Post by William Blake Jr.I have written on all kinds of issues, and now I'm writing about
a problem I've seen in more cases than I can count.
The problem is that of false advertising in relationships and the
culture of insincerity that results.
The perpetrator presents a genial front and acts nice to everyone.
Then when he has found the woman, and she is his, he turns into a
monster. The people cannot believe that he does the things that he
does, because according to the impression he gives to them he is a
nice person. And the person against whom the perpetrator commits his
abominations is blamed for all things that result, and is attacked
even further if she tries to leave the perpetrator.
Doesn't that work both ways? How many times have you met a woman, start
to fall for her and then after weeks it is like she treats strangers
better than she treats you, and sees nothing wrong with this at all!
If these parts of the brain after testosterone poisoning drive men to
do such, maybe they should be circumcised along with that flap of skin
on penis.
But if females have also evolved some defenses or checks and balances
against these brain areas, then they may need circumcision too?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/fc5bc1ce93410508
If women seek status and the ability to gather resources more than men
seek in women because of gender development and hormones, it seems that
men would have an incentive to exploit this fact. But as the link above
showed, women have near superior judging skills than men in this.
THE GROUND RULES OP HUMAN COURTSHIP
Understanding courtship in other species illuminates differences
between the sexes and explains why there are conflicts of interest
between men and women in courtship and marriage. The conclusion that
women are sexier in appearance than men suggests that women are
competing among themselves for access to men. Yet this con- clusion
does not ring true in the real world. According to anthropologist Don
Symons, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, sexual
intercourse is everywhere a female favor granted to men. Any woman,
whatever her looks, can succeed in becoming pregnant.
Why then do people of both sexes consistently rate women as more
physically attractive? They do not need to be physically attractive to
have sex with men. They are obviously not competing over opportunities
for sexual intercourse. Instead, they are competing to marry desirable
husbands who can help them to raise children.
Men's bargaining position is based on social status and wealth. In
subsistence hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Siriono of Brazil, a
man's sexual attractiveness to women is based largely on his reputation
as a successful hunter. In modem societies, women are more interested
in a man's education and income level than his hunting ability, but
this concern represents the same underlying need to find a mate who
will be a good provider of food and other economic goods. Even though
modern women sometimes earn more than most men, their evolved
psychology has not changed.12 They are still attracted to successful
men. Some striking examples of this phenom- enon in modem sexually
liberated women are presented in chapter.
In early subsistence societies, as well as more recent ones, women were
constantly pregnant, breast-feeding, or caring for children or all
three. This would have interfered with their ability to work and
acquire surplus food or property. Today, the birth rate is much lower
due to the use of effective birth control techniques. Moreover,
children spend the day in daycare or with babysitters, which frees
their mothers for full-time occupations. Successful rearing of children
among our hunter-gatherer ancestors was a cooperative enterprise in
which men contributed to feeding, sheltering, carrying, protecting, and
caring for their offspring. The critical importance of fathers for the
survival of their children is demonstrated by the Ache of Paraguay, who
are more than twice as likely to die during childhood if they lose
their father (see chapter 4). Women, in general, have evolved to
compete for husbands with social status and wealth because these are
reliable cues to the ability to protect and care for children.
Physically attractive women (as assessed from high school yearbook
photographs) are much more likely to marry. They also marry up the
social ladder, finding husbands that are wealthier than their parents;
the same, however, is not true of men. Physically attractive women move
up into wealthy elites through marriage, while physically attractive
men do not.
Peahens are very plain in appearance, suggesting that peacocks are not
drawn to the physical attractiveness of mates. The evolutionary logic
behind this male indifference is that peacocks invest so little in
their offspring they do not have to be selective in the choice of a
mate. Every female that they mate with will likely increase their
reproductive success.
The corresponding lower physical attractiveness of men compared to
women suggests that women are not as concerned about the physical
attractiveness of their mates.' Does physical appearance really not
matter to women in their selection of a spouse? Why not ask women what
they consider important in a potential husband? This straightforward
approach is fraught with unexpected problems. What if people have
limited insight into their own actions? What if they are telling white
lies to make themselves look good or to provide what they believe is
the "correct" answer to the question?
When asked, women and men agree that personality is all important. They
want a spouse who is kind and understanding, who is intelligent, and
has a sense of humor. Their actions belie their words. In a classic
study conducted at the University of Minnesota, Elaine Walster and her
colleagues organized a freshman dance. They told couples that a
computer program would match them on the basis of personality. In
reality, men and women were randomly paired up. The researchers were
interested in which personal characteristics would make people want to
have a second date with their dance partner. To their astonishment, the
researchers found that no personality measure predicted partner
desirability. The only predictor was physical attractiveness. Both men
and women wanted to be with the beautiful people! This shows an
astonishing split between people's stated motives and their actual
behavior. Either we are blind to the birdbrained mechanisms that
control interpersonal attraction or we are unwilling to admit to them.
More recent research shows, however, that occupational status can
overwhelm the positive effects of physical attractiveness. If an
attractive man puts on a business suit and wears an expensive watch,
women find him far more desirable than the same man dressed in a Burger
King uniform. Men are far less picky about the occupational status of
women they are willing to date.
The discrepancy between what people say and what they do may have an
innocent explanation. It could be that admirers view attractive people
as having desirable personality traits. This phenomenon is known as a
halo effect. There are strong halo effects for physical attractiveness.
In other words, physical attractiveness creates a favorable personality
impression, and we imagine we like the person for his or her
personality. The positive first impression that attractive people make
on others means that they have an advantage in getting to know people,
which helps them to project a positive image of their personality.
Whatever else is said about the University of Minnesota study, it
finally dispels the myth that women do not care about physical
attractiveness in men. Appearance may not be as important as social
status but once the status hurdle has been crossed, physical
attractiveness may be the single most important influence on women's
dating choices.
To an evolutionist, saying that women are indifferent to the physical
attractiveness of their mate is equivalent to saying that they behave
as if the genetic quality of a man is unimportant. Such careless
choices could not have survived the ruthless forces of natural
selection. Women who paid more attention to the genetic quality of
their mates would have left more surviving descendants to inherit such
fastidiousness. Like peahens, they are turned on by the ornamentation
of their mates, even if this is not obvious on the surface.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
Post by William Blake Jr.In business, advertising as one thing while having a completely
different product is known as false advertisement. It is a crime,
and one that is severely punished. But in relationships there is no
clause about false advertising. Instead, the person at the receiving
end of the abominations is blamed for all things, and is blamed even
further if she tries to go on her own.
This of course results in tremendous ongoing hypocrisy and
insincerity. And it is a hypocrisy and insincerity that requires for
its perpetuation a destruction of sincerity wherever it can be
found. Thus, the sincere woman is entrapped; the sincere man is seen
as being fundamentally criminal. And it is through this attack on
sincerity that the culture of false advertising and insincerity goes
on.
Insincerity, for its continuation, requires further destruction of
sincerity wherever it can be found. Thus, any true feeling, any
true idea, any true existence, comes under vicious attack. And the
result is a putrid swamp of falsehood and viciousness and hypocrisy
that ensnares all the living. And then this swamp claims for itself
the sanction of religion or of morality.
For this abomination to end, it becomes requisite to see all false
advertising for what it is, and to instead demand truthful portrayal
of self, of feeling, and of attitude. And then one more obstacle to
sincerity, passion and excellence will be removed, and it will be
more possible for more people to live truly.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com