sexual dimorphism in humans

[visions]

greetings all. i've been lurking here for a few years but never posted (except twice under a different user name). it's time i join

so here's a topic i'd like to discuss as it may have insights into game-namely which sex must do the chasing, and to what degree.
most of us are aware of sexual dimorphism-male birds tend to be more colorful and prettier than respective females. and male lions are considerably larger (and with a mane) than females.

i find it interesting to analyze human sexual dimorphism in relation to other species. it seems that in humans, women are the more flamboyant sex. i can't think of another species in which this holds true. perhaps there's a link between this and human male-female mating strategy, and understanding this link will provide huge insight on best applying game to females. consider the bird example i just mentioned. why are males the more flamboyant, where as human females are the more flamboyant among humans? this is a reversal and there may be a reason to it.

women depend on men for survival (more so prehistorically) and i don't see that dependency in any other species. perhaps by extensively working on their appearance, they are the ones whom are more vested in seeking mates for their benefit (their own survival) moreso than a man. if this is true, the game concept that you should let women do the chasing is validated.

considering birds- female birds are self sufficient in that they don't need a male to survive. hence, it may be that males are flamboyant because they are the ones depending on females-to satisfy sexual urge, and hence they must do the chasing...


---this is not about fashion advice but about the idea that women should be the chasers as evidenced by the amount of time they put into appearance-----

i look forward to this discussion

 

[Who Dares Win]

Is flamboyant your favourite word or just found out about it while randomly browsing a magazine at the dentist and wanted to use it?

 

[visions]

Is flamboyant your favourite word or just found out about it while randomly browsing a magazine at the dentist and wanted to use it?

you have nothing better to do than troll a serious and thought-provoking post? ::shaking my head
fool, you need to go to the store and by your azz some IQ points

 

[zenaddict]

in the 17th century men used to dress up just as colorful as women and nobody made a big deal out of it, it`s nobody said that you should go ga-ga, but having something that is synch with who you are, that makes you different sure helps

http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/paintings/1700/prior_1705.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...24x.jpg/250px-Cavalier_soldier_Hals-1624x.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...610.jpg/200px-Rubens_isabella_brant_c1610.jpg
http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/engravings/1700/ami_bourse.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/iibooibeari/picture_8.jpg
http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/192x/a5/9b/c0/a59bc05ffbb57f48ccb5883b1a8bbc82.jpg

btw, those clothes weren`t cheap it was showing your status, like the peacock needs to be healthy and strong to maintain his feathers, so men needed to be rich to show themselves

 

[Who Dares Win]

you have nothing better to do than troll a serious and thought-provoking post? ::shaking my head
fool, you need to go to the store and by your azz some IQ points

You said u've been lurking this site for few years and the reason that finally made you sign up is contribute talking about flamboyants dresses in the animal kingdom?

If I have to buy my azz some IQ point you surely have to buy some sense :crackup:

I mean man seriously, did you buy yourself the new pokemon expansion, flamboyant set?

Anyway trying to be serious, no strange dress now would score you any point with normal girls, maybe some artistic/alternative girl may like it if you are the artistic type and possibly with a personality that match theirs
but regarding the concept of peackocking you're late...10 yrs late since for what I recall mystery already considered this option.

 

[visions]

in the 17th century men used to dress up just as colorful as women and nobody made a big deal out of it, it`s nobody said that you should go ga-ga, but having something that is synch with who you are, that makes you different sure helps

http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/paintings/1700/prior_1705.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...24x.jpg/250px-Cavalier_soldier_Hals-1624x.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...610.jpg/200px-Rubens_isabella_brant_c1610.jpg
http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/engravings/1700/ami_bourse.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/iibooibeari/picture_8.jpg
http://media-cache-ec2.pinterest.com/192x/a5/9b/c0/a59bc05ffbb57f48ccb5883b1a8bbc82.jpg

btw, those clothes weren`t cheap it was showing your status, like the peacock needs to be healthy and strong to maintain his feathers, so men needed to be rich to show themselves

no, i'm not talking about men peacocking. i'm talking about women peacocking to secure a mate and hence ensure her survival (at least prehistorically). this is something i haven't seen mentioned before.

...finally a sensical post

 

[visions]

You said u've been lurking this site for few years and the reason that finally made you sign up is contribute talking about flamboyants dresses in the animal kingdom?

If I have to buy my azz some IQ point you surely have to buy some sense :crackup:

I mean man seriously, did you buy yourself the new pokemon expansion, flamboyant set?

you need to lay down the bullsvit and stop trying to compensate for you self-esteem issues

 

[cola]

I think your overthinking things.. it ain't that deep. Your being nerdy

 

[Down Low]

Google "physical anthropology" -flambuoyant

 

[visions]

I think your overthinking things.. it ain't that deep. Your being nerdy

this is meant to be intellectual discussion on male female evolutionary behavior in contrast to other species and the implications it has. this thread isn't a damn question on what to wear to attract women.
it doesn't take much comprehension to figure that out...

hopefully someone like rollo comes along and adds substance to this thread

 

[Zarky]

You just got a rude awakening when it comes to intellectual discussion on this board, OP. You may wish to try out The Straight Dope boards where people actually have IQs of 120 and higher.

Anyway, just off the top of my head, I'm guessing:

The animals where the male is more "flamboyant" than the female may be animals where the male doesn't stock up on resources. It might be interesting to look at animals that can stock up on resources (such as some insects, some rodents, etc) and see whether or not the male is still more colorful than the female.

My guess would be that physical "flamboyance" is a substitute for resource hoarding (or vice versa). My prediction would then be that the males of species which don't collect resources are more colorful vis-a-vis the females than the males of species which do. In species where the males collect resources, those resources replace flamboyant physical markings as indicators of mating desirability.

My analysis may be 100% wrong.. I came up with it in about 30 seconds.

 

[Who Dares Win]

you need to lay down the bullsvit and stop trying to compensate for you self-esteem issues

I see you're lurking cosmopolitan forum as well, nobody talk about self-esteem to insult someone nor use "flamboyant" to describe clothes.

Maybe you also use "apple" and "peach" to describe colors instead of fruit?

 

[Sir_Laid_A_Lot]

I see you're lurking cosmopolitan forum as well, nobody talk about self-esteem to insult someone nor use "flamboyant" to describe clothes.

Maybe you also use "apple" and "peach" to describe colors instead of fruit?

Do you feel VALIDATED with the ATTENTION you are receiving from VISIONS ?

Like VISIONS himself said, you got SELF-ESTEEM issues boy.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Do you feel VALIDATED with the ATTENTION you are receiving from VISIONS ?

Like VISIONS himself said, you got SELF-ESTEEM issues boy.

Yeah I have to compensate for my small d1ck...after all thats why we hit the gym and buy guns right? :yawn:

 

[Down Low]

(Yawn) already board at the flambuoyant intellectualism [/IRT sock puppet troll thread]

 

[Cremasta]

I thank God for sexual dimorphism everyday!

All my favourite parts of women are the bits I don't have

 

[zenaddict]

@visions

by male dimorphism you meant a guy looking like this, tall, ripped and with a bony face

http://www.10wallpaper.com/wallpape...rbarian_2011_movie_wallpaper_15_1600x1200.jpg

the problem with that theory is that people didn`t look like that until modern times, with mechanized agriculture, refrigeration and supermarkets, in the ancient times there wasn`t that many food around

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6966652_average-height-humans-over-time.html

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/how-good-were-the-ancient-greek-athletes-part-1.htm

ancient gusy being 5'7" loool, I`m like 5'11" I`m taller than Ceasar himself, that means I can conquer the world?

which means stop coming up with bs, that you need to be certain height and looks to get laid, because that`s behind your posts

if for thousands of years it was enough for women to fvck shorties, I look like a giant for that DNA code programing

which means until you are over 5'7", dress well, smell nice, aren`t fat and have a life, there`s no reason to worry about you not meeting baseline criteria and if a girl only wants really hot looking guys like in a movie, just drop her, she doesn`t want sex, only a fairy tale, let her chase those guys, because that`s like 5% of the population and even those guys can`t handle more than a few woman per week, he will already be busy enough and she will end up single, getting drunk and being fvcked in the toilet in the ass by anybody who`s horny enough that night to do it, because she wanted to be a princess besides prince charming and tried to avoid being slutty, she`ll be the greatest slut in the end, rofl

this is meant to be intellectual discussion on male female evolutionary behavior in contrast to other species and the implications it has. this thread isn't a damn question on what to wear to attract women.
it doesn't take much comprehension to figure that out...

btw, if you want fashion advice, go here

http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/

 

[visions]

You just got a rude awakening when it comes to intellectual discussion on this board, OP. You may wish to try out The Straight Dope boards where people actually have IQs of 120 and higher.

Anyway, just off the top of my head, I'm guessing:

The animals where the male is more "flamboyant" than the female may be animals where the male doesn't stock up on resources. It might be interesting to look at animals that can stock up on resources (such as some insects, some rodents, etc) and see whether or not the male is still more colorful than the female.

My guess would be that physical "flamboyance" is a substitute for resource hoarding (or vice versa). My prediction would then be that the males of species which don't collect resources are more colorful vis-a-vis the females than the males of species which do. In species where the males collect resources, those resources replace flamboyant physical markings as indicators of mating desirability.

My analysis may be 100% wrong.. I came up with it in about 30 seconds.

Great response, I never thought about that. And perhaps that's why the dynamics are what they are in those species.
What do you think about the idea that women care about their appearance more because they are the ones that need to do the chasing for their own survival?

btw, i might switch over to straight dope boards. thanks for the suggestion.
it's a shame there aren't many decent-IQ posters here besides you and backbreaker

 

[visions]

(Yawn) already board at the flambuoyant intellectualism [/IRT sock puppet troll thread]

LOL, poor man. you're 53 years old and you make it a point to waste precious time of your life starting **** and causing trouble. that's SAD! show some respect you damn fossil. i see growing up your parents never taught you to respect others.

btw, no one wants to know that you're doing it on the DL you fvcking faggott.

 

[visions]

@visions

by male dimorphism you meant a guy looking like this, tall, ripped and with a bony face

http://www.10wallpaper.com/wallpape...rbarian_2011_movie_wallpaper_15_1600x1200.jpg

the problem with that theory is that people didn`t look like that until modern times, with mechanized agriculture, refrigeration and supermarkets, in the ancient times there wasn`t that many food around

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6966652_average-height-humans-over-time.html

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/how-good-were-the-ancient-greek-athletes-part-1.htm

ancient gusy being 5'7" loool, I`m like 5'11" I`m taller than Ceasar himself, that means I can conquer the world?

which means stop coming up with bs, that you need to be certain height and looks to get laid, because that`s behind your posts

if for thousands of years it was enough for women to fvck shorties, I look like a giant for that DNA code programing

which means until you are over 5'7", dress well, smell nice, aren`t fat and have a life, there`s no reason to worry about you not meeting baseline criteria and if a girl only wants really hot looking guys like in a movie, just drop her, she doesn`t want sex, only a fairy tale, let her chase those guys, because that`s like 5% of the population and even those guys can`t handle more than a few woman per week, he will already be busy enough and she will end up single, getting drunk and being fvcked in the toilet in the ass by anybody who`s horny enough that night to do it, because she wanted to be a princess besides prince charming and tried to avoid being slutty, she`ll be the greatest slut in the end, rofl



btw, if you want fashion advice, go here

http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/

I"m talking about women-not men...