posted
Hah, I just manfully restrained myself from making a lewd comment about prolific quaking being the only connection that these last few posts have with the topic.
Anyway Doc, I hope that you were helped (or at least not harmed unduly) by all this.
posted
You did? That's odd. Then whose voice was that just now?
Survivor, I find that analysis of the motivations of women and men absolutely revolting. It's also the worst form of pop-anthropology and nothing at all to do with science. Wow, you can do so much better than that. Please read, for instance, Stephen Jay Gould for an example of what the science of natural history and evolutionary biology actually tells us about human behaviour. (i.e. far far less than this elaborate edifice you have constructed.)
I'm sure that it wasn't the worst form of pop-anthropology. I personally think that those that try to pretend that anything "instinctive" is "natural" and therefore sacrosanct. Humans have lots of disgusting instincts, and when you want to talk about why women (and men) are attracted to the worst sorts of mates, those disgusting instincts are a pretty important part of the facts that you have to deal with.
And S.J. Gould? The man was a great theorist, but how is what he did fundamentally different from what I'm doing? He made his name by making contraversial assertions with anectdotal rather than any experimental evidence. I'm not saying that I'm a great theorist, but I never claimed to have any other than anectdotal (and logical) evidence of the instincts I'm speculating about (or did I? so hard to remember--but I don't think I did).
Evolutionary biology, particularly evolutionary socio-biology, isn't the kind of field where you can do actual, controlled experiments (computer simulations don't count, in my not so humble opinion). We try to understand why a seemingly self-destructive behavior is widespread, and sometimes find something in ourselves that needs to be controlled (I'm saying we in the conceited sense of evolutionary biologists generally).
Attempting to understand our own worst impulses is a necessary first step to combating them. Until you admit temptation, you have no power to resist.
posted
I am a guy, therefore I don't really KNOW anything, and am repeating what I've heard that seems to make sense. Another anthropological theory, not really disagreeing with survivor's, but perhaps more pertinent to the topic of this thread: (OSC used it, why can't I!) All culture, all science, all government, all civilization has been built with motives stemming from the fact that women are instinctively attracted to two all-to-often conflicting aspects of men: 1. wildness. The man able to use his anger to overcome his fear and pick up his spear an kill the threatening tiger. boldness. primitive courage. Basically, this is the aspect that makes a boy into a man, and very neccessary to the survival and virtue of mankind. This is even unconsciously thought by the uneducated masses(who've watched too many action movies) to be the Only important quality in a man. However, instincts are never wrong, and of course, there is another; That which made an animal into a man. 2. The ability and willingness to Stay Around and guard! That's all we men are good for, friend! Course then, on the other hand, all they're good for is making babies and taking care them. (PLEASE DON'T NUKE ME FEMINISTS OR CHRISTIANS, cause I am an idealist, not a cynic, and believe in virtue an all other things bright and beautiful about mankind, I just happen to think they stem mainly from the two ways women pick their mates). If you believe me, youshould be able to use this, Doc Brown.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted
what about intelligence? that's the big survival key for humans, whether it's the intelligence to figure out how to spear down supper and evade predators (we weren't always so high on the food chain) or the intelligence to make quick conversation and get a "Dr." in front of your name. if you're going to bring the reasons we choose our mates down to the basics, then intelligence is a must.
posted
Intelligence is actually more important in a woman than in a man, since it is the mother's intelligence that is a better indicator of the mental potential of any children (whether this is a nature or nurture effect is another question entirely, I favor nurture on this point). But of course, intelligence is also a significant (but not the most significant) predictor of the providing ability of a man, thus women tend to be attracted to men that are smart.
At the same time, men tend to be intimidated by women that are smarter than they are (which makes sense, if she is smarter than him then she could more easily "decieve" him).
posted
Cosmi, I have no gripe with your statements. Inteligence is an absolute requirement both the male functions and the female functions that I mentioned. Survivor: There are two possibilities: 1. You're either bullshiting about something because you got it from an overeducated text or teacher and have no true idea what you're talking about Or, 2. You personally know someone verrrry verrrrrrry well and that someone has informed you on the matter and that someone is called GOD.
I'll add pointedly that I don't believe "provider" is the correct role of human males, and that 'defender' is more accurate (and it takes a good deal more brains in the long run).
[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited December 31, 2002).]
Survivor may rub alot of people the wrong way, but so far he has not been intentionally desceptive in any way that people have been accusing him of in this thread. Being an avid student of human nature myself, I'm beginning to take offense as well.
There is no law, especially in this forum, saying that if you are going to post your findings on any subject that you have to be an authority in that field. Not having a PhD in a field does not mean that a person can not actually know anything about it. In fields that deal directly with the human psyche, anyone who puts effort and deep thought into understanding themselves and others can learn a great deal; possibly even more than someone who has had more conventional training.
As writers, we all have to be students of human nature to some degree or other. Survivor has shown himself to be one, and at least to me, that is worthy of respect, not derision. He has used logic, example, and honest analysis to back up all of his assertions, which very few of the rest of you have done. If you are going to argue with what he has to say, you need to actually know what you're talking about instead of referring back to the statements of a guy with a doctorate that you don't really understand. Saying another person doesn't know what they're talking about (or worse insults along those lines) because they don't have a degree is bad form in a debate unless you can actually go through and refute his statements point by point using logic and scientific research.
Let's please treat eachother with respect as the writers we are, shall we?
Shasta
*edit: This is meant to address things in this thread as well as the Utopia thread. I've posted it here because while the Utopia thread has (thankfully) moved on to more constructive discussion, this one has not.
[This message has been edited by DragynGide (edited December 31, 2002).]
posted
Unfortunately, none of the recent contributions to this thread are useful. To say that young women choose their sex partners based on boldness, "the willingness to stay," intelligence, or anything other rational criteria is utterly ridiculous.
Some of you act like you've never known a woman, and I think some of you are women!
Pretend you are writing this story:
A 19 year old woman is feeling the urge for male companionship. She is a deep and interesting character, who has great potential to do exciting things with her life . . . the kind of things worth writing about.
Her mother arranges for her to meet a brilliant quantum physicist who will likely be a pHD candidate. Her best friend fixes her up with a very loyal church-goer who once did missionary work in Uganda. Her father introduces her to an aggressive business major who has made ten million dollars working part time at mergers and acquisitions before he's 22 years old. Her sister helps her meet an extreem sports athelete who has ambitions to rollerskate down the face of Mount Everest.
Then by accident she meets an out-of-work drifter who never talks about his past. He likes to live for today and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's a scruffy man of few words. Everyone thinks he's rude and selfish, but one tiny gesture of kindness convinces your heroine that the drifter is misunderstood.
Even though all the other men in her life have superior evolutionary value, the 19 year old heroine will sleep with the drifter. It's practically guaranteed, though I still don't understand why.
posted
Having once been in a position similar to that of the 19-year-old heroine, I can offer what my own feelings would have been, had I been in her position.
I'm 19 years old. I'm an adult, I'm educated, I'm beginning to be truly successful in the world; I should damned well be treated as the adult I am. I have the capability to make my own decisions, and I feel I should be respected enough to be allowed to do so.
So why does everyone in my family think they know what's best for me? I'll be the judge of that, thank you! Yes, these men are intelligent and successful and blah blah blah. They're all sooooo perfect. So why can't I stand any of them? I keep finding these tiny problems with them. John is so full of himself it sickens me. Tom is kind of an asshole. Rick on the other hand would be perfect... but have you seen his nose? It covers two thirds of his face! And Ben is out of the question... sure, you guys think he's alot of fun. So do I. The problem is, he's too much fun; he's never serious about anything. I can't stand not being able to have a single serious conversation with him. I don't care how perfect my family think these "suitors" are. Why can't they just leave me alone to find somebody for myself?
Last night I met a guy. His name is Ryan, and he was so sweet. God, I think this is the first guy I've talked to on my own for months. We talked for hours, and I still don't even know where he's from. It's all kind of mysterious... *G* It was kind of scary, really, I don't even think he /has/ a job. I wonder what Dad would think about that. He's certainly not the type that Dad-- or anyone else in my family, really-- would try to set me up with. Hell, I probably shouldn't even be associating with him. He certainly wasn't very clean. But he was so compelling when he spoke. He's probably done more and experienced more than all of those moron "suitors" put together. I wonder if I'll meet him again. Maybe next time I can get him to talk about himself...
And so it goes. I'll leave it up to you to figure the motivations behind this, if you decide it's worth figuring out at all. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it, though.
posted
Doc, I believe the problem that truly has you hung up is that you seem to be seeking a universal motive as to why "good gals" choose "bad boys" so frequently. You need to get past this for your story and come up with the answer for your heroine. Everybody here has offered different possibilities -- some reasonable, some not so much -- but the truth is, the answer will be different for every woman, every situation.
As we are all unique, so are our motivations. Some will choose that bad guy because he's physically hot and sexy. Some because they have father issues. Some because they were sexually abused. Some because they are bored with nice guys. Some because they want to defy their parents. And on and on, ad infinitum.
Here's my suggestion: close out this discussion, sit down with your female character, and chat with her. Have a whole discussion in your head, or with a female friend playacting her part, and come up with the motivations yourself. So long as the results are true to the character you've created, you'll be just fine. She doesn't have to represent all women, just herself.
Good luck to you, from a thirty-something happily married for 12 years to her own "bad" boy!
If you read this whole thread, you'll see that I found the solution for this character back on November 18th. The reason for my post earlier today was to lament the stream of posts claiming that both men and women choose their sex partners based on reproductive and child-raising merits. Not only is the idea ridiculous, it would also lead to boring fiction.
Shasta, I'd love to discuss this with you! Feel free to answer these questions or ignore them if they become too personal.
You described Ryan as "sweet." Would you say that he is sweeter than John, Tom, Rick, and Ben? What did he do that made him seem so sweet? Have the others never done anything that made them seem sweet to you?
posted
Well, as this is only loosely based on my own experience and the specifics are basically conjecture, there's no way you could get too personal; so I'll be happy to answer anything.
He's so sweet because he listened to everything I had to say, and he didn't interrupt -not once- and he never acted like he knew things better than I did. He actually agreed with one of my wilder theories, the one that John told me was impossible. I bet if John said that in front of him, he'd tell him exactly where to shove it. Of course he was pretty rude to that man in line... but that was only because that man cut me off. In a way that was kind of sweet too.
But then, haven't the others been sweet to me too? Yes, I suppose so. John held the door for me every time we went anywhere (like I couldn't get it myself). Ben bought me my own snowboard, and it was even my favorite color (though I'm not really into snowboarding). Tom bought me a whole car. And I'm sure Rick prays for me every day... (ugh). I should probably stop thinking about Ryan. He's probably the worst sort of loser. But he doesn't act like a loser... he's strong enough to be his own man, when so many people spend their whole lives working for somebody else. Well, I should be fair; Tom works for himself. But all /he/ cares about is money, and I'd be surprised if he actually knew any of the people who work for him. His work takes up so much of his time; how could he possibly have any left for me? Ryan on the other hand... no, I should stop thinking about him. So why can't I?
Out of character analysis here... this heroine has found a reason to want to believe in Ryan, and because she wants to like him, she is far more willing to forgive the bad things. On the other hand, because the others were fixed up with her by her family (which she really doesn't like; she wants to find someone for herself), she is far more likely to nitpick everything they do and find flaws in all of them-- even if they come from misunderstandings that could have been easily fixed.
posted
I'm going to bring down some serious wrath from Doc by suggesting that women, just like men, don't necessarily want to marry the same man they want to have sire their children...oh, wait, already suggested that
I'm going to leave off on the socio-biology though...it really is all just speculation and statistics (as in "lies, damn lies, and statistics").
As Doc has pointed out, sometimes a woman chooses a man just because he needs her so much more than anyone else does. Men do the same thing (not as often, and they do it very differently, but they do do it).
Shasta, that was some interesting stuff. Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion is essential? That is, if you had met John/Ben/Rick/Tom on your own, you'd be more attracted to him?
If you had met Ryan through your best friend, would you be less inclined to like him?
It seems to me that women and men will see irritating things any time they look for them. The trick to seduction is to turn off (or distract?) that irritation reflex in your intended . . . um . . . victim..
posted
And so lies the fine line to deception, the door to so much misery.
quote:Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion {sic} is essential?
Isn't that what I noted in a nutshell above? Matchmakers notwithstanding, many of us never outgrow the "I do it myself" stage from our toddler years.
But your statement, Doc, is also a double entendre. Sometimes the "fix-up part of the equation" means the cliched but ever truism that "He marries her thinking she'll never change; she marries him thinking he will." (I know Luc and others will hate that, but I'm sure the same major publication that only recently discovered that men and women are different will eventually run a headline about this, too.)
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited January 03, 2003).]
posted
I feel horribly mis-understood. I do not think it is right, though most "socio-bio" 'science' is composed of "statistics, lies, and damn lies", to assume that ALL of "socio-bio" science is not science and not true. I agree, survivor, that your science appeared to be made up of "statistics, lies and damn lies". For that reason, specially as it was stuck right on top of my posts (which I do believe were scientific) and because I thought your post was a bit incriminatory to males in its implications, I admit I was excessively rude. I apologize. Yesss Doc Brown, as I said before, I am a man. And yesss Doc Brown, as I said before, that means my first hand experience on the subect=ZERO. You'll remember, though, that the topic you put up on this thread, was "why do women like men". Frankly, that sounds like a pretty darned scientific question to me(it asks [why?]). I tried to give a scientific answer, sorry if it was unsatisfactory.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted
Sorry, suntranasf, I wasn't even replying to you at all. I was replying to Cosmi's question about what role intelligence plays in mate selection. Of course your comments are interesting as well (though of course you omit the role that male attraction to females plays in shaping culture ). I was merely pointing out that there are good reasons for men to like intelligent women, but a genetically compelling reason for them to fear investment in women significantly smarter than them.
Please don't engage in personal attacks on this forum. If you wish to challange my ideas, then do so. If you wish to challenge me, then please advise me and I will let you know where I live so that you may come here and be supper (don't worry, I have a large freezer at my disposal).
posted
Frankly, I don't believe that intelligence on either side of the equation plays much, if any, role at all, in mate selection.
There is far too much hormonal process affecting all other sensibilities for there to be a lot of space left for any cognitive processes.
It seems that mate selection, once we moved beyond pure procreative purposes, became a means to community survival - not species survival. Although, of course, the two are neatly linked.
I think Shasta nailed the issue, capturing much more of the reality of the situation, than any scientific (or not so scientific) explanation ever could. At least for the woman's side of things.
Perhaps, the story as seen from the man's point of view could help flesh things out.
Bon Appetite!
[This message has been edited by HopeSprings (edited January 04, 2003).]
quote:Would you say that the fix-up part of the equaqtion is essential? That is, if you had met John/Ben/Rick/Tom on your own, you'd be more attracted to him?
I have to answer this one out of character, because if asked in character, I'd immediatley say "no, I would have felt the same way about them no matter what."
Out of character, I think that the fix-up part is essential for this scenario, but there could be other happenstances and reasonings that could lead to the same conclusions. It might be a bit more work to bring it together, though.
quote:If you had met Ryan through your best friend, would you be less inclined to like him?
Again, an out of character response. I think that if the heroine had met Ryan through her best friend, alot would depend on the circumstances under which they met. If the best friend tried to set her up with him, then it would be even harder to justify her liking him than the other men. However, due to the nature of Ryan as detailed so far, it is unlikely that anyone would intentionally try to fix her up with him. Therefore, meeting him through her best friend would probably make her even more inclined to like him, provided that the best friend also thought well of him.
quote:It seems to me that women and men will see irritating things any time they look for them. The trick to seduction is to turn off (or distract?) that irritation reflex in your intended . . . um . . . victim..
Funny that you say that; I was imagining that Ryan had the charm turned up to high-burner the whole time he and the heroine were talking. The important thing is that he was good enough at it that she didn't notice. Of course, she wasn't exactly looking...
posted
QUOTE:"Frankly, I don't believe that intelligence on either side of the equation plays much, if any, role at all, in mate selection."
you don't think so? then i must be an exception to the human race, because when i meet a man who appears truly intelligent, my "mate radar" is definitely activated. of course, there has to also be physical attraction. (that, in my opinion, is the ultimate separation between best friend and boy friend.) but a physically attractive male--in person, movies and mags are another matter (you can pretend their personality/intelligence is whatever you like)--isn't enough to engage my interest for long.
posted
Ah, 'tis a simple reason in my opinion. If they didn't, then all reproduction would still revolve around splitting in two. The same should be presented in fiction. It's not so much as to why, but more of why not? Virtue and vice become skewered when blinded by love, and ultimately the relationship will fall or rise dependent on those unseen principles.
[This message has been edited by Straws (edited January 05, 2003).]
posted
I stand by my assertion - which is admittedly biased by my 30-odd years of life experience.
Intelligence joins the quotient factor (I mean real intelligence, not: charm, say the right thing, look good intelligence)long after infatuation has faded.
I, too, enjoy men with intelligence. I especially enjoy them when they don't get frightened off by the fact that I might have some intelligence.
But the "fall for the guy" thing has never (from what I have seen, never mind experienced) factored in to the "first" fall. It tends to be a lovely surprise later.
Call me cynical. Or stupid. Or just the maker of pretty poor choices throughout my life. But I laughed hysterically (to keep from crying, I am sure) as Shasta explained things.
It's a nice thought that we think our decisions through first, weigh the pros and cons, make the right choice based on what is best for all concerned - but them most stories including romance would read like a dissertation or a legal document.
And what kind of story would that make? Ever hear of a story based on logical, well-thought out romantic choices?
quote:And what kind of story would that make? Ever hear of a story based on logical, well-thought out romantic choices?
Maybe not a story, but real life. When a gal I know was dating her eventual husband years ago, he didn't have a car so they walked or took the bus everywhere. She noticed that children and old people in the neighborhood went out of their way to stop and talk with him, and that intrigued her. She felt that those were the two groups of people you couldn't fool, so their opinions mattered. Added to that, the fellow in question wasn't at all like her own emotionally and physically non-supportive father. Thirty-five years later, they're still comfortably married. (I'd say "happily" but that's a cliche.)
posted
Reminds me of that infamous line in Romeo and Juliet, spoken by the priest. I don't remember it exactly, but it compared their sporatic love to a spark and gunpowder. It makes a really pretty explosion, but after that, it's all gone.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted
Before evolution (if you believe in that sort of thing) led to organisms that did have sex, they split in two to reproduce, AKA the amoeba.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted
You still have a way of phrasing things that seems a bit obscure. Like "they split in two to reproduce, AKA the amoeba." Are you referring to the process of binary fission as "the amoeba", saying that all organisms prior to the development of gamates were "the amoeba", or citing the amoeba as a type of organism that reproduces by binary fission?
Of course I know (or think I know) which meaning you intended...but that wasn't the meaning that the syntax implied
Anyway, that still isn't a reason for a woman to have sex with any particular guy--"but, Lydia, honey, if you don't, then all reproduction might as well be by fission, like amoebas!" If that line actually works on a woman, then do not marry her!
posted
No, really there's no reason at all if you just don't want to. As a whole, it's important for our species, but for a singular person unneccesary. Survive, endure, grow- those are the only fundamentals anyone actually needs to focus on to live a fully productive life for themselves.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted
Some people say I'm a genious, others an idiot, and some are undecided. Really, you're thoughts toward what I am are an insight into what YOU are. If you place me at an extreme, it's proof that you're the polar opposite. Place me in the middle, then you're at peace.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2003
|
quote:Again, an out of character response. I think that if the heroine had met Ryan through her best friend, alot would depend on the circumstances under which they met. If the best friend tried to set her up with him, then it would be even harder to justify her liking him than the other men.
This is an important element that I don't understand. The context of meeting has never made a difference in whether or not a woman appealed to me romantically. I presume other males share this perspective, though I might be wrong. If I am right, then the significance of meeting circumstances might be worth exploring.
Anyone care to weight in?
Men: If you met a woman on your own vs through a friend, would that affect her attractiveness to you?
Women: What meeting circumstances would be conducive to starting a romance? What circumstances could thwart a romantic meeting?
These answers could help us all create some interesting stories.
posted
Doc, I think control has something to do with it.
If a friend is involved in making the meeting happen, the friend is always part of any relationship that may develop, and not knowing exactly what part the friend takes can be uncomfortable.
Does she owe the friend? How much? More the more she becomes involved with the guy?
What exactly is the friend's relationship with the guy? Ex-girlfriend? Pal? Occasional date? Girl next door? Sisterly?
How much control does the friend want to have in her relationship with the guy? Does the friend expect/deserve to hear all the details? Will it be easy or hard to share them? Will the relationship ever be truly private?
And so on and so forth--for whatever it may be worth.
That may not be what Shasta was meaning, but it is what came to my mind as I thought about such things.
posted
Doc may have a more general point in that first impressions are more important to women than men as far as initmate relationships are concerned. Or at least, they're not that important to me...for what that's worth.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Thanks, Kathleen. Thos are interesting insights about control. It would be strange to enter a relationship with strings attached. Moreso if those strings were attached to a friend outside the relationship!
I can imagine a number of ways this could lead to discomfort.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
