The question I put to the forum is about the decidedly anomalous reversal of sexual advertisment in humans. For instance, the male bird of paradise grows a huge flashy tail to "attract" the female, but the male human generally dresses far less attractively than does the female human. Why? Why does a woman generally paint her face or at least tend to be more concerned with her appearance than a man? One would be tempted to conclude that it is the female humans who are competing for scarce human males, but any trip to a bar or church or other place of social gatherings indicates it is the male who pursues the female. Yes, some women do chase men, but society has a nasty name for them. So why the discrepancy? Of the women I have asked (not a scientific survey at all), they all deny that they dress to attract men. They claim to be dressing for themselves or to be in competition with each other. But in competition for what?

Men like women because they are pretty. Women like men because they are stupid. Any attempt to alter the natural way of things ultimately depends upon artificial insemination.

The purpose of the competition, no matter what the sex or species, is to find the best mate. In many animals the number of males is much higher than the number of females. In others a single male can mate with many females. both of these result in the same thing: not all males will pass on their genetic material, only the best.

humans are among the latter. men and women have different criteria for determining the best. men look for the best mother for his child, while the woman looks for the strongest male to give her that child. genetically, the strongest sign a man has that a woman would be a good mother is her figure. woman know that. a second is her attention to detail: if she pays attention to her looks, she will likely pay attention to the child. not a given, but more likely. women will tell you she is not dressing for the man, but for the competition with other women (true, but competition for all the men's attention, that gives her choices) and for herself (she is paying attention to detail, often she does not even know why). the men will then try to show off how strong he is, albeit these days, mostly with the strength of his bank account.

i wonder hw are the textile, shoes,cologne industries (catering to men)surviving if men don't care abt their appearance! i doubt if analogy drawn here with animal species is totally correct (thou it may be tempting to do so by discussing it as 'scientic point of view')...i believe humans today are doing more than just thinking abt procreation only...

however i mst say, d uniformity abt'how men think of women', cutting across the geographical borders n cultural differnces (as i believe this forum represents) is impressive!

peace

who says men dont care about their appearances (i think that was your comment. untill i figure out your languange i not really sure). the human body is really just an animal. the main difference between man and animal is that man has something a little bit extra. depending on your beliefs, its either a soul, mind, or something else. it can override the animal some of the time, but it has to have a reason to.

What man has is hypocrisy and egotism: Nothing more.

You can't find a soul with an electron microscope.

Hey, why don't you just leave the human race alone man!

To what end? Do things get better when you bury your head in the sand?

Do you really inhabit such a bankrupt world?

I find your reductionism to be bleak and unsatisfactory. No wonder New Age thinking is on the ascendant when scientists offer such a stark mechanistic view of life. As you said elsewhere, "Humans are biological computing machines. They may not calculate in binary on silicon. But calculate they do. Nothing more ... and nothing less."

Whilst you propose such a view of humanity then people will remain unsatisfied and seek answers in feng shui, healing crystal and channelling the dead. It's ironic that scientists desperately want people to embrace empirical thought, but may actually be driving people to mysticism and fairy tales because people instinctively feel there is more to us than pure calculating machines.

You may feel that all complex systems can be completely understood in terms of their components but many of us feel that love is more than the sum total of evolution, hormones and game theory.

Ask why the scientific discipline is further advanced than at any point in history yet converts to Islam are growing exponentially in the UK.

Blacknad.

even atheist say man has something more. they don't call it soul. likely it varies from one atheist to another. being detected by a electon microscpe does not mean anything. i'd like you to show me a photon with an electron microscope. some say that the soul is a lot smaller than an electon, but bigger than the galaxy.

As we evolved to be upright things changed:

A man's ***** is now larger than an 800 pound gorilla's. That's display!... With tight pants... Loose clothes in men came from gansta rap originally. It's much easier to hide stolen goods that way.

But for most of human history men were very prettied up. It has only been since the mid-1800s and especially ~1900 that the drab business man's look has prevailed. (Do not offend the outgroups one is trading with.)

Women's breasts got larger as a display to replace the buttocks (at least in part). A rule of thumb is that in northern races women's breasts are larger than in tropical areas.
_______________

"Conformity and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men and of the human frame,
A mechanized automaton."
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822) British poet. In "Queen Mab" (1813)

Why is the medical term for the male reproductive organ censored? Burn your AmericanHeritage Dictionary!
_______________

"Once we start to worry too often and too deeply about
what certain individuals and what certain groups think about us,
then we might start selling our souls for the sake of expediency."
-- Otis Chandler, Publisher Of The Los Angeles Times (1969)

you can't find a soul with an electron microscope --dano

(how do you do the quote box in this new forum format)

you can't find a mind with an electron microscope either

does that mean that the mind(s) does not exist

what's your point

nobel laureates in the early '60s said that the universe (everything) broken down to its simplest form is equal to matter and mind

they suggest that matter and energy are different terms for essentially the same thing...kind of like electric and magnetic are different terms for the essentially the same phenomenon and are now combined in the term electromagnetism

space and time are now generally referred to as spacetime...can you find time under an electron microscope

mind exists but you can't directly empirically observe it

Blacknad my life is wonderful. I own a house, a Jag and a 50' boat and haven't worked a regular job in more than 20 years.

But I don't believe in the Easter Bunny and I don't believe in inventing cute stories with respect to the human condition. The fact that you live in a first world country, and in one of the most beautiful and financially successful parts of that country, does not mean that your experience is representative of most of this planet's human inhabitants: Actually quite the opposite. Why don't you join me sometime visiting a third-world country with a population many times that of the UK or EU?

Thanks anyman. I'll restate my point.

The soul does NOT exist and there is NOT a single shred of evidence supporting the proposition that it does.

Happier?

DA,

Isn't this the Science stream? Why the religeous/philosphical beliefs?
Science can't prove OR disprove the existance of the soul (though I have seen a few SF stories based on the premise that someone discovered how to detect souls).

Reductionism is only one way to view the universe, and is not inherently "Scientific", even though it is the most common strategy used in Science.

nor is there one shred of evidence to support the proposition that it does not exist.

click on the two quotation marks. the page symbol next to it is the edit.

"The soul does NOT exist and there is NOT a single shred of evidence supporting the proposition that it does." --dano

c'mon...did you close your eyes, imagine impossible things, click the heels of your ruby red slippers three times...and hold your tongue just right

if so, then at least you can believe what you wrote to be true...we can even pretend to believe with you

you said it, you believe it; it must be true, eh

hey mikey

no...still in the same place

good to see you again friend

hope all is well with you and yours

Thersites opened this stream with the following:

"The question I put to the forum is about the decidedly anomalous reversal of sexual advertisment in humans. For instance, the male bird of paradise grows a huge flashy tail to "attract" the female, but the male human generally dresses far less attractively than does the female human."
------------------

I would like to suggest that you will find no anomaly if you compare species with similar breeding strategies.

Male Birds of Paradise spend all their energy in seeking mates and take no part in rearing the offspring. Mammals with a similar strategy tend to have a higher level of sexual dimorphism - males with much larger and heavier bodies than females, bigger horns or antlers, manes, etc.

If you compare humans with bird species in which the male shares in raising the family you will find that we are actually fairly normal. While there are still many species where the male is more colourful than the female, this it more common in smaller birds where the female spends more time on the nest while the male defends the territory and brings food to the female.
In flock birds and species where both sexes work together to protect the territory, it is often quite difficult to tell the sexes apart.

Secondly, it is dangerous to base an argument on a comparison between genetics and learned behaviour. There have been many cultures where human males were as colourful as females. Consider the bright colours of most military uniforms before firearms reached the stage of development where camouflage became essential.