[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aha. Well, for the record, the young siren I was rhapsodizing about actually had very long hair. This was not the most captivating of her charms, but it didn’t hurt the overall effect. Looking back, I guess I’d have to say that I’ve been with, or been attracted to, more women with short hair than with long. Long hair is like makeup to some extent. Almost every woman looks good with it, the really attractive ones look good even without it.
I like your new avatar, by the way. [/quote]
Thanks. Do you think its an innate thing for guys to be attracted to the long hair? Kindof like boobs? Or does it stem from social conditioning etc[/quote]
It shows good health and grooming for an extended period, plus some domesticity, as it is a luxury, really.
One bit of evidence to being a fit mother, in other words.
[/quote]
Sexiness is largely about emphasizing the differences between men and women.
That’s why men love women with long hair, who wear skirts/dresses, have large breasts, etc.
Believe it or not, I’m pretty much with you here although long hair on women (which I love) is more about exhibiting youthfulness and fertility than a rape “handle” for cave men.[/quote]
Probably. Like I said, I wasn’t trying to advance anything resembling a serious hypothesis. But don’t tell me you’ve never pulled on a woman’s hair in the heat of passion.
The sight of bound feet inspires you to want to immediately breed with the woman whose feet are bound? Okay. Whatever turns you on, Fu Manchu.
I agree. Chance has nothing to do with it. Evolution rewards those species who heed the biological imperative (instilled in their genes by their creator, if you like) to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply” with more offspring, who will inherit the same biological imperative.
Of course, I could be snarky and say that men and women would probably all be fucking like mad even without God telling them to. But I won’t.
Do you think its an innate thing for guys to be attracted to the long hair? Kindof like boobs? Or does it stem from social conditioning etc[/quote]
I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that long hair on females triggers a primordial ancestral memory in human males of dragging females back to the cave by their hair.
I subscribe to a related hypothesis that miniskirts, high heels and foot binding and were all invented by men to make it more difficult for women to run away.
Boobs and lipstick are another interesting subject (and not for the obvious reasons): accentuating cleavage and reddening the lips, it has been hypothesized, was a way of subliminally simulating exposed buttocks and an inflamed vulva, two incontrovertible signals that a simian female is ready to mate.
Yes, practically everything we do, we do it for sex.
[/quote]
Believe it or not, I’m pretty much with you here although long hair on women (which I love) is more about exhibiting youthfulness and fertility than a rape “handle” for cave men.
Same goes for mini skirts, high heels and foot binding – they caused a “I need to breed her now” feeling and not necessarily a “I need to make it difficult for her to run away.”
I just think that these biological tendencies or traits were instilled by a Designer and not by chance. “As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” Genesis 9:7[/quote]
In that case, do you think the “Designer” intended for humans to be monogamous?
…human females don’t come into “heat” and rarely have visual indicators for ovulation. [/quote]
Huh? I beg to differ.
[/quote]
I meant they don’t have an estrus cycle which means they can only breed certain times of the year. Humans and bonobos and some other primates are open for business year round.
In that case, do you think the “Designer” intended for humans to be monogamous?[/quote]
If you believe that the Designer was the God of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, then obviously not, inasmuch as practically all of the prophets and patriarchs were polygynous (at least those prophets who married), and there are plenty of references to biblical characters being “blessed” with numerous wives and children. A Creator who designed a monogamous human would be unlikely to sanction, let alone sanctify, polygynous behavior. And yet He does, again and again and again.
And even if you don’t pray to Yahweh or Allah, but still believe in a divine Creator and Designer, the fact that polygyny and polyandry (serial monogamy being just a variation on the theme) seems to be the rule rather than the exception in not only humans but in practically every other species on the planet that reproduces sexually (yes, including birds), it would seem that polygamy was written into the program at the very highest levels.
In that case, do you think the “Designer” intended for humans to be monogamous?[/quote]
If you believe that the Designer was the God of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, then obviously not, inasmuch as practically all of the prophets and patriarchs were polygynous (at least those prophets who married), and there are plenty of references to biblical characters being “blessed” with numerous wives and children. A Creator who designed a monogamous human would be unlikely to sanction, let alone sanctify, polygynous behavior.
And even if you don’t pray to Yahweh or Allah, but still believe in a divine Creator and Designer, the fact that polygyny and polyandry (serial monogamy being just a variation on the theme) seems to be the rule rather than the exception in not only humans but in practically every other species on the planet that reproduces sexually (yes, including birds), it would seem that polygamy was written into the program at the very highest levels. [/quote]
Social monogamy yes…but even birds have been observed to be sexually polygamous.
Sexiness is largely about emphasizing the differences between men and women.
That’s why men love women with long hair, who wear skirts/dresses, have large breasts, etc.
[/quote]
I agree completely about sexiness being about the differences between men and women. I think men are generally sexually attracted to the features in women that visually differentiate the sexes most strongly.
Hair length, however, does not really fit with this idea. If it did women would be most attracted to men with long hair since for most of human existence men have had long hair. I believe some preferences are engrained in our DNA and some are conditioned. For me, I FEEL like long hair preference is ingrained in my DNA but I can’t reconcile that feeling with the evidence before me.
And even if you don’t pray to Yahweh or Allah, but still believe in a divine Creator and Designer, the fact that polygyny and polyandry (serial monogamy being just a variation on the theme) seems to be the rule rather than the exception in not only humans but in practically every other species on the planet that reproduces sexually (yes, including birds), it would seem that polygamy was written into the program at the very highest levels. [/quote]
It might seem pedantic but I think it makes sense to see it as something written at a very low level.
That would make it very common even when species branched out and largely inaccesible through conscious thought.
Social monogamy yes…but even birds have been observed to be sexually polygamous. [/quote]
Right. That’s what I said. Polygamy is the rule rather than the exception for practically every species, even the previously-believed “faithful mates for life” birds.
And I said “serial” not “social” monogamy. In other words, a man who marries and divorces three wives before marrying a fourth is no more monogamous than a man who marries four at the same time.
In that case, do you think the “Designer” intended for humans to be monogamous?[/quote]
If you believe that the Designer was the God of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, then obviously not, inasmuch as practically all of the prophets and patriarchs were polygynous (at least those prophets who married), and there are plenty of references to biblical characters being “blessed” with numerous wives and children. A Creator who designed a monogamous human would be unlikely to sanction, let alone sanctify, polygynous behavior.
And even if you don’t pray to Yahweh or Allah, but still believe in a divine Creator and Designer, the fact that polygyny and polyandry (serial monogamy being just a variation on the theme) seems to be the rule rather than the exception in not only humans but in practically every other species on the planet that reproduces sexually (yes, including birds), it would seem that polygamy was written into the program at the very highest levels. [/quote]
Social monogamy yes…but even birds have been observed to be sexually polygamous. [/quote]
Do you mean the grey geese which where thought to be monogamous until it was discovered that they are just very, very discreet?
That does not make them truly polygamous though, because Gorilla f.e will mount a member of their harem right in front of the others.
Chance has everything to do with especially in the initial stages. That is indisputable. Unless one is being quasi-religious and has fully implemented their faith factor.[/quote]
Let me get this straight: you are trying to tell me what I believe/should believe about evolution.
[quote]You have no idea what man would or would not do without God’s hand of involvement. You and I are mere mortals and every revolution of every electron in this universe depends on His will.
Even your ability to be snarky.[/quote]
My snarkiness is one of my many spiritual gifts, and it would be an affront to my Creator to not use it at every opportunity.
