First-- colorful males are only limited to a small section of the animal kingdom, primarily birds. You do not find this in mammals.
The Male Mandrillus sphinx begs to differ.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112104.htm
First-- colorful males are only limited to a small section of the animal kingdom, primarily birds. You do not find this in mammals.
Nonsense. The LESS men follow through on their lust the more intimidated they are by the things they cannot achieve. A man (or a woman) who finds it easy to find sexual partners is far less intimidated by the opposite sex. They are more partners and less unattainable, inexplicable objects of desire.
First-- colorful males are only limited to a small section of the animal kingdom, primarily birds. You do not find this in mammals.
That an interesting theory but I don't think it follows for men with low libido, such men have had few female sexual partners and are not likely intimidated by them either as they don't really lust after women.
Agreed. But in that case, women are not unattainable objects of desire to such men. They're just people to them.
Uh, no, it's stone age and planetary. Maybe not universal, but the exceptions aren't that easily found.Second-- the evaluation of women as worth the strategy of having to impress at all is, at most, cultural, and, at best, recent.
Spartan girls were famous for beauty, and for walking around naked in broad daylight, and for independence of sexual choice. The discipline of sublimating mating toward military violence was imposed on the young man of Sparta via considerable effort by older men - and the slave women were of course always available, with a bit of effort, to channel the turbulence, along with the wives of impressed older men who wished their wives to bear fine sons. Also, as women could divorce at will and choose mates based on prospects of strong and virile sons, the ability to impress a woman counted for quite a bit in terms of opportunity.For a Spartan, she was a vagina and a Spartan male would only frequent it in the dark.
Unless, of course, she was among the numerous and thriving class of prostitutes - in which case his reluctance would be so much overcome as to allow him to pay considerable sums of money for the opportunity to perform his ghastly duties as a citizen.For an Athenian, she was a a ghastly vessel he'd reluctantly mate with as that was his duty as a citizen.
Yes that is the point: not all men see women as "unattainable objects of desire" or even "objects of desire" some just see them as people.
I can see you theory only working for men that are lustful introverts and nothing else.
Men do it too.
Here's a man who has gone through life pretending to be idiotic and affable,
whereas he is in fact sharp witted and crafty.
![]()
Boris Johnson, Lord Mayor of London and possible future Prime Minister
He is a rich Etonian millionaire, with lots more money to come.
When women are wearing their money goggles he appears to them like this.
![]()
Boris
Seems they would. Many men are intimidated by smart women. It encroaches on their sense of being the superior male. It suggests a certain independence and uncontrollability in the female that they just can't deal with. SHOULD women dumb down for men? Why? Isn't that enabling the very chauvinism such women find offensive?
Is that the women's fault or the men's fault?
Make sure to get data from other forums.
I would also ask the inverse: "Should men act more masculine and be smarter for women."
Otherwise, you have predujices and unnatural answers.