What do men and women really want from each other?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Biology does not follow the fashions of the times, so what was true a thousand years ago is still true today. Women are more materialistic mainly because they have much more invested in the bearing and raising of children, they marry on the same economic level or up never down, the male does not have the option of marrying up generally speaking. A little skit from Chris Rock the comedian: Fellows, when you get a new girlfriend what do your friends ask you about her first ----- WHAT DOES SHE LOOK LIKE? Ladies when you get a new boyfriend what is the first thing your girlfriends ask,----- WHAT DOES HE DO? The male is just as unromantic in that it is all looks for him but looks are important, young, healthy, and well put together means she's up to motherhood and raising a family. It really is the will of the species isn't it, kind of unromantic but there it is. Chris Rock again, only women, children and dogs are loved unconditionally, a man has to provide and protect, same old same old as the eons roll on.

Shallow rubbish. Women want a man that they are attracted to. If you have two men who look about the same but one has a good job and is confident and the other one is a layabout with no confidence and no job who do you think is going to be more attractive to women? That's hardly about 'gold digging'. It's about not being attracted to a hopeless lump.

You do realize you're not disagreeing with me----lol!!

You do realise that I'm not agreeing with you?----lol!!

[popeye1945]

Shallow rubbish. Women want a man that they are attracted to. If you have two men who look about the same but one has a good job and is confident and the other one is a layabout with no confidence and no job who do you think is going to be more attractive to women? That's hardly about 'gold digging'. It's about not being attracted to a hopeless lump.

You do realize you're not disagreeing with me----lol!!

You do realise that I'm not agree with you?----lol!!

Read more carefully.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You do realize you're not disagreeing with me----lol!!

You do realise that I'm not agree with you?----lol!!

Read more carefully.

Follow your own advice.

[popeye1945]

You do realise that I'm not agree with you?----lol!!

Read more carefully.

Follow your own advice.

Do me a Favour, put me on your ignore list!! Correction: This is a philosophy site, perhaps instead of name calling you could point out what in my post you disagree with, with a reasonable explanation as to why.

[Dontaskme]

[popeye1945]

I'm fucked if I know.

It is basic biology, the woman wants a man to provide and protect and a man wants a woman healthy and attractive, healthy being part of his definition of beauty. Even a woman today who makes more than a particular man wants a man who is a better provider than herself, marrying on the same economic level or marrying up, but never down. She wants stability for herself and any child she bears, the man wants the woman to be essentially his private property in the way of a monogamous relationship ensuring his genes and no other male's genes are passed on through her. The male and female are two aspects of one thing, humanity, and together the source of regeneration. It could even be considered the will of the species, for the pairing is foremost a physiological rather than an intellectual decision.

[Walker]

I'm fucked if I know.

It is basic biology, the woman wants a man to provide and protect and a man wants a woman healthy and attractive, healthy being part of his definition of beauty. Even a woman today who makes more than a particular man wants a man who is a better provider than herself, marrying on the same economic level or marrying up, but never down. She wants stability for herself and any child she bears, the man wants the woman to be essentially his private property in the way of a monogamous relationship ensuring his genes and no other male's genes are passed on through her. The male and female are two aspects of one thing, humanity, and together the source of regeneration. It could even be considered the will of the species, for the pairing is foremost a physiological rather than an intellectual decision.

That is a solid, conservative view.

Once the financial necessities are met men and women still need one another. The needs can be simple but the causes and expressions of the needs can be complex. If they exist and appear irrational then perhaps it’s notions of rationality that need be examined, especially if the expressions are a response to an irrational world.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWgIOb_U2Hc

[popeye1945]

I'm fucked if I know.

It is basic biology, the woman wants a man to provide and protect and a man wants a woman healthy and attractive, healthy being part of his definition of beauty. Even a woman today who makes more than a particular man wants a man who is a better provider than herself, marrying on the same economic level or marrying up, but never down. She wants stability for herself and any child she bears, the man wants the woman to be essentially his private property in the way of a monogamous relationship ensuring his genes and no other male's genes are passed on through her. The male and female are two aspects of one thing, humanity, and together the source of regeneration. It could even be considered the will of the species, for the pairing is foremost a physiological rather than an intellectual decision.

That is a solid, conservative view.

Once the financial necessities are met men and women still need one another. The needs can be simple but the causes and expressions of the needs can be complex. If they exist and appear irrational then perhaps it’s notions of rationality that need be examined, especially if the expressions are a response to an irrational world.

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWgIOb_U2Hc

As I've stated earlier biology does not follow fashion and it is not a conservative view, it is a biological view. The same principles that were at work ten thousand years ago still govern the mating of modernity. I can understand the desire for a more romantic view but not if it will cloud one's perception of reality. Women still want the same things from their males and men still want the same things from their females. Of course, once financial necessities are met men and women still need one another that's a no-brainer. Needs are simple and biological and there is nothing irrational about them. Perhaps you should do some reading on basic biology; romance novels have their place but give a false evaluation of the relationship between two aspects of one thing, mainly the human family and its mating processes.

[Iwannaplato]

As I've stated earlier biology does not follow fashion and it is not a conservative view, it is a biological view. The same principles that were at work ten thousand years ago still govern the mating of modernity. I can understand the desire for a more romantic view but not if it will cloud one's perception of reality. Women still want the same things from their males and men still want the same things from their females. Of course, once financial necessities are met men and women still need one another that's a no-brainer. Needs are simple and biological and there is nothing irrational about them. Perhaps you should do some reading on basic biology; romance novels have their place but give a false evaluation of the relationship between two aspects of one thing, mainly the human family and its mating processes.

I must be lucky or in some skewed corner of the statistical universe. I find women want healthy and attractive, but also all this emotional stuff. Good stuff often. And I have never been rebuffed on economic grounds. I am sure I would be, but so far those women haven't attracted me in any holistic sense. I've not had some solid career and yet, hey in my niche I am chosen or aimed at enough.

Shit, this may come off as bragging. That's not my point. I just think we are oversimplifying problematically, even with provisos like...

once financial necessities are met men and women still need one another that's a no-brainer.

I see people, for romance, also putting their supposedly more basic needs in jeopardy and not rarely.

[popeye1945]

As I've stated earlier biology does not follow fashion and it is not a conservative view, it is a biological view. The same principles that were at work ten thousand years ago still govern the mating of modernity. I can understand the desire for a more romantic view but not if it will cloud one's perception of reality. Women still want the same things from their males and men still want the same things from their females. Of course, once financial necessities are met men and women still need one another that's a no-brainer. Needs are simple and biological and there is nothing irrational about them. Perhaps you should do some reading on basic biology; romance novels have their place but give a false evaluation of the relationship between two aspects of one thing, mainly the human family and its mating processes.

I must be lucky or in some skewed corner of the statistical universe. I find women want healthy and attractive, but also all this emotional stuff. Good stuff often. And I have never been rebuffed on economic grounds. I am sure I would be, but so far those women haven't attracted me in any holistic sense. I've not had some solid career and yet, hey in my niche I am chosen or aimed at enough.

Shit, this may come off as bragging. That's not my point. I just think we are oversimplifying problematically, even with provisos like...

once financial necessities are met men and women still need one another that's a no-brainer.

I see people, for romance, also putting their supposedly more basic needs in jeopardy and not rarely.

This reality is not about individual experience but of the statistically affirmed generality of the principals involved. There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed. Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

[Iwannaplato]

This reality is not about individual experience but of the statistically affirmed generality of the principals involved.

Sure, but how do we distinguish cultural effects from biological ones. Up until the early 70's as near consensus, women were considered unable to do many things we now take for granted they can do. Which means their choices in the job market were limited and also there was a lot of social pressure to not be there and certainly not in many professions. That means they will be more dependent on men if there are children involved. It's a self-creating attitude. And what statistics are you working with? What studies are you basing this on? It would be helpful to see their protocols.

Part of my point here is we are barely out of a long period where women's potential abilities in all sorts of things were utterly hallucinated out of the picture. An utterly unreal image of women (men also) was presented as real and this still is something that is unraveling.

There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.

Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think?

Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling.

I don't think the answer women see men as, more or less, sources of money for the bills to support children is what is driving people. Or better put that leaves out so much that it is not realistic. To tell people that would be to undermine a lot of other needs and desires, plus have implicit messages to women about their own abilitie to contribute to those bills, should they want to. Once women were no longer seen in an unrealistic fashion, many moved into the workforce. After a few decades of this, they started expecting men to look more healthy and beautiful,

As an aside, I don't think men and women are the same. I do think there are biological tendences and significant ones. But I really don't think in Western societies the explanations for what men and women want is that simple at all. Class and education levels have big effects, and some subcultures will be more like your description than others. But I don't think it is reality. And why would we be so romantic if this isn't a core need and something that happens underneath verbal thinking and often automatically, even in the very young.

[popeye1945]

This reality is not about individual experience but of the statistically affirmed generality of the principals involved.

"Sure, but how do we distinguish cultural effects from biological ones. Up until the early 70's as near consensus, women were considered unable to do many things we now take for granted they can do. Which means their choices in the job market were limited and also there was a lot of social pressure to not be there and certainly not in many professions. That means they will be more dependent on men if there are children involved. It's a self-creating attitude. And what statistics are you working with? What studies are you basing this on? It would be helpful to see their protocols.

As I have already stated biology does not follow fashion, yes, the work/environmental context has changed and along with it attitudes about gender have changed somewhat. There are today more women graduate from university than there are males which means they will be making more money than many males. That said, their mating strategies have not changed, women marry either on the same economic level or above they do not marry down, unlike the male population where a successful male will marry down, perhaps marry a waitress. Considering that sexual selection is the female function this is going to affect the basic structure of society. Women still want greater security for both themselves and any children they might bear, which means their selection is heavily materially influenced. I know it does not sound very romantic but basically, the mating process is really the will of the species and these instincts are innate within our human biology. As to confirmation, that could be had by reading more basic biology, offhand I might quote Jorden Peterson, the renowned psychologist/sociologist he is on tick tock or possibly just google it he affirms the statistical evidence of these patterns.


"Part of my point here is we are barely out of a long period where women's potential abilities in all sorts of things were utterly hallucinated out of the picture. An utterly unreal image of women (men also) was presented as real and this still is something that is unraveling. [/quote]

You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.

There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.

"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think? [/quote]

Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.

Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]

There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.

"I don't think the answer women see men as, more or less, sources of money for the bills to support children is what is driving people. Or better put that leaves out so much that it is not realistic. To tell people that would be to undermine a lot of other needs and desires, plus have implicit messages to women about their own ability to contribute to those bills, should they want to. Once women were no longer seen in an unrealistic fashion, many moved into the workforce. After a few decades of this, they started expecting men to look more healthy and beautiful, [/quote]

You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times. The same mating patterns are repeated over and over again, women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.

As an aside, I don't think men and women are the same. I do think there are biological tendences and significant ones. But I really don't think in Western societies the explanations for what men and women want is that simple at all. Class and education levels have big effects, and some subcultures will be more like your description than others. But I don't think it is reality. And why would we be so romantic if this isn't a core need and something that happens underneath verbal thinking and often automatically, even in the very young.
[/quote]

The playing field changes but biologically the players remain the same, repeating the same patterns even when the context has turned the roles upside down. These instinctual patterns played out in today's context will cause considerable tensions within society and not all necessarily to the good.

[Iwannaplato]

As I have already stated biology does not follow fashion, yes, the work/environmental context has changed and along with it attitudes about gender have changed somewhat. There are today more women graduate from university than there are males which means they will be making more money than many males. That said, their mating strategies have not changed, women marry either on the same economic level or above they do not marry down, unlike the male population where a successful male will marry down, perhaps marry a waitress. Considering that sexual selection is the female function this is going to affect the basic structure of society. Women still want greater security for both themselves and any children they might bear, which means their selection is heavily materially influenced. I know it does not sound very romantic but basically, the mating process is really the will of the species and these instincts are innate within our human biology. As to confirmation, that could be had by reading more basic biology, offhand I might quote Jorden Peterson, the renowned psychologist/sociologist he is on tick tock or possibly just google it he affirms the statistical evidence of these patterns.

But again how does the research separate out cultural effects that may be fading out? I like Peterson in many ways, but he is also conservative, a kind of Christian and someone reacting to current trends that go radically against conservative values and gender roles. I have watched a lot of Peterson, but I haven't seen specific studies cited. As far as biology I have my first degree in it and I stay up in a lay person way.

You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.

Yes, that was then. Does this theory hold for tribal groups?

There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.

"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think? [/quote]

Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.

romance, yes? For quite some time we have had a cultural norm of romance being central in attraction and mate formation. Why did people create and follow this myth if it is some mere peripheral phenomenon?

Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]

There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.

And the conditions presented an unreal assessment of the capabilities of women. That was cultural not biological. And it was really skewed.

You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times. The same mating patterns are repeated over and over again, women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.

Our times allows people more to follow their main desires. I also raise the issue of tribal groups where there would be some accumulation of wealth and hunting does provide one side of the diet, so skill in that area might well up your attractiveness. But I'd need to see data before assuming that was more significant than other criteria in tribal groups.

Women often, also get to choose between men who pass minimums, and I think those criteria are much more important than your schema allows.

It has also got to work. The marriage, that is. And now that women are not so restricted and are not treated as property of men, there central desires for the person they spend huge amounts of time with can come out. And I suspect that in tribal groups this was much more common also.

[popeye1945]

This reality is not about individual experience but of the statistically affirmed generality of the principals involved.

"Sure, but how do we distinguish cultural effects from biological ones. Up until the early 70's as near consensus, women were considered unable to do many things we now take for granted they can do. Which means their choices in the job market were limited and also there was a lot of social pressure to not be there and certainly not in many professions. That means they will be more dependent on men if there are children involved. It's a self-creating attitude. And what statistics are you working with? What studies are you basing this on? It would be helpful to see their protocols.

As I have already stated biology does not follow fashion, yes, the work/environmental context has changed and along with it attitudes about gender have changed somewhat. There are today more women graduate from university than there are males which means they will be making more money than many males. That said, their mating strategies have not changed, women marry either on the same economic level or above they do not marry down, unlike the male population where a successful male will marry down, perhaps marry a waitress. Considering that sexual selection is the female function this is going to affect the basic structure of society. Women still want greater security for both themselves and any children they might bear, which means their selection is heavily materially influenced. I know it does not sound very romantic but basically, the mating process is really the will of the species and these instincts are innate within our human biology. As to confirmation, that could be had by reading more basic biology, offhand I might quote Jorden Peterson, the renowned psychologist/sociologist he is on tick tock or possibly just google it, he affirms the statistical evidence of these patterns.


"Part of my point here is we are barely out of a long period where women's potential abilities in all sorts of things were utterly hallucinated out of the picture. An utterly unreal image of women (men also) was presented as real and this still is something that is unraveling.

You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.

There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.

"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think? [/quote]

Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.

Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]

There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.

"I don't think the answer women see men as, more or less, sources of money for the bills to support children is what is driving people. Or better put that leaves out so much that it is not realistic. To tell people that would be to undermine a lot of other needs and desires, plus have implicit messages to women about their own ability to contribute to those bills, should they want to. Once women were no longer seen in an unrealistic fashion, many moved into the workforce. After a few decades of this, they started expecting men to look more healthy and beautiful, [/quote]

You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times, the same mating patterns are repeated over and over again. Women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.

"As an aside, I don't think men and women are the same. I do think there are biological tendences and significant ones. But I really don't think in Western societies the explanations for what men and women want is that simple at all. Class and education levels have big effects, and some subcultures will be more like your description than others. But I don't think it is reality. And why would we be so romantic if this isn't a core need and something that happens underneath verbal thinking and often automatically, even in the very young. [/quote]

The playing field changes but biologically the players remain the same, repeating the same patterns even when the context has turned the roles upside down. These instinctual patterns played out in today's context will cause considerable tensions within society and not all necessarily to the good. As to sexual attraction and romance, this is the strongest of biological forces, and like I said earlier romance takes the basic animal lust to a higher level. However, the lust shows through in people's consumption of porn. There is nothing more delightful than the infatuation of romantic intrigue. Attraction in and of itself is not an intellectual decision but the blind will of the species, to quote Schopenhauer.

[Iwannaplato]

"Sure, but how do we distinguish cultural effects from biological ones. Up until the early 70's as near consensus, women were considered unable to do many things we now take for granted they can do. Which means their choices in the job market were limited and also there was a lot of social pressure to not be there and certainly not in many professions. That means they will be more dependent on men if there are children involved. It's a self-creating attitude. And what statistics are you working with? What studies are you basing this on? It would be helpful to see their protocols.

As I have already stated biology does not follow fashion, yes, the work/environmental context has changed and along with it attitudes about gender have changed somewhat. There are today more women graduate from university than there are males which means they will be making more money than many males. That said, their mating strategies have not changed, women marry either on the same economic level or above they do not marry down, unlike the male population where a successful male will marry down, perhaps marry a waitress. Considering that sexual selection is the female function this is going to affect the basic structure of society. Women still want greater security for both themselves and any children they might bear, which means their selection is heavily materially influenced. I know it does not sound very romantic but basically, the mating process is really the will of the species and these instincts are innate within our human biology. As to confirmation, that could be had by reading more basic biology, offhand I might quote Jorden Peterson, the renowned psychologist/sociologist he is on tick tock or possibly just google it, he affirms the statistical evidence of these patterns.


"Part of my point here is we are barely out of a long period where women's potential abilities in all sorts of things were utterly hallucinated out of the picture. An utterly unreal image of women (men also) was presented as real and this still is something that is unraveling.

You have to consider attitudes in the context of their times, when most work that was available was hard labor neither the female nor the male wanted women to be working in the mines or felling trees, there was still much of the setup of a primary culture where the men hunted and the women supported the male hunter, they were a unit neither could survive without the other.

There are always exceptions to the rule but the rule is well established. It is not an opinion; it is scientifically based. I know I was not brought up with a realistic view of what is involved, the romantic version is what most people are fed.

"Who would be feeding this and why if the biological is the truth and affecting how we think?

Again, you have to consider this thing in the context of their times, it wasn't really debated it was the cultural norm.

Romance has its place but I think it would be better for the young to be in touch with reality, it just might give them the inspiration to measure up and apply themselves if they know the name of game. The romantic theme is what raises the mating of humanity up from the basic lust of animal procreation in general. Aye, but the population does consume a lot of porn which takes it back down to the animal level.

"Or maybe the idea of reality is actually a biased one and self-fulfilling. [/quote]

There is an old saying context defines, said another way environment defines. One adapts to the conditions one lives under.

"I don't think the answer women see men as, more or less, sources of money for the bills to support children is what is driving people. Or better put that leaves out so much that it is not realistic. To tell people that would be to undermine a lot of other needs and desires, plus have implicit messages to women about their own ability to contribute to those bills, should they want to. Once women were no longer seen in an unrealistic fashion, many moved into the workforce. After a few decades of this, they started expecting men to look more healthy and beautiful, [/quote]

You are thinking in terms of your own times just as everyone in the past has done. The civilization of your times informs you, but biology changes ever so slowly and despite the times, the same mating patterns are repeated over and over again. Women do not marry economically down but on the same level or up, this is statistically validated.

"As an aside, I don't think men and women are the same. I do think there are biological tendences and significant ones. But I really don't think in Western societies the explanations for what men and women want is that simple at all. Class and education levels have big effects, and some subcultures will be more like your description than others. But I don't think it is reality. And why would we be so romantic if this isn't a core need and something that happens underneath verbal thinking and often automatically, even in the very young. [/quote]

The playing field changes but biologically the players remain the same, repeating the same patterns even when the context has turned the roles upside down. These instinctual patterns played out in today's context will cause considerable tensions within society and not all necessarily to the good. As to sexual attraction and romance, this is the strongest of biological forces, and like I said earlier romance takes the basic animal lust to a higher level. However, the lust shows through in people's consumption of porn. There is nothing more delightful than the infatuation of romantic intrigue.
[/quote]
This seems very much like your previous post. I see nothing to show that whatever research was done eliminated cultural factors. It seems like here you are just repeating your position.

OK, but I knew you believed these things.