of that “politically incorrect” is characteristic of those who want a sense of adventure without risk. Nothing is more PC than an evolutionary explanation, unless it explains obvious racial differences that we aren’t supposed to talk about. OK, the authors are going to explain why we mate as we do. “Blue-eyed people,” they write, “are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest to determine whether they are interested in us or not.” Or, as the authors explain, men like blue eyes because, since eyes dilate when the owner is interested in something, in this case getting laid, and since blue eyes better show a large pupil, then men will know when the woman is interested. This produces more children. Ponder the solemn fatuity of this. Does any reader over the age of thirteen believe that women with any sort of eyes have trouble letting a man know when they are interested? The authors need to get out more. Why is this sort of story-telling so widely engaged in when an alert porcupine would reject it? Because it is PC. As a fellow I see on the internet said in another context, “This is a stretch and illustrates how easy it is to believe what fits your world view.” Yep. The authors would find an evolutionary explanation for a loose doorknob. To be fair, the greater reproductive success of the blue-eyed does explain why they predominate around the planet, with the exception of small population pools such as China, Africa, the Arab world, Southern Europe, Japan, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South and Central America. It’s because men in all those dark-eyed, under-populated places can’t tell when women are interested. Next: The authors say that blonde hair evolved because it loses its luster with age, and turns brown, therefore signaling to a man that the woman is too old to have healthy offspring. That is, it has the evolutionary advantage of keeping its possessors from having many children. This would seem to indicate that blondes evolved after the invention of shampoo, since the hair of women who never bathe is presumably something short of lustrous. Doubtless men married to blondes—marriage after all seems to be something of a pattern—stop boinking them when their hair dulls, while men married to brunettes keep at it, producing the huge swarms of dying, defective kids that one usually sees in China, Mexico…. Again, note the complacent absurdity. Do you have difficulty distinguishing between brunettes of 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55, despite dentistry, hair conditioners, and facial creams? But not with blondes, right? Say the authors, blondeness evolved in Scandinavia because women were covered with clothes and, without hair-luster as a signal of age, men couldn’t tell how old they were. This explains why so many young Eskimo men mate with grandmothers: They just can’t tell. Does this make any sense at all? It implies, among other things, that young men can’t ask someone. People advanced enough to wear clothes are advanced enough to talk. Do you really suppose that Eskimo boys can’t tell the age of village girls they grew up with? That the same cues as to age that I effortlessly read daily in dark-eyed Mexican women, who characteristically wear clothes, are invisible to Eskimo swains? Next, breasts. The authors assert that men like big-titted women because big ones sag at an early age, warning the men that the gal is too old to have healthy progeny. This is wonderfully silly. I know all manner of breasty women who don’t sag, because they wear bras, and I can tell how old they are. Again, if big hooters discouraged further reproduction, the evolutionary benefit to the woman would seem exiguous, and big boobs ought to vanish. An unstated but fairly apparent assumption underlying most discussions of the subject is that mating is entirely physical. The man takes the woman with the biggest tits and bluest eyes and the most of whatever characteristic is currently thought evolutionarily desirable. Perhaps this could be demonstrated with water buffalo. It isn’t what I see among people. Rather men seem to want a woman who is reasonably cute, not fat and, by whatever the standards of the particular man, likeable. Conducing to the latter condition are (depending on the man) brains, sense of humor, a minimum of bitchiness, and being a decent human being. With the exception of brains, these are not evolutionarily respectable categories. Yet, in my experience, bright, vivacious, good-humored, dark-haired and small-bazoomed easily trumps the reverse qualities. In general, a difficulty with grasping the evolutionary logic here is that of knowing whether evolution is thought to apply to the civilized. It doesn’t seem to, quite. For example, one may read in numerous sources that mankind, having left Africa, moved to colder climes and evolved greater intelligence to deal with the problems of survival in cold places. (Obviously they would have to go north to get smart since, if they already were, they wouldn’t go. Who wants to live in four feet of snow?) The implication is that intelligence increases fitness and should lead to the production of more offspring. But what one sees today is rapid growth of the population of the supposedly least intelligent, namely black Africans, and the extremely low rate of reproduction of the most intelligent, namely Jews. Within populations, the bright have fewer children than the dull, and whole populations of the heretofore fit, for example Japanese, Germans, Spaniards, Russians, and Italians, are rapidly diminishing. If fitness is measured by reproductive abundance, then their fitness has diminished mightily in a few decades. Is intelligence not a constituent of fitness? Or has natural selection stopped—assuming, or course, that it worked up to some point? If so, why? When did it stop? Or is something entirely else going on? To force mating into the mold of reductionist fitness-shopping, it is necessary to connect beauty and sexual attractiveness with fitness. This is easily done by making up stories. I can do it by the hour: Wide-set eyes improve depth perception and prevent death when jumping about on high rocks. Long lashes prevent dust blindness in windy regions. Pretty, even teeth cut food more efficiently, avoiding the metabolic burden of inefficient chewing which, in time of famine, would lead to starvation. Ready laughter clears the lungs and avoids pneumonia. Shiny blonde hair reflects sunlight better and makes it easier for men to find fertile women at a distance. But it reeks of improvisation, of beginning with a conclusion and putty-knifing the logic. I think of those millions of pitiful Chinese women, sobbing quietly in corners, “Oh, how can I let him know I’m interested when I have these horrible dark eyes? Maybe I can write him a letter….” *Here, By Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa
He's right, of course, that the article as written is fishy. And he's more entertaining than the article, in his objections. But he's wrong in his critique of its overall logic. Mating is not being forced into a mold, but described in its patterns. Beauty and sexaul attractiveness are connected with fitness, by more than just story-mongering. And he misses several points: fitness is not simply a matter of counting babies for one or two generations. It's a longer time, larger scale attribute. "Intelligence" is not distributed as he seems to believe, and is not as solidly connected with fitness as he implies. The anti-PC part was not the evolutionary explanation, but the recognition of the factors explained. And so forth.
Reproductively speaking, blue eyes are becoming more and more rare. There is a European concern about the reduction of the blue-eyed, blond-haired population. Most are becoming intermingled with brown-eye populations, producing darker tones of hazel. Does this concern me? Haha... depends on what aspect it is.
