Men Finding Women Attractive? What's Next?

[Ishtvan]

Enter the miracle of birth control.

[woah]

 

Orgasms last a few seconds at most.

[obscurus]

Enter the miracle of birth control.

 

 

Too late for me, I'm afraid.

 

Orgasms last a few seconds at most.

 

But, damn, those are good seconds!

[satan]

Women dress to show off in front of other women as much as to show off in front of men.

Of course, some women are naturally more attractive than others, so it's really the less attractive ones that have to dress like tarts to get attention, the really attractive ones could wear a boiler suit and still be sexy.

 

 

 

 

WORD

 

[Renzatic]

An orgasm might only last for a few seconds, but everything up to that point feels good too!

[JPMaximilian]

I have heard of people who have gotten what is called, marred, marrid, marrie, something like that. Anyway I guess these people "love" each other and live with each other for the rest of their lives? They also have sex exclusively with each other, enjoy it, and love the children that results from it? Has anyone else heard about this? The idea intrigues me.

[OrbWeaver]

I have heard of people who have gotten what is called, marred, marrid, marrie, something like that. Anyway I guess these people "love" each other and live with each other for the rest of their lives? They also have sex exclusively with each other, enjoy it, and love the children that results from it? Has anyone else heard about this? The idea intrigues me.

 

Would this be similar to the "married" that involves a totally unnecessary and expensive ceremony followed by several years of tedious and sex-free cohabitation culminating in a costly and stressful divorce?

[SneaksieDave]

Sounds like yet another wonderful thing we can thank religion for.

 

"But.. but.. you have to have sex with me, be loyal to me, and stay with me and make me happy. I've got a piece of paper that says so!"

[sparhawk]

Sticking to gether is nothing that we have to have religion for. After all also in wildlife there are many cases of species which stick together. Formalizing it is the only thing that religion accounts for though.

[OrbWeaver]

If people are going to stick together, they do not need a marriage ceremony to formalise it.

 

If they are not going to stick together, marriage just makes things more difficult and does nothing to improve the relationship.

 

Marriage is totally worthless, except for the legal/inheritance stuff (which shouldn't be based on marriage anyway).

[pakmannen]

Marriage is a tradtition, wouldn't call that worthless. Almost every culture has had some form of marriage ceremony. For instance, Africa is probably home to the largest amount of religions and cultures on earth. They've got tons of different wedding traditions, but one thing that is important in many of them is the complete merging of the two families (or tribes) into one. That's pretty cool if you ask me.

[sparhawk]

Tradations are traditions because they were created a long time ago. Even though many traditions may have no sense anymore, the time when the tradition was created it made sense. Seeing that all the cultures have religion and marriages (among other traditions) and calling them useless is kind of stupid. The very fact that these traditions have been formed so often independently among cultures means, that there is indeed something more than just an annyoance. Of course this doesn't mean that a tradition has to stay meaningfull all the time, because when time and habot changes, the sense it had, may no longer be valid.

[pakmannen]

Yes that's true, but you don't always have to be about the practical side of everything either. Of course a lot of our customs don't make any real sense anymore, but I still celebrate Midsummer and dance around a huge flower penis every year.

 

Edit - I think I misread your post Spar, so don't bother about my first sentance.

[OrbWeaver]

Seeing that all the cultures have religion and marriages (among other traditions) and calling them useless is kind of stupid.

 

Why? Humans are generally obsessed with useless and unnecessary things. Assuming that something has a value simply because it has been around for a long time or occurs in lots of different societies doesn't make any sense at all - the same can be said of war, astrology and all other forms of superstition.

[sparhawk]

Traditions are NOT unique to humans. It happens in all species, not only us, and they had a use when they were created. Traditions usually don't come up just because somebody fancies it but because they are important at the time.

[OrbWeaver]

Traditions are NOT unique to humans. It happens in all species, not only us, and they had a use when they were created.

 

What traditions do animals have? They have evolutionary traits, but these are ingrained instinctive behaviours, not like tradition which is consciously and deliberately following ancient customs.

 

Unlike evolutionary traits, traditions do not need to arise from any practical purpose. The Aztecs used to sacrifice hundreds of human victims every night because of the superstitious belief that the sun would not rise if they failed to do so. There was never any need to do this, they just continued to do so because they were so frightened of trying something different (like not doing it).

[sparhawk]

It's not as easy as you make it. Of course traditions may not always be obvious and of course for us 'modern' humans some traditions may seem strange, but i guess for the people who live there, it seemed quite naturally in general. You shouldn't judge behaviour of a culture based on your own cultural background, because this will ever so often fail.

And if you insist to call traditions for animals 'evolutionary traits' feel free to do so. I don't see that much difference, wether it is ingrained in your genes or on your culture, even though the culture is a bit softer. Then again, how many traditions can you really stop from one day to the other? Deliberatley following ancient custom? How different is that from doing what your genes tell you to do?

[Vadrosaul]

The way you describe tradition is too vague. Animals follow instinct, which can lead to routine and pattern, but that is not tradition

[oDDity]

He's confusing tradition with habitual behaviour.

[sparhawk]

Which is almost the same, only on a bigger scale.

[OrbWeaver]

No it's not. Habitual behaviour arises from evolution and, as you say, once had a purpose (for want of a better word). Tradition is specifically defined as a set of customs that is handed down from generation to generation within human society, either orally or in written form. Animals have no equivalent because they have no way of documenting or recording past behaviour, and they act purely from genetic instinct rather than imitation.

[sparhawk]

Tradition ALSO had ONCE a purpose. Nobody goes around and invents tradition, it's something that is happening.

[OrbWeaver]

Some tradition has a purpose, but it need not.

 

For example, I believe that the reason Jews do not eat pork is because in the hot desert environment it would have been dangerous to do so (due to pork's tendency to give you food poisioning if it is not very well cooked and refrigerated). This is a tradition that once had a purpose.

 

On the other hand, the Aztecs' human sacrifices is an example of a tradition that never had a purpose. It was just superstitious crap that arises from the common human inability to understand logic (the fact that the sun rises after the sacrifices are made does not mean that the sacrifices cause the sun's rising).

 

In fact is is possible to create superstitious behaviour in animals: when training a dog, you have to be very careful to reward only the behaviour you want, otherwise the dog will think that it has to do all sorts of other stuff that it just happened to do before you gave it a reward.

[sparhawk]

On the other hand, the Aztecs' human sacrifices is an example of a tradition that never had a purpose. It was just superstitious crap that arises from the common human inability to understand logic (the fact that the sun rises after the sacrifices are made does not mean that the sacrifices cause the sun's rising).

 

That's exactly why I said you can't make such judgment outside of the culture and it's thinking. For the sacrificers the sacrifices obviously served a purpose. The fact that there is no connection between the casue (sacrifice) and the assumed result (rain, better fields or whatever is considered to be the favour of gods) doesn't really matter because for the one doing it he doesn't see that there is no point in it.

 

In fact is is possible to create superstitious behaviour in animals: when training a dog, you have to be very careful to reward only the behaviour you want, otherwise the dog will think that it has to do all sorts of other stuff that it just happened to do before you gave it a reward.

 

That's exactly what I mean. From your believe system you know that the behaviour is wrong, but from the point of view of the dog, it makes sense. That's what I was saying.

[OrbWeaver]

That's exactly why I said you can't make such judgment outside of the culture and it's thinking. For the sacrificers the sacrifices obviously served a purpose.

 

Of course you can make such a judgment. The objective reality of the situation is that such superstitious behaviour and tradition is unnecessary. While we might be tempted to forgive ancient and primitive societies for their lack of rationality, I see no reason to accept the same in today's world (which is the context in which I stated that marriage has no value).