duga

i agree with what you said after this, but i am curious as to why you think this idea is rubbish? i was not speaking of the entire human gene pool. you are quite right that applying these ideas on such a large scale would have no bearing, but what i said certainly applies to small groups. you can see what i was saying in action with certain immunities that have been selected for in small ethnic groups. if both men and women wanted sex just as much, these immunities would have taken much longer to come about, if they ever did.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Seltzer

I don't think it's a matter of sex fiends having no values so much as having different values. Anyway, there are plenty of guys out there who aren't just after sex and seek some degree of companionship. But I must ask, how forward/open are you in person? Because I have a female friend who is quite uninhibited when it comes to talking about sex and manages to inject it into more conversations than most guys I know... and because of this a lot of guys think she's easy when in reality, she's after something more serious than her lecherous parlance might suggest.


You need a posts disclaimer in your sig like rt.

__________________

Janszoon

^This was pretty much me in my mid 20s.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Guybrush

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile. The truth is that there is a lot of biological theory behind mating strategies and some like the one I posted, although briefly summarized, is accepted as the the reason why men compete for women who act as selectors. You wrote :

This implies that we've evolved to not overpopulate and to weed out gene pools and that this explains why men are randy and women picky. All these assumptions are plain and simple wrong. Starting with the overpopulation one - under the right conditions, populations grow until they stabilize around the carrying capacity for the system. They don't stabilize because they evolve to have less sex. They stabilize around the carrying capacity because of a lack of food, diseases, stress and other things that make it harder to live in a big population. If you raise the carrying capacity of the system or lower the population size (without crashing it), the population resumes growth. It's a basic principle in ecology. Also, if you know about the theory of selfishness, you'll understand that choosing not to have sex for the good of the population is a strategy that would be exploited in nature. Basically, if you choose to not preserve your genes for the future, you won't have any kids to inherit your altruistic strategy. Generally speaking, others who don't give a rats ass about it will benefit from your abstinence from sex. It would not be an evolutionary stable strategy and would be outcompeted.

About the negative genes in the population, we care about bad genes, but for selfish reasons. Men and women are selective about their partners. Bad genes make people less attractive; we think they look ugly, smell bad, they have poor social skills - and obviously people who are really sick is not someone you'd want to have sex with.

Simply put, you want to find the partner whose genes best ensure the survival and fitness of your own genes in the future - someone nice and fit. You want to avoid the ones whose genes will lower survival and fitness for the future. However, you don't care if some other dude has kids with the people you find unattractive. If you were to wipe out negative genes from your population, then you would have to care.

An important point is evolutionary strategies are selfish while what you wrote sounds like altruistic strategies. When you then wrote :

.. Well, the sentence above was also a motivator!

__________________
Something Completely Different

Kevorkian Logic

I said this has nothing to do with you personally, because I like you fine. So i'm going to ignore the part when you made this like a personal attack. I personally feel that threads where women pretty much bitch about how hard it is to be a women and date guys (in a majority male forum) is a very typical move by women and only contributes in the way that one gets attention that they are a female.

I feel like the topic is pretty much "what is wrong with me and guys" which is the most ****ing subjective thing ever, because the only way that someone would know what is wrong with you and guys would be to ****ing know how you actually interact, not some internetized version of your perspective of the whole situation.


I just feel like I see this thread on every forum ever, always started by some girl, always responded to by a bunch of guys (often with very bigoted responses, because this is the internet where people can say **** they normally never would), and it just keeps guys from seeing girls as intelligent, productive posters in forums. Just kinda attention whores.


Again, I am not saying I think you are an attention whore or there is anything wrong with your personality. Because I do not believe there is, I just am of the opinion that this type of thread is why girls have such a bad rep on the internet. period.

__________________
"it is only through a limitless accumulation of the imperfect that a certain type of perfection can be attained"

stormjh

Ok, I'll say it, you are an attention whore.

Kevorkian Logic

ENFP all the way :p

__________________
"it is only through a limitless accumulation of the imperfect that a certain type of perfection can be attained"

stormjh

Me or her?

Scarlett O'Hara

Fair call. I don't think my woes are that good men are hard to find, just that immature and promiscous ones are easy to find. Luckily for me I've posted intelligently in other threads eh?

__________________

jackhammer

and you are trolling and not the first thread I have noticed you doing this in today.

__________________