| PUA Forum https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/ |
|
| Evolutionary biology and peacocking https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=94968 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | jumbosoul [ Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Evolutionary biology and peacocking |
Evolutionary biology and peacocking I was wondering if anyone here had read Richard Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene'. It probably has a thing of two of relevance to the PUA community (it is quoted Revelations by Venusian Arts) The following two paragraphs from Dawkins' book I found particularly interesting: Quote: One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes. Apart from special cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested in their own personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their magazines and journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual attractiveness, and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and appearance is apt to arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a woman is described in conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual attractiveness, or lack of it, will be prominently mentioned. This is true, whether the speaker is a man or a woman. When a man is described, the adjectives used are much more likely to have nothing to do with sex.
Any thoughts? Thanks.
Faced with these facts, a biologist would be forced to suspect that he was looking at a society in which females compete for males, rather than vice versa. In the case of birds of paradise, we decided that females are drab because they do not need to compete for males. Males are bright and ostentatious because females are in demand and can afford to be choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand is that eggs are a more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why? |
|
| Author: | RSDSkittles [ Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well... it goes back to .. I don't know some decades/centuries ago. Men made money. Women didn't. If you were a woman and you wanted a man, what could you do? Be pretty, attractive and decent. |
|
| Author: | here2play [ Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
female birds are often drab because they are the ones sitting on the eggs and in the nest rearing the young. If she is bright, she will be seen and eaten by a predator. The males are bright not only to attract females but also to distract the predator so they go after him and not the female and babies in the nest. But yes, humans are one of the few species where the females are "pretty" and the males are drab. Humans didn't really have to worry all that much about predators preying on the female on the nest so they could advertize their fertility a little more. |
|
| Author: | phangan [ Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mmmmmm Women are the pretty ones.... Wait a moment. 50,000 years ago women didn't shave their legs. They didn't shave ANYTHING. They didn't brush their teeth. They didn't go to the tanning salon. We are taking for granted that women are "prettier" but I'm REALLY not sure that this is the case. It is the case TODAY, after we prized women, made them what they are. But were they "prettier" in nature? I'm not sure. Falling tits, higher fat ratio. Men are leaner, muscular.... don't forget that FAT was considered sexy until 60 years ago. It's all a fashion anyway. Perhaps in nature men were actually the prize? |
|
| Author: | ladies_man969 [ Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think that women were the prize at first but because of how sexist society seemed to be from before Christ's time until recently, (Even at that, there's still sexism but society is becoming more fair towards women now.) it caused men to be the prize. I mean, women couldn't get decent jobs, and if they could, they were underpaid, up until the birth control pill it was harder for them to control whether they got pregnant or not, etc. So men held the power over women, and many of those things that came from the sexism just kinda stuck. I may be completely dead wrong though. XD Just a thought. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|