| Author |
Thread |
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
 Posted - 2012/06/18 : 14:42:15
Seriously it's not. I have to mention that these days.
Just wanted to start something, as it didn't feel appropriate in the other topic. Be aware to anyone who reads this. It's long.
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
And your first point - made for long term relationships? I am definitely not. And I genuinely believe that human beings as a species aren't either. Having variation in friends and your social life is what makes life bearable. I have found in my long-term relationships that as time goes on, I like the person less and less. That's not because I've changed, or she's change - that's just the way it goes. You can't just invent interesting things to talk about, or things to do all the time. Just does not work like that.
Jay, you bring up a topic that i am profoundly interested in and have been studying for more than a couple of years now. Human behavioural psychology and social dynamics.
One of the constant topics i come across is whether or not humans are meant to be polygamous or monogamous. There's evidence on both sides, but as time goes on, it seems more like the latter. I'm really not going to make references in this, as i want it to be more of a discussion than a debate, and i don't really want to incite that.
You could probably just say "to each his own" and be done with it, but there's a lot more to be said.
I've read a lot on the basic human instinct of a male human is to be polygamous.
I've read a lot on the basic human instinct of a female to be monogamous. Why?
The base instinct of a human female is to bear and raise children. To have a family. For this interest, it makes more sense to have one father (a strong specimen of the species) that she can reproduce many times with, for a selective gene pool of strong specimens of the species.
The base instinct of a human male is to reproduce. To further his line. He spreads his seed. But apart from that, we are definitely wired completely different to females when it comes to nurturing and family/raising children. At least, on a base instinctual level. Nature, through the concept of natural selection ensures that strong specimens of the species will survive and multiply, while the weak wont. For us, it makes sense to spread our seed to as many different females as possible, creating our own little army of sorts (not really lol).
What's interesting about this is that this is BASE human instinct. There are deviations of this which i wont go into for obvious reasons. But the point is this; If men are just wired to **** and women are just wired for children then why don't we have 100% of the family dynamic being a 'broken home'?
Many argue (from what i have read and learnt) that because of the evolution of our species (whether it be mechanical, medicinal or any other) that what was once important on a base human level, is not so important any more. The modern alpha male is not necessarily the physically strong. Medical ailments and other predispositions to ill health are not so important any more due to our medical knowledge. What does this mean? We're at the top of the food chain, and our quality of life has never been higher (for developed countries). What does THIS mean? The importance of spreading our seed as males is reduced. Drastically. As a result, it's not necessary any more for men to **** as many women in their lives as physically possible.
This, along with social conditioning (religious concepts of marriage etc) have put an emphasis on monogamous relationships. Why? Because it's believed that we, as humans, have evolved beyond base human instinct. And it's a pretty valid argument.
It's now believed that humans have more than a few fundamental human desires. Among these are freedom, creativity, protection and so forth, but really, they can all be traced back to one emotion. Happiness. What is life beyond the pursuit of happiness?
Wealth, love, social status, food, shelter. It all comes back to happiness. Mentally healthy people gravitate towards things that make them happy, and shy away from thing that make us unhappy. It's important to make this distinction because there cannot be happiness without unhappiness. If you never felt unhappy, then happy would be the norm and you wouldn't know anything different. That defies happiness as a definition, and hence, is no longer happiness.
Anyway, where is this all leading?
Back to our basic human instinct. To reproduce. Only, these days, it's a little bit more complicated. Everyone has their "tastes" in a partner, but again, a lot of it is down to science. Symmetrical faces are deemed attractive. Almost universally so. The more symmetrical your face (and as an extention, your entire body is) the more attractive you are perceived IN GENERAL to the opposite sex.
As a side note quickly here - this topic (social conditioning/dynamics, courtship and attraction) - could be spoken about FOR DAYS. In NO WAY can i even begin to touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this, so, for the most part, i'll leave it out.
This symmetry communicates good genetics. There is also a ratio, i'm blanking on the name of it right now, specific to men and women which also communicates this. For women, it's Hips to waist ratio, and breast to waist ratio. Obviously the larger the breasts/the thinner the waist - more attractive. The larger the hips, the thinner the waist - more attractive.
Men have something similar; The shoulder to waist ratio. For us, the smaller the waist, the larger the shoulders = more attractive. Keep in mind this is in general, and there's something else that infinitely convolutes this ideal. The ability to talk.
Anyway this is largely a tangent, but it had some important facts i wanted to bring into it. For the most part - why do men find medium - larger breasts more attractive than smaller breasts? or breasts in general attractive? Yes, to a certain extent it's taboo, but this answer freaks out a lot of late teen/twenty somethings that i know. It indicates good genetics, in that they will be able to provide food for your litter. Yep. Subconsciously, you're wired to think about that shit. Same with women, height and shoulders indicate strength and can protect the family, although these days wealth and social status do a similar thing due to social conditioning and social evolution.
These days, men think about the condition their family will be in. That's the fundamental difference. Why would we, if we werent going to hang around? It used to be, our base human instinct was **** and gone before morning. Providing for one child is far easier than providing for a family. Breast size didn't enter into the equation. Social evolution.
I'm going to try to wind this up here because it's super long. But i'm trying to illustrate that it doesn't seem like humans are meant to be polygamous any more. I'll make one more point.
Everyone who doesn't want to get married always says to me "more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, i don't want to go through that/there's no point".
1) You'll go through the same emotional turmoil either way.
2) Be that as is may, millions of people get married every day. We are wired to find a mate and produce a family. We all know a lot of marriages fail. It's common knowledge. Yet people keep doing it. How many times did it take for you to learn the stove was hot?
Women have always been monogamous at the mercy of the alpha male.
Many more opportunities for the alpha male exist today, that isn't dependent on strength.
Men are more wired for polygamy than ever.
Life is the pursuit of happiness.
Develop and protect a family, is now part of that for the modern male.
Obviously, this is why i believe in long term relationships. My opinion is not law, and my understanding is limited based on the fact that i study this in my spare time and there are people dedicating their lives to these topics. There are always exceptions. Humans have free will and there are many factors influencing belief.
If anyone actually read all of this i encourage discussion. This is a topic i'm most interested in.
Courtship and attraction is another interesting one, but we'll leave that for another time.
SORRY FOR THE SUPER LONG POST (SORT OF)
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator 
|
_Jay_
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
6,868 posts
Joined: Oct, 2011
|
Posted - 2012/06/18 : 15:12:31
I read it all. But I don't know if I can marry (see what I did there!) it up to my own ideas about it.
I obviously know that there is a lot of primal hard-wiring that goes on when it comes to this kind of stuff - but as you've acknowledged a couple of times in that post, a lot of those really raw "let's fcuk everything!" urges have been nullified over years and years, generations and generations of modern, civilized living.
Like you say - there are so, so many elements to all of this. I try to talk to my mates about it a lot - and it's very difficult to articulate to them that my anti-marriage/monogamy views aren't just "Pff, I don't want to be in a sexless marriage at 40". A lot of my female mates always come back with "Ahh, you'll meet someone!". No. You don't understand. I don't need your sympathy. I have no doubt that I'll find another girl and be all "Ahh God I really, really like this girl. I can see us being together a while". But even in those early days of naive bliss and short-sightedness, I will still know that in six years from now - if by some miracle we are together - that I will not be feeling anything approaching continual soppyness and love for her. It will be a laboured continuation of status quo and not knowing life without her so it just goes on and on.
I am not up for that. I've felt that in microcosm after only a few months. I cannot imagine how much worse it would be after all those years.
But above all - I am far, FAR happier single. I have a good group of mates, and a shit load of other interests. And they more than make up for the reduced amount of sex. And that all it is for me, really. I don't require the love, attention - the need to be wanted. I genuinely don't need it. I like it. Definitely. But I definitely do not need it.
Hard to give a more scientific, impartial view on it as a whole - because this is all I know really. My own, relatively limited experience.
Good topic. It's something I think about on more than a daily basis. And don't confuse the frequency of thought with an intrinsic longing to actually want all the stuff I just said I don't want - like some internal, psychological double-bluff to myself. I just find it incredible interesting. It's the tip of a massive ice-berg - the ice-berg of how human behavior and psychology has developed and adapted or evolved (devolved?) as populations have expanded, and environments have changed monumentally in a relatively short space of time.
__________________________________
http://HardcoreHighlights.com/
Alert moderator
|
Charco
Advanced Member
Ireland
1,979 posts
Joined: Nov, 2001
|
Posted - 2012/06/18 : 16:13:55
A Very interesting topic.
__________________________________
------------------------
26 and 6 = 1.
Unity and Peace
Go Here: http://www.ionosphere.co.uk or here: http://www.sbthq.net . Happy? You should be!! And of course: My tunes: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=230636&T=6580
Alert moderator
Edited by - Charco on 2012/06/19 04:27:52 |
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2012/06/18 : 22:26:12
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
Men have something similar; The shoulder to waist ratio. For us, the smaller the waist, the larger the shoulders = more attractive. Keep in mind this is in general, and there's something else that infinitely convolutes this ideal. The ability to talk.
Anyway this is largely a tangent, but it had some important facts i wanted to bring into it. For the most part - why do men find medium - larger breasts more attractive than smaller breasts? or breasts in general attractive? Yes, to a certain extent it's taboo, but this answer freaks out a lot of late teen/twenty somethings that i know. It indicates good genetics, in that they will be able to provide food for your litter. Yep. Subconsciously, you're wired to think about that shit. Same with women, height and shoulders indicate strength and can protect the family, although these days wealth and social status do a similar thing due to social conditioning and social evolution.
I'm not 100% sure about this, simply because there are societies that look for differing traits. Some like bigger tits, some like smaller. As a general rule, B is preferred to A cup tits, but the focus of the mama jug double d's has gone. Catwalk models are getting smaller and smaller boobs as time goes on. It also fails to explain why we like nice round asses - that doesn't have anything to do with genetics.
As far as I have been able to find, the reason guys like female ass and tits so much is primarily because they don't have them.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,163 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 08:36:11
fcuk what heavy topic.
Why did you edit out your post Charco?
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
_Jay_
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
6,868 posts
Joined: Oct, 2011
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 09:07:40
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
fcuk what heavy topic.
Why did you edit out your post Charco?
Yeah man - that was a good contribution, your post. :-)
__________________________________
http://HardcoreHighlights.com/
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 10:05:02
I'll try not to let my contribution get out of hand by being too long but... here goes.
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
I obviously know that there is a lot of primal hard-wiring that goes on when it comes to this kind of stuff - but as you've acknowledged a couple of times in that post, a lot of those really raw "let's fcuk everything!" urges have been nullified over years and years, generations and generations of modern, civilized living.
From my understanding and the studies i've read and what i've observed (because through studying all of this you REALLY start observing people) it's not so much nullified as it is watered down. It's still there and at times may rise to the surface in those alcohol-fuelled lust sessions... But it's not our main goal any more. For the most part, we've socially evolved past basic instinct and now have a lot more factors influencing our decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
Like you say - there are so, so many elements to all of this. I try to talk to my mates about it a lot - and it's very difficult to articulate to them that my anti-marriage/monogamy views aren't just "Pff, I don't want to be in a sexless marriage at 40". A lot of my female mates always come back with "Ahh, you'll meet someone!". No. You don't understand. I don't need your sympathy. I have no doubt that I'll find another girl and be all "Ahh God I really, really like this girl. I can see us being together a while". But even in those early days of naive bliss and short-sightedness, I will still know that in six years from now - if by some miracle we are together - that I will not be feeling anything approaching continual soppyness and love for her. It will be a laboured continuation of status quo and not knowing life without her so it just goes on and on.
Sure man. Every relationship has it's honeymoon period. The period where everything is new and exciting and it's mostly based on raw emotion... For that matter, pretty much everything has a honeymoon period. New friendships, new schools/colleges/universities, new friendships, you name it. We all want something out of it though, and whenever the good outweighs the bad, that's when we usually drop it. There's actually a name for this in psychology although i don't remember what it's called. If i can be bothered later i'll look it up.
Anyway, the point is that people who have been married for 30 years definitely do not feel the same as the day they first met that person. That's not how it works. But over a period of time, what they feel is mixed with a sense of comfort, companionship, understanding, likeability and many others. What you're left with is not the butterflies-want-to-spend-every-waking-moment-with-that-person, but in the grand scheme of things, something much heavier. A life partner. An equal, opposing force. A life-long companion.
It appears you just haven't met someone you have this connection with... As cliche as it sounds, they do exist. This is what people mean when they say "you'll find someone". Technically, whilst they may be out there, i'm a realist and it's very possible that you may never meet them or the timing could be wrong etc... the list goes on.
But ****, who knows man. My opinion of the world has changed so much since i was even 18, or 21, that i can't guarantee for sure that i even know what i want in the future. I take it as it comes, but the understanding of what could possibly lie ahead brings me a sense of comfort and preparation.
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
I am not up for that. I've felt that in microcosm after only a few months. I cannot imagine how much worse it would be after all those years.
But above all - I am far, FAR happier single. I have a good group of mates, and a shit load of other interests. And they more than make up for the reduced amount of sex. And that all it is for me, really. I don't require the love, attention - the need to be wanted. I genuinely don't need it. I like it. Definitely. But I definitely do not need it.
Ah, but that's pretty common, is it not? The stereotypical male is scared to shit of commitment and doesn't necessarily seek it out - yet the vast majority of people (it seems) get married. You have to ask yourself why that is.
In all fairness it might not be for you, or might not be something you can actually envision for yourself in any immediate future... But that's what's great about life, and especially about things like these. They come out of nowhere and knock you on your ass.
You don't have to be accepting or looking for anything more complex than what you describe, but it makes me sad to think someone isn't OPEN to the idea... because i think being open to ideas is what brings the best things in life, and without doing that, it's very possible to miss out on the best things.
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
Hard to give a more scientific, impartial view on it as a whole - because this is all I know really. My own, relatively limited experience.
Apart from theory, that's all any of us has :)
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
Good topic. It's something I think about on more than a daily basis. And don't confuse the frequency of thought with an intrinsic longing to actually want all the stuff I just said I don't want - like some internal, psychological double-bluff to myself. I just find it incredible interesting. It's the tip of a massive ice-berg - the ice-berg of how human behavior and psychology has developed and adapted or evolved (devolved?) as populations have expanded, and environments have changed monumentally in a relatively short space of time.
Ha ha, funny thing is, it could totally be a double bluff. You wouldn't know. Psychiatry and mental health itself is such a big industry because we can't answer these questions ourselves. Or rather, a great percentage of people can't.
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
Men have something similar; The shoulder to waist ratio. For us, the smaller the waist, the larger the shoulders = more attractive. Keep in mind this is in general, and there's something else that infinitely convolutes this ideal. The ability to talk.
Anyway this is largely a tangent, but it had some important facts i wanted to bring into it. For the most part - why do men find medium - larger breasts more attractive than smaller breasts? or breasts in general attractive? Yes, to a certain extent it's taboo, but this answer freaks out a lot of late teen/twenty somethings that i know. It indicates good genetics, in that they will be able to provide food for your litter. Yep. Subconsciously, you're wired to think about that shit. Same with women, height and shoulders indicate strength and can protect the family, although these days wealth and social status do a similar thing due to social conditioning and social evolution.
I'm not 100% sure about this, simply because there are societies that look for differing traits. Some like bigger tits, some like smaller. As a general rule, B is preferred to A cup tits, but the focus of the mama jug double d's has gone. Catwalk models are getting smaller and smaller boobs as time goes on. It also fails to explain why we like nice round asses - that doesn't have anything to do with genetics.
As far as I have been able to find, the reason guys like female ass and tits so much is primarily because they don't have them.
Oh absolutely. This is what i've learned in general, which seems to be specifically based towards modern, westernised communities.
And i 100% agree with you. The fascination with gigantic breasts has died out. You can see a real-time example of this (well at least i can). All my mates who i've spoken to about porn, or in general, HATE fake tits. Everyone in my social circle for the most part is over it. They don't hold appeal. I will 100% definitely agree with you that there is definitely a sweet spot with incriments one way or another being detrimental to the final outcome.
It explains round asses. Hips to waist ratio. Larger hips, smaller waist. The roundness would come from symmetry and a healthy weight i guess. Not sure about that one as i'm not sure anyone would be game enough to just do a study on asses and then interpret the data haha.
Re: not having them. I can see where you're coming from, but i'm not entirely sure on that one. I don't have a clitoris and i don't find them particularly appealing in that of itself. Yes, the argument could be made that a penis is just an extension of a clitoris as that's what we all have as a genderless embryo - but there's differences that happen after that through development that means they're not the same thing.
But another thing which steers me away from that reasoning (although potentially valid) is that women are not as hairy as men (on the body). Based on the line of thought that: if you don't have it, you like it on the opposite sex that would mean they should be fascinated by body hair. Admittedly, i know girls who love chest hair (specifically) but that's not NEARLY as universal as men liking tits. And in fact, on the contrary, women go to great lengths to make themselves as hairless as possible.
Without being able to come up with any other rational explanations.. I'm let to believe that it's wired genetically into us. There's one other point i forgot to mention originally though;
For the most part (and this is a gross generalization) men prefer feminine women, women prefer masculine men. I made brief references to this with the ratios being that wide shoulders on a man is more attractive (because it is deemed more masculine). Femininity, i think, could partially be judged by breast size... Well, it totally can, because the size of the breasts indicates the amount of female hormones said woman was exposed to during pubity, giving an insight into her "femininity". So i can see your point on that level, that we like it because we don't have it, because it's a feminine thing that was brought about by oestrogen and we dig feminine things because we're wired to. Are we reconciling here?
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
Edited by - Future_Shock on 2012/06/19 10:08:36 |
djDMS
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
10,304 posts
Joined: Feb, 2003
572 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 10:23:38
I'll add more when i have the time. But for now i'll just say this.
My 'professional' experience, knowledge and reading i've done over the years, and my personal experience contradict each other so much it's ridiculous!
__________________________________
Taking my time to perfect the beat
Alert moderator
|
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 13:34:17
A decent topic Andy and there's a whole bunch of stuff that I could contribute to this discussion. Later, maybe....
__________________________________
This- http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ionosphere
THIS - http://soundcloud.com/ionosphere
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYWkHCkaho
Alert moderator
Edited by - Ionosphere on 2012/06/19 13:34:40 |
Charco
Advanced Member
Ireland
1,979 posts
Joined: Nov, 2001
|
Posted - 2012/06/19 : 16:59:51
quote:
Originally posted by _Jay_:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
fcuk what heavy topic.
Why did you edit out your post Charco?
Yeah man - that was a good contribution, your post. :-)
First re-read made me think it didnt quite suite the discussion...after reading further posts I should have left it. Might re-post later
__________________________________
------------------------
26 and 6 = 1.
Unity and Peace
Go Here: http://www.ionosphere.co.uk or here: http://www.sbthq.net . Happy? You should be!! And of course: My tunes: http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?songs=230636&T=6580
Alert moderator
Edited by - Charco on 2012/06/19 17:01:48 |
Underloop
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,895 posts
Joined: Mar, 2002
91 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 12:20:35
Wow, the intellectual conversation on HHC.com has certainly gone up since I left!
__________________________________
"We don't stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing."
- George Bernard Shaw
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 12:28:30
quote:
Originally posted by djDMS:
I'll add more when i have the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Ionosphere:
Later, maybe....
quote:
Originally posted by Charco:
Later...
:/
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Ionosphere
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
3,750 posts
Joined: Dec, 2004
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 12:56:51
Strike a light guv'nor  ....Underloop is back!!!!
anyway, back on topic
It takes time to construct a deeply considered contribution to a very good topic.
A quick and glib reply wouldn't do it justice and would leave gaping holes for knob-heads to fill with irrelevant crap. 
__________________________________
This- http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ionosphere
THIS - http://soundcloud.com/ionosphere
VIDEO - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nYWkHCkaho
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,635 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 13:15:17
and on that note
I prefer big boobs, and no matter what size...they have to be real :P
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
|
_Jay_
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
6,868 posts
Joined: Oct, 2011
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 13:38:13
quote:
Originally posted by Triquatra:
and on that note
I prefer big boobs, and no matter what size...they have to be real :P
Real big!
__________________________________
http://HardcoreHighlights.com/
Alert moderator
|
Tastetherainobw
Junior Member
United States
105 posts
Joined: Dec, 2011
|
Posted - 2012/06/21 : 13:59:40
After reading this, I have a question. Would you still be with your partner if the human race wasn't able to talk, and would our instincts kick in to pick out the best mate to bear children?
And another question. If men are wired to bang as many girls as possible to spread their genes, how does homosexuality play into this. Same goes with woman, if woman are there to be child bearers. Then, why does the attraction to another woman happen? Wouldn't our instincts overpower our "prefrances"?
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
