Quote :

"Ladies and gents, keep an open mind. Only then will you be paying attention when someone who defies these negative images walks by..."

You find someone when you least expect it.

1/29/2008 5:25:30 PM

Quote :

"Actually: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000001.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000002.xml"

Actually I don't have to act on those attractions or base sexual urges at all (especially if it's against my own self interest). Seriously. It doesn't determine how I act or whether I need a "provider" financially.

But hey, far be it for a woman to have a choice about anything she ever does, right?

[Edited on January 29, 2008 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ,]

1/29/2008 5:49:00 PM

The original article was all over the place. On one hand pointed out men that were lazy and on the other successful, but had different than traditional goals. I think one reason for this is that the world is a lot bigger and accessible with much more to experience than in the 60s. I own property, have a good job but there are a lot of things to see and do that marriage would severely hamper and I haven't found anyone for whom I'd be willing to sacrifice those goals or even with similar goals I wouldn't have to support.

It's also very hard to find someone worthy to settle down with that you are also compatible enough with. That could just be me being pessimistic or overly picky.

1/29/2008 5:50:37 PM

^Yeah, I still haven't dated anyone that I think I'd actually be happy settling down with.

If this was 30 years ago, I'd have just married the girl I dated through most of college and I'd be miserable right now and for years to come.

1/29/2008 5:54:23 PM

Quote :

"That could just be me being pessimistic or overly picky."

IMHO it's better to be picky than to end up with someone you're not happy with and divorce them later (or suffer for the rest of your life).

1/29/2008 6:48:52 PM

Quote :

" Actually I don't have to act on those attractions or base sexual urges at all (especially if it's against my own self interest). Seriously. It doesn't determine how I act or whether I need a "provider" financially. "

Fighting yourself is your personal business. I'm just pointing out how evolution has a say in everything, an assertion you denied.

Quote :

" But hey, far be it for a woman to have a choice about anything she ever does, right "

Yes, clearly what I linked is a scientific basis for 'keeping you[women] down.'

1/29/2008 9:53:35 PM

Misandry at its finest, folks.

1/29/2008 11:04:47 PM

how is some batshit crazy girl complaining about the opposite sex?

1/29/2008 11:09:24 PM

Quote :

"Scents and Sensibility"

According to that article, sexual attraction is mostly based on smell. I have no sense of smell. Guess I'm screwed!!

oh and the article in the original post is just stupid. Seems like another attempt to say that the "millennial" generation is a bunch of losers. It's just dumb to try and stereotype fifteen years of people.

1/29/2008 11:35:14 PM

Actually you'd be a good test subject.

You should email the group that did the study and demand they do one with men/women that have no sense of scent.

1/29/2008 11:37:06 PM

Quote :

"I have no sense of smell. Guess I'm screwed!! "

don't people with no sense of smell have a higher rate of suicide?

1/29/2008 11:52:30 PM

Quote :

"Fighting yourself is your personal business. I'm just pointing out how evolution has a say in everything, an assertion you denied."

No, I didn't deny it at all, I even said it had an impact. I just said you have the choice of whether you follow every urge you have in that sense.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 12:01:25 AM

Yes

Thats great

and also completely not my argument.

I just wanted to point out the role evolution plays in your life.

Quote :

" But why the fuck should any of this "evolutionary" theory come into any of the discussion about what any woman wants to do with her life? "

1/30/2008 12:03:47 AM

Note the word "theory."

I didn't say "evolution" did not matter in my life.

Regardless, it does not DECIDE FOR ME what it is I'm going to do, which you apparently think it will.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 12:04:32 AM

Why are you making a distinction between evolution and the theory explaining it?

Also, your genes dictated who you will be attracted and who you are likely to fall in love with. Whether you act on your instinct(s) or not is clearly up to you.

1/30/2008 12:14:44 AM

Quote :

"Why are you making a distinction between evolution and the theory explaining it?"

Because JCASH said thousands of years of programming will mean that women just want to pop out babies and rely on guys for providing for us. We're not all doing that, so there must be flaws in that theory.

Evolution doesn't dictate anyone's life, and you tried to assert it did.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:29 AM. Reason : maybe you should get back to arguing about the plane thing]

1/30/2008 12:27:02 AM

Quote :

" Because how you act is largely determined by how you evolved. "

Is what I said and you've come up with nothing besides anecdotal evidence from your own personal life to suggest otherwise.

Quote :

" Because JCASH said thousands of years of programming will mean that women just want to pop out babies and rely on guys for providing for us. We're not all doing that, so there must be flaws in that theory. "

No I think the theory is fairly sound as the number of women going through life without having any kids is fairly small.

Also there's the entire 'world population doubling' based on exponential population growth thing.

Not to mention, if we had this conversation ten years from now, statistically speaking, you'll have had children.

1/30/2008 12:31:29 AM

Quote :

"you've come up with nothing besides anecdotal evidence from your own personal life to suggest otherwise"

Likewise, you've come up with absolutely nothing (except for "attraction") that describes my day-to-day actions and decisions as a function of human evolution.

Quote :

"Not to mention, if we had this conversation ten years from now, statistically speaking, you'll have had children."

How deplorably offensive of you.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 12:37:55 AM

I'm not trying to describe your day-to-day actions because I don't even know what you do. I just linked you studies done on how evolution effects men and women in finding a mate because you were so adamant that you were in control of your own fate.

I also find it hilarious that you'd be offended at possibly having children within the next ten years.

1/30/2008 12:40:16 AM

Quote :

"I just linked you studies done on how evolution effects men and women in finding a mate because you were so adamant that you were in control of your own fate."

I still am. I didn't say everything we did was independent of evolution: I even SAID evolution affected these things, but you apparently want to ignore that for some lame reason. You have the choice to accept or reject the "programming," though. It doesn't decide preemptively what we're going to do.

I'm not offended at the prospect of having children. I'm offended that you presume to know what I'm going to do with my life, as if I were some kind of mindless automated baby machine. Just fuck off.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 12:47:03 AM

I think you're underestimating how subtle the influence of instinct is on your decisions but thats another thread.

Also, if you calm your nerdrage enough to read what I wrote about you having children, you'd notice the 'statistically speaking'.

Thats a slight rebuttal to

Quote :

" ecause JCASH said thousands of years of programming will mean that women just want to pop out babies and rely on guys for providing for us. We're not all doing that, so there must be flaws in that theory. "

1/30/2008 12:52:49 AM

We're still not ALL doing that. Does that mean we lack the instinct? I doubt it, if this "programming" is seriously in every woman.

I just think the theory is too broad and leaves a good chunk of women out, if it's seriously supposed to describe "how I'm going to act."

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : I therefore can't support a theory that leaves "choice" out of it.]

1/30/2008 12:54:47 AM

itt StillFuchsia is mad about being a girl.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2008 1:00:19 AM

Well evolution actually encompasses small changes over a broad time period. Evolutionary theories aren't intended to explain micro cases but overall trends. Differences amongst individuals within a species kind of is the point, but for those differences to become trends those members have to successfully reproduce.

Regardless, I think you can accept that you as a person will most likely change. My main point is that how you change as a person is fairly heavily effected by your genes and we can argue that back and forth but thats not really the scope of this thread.

1/30/2008 1:01:13 AM

Quote :

"itt StillFuchsia is mad about being a girl."

Not really.

I haven't had a string of lame boyfriends like the OP or anything, at least.

1/30/2008 1:02:50 AM

Lame girlfriends then?

1/30/2008 1:49:11 AM

this is complete hogwash. the original article, I mean. every generation will always think that it has lost some sense of manhood, or the previous generation will tell it it has.

it's never been true. there's no definition of manhood, and no generation of men has ever seemed quite manly enough for the previous one.

1/30/2008 2:19:43 AM

Quote :

"We're still not ALL doing that. Does that mean we lack the instinct? I doubt it, if this "programming" is seriously in every woman. I just think the theory is too broad and leaves a good chunk of women out, if it's seriously supposed to describe "how I'm going to act.""

I don't think you're in a position to say you're resisting your natural womanly instincts at age 22. At age 40, you might have a case.

Even then, obviously not all women have kids, but most do and the majority, even in American society, are still following a similar pattern to what people have been doing for the past few thousand years.

And I think you're taking SandSanta's generalized comments a little too personally. He's arguing in the abstract and you're trying to disprove the arguments in the specific using your life as an example. It's not very convincing.

1/30/2008 6:12:41 AM

Quote :

"but most do and the majority, even in American society, are still following a similar pattern to what people have been doing for the past few thousand years."

Having multiple wives?

1/30/2008 8:31:18 AM

Quote :

"Because JCASH said thousands of years of programming will mean that women just want to pop out babies and rely on guys for providing for us. We're not all doing that, so there must be flaws in that theory."

StillFuchsia is, as usual, wrapped up in herself and the concept that her contrary existence disproves a broader, over-arching, theory.

I've made it clear to her, numerous times, that there are always variations within a theme, but the vast majority of women (and men) want to have children. She is a product of evolution simply because that trait exists. If it didn't we humans wouldn't exist today. Charles Darwin isn't going to knock on your door one day and say, "here is a baby, good luck fucker" but that doesn't mean that instincts deep within (most) humans urge men to want to copulate and women to want to rear children.

So woman, quit putting words in my mouth and start defending your personal opinion with something you can substantiate instead of just going back to what JCASHFAN said.

1/30/2008 8:55:10 AM

Quote :

"Lame girlfriends then?"

Quote :

"Even then, obviously not all women have kids"

That's my entire point.

And you're all missing it by thinking that I'm trying to disprove evolution OR A THEORY ABOUT IT. I'm ONLY saying you have a choice of whether to accept and play out your role from instinct or not. You truly and honestly do.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : ,]

1/30/2008 10:17:24 AM

Sweetheart

You're trying to disprove a theory with a metric fuckton of statistical backing and scientific evidence based on your 22 (give or take) emo years on this planet.

Seriously, print this thread out and put in a time capsule and look at it again in 10 years.

1/30/2008 10:25:47 AM

Quote :

"you're trying to disprove a theory with a metric fuckton of statistical backing and scientific evidence"

I'm trying to do nothing of the sort.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 10:29 AM. Reason : Everyone keeps missing the point, so there's no longer any reason to continue to bother.]

1/30/2008 10:28:25 AM

That's one way to look at it

Or you could take an introspective moment and try and figure out why 'everyone' isn't getting 'it' and only you are.

1/30/2008 10:41:08 AM

Quote :

"She is a product of evolution simply because that trait exists."

I never said I wasn't.

Quote :

"but that doesn't mean that instincts deep within (most) humans urge men to want to copulate and women to want to rear children."

I never said most people didn't, either.

All I said was that it doesn't mean all people will. I don't know why me saying such an obvious point suddenly created this huge shitstorm of nonsense on the other side.

1/30/2008 10:45:33 AM

Because debating you, at least to me, is immensely entertaining . . . I think other people probably take this all too seriously

1/30/2008 10:50:05 AM

^x6 It was just a question.

1/30/2008 11:17:30 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18482794

1/30/2008 2:20:06 PM

Quote :

"and then it's off to bars and parties, where you meet, and often bed, girls of widely varied hues and sizes. "

Yes, those girls. Let's totally ignore them with this article and say that all women are mature in their 20s. Yep, no bikini bullriding, yager bomb chugging, wet t-shirt contesting going on here at all with women in their 20s. They're allllll mature.

1/30/2008 3:22:12 PM

On that NPR link,

'Generation Next' in the Slow Lane to Adulthood

Provides a good read. A bit more balanced and logical.

1/30/2008 3:38:49 PM

There are odd mature early to mid 20s people of both sexes. The trick is finding each other.

1/30/2008 10:12:11 PM

People in general have more job mobility. They don't stay at the same workplace for 20, or even 3 years now sometimes.

Why buy a house when you're not sure you're going to live in the same city 5 years from now?

1/30/2008 10:24:40 PM

Quote :

" Why buy a house when you're not sure you're going to live in the same city 5 years from now? "

Thats actually an entirely different thread.

1/30/2008 10:38:49 PM

Yeah, I was going to comment on that too but didn't want to get the thread waaaaaaay off course.

1/30/2008 10:40:08 PM

Quote :

"Thats actually an entirely different thread."

It kinda explains why men are reluctant to do buy a house and settle down.

1/30/2008 10:44:55 PM

See I don't think you should single out 'men.'

I don't see any particular reason why 'women' shouldn't be buying starter homes when single to be honest.

1/30/2008 10:56:30 PM

Quote :

"It kinda explains why men are reluctant to do buy a house"

I think it's funny that the last two guys to post (well, three if you include me) are all 20-something homeowners.

1/30/2008 11:28:23 PM

This thread should be retitled "Over-thinking Relationships"


it's dangerous to analyze the fuck out of something that simply cannot be figured out.


Just chill, live your life your way, and it will all work out.

that's a promise, yo.

[Edited on January 30, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason : for the record, sandsanta pwned the fuck out of this on page 1.]

1/30/2008 11:51:46 PM

guys just don't want crazy chicks.

1/31/2008 12:02:22 AM

the earliest age you should get married is 25...you have to live a lil before you get hitched...dont understand getting married at 20 21 then she gets preggers, then goes the career you dreamed about(especially ones that move around a lot)

1/31/2008 12:41:27 AM