Schedules of Mating

[penkitten]

The mini series John Adams illustrates this very well with the relationship of John and Abigail Adams.

john and abigail adams are a perfect example of how marriage relationships are supposed to be. respect to each other, never allowing their dreams to die.

 

[dakota]

maybe its just me... but a major basic attraction for me is brains... hum.. no must not be just me.. cause if gals went for physique over brains also then in the long run we would not have evolved as we did... and would still be much closer to our relatives the gorilla.. a massive example of brawn over brains...but i am tired of arguing over what constitutes "good genes" versus "good provider. people will believe what they will.
btw.. you do know that the reason all the renaissance painting feature women who who we would consider "fat" nowadays.. is because that was the ideal back then? Tastes change over time in physique.. but brains.. the attraction of brains remains a constant...
but to each his own.. let the squabbling continue now.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Throughout history there have always been fetishisms. Reubenesque women were large, Chinese nobel women were required to squash their feet into 2 inch wide shoes and some African women of high status wear necklaces that enlongate their necks. However these phenomenon are less about physical beauty standards as they are about social status. Large women in the Renaissance or Baroque periods were regarded with higher status not because they were fat, but this fat indicated they weren't low-born peasants. Similarly white, pallid skin at the time indicated a woman was of nobility class since she obviously wasn't working in the fields under the sun all day. All of this is reflected in the high-art of the period, which of course was commissioned by these wealthy, noble class patrons.

Today we have every variety of fetish from chubby chasers to foot worshipers, but are these instances representative of a majority? Certainly not. However we have individuals for whom this 'natural' arousal is superceded by a fetish. The obvious answer is that fetishes are learned behaviors used to circumvent a sexual deficiency by internalizing a specialized sexual preference. In other words, Brad Pitt could be a chubby-chaser if he lacked the social intelligence to attract women on par with his own level of attractiveness.

Likewise you can extrapolate this 'fetish' dynamic to other sexual preferences. The 22 y.o guy who consistently fails to hook up with girls his own age develops a "preference" for MILFs after he successfully hooks up with one. It's this 'path of least resistance' dynamic that leads to preference.

This of course works conversely for women, but according to different criteria as her need and conditions dictate. I'm still waiting for someone to link me to an online dating site that specifically caters to attractive, in-shape women with a "fetish" for overweight men. I've yet to meet a female chubby chaser. However, there are plenty of dating sites that cater to women specifically looking for millionaires (or at least well-off professional men), why is this not then a "fetish"?

It's no secret that women have a laundry list of prerequisites they set as conditions for a man's acceptability into long term intimacy. He must be attractive, financially stable, possess status (some call this power), have a sense of humor, be sensitive to her needs, be decisive, be a good listener, be single (usually), he must initiate, have confidence, have ambition and the motivation to pursue it, be passionate, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot - everything else is negotiable. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

As a woman ages these conditions shift and become re-prioritized according to her physical attractiveness and capacity to compete with other women for acceptable men's attentions. They insticntively know that as they age their sexual marketability decreases, while a man's capacity to meet her conditions for her (and other women's) intimacy increases (or at least should mature better). This then serves as an establishing operation for her to reorder her conditions, better maintain her physique and/or devlop mental/social schemas which constrain men into their own conditions. In order to better ensure the broadest pool of eligible, "Husband Material" men, while simultaneously competing for men's attentions with other, generally younger and more attractive females, older women have devloped social contrivances to covertly and psychologically convince them (and younger women I might add) it is their responsibility to embody what they believe is entitled and expected from them.

 

[TheHumanist]

I have to reread it a few times, but I'm getting it better now. It was a little confusing how you started with writing about fetisms and then ended about ageing women against ageing men. I may not be in a position to say this, but you should keep a strong serperation of terms. You write with good grammar and structure, but it is still could be misleading. Words are important. A few words one way (like the example of the fat millionaire) that those becomming the "good provider" (which I might say is as bad as "good genes" terminology as it sounds like a person who can only keep a girl around if he keeps her pleased with money) and a few other words like your last paragraph make it sounds like a "good provider" is not so much as an person who have money, but a man who meets more of her criteria.

So, if I'm reading this right, good provider is not a chump is uses money to buy her intimacy, but a man who have cultivated enough to be someone women also wants: A Good Man, though the word still lack a punch.

Another thing that is still confusing is your comparison of men's and women's criteria. As you said, women have a laundry list for long term intimacy , but when you compared to men, he have one criteria (and to quote) "only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior." Unless I misread it, you just compared the requirements for a ONS/hook-up/str vs an ltr. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a man does not have a deal breaker, she is willing to negotiate herself to ignore it like a man, I have doubts that men only deal break is her hotness and women have the entire list. Also, unless he reaches an area of desperation, doesn't a man have a bit more standard than just hotness for an LTR?

 

[dakota]

Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot - everything else is negotiable. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.
.

that is such a shallow shallow statement. do not include me in that group. I can honestly say that a clear dealbreaker for me once was when a gal stated that she believed that there were still WMD buried in the desert that had not been found yet. For anyone to actually believe such nonsense was a bit to much for me... so I dropped her off moments later.. and that was the end

 

[iqqi]

^^^ Because you selected her on superficial conditions. What's on the surface. SHALLOW.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

that is such a shallow shallow statement. do not include me in that group.

Ah, but then why did you chose to pick her up and get to know her in the first place? That's the the real issue. You serve as a very good example; inasmuch as you'd like us to believe in your moral virtue and incorruptibility there had to be a physical standard your 'girl' had to meet for you to even get to the point of learning about her personally.


"Shallow" is an operative catch term for a feminine social contrivance. People are only as 'shallow' as their conditions permit and the value we place on what subjectively defines a person's integrity. Less attractive women will ALWAYS encourage the perception that more attractive women are 'superficial' or 'shallow' because it's an intangible perception that can only be proven by taking the time and making the effort of getting to know an individual woman. The subconscious assessment is obvious; perception is everything and when a woman is demonstrably more attractive than another the only fallback available to the less attractive one is to impugn the other's character. The myth of the physically flawless woman being synonymous with the character flawed woman is constantly reinforced as a methodolgy for feminine competition.

The male part of this equation is of course guilt by association. As a man, ideal physical proportions and symetry in a woman has an obvious effect and is thus the commodity to be sought after. If a less attractive woman can convince a man, or shame a man, into believing by default that the more physically ideal a woman is the less her intellectual, empathetic, integrity capacity is she improves her chance of breeding with a male that would under normal circumstances opt for the physically more ideal woman. Therefore, by associating himself with the attractive woman, or overtly displaying a preference for a physically superior woman, he then becomes associated with being as 'shallow' as she is. The mechanism is designed to make him want to avoid this association and thus prefer the less attractive, but perceptually more 'deep' woman in favor of the hot piece of ass that gets his prick hard.

 

[Max Power]

that is such a shallow shallow statement. do not include me in that group. I can honestly say that a clear dealbreaker for me once was when a gal stated that she believed that there were still WMD buried in the desert that had not been found yet. For anyone to actually believe such nonsense was a bit to much for me... so I dropped her off moments later.. and that was the end

Seinfeld is a TV show, not a way to live your life.

 

[dakota]

Ah, but then why did you chose to pick her up and get to know her in the first place? That's the the real issue. You serve as a very good example; inasmuch as you'd like us to believe in your moral virtue and incorruptibility there had to be a physical standard your 'girl' had to meet for you to even get to the point of learning about her personally.

.

actually I was set up on a blind date by the librarian at the time of the HS that I worked for. So the rest of your point you try to make is well... pointless.
And yes there is a physical standard for everyone of course. But frankly it is not the most important standard in my book.. it may be in yours but not in mine. To each his own.

 

[jophil28]

The whole fallacy of this "good genes" versus " good provider" is that clearly the good genes are the good provider. To suggest " physical prowess" as the requirement for "good genes" is backwards. The one thing that sets man apart from all other animals is his brain... not his physique.

The vast majority of women for thousands of years have mated with a "good genes" male who also was " a good Dad and a Good provider " . A good genes man was also a proficient hunter, a protector, a leader and a skillful strategist . What more could a good ole fashion girl want ?
THis arrangement started to crumble in the past 40 years because of the cultual and social changes which convinced women that "good genes" men were "the enemy" . Hence we saw the emergence of a culture of AFCness which practised supplication rather that domination to ensure a supply of sex.
TO claim that good genes and good provisioning are mostly mutually exclusive is nonsense - history demonstates otherwise.

 

[dakota]

TO claim that good genes and good provisioning are mostly mutually exclusive is nonsense - history demonstates otherwise.

.. ok.. enough is enough... when do I claim they are mutually exclusive?
Do you even realize that what you decribe as " good genes" ......

A good genes man was also a proficient hunter, a protector, a leader and a skillful strategist . ..

is basically describing the very important quality of intelligence and reasoning...

one last time...Man is blessed with a great mind.... the eras of growth in population are coupled with developments due to brain.. not brawn... tool making... agriculture... industry.... technology...

intelligence more than any other single factor determines how much a good provisioner is. A man.. an army .. with the better tools will always defeat those with inferior tools unless they happen to have far superior strategy.. tools and strategy being a factor of brain.. not brawn......
but i am done with issue... if you really think that " good provisioning" has historically been a result of brawn.. not brain... well more power to you.

 

[rhodey]

Today we have every variety of fetish from chubby chasers to foot worshipers, but are these instances representative of a majority? Certainly not. However we have individuals for whom this 'natural' arousal is superceded by a fetish. The obvious answer is that fetishes are learned behaviors used to circumvent a sexual deficiency by internalizing a specialized sexual preference. In other words, Brad Pitt could be a chubby-chaser if he lacked the social intelligence to attract women on par with his own level of attractiveness.

Likewise you can extrapolate this 'fetish' dynamic to other sexual preferences. The 22 y.o guy who consistently fails to hook up with girls his own age develops a "preference" for MILFs after he successfully hooks up with one. It's this 'path of least resistance' dynamic that leads to preference.

Isn't this a bit presumptuous? How does one man know what another man finds TRULY attractive? Maybe that guy who goes for the chubbys likes an extreme hip to waste ratio. Perhaps it is sign of extreme fertility. Much is the same way that a jacked bodybuilder may truly extract some women but certainly not the majority. Would that be seen as a fetish? You mention a social basis for fetishes but you neglect that from a biological standpoint, women with wider hips on average can bear more healthy children. They have less Miscarriages. But I do agree with you overall regarding taking the path of least resistance. I see it all the time with nerdy white dudes who date status hungry asian chicks...or Black guys who date sloppy fate(as opposed to hourglass Thick) white chicks.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot - everything else is negotiable. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

I must side with the others objecting to this comment, because it is a VAST oversimplification of what is going on. If you are going to us the facs of evolution for your arguments then you need to take those arguments much deeper than you are going. I see absolutely no reason to believe that all men everywhere will deploy the same mating strategies. We don't all have the same color eyes. We don't have all the same tastes. We don't all have the same temperments. Why would all men use the same mating strategy? They wouldn't, they don't, and their's no reason to believe that we were all born with a genetic predisposition to mate just one way.

Cads vs. Dads
Let's imagine ourseles two tribes of men in the ancient world. Both will do things that we all recognize as typical male behavior.

The first tribe likes to spend its days out hunting, and when not hunting out playing sports. When they meet women they indescriminantly fvck them and then leave. This tribe has no cares in the world and if some of those women they fvcked happen to become pregenant the members of this tribe shall never know or even care because they have no concern for such things. We shall call them the Cads.

Our other tribe also spends part of its day hunting, but the rest of its day this tribe spends doing more work. They have divided their labor up among the individual members. While all of them have their job as hunters they also have their individual jobs of farmer, carpenter, blacksmith, and the like. This tribe also likes women, but treats them differently than the Cads tribe. This, the Dads tribe, tells women that they shall give women a house to live in with wealth at their disposal. The Dads offer the protection that organizing into a group offers: the division of labor that produces specialists in medicine and war and all other things pleasing to men. The Dads tribe has a standing Army to defend its borders and a domestic police force to ensure the ladies are safe in the streets. When children are born the Dads tribe protects the children and educates them in the ways of aquiring fortune in love and war. The Dads offer this all and more to the women, but they demand a cost from the ladies. The Dads tribe tells the ladies they must remain virgins util they are married to one member of the tribe. Once they are married they must remain loyal and sexually exclusive to the may they have married. If these conditions are violated the offending lady shall be kicked out of the protection of the city walls and must find her way in the wild.

Back when we were all roving around in tribes, most sex was probably rape; a woman in that era would be a fool not to take the offer of the Dads tribe.

But my point is not what women should chose, rather that the trite 'men want to spread their seed' is an oversimplification of what is going on. Men who, in our more barbaric past, would not give heavy parental invsetment to their young very often did not leave offspring because the women they refused to protect ended up starving, became a meal themselves, or were killed by a more organized rival tribe. The tribe that was historically successful was not the mindlessly permiscuous tribe of men who "gave their intimacy" to the first piece of hot azz that came along. Rather, it was the tribe that protected their women, and forced their women to be loyal (or else). Refusal to deal with women who gave signs she would cuckold them was one of a host of strategies aside from physical looks that kept the Dads tribes alive.

The best part of all this Darwinian talk is that even ancient man said explicitly that he wanted a virgin who would be loyal to him. Go and read "The Rape of the Sabines" by Livy. The Dads tribe in Livy's account could have picked up wandering women, but they kidnapped the virgin women of the Sabines so that this Dad's tribe would ensure paternity. Long before Darwin was around this tribe of Dads participated in large scale bride kidnapping to ensure their genetic legacies. Maybe you've heard of them, they were called "the Romans".

So no Rollo, a hot piece of azz isn't nearly enough to convince the Dads tribe, or the Romans, that this was all they needed to "give their intimacy".

 

[iqqi]

<in drunken ahnold voice>
NOOOO YOu guys are WRRROng, this thread is stickiEEED.... please HEEEED theeeee advice!

 

[bsthatcher]

I must also disagree with the "only one requirement" (hot) statement. I am not attracted to women of certain personality types (meaning, I couldn't bang them). For instance, let's say the poster above (iqqi) was a supermodel. I still wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole. Because her personality blows.

You have to be careful with issuing such statements. It makes physically attractive (9-10s) girls assume several things. Like:

The only thing they need to do is be sexy. She can be a ***** if she wants, as long as she is sexy. Because that is all men care about.

Or, you couldn't have possibly just rejected her - you just weren't man enough to handle her *****y/lame personality.

Or... why would a real man care if his chick is banging 6 guys at once and has a bad case of herpes? The only thing he really cares about is if she's sexy.

Get the point?

Some women actually think this way.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Again, this is out of context. There is a certain physical standard that a woman must pass before you even get to the point of evaluating her personality, character and any other intrinsic attributes she may have. In other words, barring very unusual circumstance, you don't look at a woman and think "hmmm,...I'll bet she's got a wonderful personality" you either want to tap her or you don't. Beyond this point, personal preferences apply modified by individual conditions (deprivation, personality, physical bearing, etc.) Going off topic here, but I lock horns with a lot of guys who take it as a personal attack that their discernment in evaluating a woman's character could ever be compromised by her beauty, yet in practice this almost universally influences their behavior and what they are willing to tolerate in comparison to a less attractive woman or even their male friends whom they have no sexual interest in at all.

We can debate endlessly about all the esoteric qualities that a woman ought to have that makes her sexy or acceptable for our intimacy, but the fact is that a man is not (or dramatically less) likely to get to the point of rapport and discovering these qualities if he's not physically attracted to her. While I'm sure it's personally edifying to think that we're 'deep' individuals, unclouded by base desires, it's exactly this desire to avoid the "shallow" shame contrivance that serves the feminine. The feminine KNOWS men's first condition is physicality and sexual availability, so it seeks to level the playing field for less attractive women by convincing men they ought not to place such high importance on the physical. Thus, we get the "shallow" contrivance while placing a higher import upon internal attributes.

I should also mention that this dynamic is often used as leverage in feminine competition amongst each other.

 

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days)

Why should I assume both of these qualities were ever present in the majority of males? Why should they both exist? Why should I be a provider if I just want to have animal sex and fuk the brains out of every hot btch I fancy to(player mantra)? And why should I be the big sexual dynamo when all I want is to have a progeny and one partner for life(provider mantra)? I don't even see the fuking need of these two personalities coexisting.

 

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

Ok, I suppose I cant' disagree with that logic, what I disagree with is the negative conotation to that logic. It is implied that it is a bad thing to which I raise the BS flag. Why is it bad?

Because to the modern woman, women are to be worshiped. Men should take their shyt, eat their shyt, live, sleep and breath their shyt, cradle it with a loving kiss, and dream about it till the day they die.

 

[potato]

So Rollo, do you consider yourself to be the man of good genes or a good provider? How long have you been married? Sex must be pretty rare by now?

For the most part I reject the entirety of the ideas behind the OP - at least the reasoning behind them.

For the most part a man of good genetics is attractive to a woman on a very basic animalistic level. A good provider (assuming lack of good genes) can only be discovered by conscious thought.

Here is a pattern that I’ve noticed. A woman will meet, fall in love with a hot guy, and she will become pregnant. The guy will stay around for the birth of the first child, possibly a second and then he is gone. Being that the woman was at her attractive peak when she first hooked up with the father, he most likely was the best man, genetically, she will ever have.

Now, being a single mother, her attractiveness goes way down compared to non-mothers. Thus the next man she gets will necessarily be less attractive. Just as women who are less than 8’s, 9’s, 10’s tend to look to personality and other qualities in greater interest than raw attraction. It comes in her inability to hook up with men who she truly finds attractive. That is, single mothers tend to settle on the next man because she is no longer able to attract the type of man she most desires.

If you look at the children of women who have children from 2,3,4 men, the oldest tends to be the best looking with the attractiveness of each child falling off with each new father.

For the vast majority of the population, choices, real choices in mate selection tend to be rather limited. Thus a woman with children often will take whoever will have her. Fortunately for her, the men that tend to take up these women often see relationships in terms of economics (rich guys get all the hot chicks) and are willing to offer themselves as providers to get a woman. Remember that his options tend to be just as limited as hers.

Just for the record. In my mid twenties I met a woman, impregnated her twice and when I grew tired of her I threw her out, keeping the children and raising them myself from the time they were toddlers. From then on she was damaged goods, stretch marks and all while my value to women increased as now not only am I good looking but I’ve also demonstrated that I step up to my responsibilities.

 

[Phyzzle]

Being that the woman was at her attractive peak when she first hooked up with the father, he most likely was the best man, genetically, she will ever have.

Now, being a single mother, her attractiveness goes way down compared to non-mothers.

For the vast majority of the population, choices, real choices in mate selection tend to be rather limited. Thus a woman with children often will take whoever will have her.

This is my line of reasoning as well. Evolutionary psychology is more wobbly than it seems.

Are we to believe that there was a race of women who instead mated with good providers, then tried to get into relationships with good gene guys? Did this race of women then die out as a part of natural selection?

Was there really a race of woman for every conceivable schedule of mating, and did ALL of them die on the African plains, except for the ones who did the good genes/good provider schema? That would be a lot of extinct lines.