Hot Chicks, are they worth it?
Offline I have a question for those of you who understand Evolution (or at least think you do).
Why are some people physically more attractive than others? Why aren't ugly people just bread out of existence? Is it just that ugly people breed with other ugly people, so we have no end to ugliness in the human race? It has been proven that ugly people have economic and social disadvantages besides just mate selection, so one might think they would be naturally selected away. Why is there such a wide range of attractiveness?
Could it be that ugly people have other advantages that the physically attractive don't have? This question comes up because as us guys know, the hotter the chick, the more effort we have to put into getter her and keeping her. The more crap we're willing to put up with from her if she's hot. So many of us ask, "Hot chicks, are they worth it?"
I read this article from Christopher Hitchens on "Why women aren't funny":
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701
I know it's very sexist, but it makes a lot of sense. Hot women don't need to be funny, they can just bring their looks to the relationship. This is how it seems to be with better looking women, they just bring their looks that's it. I have to be funny, rich, interesting, pleasant, etc... It's also interesting how he says women get funnier with age, their looks fade, so then women develop other qualities to attract people. I find this to be true, more mature women are generally better for a relationship.
So, is the problems with hot chicks just that they know they're hot so they can treat men badly and still have men treat them like a princess? Or is it evolution? Has nature give some women looks, but then to balance things out given less attractive women other qualities to attract and keep a man? Is physical beauty just a trick nature plays on men to get us to waist our time and money on women that are otherwise bad mates?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
But there are plenty of women who would prefer a nice, sweet Christian Choir boy type over the recent exchange of pleasantries.
And isn't this part of what drives religion, women's desire that men be nice and sweet instead of super-competitive? So actually part of being competitive is pretending to not be an overly mean asshat?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Not quite. Remember that human morality is subjective, but not arbitrary. Morality is, in a nutshell, the value description of our interactions with other humans. In other words, it's how we evaluate society on both a macro and micro level. We can't just arbitrarily decide that we're going to radically change human behavior. All we can do with any hope of lasting success is make changes within the broad parameters of our evolutionary programming. Think about all the communes and utopian experiments you've read about. They all fail. Why? Because the operating parameters fall outside of those which humans can naturally adapt to.
But they do, proportionate to their intelligence. Wolves alter their pack structure based on the weather. In better times, they relax innate restrictions on mating, allowing more babies, and more non-alpha babies. Many animals alter their social structure based on a number of different factors. I can't call too much off the top of my head, but if you're really interested, I'll try to do some digging.
Remember that our society is the most complex on earth. We have a lot more ways to adapt than other animals. For most, it's a matter of how much to reproduce and with whom. There is some rudimentary "justice" in some societies, but even among many primates, reciprocal altruism is on a case by case basis. In other words, they are simply not intelligent enough to need the kind of adaptability we have.
Thanks
We shall see, Mr. Bond...
I think this topic is much more volatile than religion. I would expect nothing less.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Interesting topic but I don't have time to read it all...
but I will say that the Ladder Theory demystifies the whole hot chic and what she is after syndrome
http://intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html
-RR
Choose Reality - http://www.churchofreality.org
Desiree Alliance - http://www.desireealliance.org
$pread magazine - http://www.spreadmagazine.org
As much as I would like to believe pointing out that I am not referring to morality would be helpful, i know it won't, since, we both are in agreement, or at least, have a similar view on what morality is and is not (Not absolute or objective and is more of a reflection of what drives humans biologically rather than any sort of evidence of something extraordinary). Meaning, any other aspect about humanity, in this case, sexual selection would not be any different.
Even though I do think the changes in human society are arbitrary (of course I think we use this word differently so feel free to replace with a more appropiate one), I do not think it is is necessarily the goal of these aforementioned societies to change behavior, rather to encourage a set of behaviors that are preferred. For example, in Fuedal societies, it was strongly held that women are weaker and need a man. I am not saying that these societies fully succeeded but they were not monumental failures either and many women during these times were successfully programmed to believed that it was simply the nature of feminity to be weak, feeble, and to need a man (not so much in the strict biological sense to make babies but also becuase, the idea was, women simply are helpless). I know this whole sidetrack seems too superflous to be relevant (even assuming that I am onto intellectual gold here) but if human beings have this capability to program its members to such a degree that what they believe is their nature is, more than likely not their nature, it just seems that the scientific definition of selector of a given species being the individuals with less procreation stuff (sorry for lack of more graceful terms) and having more invovlement in the birthing process is not quite enough to account for determining the Selector in human beings.
To keep from making another mistake, I will wait on my response to this until you can provide more information on this. And I promise I will read the information when you are able to provide it.
Forgive me for sounding a bit like Harry Frankfurt but, what also makes the human being more complex than these other animals is our ability to reflect on why we both a) do the things that we do and b) alter the way we do them. So, to give a breif sketch of my response to the above observation, while wolves and other animals do change their social structure or habits, it is unlikely that they do so becuase they reflect on their initial habits in the same way we do and then reflect on the changes they make. At most, they might reflect on how to better accomploish their goal but they would not necessariyl reflect on why the goal is so important.
"It will be a mistake short-lived. I hear double Os have a short life expectancy"
Indeed it is.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff
Well, we are talking about society, and morality is the description of the rules of society, so it's necessary to talk about it.
Tough sentence...
Anyway, you keep mistaking perceptions of society for realities of biology. Remember, we're here for the genes, not the other way around. Our genes don't give a shit whether women have to be slaves to men, or don't have any marital rights, or whatever. All they care about is whether they make babies. To that end, we've got lots of biological drives that keep us making babies, but not a whole lot of them that look after individual rights. That's why you can find societies with vastly different ideas on liberty, but precious few with anti-reproduction ethics. (Yes, I know about China.)
The reason many things about society seem arbitrary is that from the perspective of a gene, they are. We are not hardwired with instincts about tort reform, but we are about protecting children.
Ok. Give me a day or two to properly prepare something for you.
Alright. I think I see the bone of contention here. You seem to be arguing that our intelligence lifts us above our instincts, and I'm saying that for the most part, our intelligence molds itself to our instincts, even when we think we are doing something radical and intelligent.
Rather than ask you to take my word for it, I'm going to leave this discussion for the moment and start a new thread when I can present a better summary for you.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I love Renee so very much ....
Regarding wise sexual attitudes: "Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of eighty and gradually approach eighteen" Mark Twain
God goofed !
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. Mark Twain - Yeah, especially the treatment of girls ....
Atheism Books.
This thread is still alive?
Yes, hot chicks are totally worth it.
Next topic, please.
YES,
AGREED ,
GIRLS
Yes I approached the guy I'm currently dating. However, there are *counts* 3 times I've ever approached a guy I was interested in, while the times I've been approached is probably well into the hundreds. Given these statistics, it really hasn't been necessary thus far in my life to take initiative, because I could quite easily find a guy by just sitting back and waiting to be approached.
Just because I'm technically the biological selector doesn't mean I'm completely ruled by this instinct. Remember, I have the ability to think rationally. I believe in egalitarianism in a relationship and between the sexes, and so I see no problem in reversing the traditional roles - if men can go after what they want, women should be able to as well.
The circumstances under which Jesse and I met are as follows:
I had seen him around campus once or twice as I was walking to/from class, and he stood out to me because of his unique appearance - I thought he was cute. I didn't know his name or anything about him. A couple weeks before winter break, I was at a huge frat christmas party. I had been invited by a guy I had a complicated past with, who was trying to convince me he was dating material. I got sick of being the only girl in a room full of guys playing beer pong, so I excused myself, saying I was going to go get more to drink. As I wandered around the frat house, I found a room that had alcohol in it, and I was about to walk in, when I saw the only people in there were Jesse and a bunch of his friends. I stood in the hallway, debating what I should do. I was technically this other guy's "date;" but I didn't know if I'd ever get another chance to meet the cute guy. I didn't want to be kicking myself later in the future, and regretting missing my one chance, so I decided to go for it. I gained my composure and walked in and complimented Jesse on his earrings, at which point he got me a drink and introduced himself. We ended up talking for 2 hours, and just really clicked.
Over the next few weeks, things were pretty much "equal" for both parties - we altered who initiated texting, phone calls, or invitations to hang out. But having been in way too many situations where the guy was interested in a fling, but not a relationship, I left it up to Jesse to decide how serious he wanted things to be. About 10 days after we got back from break, he asked me to be his girlfriend, and I accepted - and here we are nearly 18 months later.
When I say "we have to know you're out there" I mean exactly that. By not putting yourself in public situations, you are limiting your pool of potential mates, just because many of them simply don't know you exist. If Jesse hadn't been in a social situation where it was appropriate to approach him, things probably wouldn't have turned out this way. Hint: Back in my teens, when I read teen magazines, a piece of advice that they often gave was that guys (especially those that are shy) like being approached by girls. Girls in my generation have literally had it pressed into their memory to go for it, and not play by "traditional" rules. But men still need to make themselves approachable. That means venturing out into public places sometimes, and attempting to make conversation and stuff.
Oh no, I totally agree with you - there are definitely more HM females, but their male counterpart does exist. I was referring to a comment you made in reply to one of Hamby's posts (IIRC), in which you said your criteria was gender neutral. Maybe I misunderstood you.. I took that to mean that you thought it was equally ridiculous for either sex to fuss about their hair, clothes, etc. - essentially, that it's not ok for males or females to do frivolous stuff. I was just pointing out that males tend to be overwhelmingly ruled by visual stimuli (which is why women place such an emphasis on their appearance), while women are more likely to take other factors, like intelligence, sense of humor, interests, etc, into consideration when choosing a mate (so for men, strength in one area can compensate for a deficiency in another). Hence, I was saying that the comparison can't really be gender-blind.
Haha yup, pretty much.
and I want to fuck GREEK GODDESS happy
Because she is my friend to love like that , oooohh yeah ....
Atheism Books.
ORGASIMS
FUCK ME GOOD 
Half the time I'm amused by Christopher Hitchens and half the time I want to punch his smarmy little mouth. I've decided / decided not to buy his book a half dozen times. Guess what my current decision is?
Based on Hitchens' drunken, boorish behavior, I think this is probably strike three against God Is Not Great. Whatever. Life is too short to waste on sexist warmongers who flirt with neocons.
Dawkins is much more my cup of tea anyway.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes , heal our friend , heathen CHRIS
This, right here, is what I am talking about. Of course Hammby put it much better than I did in the above post so I won't make a poorly done repitition of the issue at hand.
When I say "we have to know you're out there" I mean exactly that. By not putting yourself in public situations, you are limiting your pool of potential mates, just because many of them simply don't know you exist.
I know this. I never claimed to be a hermit. I just prefer not to hang out at bars, go to parties, or go to movies within a group. This does not mean however that I don't do these things, rather that I would prefer not to. And to be clear, or to pre-emptively defend myself against a contradiction charge, I believe I said that I don't go to bars to "pick up chicks". Not, I don't go to bars period.
" Why does God always got such wacky shit to say? . . . When was the last time you heard somebody say 'look God told me to get a muffin and a cup tea and cool out man'?" - Dov Davidoff