Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic: No Fat Chicks  (Read 13667 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Spaco

  • LLC
  • Tested
  • Karma: 4
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2009, 05:08:04 PM »

Okay, elephant-in-the-room time:

Bongo, your "women are picky because of genetics" approach ignores the fact that, for the vast majority of the history of human civilization and in fact in probably the majority of the world today, women have no fucking say at all in who has sex with them.

What you and I see as basic human rights are something of a luxury of living in modern, First World nations.  And it's not like those rights aren't routinely violated here, either.

So I'm with Kashan -- I can totally buy this as an "evolutionary" concept in the cultural sense, but the notion that men can't just take whoever they want is a pretty damned new one in terms of human history.

Sure, male humans have the physical ability to rape most women if they see fit, but a lot if not most other species seem to have some sort of courting procedure that allows for the female to approve or disapprove the courtship of the male, even when no permanent pairing is expected afterward. Humans seem to have a tendency to form mating pairs, so raping is probably not the best tactic if you want your female to be happy and stick around.

On the other hand, if you go with the caveman rape argument, there is some natural selection at play since they would still have to defend their hostage bride from competing suitors. The female would benefit from this, as the strongest could theoretically defend her better.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #121 on: April 05, 2009, 05:14:13 PM »

That doesn't exactly amount to a choice on the woman's part, but I agree that proto-human culture was probably not the Gorean rapefest that's sometimes implied.  Patriarchy really is an emerging culture thing; it always seems to be conspicuously absent from tribal civilizations.
Logged

Rico

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #122 on: April 05, 2009, 05:23:54 PM »

I assumed that was more directed at arranged marriages and less raping.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #123 on: April 05, 2009, 05:55:19 PM »

A marriage being arranged just offloads the pickiness to the woman's ancestors. It's practically the same genes guiding the choice.
Logged
...but is it art?

Lady Duke

  • Shiny Ranger
  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 2339
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #124 on: April 05, 2009, 06:11:31 PM »

Well lemme just say that it is ridiculous to just dismiss evolutionary facts of reproduction just because you don't agree that that's how people SEEM to act now, Kashan.  You're acting as though humans are somehow exempt from some amount of instinctive processes of having sex and makin' babies.  Guys want to make babies even if they don't consciously know it, and women want to be picky about mates even when they seem like they might not be because they have to care at least a little because there is ALWAYS the chance they could get pregnant.

Look at gay communities: research on gay men (there isn't really any good research on lesbians) shows that gay men have way more partners than heterosexual men, and we can probably attribute this to the fact that they don't have to worry about pregnancies and men like to have sex, so it seems to make sense that having two men in a sexual encounter would mean more partners too.  (And if my logic is coming off sounding a little flawed, I'm still a little drunk and may have forgotten something so shove it up your butt.)

Anyway, moreover, there is pickiness in mate selection and there are universal traits that people as an animal find attractive.  The most important trait that people AND any other animals find attractive is symmetry.  Symmetry, facial symmetry mostly in humans, implies good genes and better quality sperm.  This is a universal thing.  You show a ton of people several faces anywhere, and they will find the symmetrical faces the most attractive.  Also, smiles are attractive.  People like smiles.  Everywhere.  I can't remember any other qualities right now other than the two, but I know those are universal across cultures.  There might be stuff about small lips and a broad forehead in women, along with babyfacedness and a little nose, and then in men, something about the eyebrows and the bigger chin/jaw area.  I forget.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2009, 06:23:28 PM »

Y'know that last two pages of this thread have just been the most unabashed half-baked nonsense.

I mean come on people, novel-length posts that are little more than unsubstantiated personal pet theories is MY role on this board.
Logged

Lady Duke

  • Shiny Ranger
  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 2339
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #126 on: April 05, 2009, 06:24:15 PM »

Well I'm glad I only just responded because that was a ton of crap to read.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #127 on: April 05, 2009, 06:29:02 PM »

Well, wthey lost my attention when everyone wandered off the somewhat grounded commentary on our FAT FAT FATTY problem, and danced off to a land of wild speculation regarding the genetics, habits, and attitudes of tribal societies thousands of years ago.
Logged

Norondor

  • Where I'm at is: Fuck you, get shot
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 4184
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #128 on: April 05, 2009, 06:29:49 PM »

I mean come on people, novel-length posts that are little more than unsubstantiated personal pet theories is MY role on this board.

Can we just leave that up to nobody at all, actually?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #129 on: April 05, 2009, 06:34:03 PM »

What? And remove my last arena for expounding pompously on subjects I know nothing about?

*scoff*
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #130 on: April 05, 2009, 08:47:28 PM »

I assumed that was more directed at arranged marriages and less raping.

Little bit of both.

A marriage being arranged just offloads the pickiness to the woman's ancestors.

Specifically, the male ones.

It's practically the same genes guiding the choice.

Except that it's the MALES with those genes guiding the choice.  Which sort of invalidates the "this is why women do it that way" argument.

Look at gay communities: research on gay men (there isn't really any good research on lesbians) shows that gay men have way more partners than heterosexual men, and we can probably attribute this to the fact that they don't have to worry about pregnancies and men like to have sex, so it seems to make sense that having two men in a sexual encounter would mean more partners too.

I'd argue that it's just more grist for the "men are less picky" theory.  (Or I guess that's probably what you mean by "men like to have sex".)

...and just to reinject some silliness into what HAS become rather a lot of pseudointellectual nonsense, a recent conversation I had:

:thad:: It sure is a lot harder to meet women than when I was in college.
:gay4:: You should try dating men.  It's a lot easier.
:thad:: I can't help being straight.  I was born that way.
:gay4:: It's a DECISION, Thad.  I'll pray for you at my gay church.

Anyway, moreover, there is pickiness in mate selection and there are universal traits that people as an animal find attractive.  The most important trait that people AND any other animals find attractive is symmetry.  Symmetry, facial symmetry mostly in humans, implies good genes and better quality sperm.  This is a universal thing.  You show a ton of people several faces anywhere, and they will find the symmetrical faces the most attractive.  Also, smiles are attractive.  People like smiles.  Everywhere.  I can't remember any other qualities right now other than the two, but I know those are universal across cultures.

This is true; there ARE traits that are considered attractive regardless of culture and background and can safely be described as products of (biological) evolution.

But, steering this thread back on course (after a multi-page tangent that I admit I am entirely responsible for), as you said a few pages back, weight isn't one of them.  I mean, all right, at the extreme end of the spectrum, the morbid obesity side, there IS a weight class that presumably would turn most people of any cultural background off.  But short of that, views on what constitutes a good body shape vary quite a bit from place to place and time to time (your Fiji example and my much-less-scientific Rubens example).

...which brings us to...well, nothing, really, because at this point I'm just recapping things we said earlier in the thread.

But I DO think they bear repeating, so, just to summarize one more time: modern American standards of beauty are not representative of all cultures' or all eras', and therefore can't reasonably be described as products of (biological) evolution.

At least, on the subject of weight.  On stuff like facial symmetry and smiles, yes, you're totally right, they absolutely can.
Logged

Kashan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 9
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #131 on: April 05, 2009, 09:07:58 PM »

Well lemme just say that it is ridiculous to just dismiss evolutionary facts of reproduction just because you don't agree that that's how people SEEM to act now, Kashan. 

I'm not sure whether you didn't read what I read or just typed this wrong, but my entire point was you're applying as a genetic trait something that describes how human act in our particular society, but completely ignores how humans acted for the million year preceding that, or how our pre-human ancestors acted.

Quote
You're acting as though humans are somehow exempt from some amount of instinctive processes of having sex and makin' babies.  Guys want to make babies even if they don't consciously know it, and women want to be picky about mates even when they seem like they might not be because they have to care at least a little because there is ALWAYS the chance they could get pregnant.
I'm certain there are instinctual elements to reproduction, I just don't think they include a clear understanding of the relationship between sex and reproduction. People want to have sex, both men and women I think. And while I do think humans have an inherent level of discrimination in choosing a sexual partner, I think it's probably pretty low and consists mostly of avoiding people with obvious physical and mental disorders.

Quote
Look at gay communities: research on gay men (there isn't really any good research on lesbians) shows that gay men have way more partners than heterosexual men, and we can probably attribute this to the fact that they don't have to worry about pregnancies and men like to have sex, so it seems to make sense that having two men in a sexual encounter would mean more partners too.  (And if my logic is coming off sounding a little flawed, I'm still a little drunk and may have forgotten something so shove it up your butt.)
That's specific to gay men in out society though. Societies where gay sex isn't particularly frowned upon have similar levels of promiscuity between gay men and heterosexual couples. Just because something is true in our society that doesn't make it a genetic or universal truth about humans. Similarly there are some societies where most of the society tends to have varied sexual partners, even among heterosexual partners, so I really don't think the lack of pregnancy as a possibility is the deciding factor. I do think it plays in with our particular culture, but again, that doesn't make it genetic.

Quote
Anyway, moreover, there is pickiness in mate selection and there are universal traits that people as an animal find attractive.  The most important trait that people AND any other animals find attractive is symmetry.  Symmetry, facial symmetry mostly in humans, implies good genes and better quality sperm.  This is a universal thing.  You show a ton of people several faces anywhere, and they will find the symmetrical faces the most attractive.  Also, smiles are attractive.  People like smiles.  Everywhere.  I can't remember any other qualities right now other than the two, but I know those are universal across cultures.  There might be stuff about small lips and a broad forehead in women, along with babyfacedness and a little nose, and then in men, something about the eyebrows and the bigger chin/jaw area.  I forget.

Red lips are another of the universally attractive traits I've heard. I touched on this a bit, though in the negative, when I stated there were only a few traits that were universally ugly. I was thinking of non-symmetrical face/bodies and obvious birth defects. Those are universally unattractive, because that's the level of obviously poor genetic material a person needs to exhibit for it to be an evolutionarily beneficial trait for nobody to want to sleep with them.

But yeah, end stance is you can't chalk men being assholes who want to sleep around and women being fridged bitches to genetics since they're nowhere near universal cultural traits, and in fact would probably have been detrimental to the possessor for almost all of the time that humans of been on the planet. Having the desire to fuck any woman you can isn't going to help you in a society where there's no real opportunity fuck a woman other than your wife. Having highly discriminatory taste in a mate isn't going to help a woman in a society where all marriages are arranged.


Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #132 on: April 05, 2009, 09:23:22 PM »

FACT: nobody ever cared about what wives thought about their husbands until romance was invented in 1892.
Logged
...but is it art?

Lady Duke

  • Shiny Ranger
  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 2339
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #133 on: April 05, 2009, 09:32:00 PM »

Well....that's not entirely true.  Even during the days of Chaucer, the notion of an ideal marriage implied equality between a husband and wife.  We discussed this quite a bit the other day in my Chaucer class after reading the Wife of Bath's Tale.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #134 on: April 05, 2009, 10:00:41 PM »

Er, was that society's notion, or Chaucer's notion?  Because he was kind of a medieval liberal fruitcake.
Logged

Lady Duke

  • Shiny Ranger
  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 2339
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #135 on: April 05, 2009, 10:02:45 PM »

That was society, not Chaucer.  Our class is all nerdy so we often discuss New Historical crap such as marriage, relationships, class systems, etc.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #136 on: April 06, 2009, 06:56:04 AM »

Yeah, medieval Europe had many minstrels and troubadours who roamed around singing songs and telling tales. These guys would get hired on to provide an evening's entertainment for a feast or whatever, then they'd sneak off and have sex with the noblewomen. This gave rise to the notion of romantic love, which was separate from courtly love, i.e. your obligation to pop kids out.

Chaucer was just the one who wrote down stuff. Who knows how many chicks he charmed into the sack?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2009, 08:16:01 AM »

I've always found it highly amusing that Romantic Love originally started out as a justification for philandering.

THE IRONING. IT IS DELISHUS.
Logged

JDigital

  • Tested
  • Karma: 32
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #138 on: April 06, 2009, 08:31:21 AM »

So what did we do before romance was invented? Pick a girl and barter with her dad for her?
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: No Fat Chicks
« Reply #139 on: April 06, 2009, 09:05:49 AM »

Pretty sure there was some fucking chimp with greased hair talkin' sweet on mah girl back when they were figuring out how to kill each other better with bones.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8