kwangi: I understand your point but I don't think it explains the regular urge of atheists to attack religious folks.
This ranges from derisive comments to quoting bible or koran in order to prove the stupidity of their religion.

You didn't ask me to explain why Atheists attack people who follow religious doctrine, your perception not a fact, neither did the OP. Usually when someone wants an explanation they ask for it, unless they're baiting.

kwangi: "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners" - Jonathon Miller.
I've found this to be true.
I don't know if anyone can give reasons why it is so.

Atheists (including myself) don't take religion seriously-which is why we are Atheists. There is an interest in religion political, economic, and social systems and how they influence behavior. Most Atheists are also formerly religious so there is time given to reflect on how or if religion shaped their values/beliefs.

nikegbade: What kind of example will u be, as a mother to your kids?? I wonder how u'l be under influence of alcohol $ u'l at the same time kiss, play,$ probably do ur kids homework. Let's live a reponsible life

Being a little dramatic there. Your folks probably drank just not around you (and maybe because of you). After all mothers do and put up with they deserve a glass of wine every now and then.

centje: you're welcome to the green land!

Thx

centje: please,where are you from?

There is only one place I could get away with being a Happy Heathen, Californication in the US of A.

fellis: I want to have an idea of what the general trend among Nigerians is on the issue of whether women and men are equal.
Your opinions on the matter will be appreciated.

I'm not Nigerian, I'm an Atheist, I don't like or want children, I married a good looking man who feels the same, and I don't have to clean my own home.
Anything is possible.

*serious face now*

Frankly speaking, Nigeria's economic and social development thus far and in the future will yield to relative equality. Complete and total Egalitarianism will never happen.

nnenna.1:
I am going to create a related thread sometime later with more moderate options. For now though, this question has extreme options.

Women: you are approached by two suitors. One is the most handsome man you have ever seen and right off the bat you are physically and sexually attracted to him. Problem is that he is very poor and has a low paying job (gateman, gala seller, laborer, pick one) that can barely feed and take care of him financially. His chances of exiting his financial or social class is slim to none. The other guy has amassed extreme wealth reaching billions of US dollars from his private equity firm and is sure to even reach greater heights as he navigates his high flying career. You know that with this guy, you are assured of an opulent life, stability and status for your unborn children, opportunities to advance yourself by meeting and greeting the most powerful people in the world, and educational enrichment only accessible with money. Problem is that you have no attraction to this guy because he is ugly, old and shriveled. Bedroom dynamics is sure to be zero!

Who would you choose?

Men: Same scenario as with the women. Only
that you are about to chase two prospective ladies. One so breathtakingly beautiful and the pinnacle of what you find attractive in a woman, but broke and "low class" unrefined and "razz." The other woman so wealthy, refined, classy and influential but so old and ugly. Neither women will likely leave their social standing.

Who would you chase?

Who would you go with and give a chance of love with? The one you are attracted to, who is so beautiful that you can't breathe, for which a chance of procreating beautiful children is certain or the one who made something of himself/herself financially and socially through honest means despite looks (self-made wealth).

This depends on the position of the woman for a fair exchange. I'd go with option A, I prefer quality of life over standard of living. I can make an attractive man rich, I can't make an old man young.

Adaeze003:
lol! Like that's supposed to change my mind

Perfect response.

lastpage:
Dont be a joke! So "colors, bolds and capped characters" is you own definition of ranting? Have you ever heard of a Dictionary at all?
It is called "emphasis"! (and there you go again )


You should have "quoted" what l said first, before you responded with the quote above, ...
and see if it contains any word/phrase that reads "manipulation".
I never said men should be or need to be "manipulated"! Gosh!! That phrase was 'coined by YOU'!

Anyway, l shouldn't be discussing this kind of stuff with you, its way above your league.
.... and when you "get there", come back for training.... if it will do you any good by then.

Lastpage!
BTW: You can see other people's response to my post.... and that should tell you something, if you get it at all.

I've seen 2 people agree that Haiti had an earthquake in 2010 because they made a deal with Satan to over throw the French in the late 18th century. Having a cosigner doesn't legitimize a claim. Come off it, there is no league. I don't have to manipulate my husband (which is extra work) to have his affection, protection, or respect. You do. If there is a distinction to be made its the difference between a partner and a burden.

I never said men should be or need to be "manipulated"! Gosh!!

You didn't?

" A Wife" who knows the "weakness" of her hubby and uses it to full advantage

That is manipulation. Should I surround the word "manipulation" will smiley faces, bold or change the font, or overuse punctuation to emphasize it? I hope not because its not worth the extra work, at least not for this exchange.

Sagamite:

Well, you are displaying some of the behaviours I have experienced before.

People that can't defend their assertion and run when the heat (in the form of intellectually probing questions) is on.

I only like intellectuals that are proficient at defending their arguments.

Like I said, it just a about the last word now, feel free to have it. I don't need it.

Sagamite:

I am an intellectual gangster who slaughters arguments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciL5F7rlEFM&

That hasn't been my experience with you. You can imagine my disappointment.

Sagamite:

Blood pressure?

I am having fun, it shows in my posts. I am known for this.

Whatever helps you cope I guess.

Sagamite:




The questions were too hard for you? True Sagamu-man?

As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. ......... But, sho, if you have no logic, na kitchen you suppose go na.

I have disproved your premise and you can't defend it.

Your premise: Physical Attractiveness is the most important attribute to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival makes them "settle for" for men of lower physical attractiveness.

I have used my superior intellect to destroy that premise. I told you that attraction for women is a bundle and a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness is what matters and it is the personality that is dominant for most women.

I took the constraint/complication part "the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival" and eliminated it to see if women still "settle for".

First off, I gave you adolescents! They are at an age when offspring is not on their mind, I showed you that they still go for the guy with confidence, fame and power (personality) on average. Get a 13 year old girl and ask her to choose between the physically fit football player in her school and Justin Beiber, then see which one she chooses. Science, baby!

Secondly, I gave you examples of women who do not in the slightest have to worry their personal & offspring's survival (a) because they are already super wealthy and (2) who have the pick of choices of men because they are seen as the most desirable women in the human specie but, yet, they still are more attracted to confidence, fame and power (personality) than superior physique.

Thirdly, I gave you example of men with exemplary physique that women never even look at because they do not have the right personality (confidence, fame and power especially).

So I have showed you women at no stage in their life have they ever overwhelmingly chosen physique as the dominant attraction tool, they only have a threshold they aim for in that aspect. And I have given you a strong hypothesis that confidence, fame and power seems to work everytime and appears to be the dominant attraction tool (since it attracts the most desirable women) as long as a minimum level of physical attraction is attained. They are hard-wired evolutionarily to consider other things in conjunction with looks. In the midst of your confusion when the intellectual heat was on, you were even giving arguments to support my theory.

And when I put forward to you to defend your premise or debunk my premise, you run.

And you still refuse to accept I am a genius and you thought you won the debate?

You just showed women and logic are like oil and water.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhYDu1Q1w2s

That's can't be good for your blood pressure. Let it go, you'll live longer.

Benito69: they are only angry bcus Kim is not a virgin, and therefore won't be in muslim heaven when they die blowing themselves up. That is the source of their frustration.

That's funny

ezeagu: Efik women hair adornment.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/346995_5083_1149818395311_1523135337_388832_4392963_n_jpg1d78dacdfc4ac2b49e0f946a4e893699

www.nairaland.com/attachments/347005_MimiMohammed2009_DSC_0828_preview_jpgaea623128e720f634170852cd9b1d516

www.nairaland.com/attachments/347008_n1523135337_237349_4500838_jpgda582502ecb1c723130602d4bbda8d0d

www.nairaland.com/attachments/347009_n782684128_769094_4966_jpg19a553a4da5047a5da6300ccd8d2ebf1

www.nairaland.com/attachments/347010_76161_1452226108812_1328062854_31026031_4494228_n_jpg8b9b69bc2b0cf8e4658810d298bb3b1a

That is stunning!

My husband made a point to clean his place and fix a meal for my visits when we were dating. When he came to my place I reciprocated. A month after his proposal we bought a home and hired a housekeeper (cleaning and laundry) during the week, its been this way ever since.

Sagamite:

Eleyi ni nkan ti awon Oyinbo npe ni Efasive grama!

(This is what the Oyinbos call Evasive grammar!)

This tells us nothing apart from your accusation of fallacy was just a defensive conjecture. Cut the crap!



I never said physical attraction does not preceed attraction, I said it is not the sole, critical or dominant assessment tool, there are more attributes that are more critical and dominant.

Furthermore, I would add that attraction most times just have to meet a certain personal threshold. A high score in physical attraction does not even guarantee a man anything if he does not have a personality to match it.

Minimum level of physical attraction (not high physical attraction) is primary but not dominant.

Ad Attitude gives you a reward of Ad Hominem.



If you stop expressing the qualities that is scientifically associated with you gender, I would not refer to your gender.

I don't rely on your gender, I highlight how you are exhibiting the weakness of your gender.



The result is what matters when it is what is important.

Women look at men with nice physique, they admire and walk away. Women look at men with swagger and power and chase them.

Simples!



Now this does not answer the question I gave you. I don't know what English grammar to give but it looks like you are dodging answering an obvious fact with Ad Rubbishem.

THIS IS UTTER JUNK!

No 1, So what? What do you expect a woman to say about her partner? Even a woman would call he ugly baby the cutest baby on Earth! That is not Ad Hominicious, that is FACT! Are you telling me with the mash up face of Seal, he is what we call handsome? If he was a door man or stacking the shelf at Tesco (Walmart to you) would Heidi see him as handsome or would she date him? By what standard is Seal handsome? If we are listing the most handsome celebrity, what position would YOU put Seal?

No 2, why did wealthy and desirable Heidi shaggg and have a child with a man with a 53 year old man with a potbelly?

Please explain to us how women that have the finances, who do not need to worry about their survival and raising offspring, and are the most desirable of the group of women in the world are opting for men without a great physique since you argue great physique is important.



No, it was True Sagamu: delivers examples and questions to debunk illogical (oops) theories and arguments, hence bamboozling the author that never intellectually tested their theory.

I do it all the time, baby.



But they behave differently?

Which fits into my theory. Women have multiple tools and the environment dictates which carries more weight.

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

I am a genius! I have a PhD in Womantology.



So because Kendrick, Buss, Schmidt, Alabukayo said it, I should accept and swallow it?

You think I am a product of a failed education system that is wowed by the 3 letters PhD next to someones name? Or awed by the tag Harvard-graduate?

You and Kendrick & co should explain to me why women who are wealthy, beautiful, desirable, single and live in modern societies where they have the liberty to make their choices (HENCE NO CONSTRAINTS) are electing to date men with average or poor phsique otherwise their research is BULLSHIT!

Or feel free to tell me what are the constraints on these women.

Feel free to email Kendrick and co for advice and their contribution.




Yeah, I know!

I was just using it to take a dig.

I am highly educated you know.



Oooh! Really?

Well men do! As long as the woman is hot, we do. Why do women not?

Guess why? BECAUSE ATTRACTION ASSESSMENT COMES AS A BUNDLE WITH WOMEN!

You are proving me right!



So, to cut the long story short and to cut the crap from your verbosity, you admit you do use personal experience in a debate and you were just being hypocritical and disingenuous when you ridiculed me for it?



Exactly what I said:

https://www.nairaland.com/1092778/how-does-aging-affect-love/4#13071399

Did I not tell you I was a genius?

So women don't just use attraction, they have multiple assessment criteria/tools and each carries different weightings depending on the environment but physical attribute is not the dominant one.

JOT IT DOWN! You are learning from the best.




You are being disingenuous and dishonest!

Nigerian girls DON'T admire agbero boys. Stop lying!

You are tell me Naija girls look at this kind of guy with admiration?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vivRHsJ_m_Q

You are a bloody liar!

But give him a contract with Man U earning £30K a week and see how they will all of a sudden say he is kind of sexy.

Women look for other things more than physique!



Like a woman?

You didn't disprove my premise, you didn't prove yours, and as expected you resorted to personal attacks instead of engaging the subject. Now its just a question of the last word at this point. There is no need for you to be sore about this either. I normally debate more informed individuals that furnish compelling evidence to support their position. Debating with you is good practice but I need a challenge. Hopefully the next person will be more........logical. I look forward to sharing this exchange with my students. I want them to be effective debaters and you've provided a wealth of examples of things not to do, nothing personal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn8Jrx6XKzU

Sagamite:

What fallacies? It would be interesting to hear.

Your Fallacies
"Begging the Question": "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken.

If your scientific explanation is asking me that if a woman:

1) Sees me and admires my body and walks away

and

2) Sees me and wants to fck me and stay with me till she dies

Which one is attraction? I would go for (2). That is not settling for, she has prioritised her criteria and it is different from men's.

Both 1 and 2 prove initial attraction proceeds assessment with 2 different results. As I said before we aren't debating the result, we are debating the fact that Physical Attraction is primary while all else is secondary. Your scenario supports my premise, not yours.

Ad Hominem: usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

Stating the fact and science surely cannot be sexism, baby.

Women, on average, have a less logical brain and tend to argue without logic.

Oyinbo!

Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen.

Using the term "baby" and "Now start the logic and stop being a woman otherwise I will send you to the kitchen." when the same language wouldn't be applied to a man with the same premise. Its to undermine based on gender and illicit an emotional response.
Relying on my gender to prove the absence of logic in my premise versus proving the absence of logic in my premise.
"Oyindo!" again used to undermine but this time based on non-African nationality/culture, not the information. My nationality/culture doesn't influence my premise.

Irrelevant conclusion: presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.

So I don't get this your decoupling argument that women are attracted to the guys with great physique when they rarely make a selection primarily based on that at anytime in their life.

Again you're debating the result. The OP asked "The Kind Of Guy That Women Find Attractive?"
My premise has stayed within the scope of the discussion, yours has veered into the men women settle for. Your list of celebrity women below, for example, doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said.

- Pamela Anderson (Tommy Lee/Kid Rock)
- Raquel Welch (Andre Weinfeld)
- Tyra Banks (John Singleton/John Utendahl)
- Kim Kadashian (Kanye West)
- Claudia Schiffer (Richie Sambora/David Copperfield/Matthew Vaughn)
- Elle Macpherson (Gilles Bensimon/Arpad Busson)
- Bianca Onoh (Emeka Ojukwu)
- Scarlett Johansson (Sean Pean)
- Meagan Good (DeVon Franklin)
- Wilnelia Merced (Bruce Forsyth)
- Christina Milian (The Dream)
- Katie Perry (Russell Brand)
- Nicole Scherzinger (Lewis Hamilton)
- Beyonce (Jay Z)

Fun Quote
Heidi Klum about her initial impression of Seal: "When I saw him, I was like, wow! He is different and so tall and dark and just handsome. I saw the package — and I mean the whole package, literally. I was like, "That is a man."

No True Scotsman: modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

It does not apply to Nigerian girls because we have not reached a level of gender income equality and a welfare safety net.

Nigerian women are human with the same biology as the rest of female humanity.

What science?

The science you concluded that is not evident?

"An enormous body of empirical evidence has tested, and supported, these predicted sex differences. Men generally show a greater interest than women in casual sexual relationships (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Compared to men, women hold higher standards for potential romantic partners, especially for sexual relationships (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). Women
generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's ability to commit resources to offspring (e.g., wealth, status), whereas men generally place a higher priority on variables that connote a mate's fertility (e.g., youth, facial attractiveness) (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005; Buss &
Schmitt, 1993; Hanko, Master, & Sabini, 2004; Li & Kenrick, 2006); Wiederman, 1993). These effects emerge across many different cultures (Buss, 1989; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Schmitt, 2005; Schmidt et al., 2003). It is worth noting that these sex differences emerge most strongly under conditions in which individuals must prioritize. Without constraints on their choices, both men and women prefer mates who are both attractive and resource-rich; when forced to
compromise, however, women prioritize a mate's status over his physical appearance, whereas men prioritize a mate's attractiveness over her wealth (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002)"
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/evos/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/neuberg05.pdf

Keep in mind the operative word is forced.

"...a preference for an attractive mate makes biological sense (Fink & Penton- Voak, 2002; Gangestad, 1993; Gangestad & Buss, 1993).
Not only are handsome husbands more likely to sire children who are attractive and thus sought out as mating and marriage partners in adulthood, but these men and their children also appear to be physically healthier than other men and their children (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Yeo,
1994; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994; Singh, 1995a;Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993, 1994). In other words, the physical attributes that women find attractive in men are indicators of the man’s physical and genetic health..."
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

The idea that women don't factor the Physical Attractiveness of potential mates, either as a premium or to be negotiated for wealth/status, is void of logic when clearly there is a perceived genetic benefit to Physical Attractiveness in men (without or without wealth/status) while wealth/status must compensate for a man's lack of genetic benefit.

"We found that objective measures of the quality of women's mates—men's attractiveness and masculinity—significantly predicted the women's orgasms.....
Thus, possible conception-promoting correlates of female orgasm may be especially effective and/or likely when copulation occurs with masculine males. Interestingly, this component of female orgasm was negatively predicted by male self-rated dominance and masculinity. Because more objective measures of male dominance, masculinity and attractiveness either weakly or negatively loaded onto the self-rated dominance/masculinity component, we suspect that selfrated dominance/masculinity measured something other than genetic quality."
http://www.wellingresearchlab.com/uploads/1/3/5/7/13572010/puts_et_al_2012ehb.pdf

2 points are being made here. 1)Women associate Physical Attractiveness with higher intimate capacity and are more likely to conceive with Physically Attractive men. 2)Men rating themselves as Physically Attractive did not affect how women saw these men. In other words men can't dictate what is attractive to women.

How many girls do you see getting turned on with cocktails in their hands when they see the biceps of agbero?

A "cocktail" is used to describe a mix of something. Which is why I put it in context; hormonal. How many women will release experience a hormonal reaction? Every heterosexual woman on the planet.

Well either the theory you are reading is wrong or you understanding/interpretation of it is wrong because what you are saying has a lot of holes and lacks logic.

You've been provided with sources. The logic is there, pretending its not is disingenuous and dishonest.

I use my personal experience when I believe there is no or cannot think of any reliable academic research or data on a point.

That is perfectly rational as long as I am being objective, logical and factual. Try it sometime, even though I know it would be a struggle.

Oh, now you want to use my experience to create your own personal experience/observation (that "You obviously don't use in a debate as you only use science" ).

Actually I used your personal observation and presented my own to illustrate why using them in itself is illogical and irrational

Personal experience can't be proven because there is no reliable (non-bias) witness to prove an event took place or that your behavior was consistent during the said event. Personal observation is inconclusive because it’s influenced by personal beliefs and values. That is why I didn't give mine with the exception of the high school setting and that was the illustrate the problem with doing so as seen here:

No 1, athletic boys are not the leaders in schools. The guys that could play football/sports the best in my high school were not the leaders.

No 2, the athletic boys that were leaders in school were definitely not the ones with the best physique.

The boys that were leaders were the boys with influence, power, confidence, swagger and sweet talk. Some athletic boys had it, but they were not the most physically beautiful and they were not the only ones that had it. They actually had it because they gained popularity and influence amongst guys from playing sports. The athletic boys that could exploit their popularity were the ones with the right personality, not the best physique, so we come back to that point that the manipulation ability is key. A lot of non-athletic boys were also very popular based on their personality (power, swagger and fame particularly).

Our difference in age, location, culture, and yes gender shape our observation. So while you try to push a non-objective observation and I do the same both void of logic. Only you'll consider your observation valid because it is yours, not because it supports your premise.

What I stated that you gave some rubbish list of science words was:

"Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away."

Those were a list of hormones at are released when a women perceives a man to be Physically Attractive. Before these Nigerian "glide away" they've noticed and admired these men. You're still debating result while the debate is about what women find attractive. If you stayed within the scope of the debate (something you seem to struggle with-or you might be purposely seeking to derail the topic) then you'd see your premise can't be supported.

Why? Something is wrong with the research you read or you have misread it?

Read for yourself

Debunk that obvious observation and then you can logically (oops, that word again ) claim winning the debate.

Done

Sagamite:

Oyinbo!

Theory!

This tells us nothing related to the point I made, apart from you are capable of using big scientific grammar.

Ad Hominem again. Still waiting on male logic.

PS. You're losing a debate to a girl in front of your peers on a Nigerian forum.

Sagamite:

I am not banking on gender insecurity, I am just highlighting when gender inhibits logical arguments.

What we need at the moment is logical arguments, not higher language capacity or communication skills.

Everything I've said can be found under the disciple of Evolutionary Psychology and Biology. I haven't posted an unrelated videos as distractions, swear words, called you something that I wouldn't call a member of my sex. There have also been several fallacies in your posts; Begging the Question, Ad Hominems, irrelevant conclusion, my favorite The Scotsman. Logic yields itself to reasoning which is why I don't use my personal experience or observation, however you used yourself and experience. That is why communication is needed as much as logic because I've displayed both while haven't displayed the latter.[/quote]

I am not talking about a result only, I am talking about a process that is complex and not decouple-able as you advocate.

It is one package, it comes as a bundle.

I have highlighted earlier:

There is no advocacy on my part. Science trumps your cultural/social assumption.

Let me add more to debunk this your theory that women settle for less.

Your hypothesis is that "based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring"?

I can only reasonably and logically conclude that this most likely strongly applies when women reach the age of settling down and having kids.

So let me take you back to when women first became women (adolescent), not yet ready to settle down so no need to "settle for". In my observation, the finest girls in school when I was young and from what I have seen in youths today do not go for the most physically attractive boy, they go for the guy with the most fame and swagger. Sometimes this might be guys with good physique but not necessarily the best physique. The adolescent girls go for the popular boys that are leaders amongst men. Some of these boys do not have great physique, just an aura, self-confidence, power and influence.

So I don't get this your decoupling argument that women are attracted to the guys with great physique when they rarely make a selection primarily based on that at anytime in their life.

This isn't my personal theory, its human evolution spanning more than 200,000 years. Your personal observation isn't relevant here, neither are mine which is why I won't use them when debating characteristics of humanity.

But consider the fact that athletic teen boys are the "leaders" in their schools, they've already demonstrated their physical superiority in front of adolescent girls and their peers. Pro-Ball Players have a better selection of women (in terms of virtue, status, reputation, and health) to choose from than Rappers and CEOs on average as well if we're going to follow personal observations.

Sagamite:

Furthermore, I am sure no cocktail, not even a half pint, of hormones are released by the insulation and stratosphere for a second when Naija girls go to the market and see these agbero guys with all dem muscle tone.

They give one glance and then glide away.

And you do have a funny definition of bad boy.

You don't know what a bad boy is, park that side.

Attraction is marked by high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, norepinehprine, oxytocin, vasopressin, and low levels of serotonin, another major neurotransmitter. Nigerian women are human so this applies to them as well.

Sagamite:

Stating the fact and science surely cannot be sexism, baby.

Women, on average, have a less logical brain and tend to argue without logic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKKa_OlSXgQ



If your scientific explanation is asking me that if a woman:

1) Sees me and admires my body and walks away

and

2) Sees me and wants to fck me and stay with me till she dies

Which one is attraction? I would go for (2). That is not settling for, she has prioritised her criteria and it is different from men's.

Yes, women reason as part of their attraction process. They have multiple assessment criteria.

MEN DON'T REASON! When I see bboobies the blood rushes to my dyck, there is nothing left to run my BRAIN. Ko si mor! No chance to reason. That is my attraction sorted out with that one criterium.

Fact: Physique is not key to a woman's attraction criteria. She has multiple, her evolutionary make up (i.e. eggs control) would not allow it. It is ingrained in the system.

Fame and wealth is more likely to get her wet than physique (as long as it is above a threshold).

I was putting sexism in its proper context, not calling you sexist. No need to be offended by something that isn't there.

Aside: On average men's brains use logical to help them interpret visual and audible signals (good for you guys). Women on average have higher language capacity and communication skills. This why women are able to communicate and control their emotions better than men. The differences in male and female brain function are complimentary not inferior vs superior. Female mate selection is what drives human evolution while competition among men is what drives cultural evolution. If your banking on gender insecurity you might want to end it here. I like being a woman and find it to be much more conducive to my lifestyle.

Back on topic. As I said before the result isn't what we're debating, what women find attract in men is. Your rebuttal is based on what you consider the best option is for a few hundred ova. My consistent premise has been that Physical Attractiveness in men is highly desired and that men through evolutionary practice compensate for their lack of it to compete for women. Wealth and Status do not stimulate women, Physical Attractiveness does.

Sagamite:

Nothing sexist about it.

Although I am sexist. ..............(If your definition of sexist is the recognition of the difference between a man and a woman). I am fully sexist to the bone.

You are right that physical attractiveness attracts women to men but you are wrong if you think it is dominant at pulling women. Women are programmed to take longer when selecting a mating partner because biological they need to be more selective in the use of their reproductive wealth i.e. eggs. Women have about 400 which they release almost every 28 days or so till they reach menopause. Evolutionarily, they are programmed to be attracted to men who they are positively inclined to believe is of good health and can be a provider for an offspring, so that they are not wasting one of their precious few 400 eggs. Men on the other hand, at each glorious, beautiful, climatic, graceful, intense, body-shaking, energy-sapping burst, have about 300m muthafcking Michael Phelps wannabe swimmers in their spermatozoa competing to reach the end and be the champion. That is why men can be more wasteful and are quicker to select female mating partners. I am sure I can count up to 40 NL girls if I meet right now, I would be happy to bend them over at the back of my car and be generous with my 300m yoruba mini-warriors in 15-minute wonder session with Saga. You will not be able to list up to 40, if any at all, of NL guys you want to waste any of your less than 350 remaining eggs (guessing you are at least over 16) until at least you get more time to assess them. I am sure it is not only because I am more naturally generous than you, it is also because of science, baby.

So as I was saying, women take longer to make a decision, that is why although women can be attracted to a man, that does not mean they are keen to sleep with him. If I am attracted to a woman, and she is sane, I will fokasibe if she agrees to split. I know I am a slight exception because I am a professional ashawo but it really applies to almost all men. Our decision is heavily based on the attraction only because we are rich enough to be generous and philantropic. Women cannot afford to be that generous and because women take longer to make a decision, guys with the ability to engage manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) still have and have a better chance than a guy with mere physique because they are more likely to pass the free-egg assessment test that follows attraction.

Yours sincerely,

Sagamu International.

Sexist in that the female perspective is perceived as something that contradicts logic. Noticing differences in cultural accomplishment and social domination between Western Europeans and West Africans doesn't make me racist.

Your basing your premise on results which isn't the issue being debated. There is a difference between what women are attracted to and what they they will inevitably "settle for". It happens in this order as well. The former involves primal brain activity (the insula and striatum in the cerebral cortex) releasing a cocktail of hormones upon initial glance. The latter relies on evolved reasoning based on the social and economic advantages of taking a mate of perceived lesser genetic quality to ensure the protection of offspring. The honest truth is that most women, including our mothers and the women before her, more than likely settled for our fathers and the men before him. Physically attractive men are in short supply and at the top of the genetic hierarchy and men further from that standard (by choice or not) are closer to the bottom. Fertile cycles in women increase women's fundamental desire for indicators of high testosterone; muscle tone, demonstrated aggression and strength-basically what lesser attractive men would call a "bad boy". It has been proven that with all things equal women are more likely to climax and conceive with attractive men.

Your generosity isn't needed, I have science.

Sagamite:

I disagree.

Physical attractiveness of men used to be more important back in the day because back in the day, men needed that physical attractiveness to compete and defend themselves, assets and loved ones. Now that physique is of far less use in the modern world.

I said as much in my first reply to you;
"Physical Attractiveness has always been important to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival was a priority over their physical satisfaction. In developed societies women have the means to ensure their personal survival and children (for men and women) are becoming less of a priority."
You pretty much just rewrote what I posted earlier.

Sagamite: Women are attracted to bad boys not because of physique, but because of the emotional play. That is what, on average, bad boys can do better than good boys. They fall for these guys because they can create "a want" in them, not just offer themselves for her without a challenge. If you have a great physique but you are quick to say yes to everything a woman says and is not that bright, she would still dump you for a man with an average physique that is ready to tell her what to do and has a sense of humour. There is a reason Simon Cowell is more attractive than most men in their 30s (even without his money). As women become financially independent, they are becoming a bit disoriented about what attributes of men attracts them but their emotions is still the weakest point of entry.

Physique matters, but not as much as being able to satisfy and intrigue her emotional needs because women tend to think more long term than men. Emotions is of longer term relevance, than physique.

Physically attractive men aren't subjected to the same scrutiny as unattractive men. This allows the former to choose among competing females while the latter must resort to manipulation (displaying indicators of wealth, intelligence, dominance, demonstrations of affection, etc) to sway female perception from the physical. That "want" isn't about a challenge, its a basic human need to procreate with men of perceived superior genetic quality. As I said before women actually have a physical response to attractive men making suggestion that emotions are at the base of what she finds attractive void (and a bit sexist).

lastpage:
You dont get it at all, ... do you?
You are the one that used the phrase "train a Dog" in your response to my post.
So, it was you who equated your own man to "A DOG"!
Here is your quote, in your own words, below:

What you cant understand ...and l cant blame you for this, maybe you will, in some decades to come ... is that "Every woman has to learn to "UNDERSTAND HER MAN" in a way that guarantees the happiness and stability of her family.

That is what you erroneously and ignorantly term "training a Dog!"

Well, each man to its own tenth...... as far as l am concerned, "Happiness and Stability within the marriage," should be the goal of every spouse .... not some "over-sabi, ignorant rants"!

Lastpage!

Let me quote myself "Men are complex and diverse, you train a dog not a man."
Let me quote you "Mine is LOVING IT, like Mc Donalds!"
That takes care of that deflection.

You believe men need to be manipulated, I believe men should be respected. You play games with your husband, I treat mine like an adult.
You rant, I don't. The lack of colors, bold and capped characters, and smiley faces in my replies prove that.
Again you went off the deep end.

claremont:
That doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology does not apply to Nigerian girls, neither can we say it applies to all girls in general. I agree it may apply to animals and lower species because female animals tend to mate with the males they believe can provide for their offspring; but extrapolating such a concept to the human species is a different argument altogether. I would have agreed with you if you replace the muscle definition with financial definition, the question really is does muscle definition pay the bills?!

BTW, using physical fitness as a standard of attractiveness does not make me uncomfortable whatsoever.

Not only does physical attractiveness apply to most women, our ancestors selected for it until wealth/income was able to compensate for a man's lack of visible masculinity (which was necessary for successful conception and hunting to feed offspring), about 10,000 years ago when humans mastered agriculture. That still isn't enough time to phase out traits that modern humans found attractive for 200,000 prior to that. Only then were men of perceived lesser genetic quality able to compete for women who were considered physically attractive.

Unless Nigerian Women have evolved separately from humanity, and they haven't, then science trumps opinion until proven otherwise. Generalizations are needed to establish a premise. Rather you personally agree or not, are uncomfortable or not doesn't matter since I don't see you as a representative of all men.

claremont:
I would believe this is just your opinion and is not substantiated by any facts whatsoever. If indeed this is true, then those Oshodi and Mushin truck-pushers will be the most attractive men in Nigeria.

Please respond with a better rebuttal. The discipline of Evolutionary Psychology isn't an opinion, its a science. So find a source that contradicts what I have written; provide proof that muscle definition is NOT a factor evolutionary mate selection for the female human species. I can understand why the idea of women holding a man to a standard of physical attractiveness might make men uncomfortable, especially if they don't have to the income, personality, or status to compensate for not meeting the physical standard.

Sagamite:

This bit is not that clear. You were mixing men and women up?

I haven't. Physical Attractiveness has always been important to women but the necessity for their personal and offspring's survival was a priority over their physical satisfaction. In developed societies women have the means to ensure their personal survival and children (for men and women) are becoming less of a priority. This means that men are subject to the same physical scrutiny as women. You've heard the charge of women being attracted to "bad boys" right? These women aren't falling for them because their "bad", these men on average are more physically attractive then their "good" male peers who have to compensate by being "good men" to compete for females.

12 inches!:


I dnt hate women so much. Far from it. I jst think they can be illogical e.g equating 6 pack to being good in bed, equating money and comfort to happiness etc. These things are unrelated. Many women eventually wake up and smell the coffee sha. Once they take the 9 month road and start backing their first bab,. they begin to understand that relationship is not about me, me , me. It's also about responsibility and commitment, hardwork, tolerance and other things like that.

Its not illogical, its evolution. Muscular definition is an indication of stamina, immune system integrity, and overall health. This suggests genetic superiority and why there will be a physical response from women upon initial; pupil dilation, increased blood flow to the lips causing them to swell and color, increased heart rate, and cervical contractions. Basically preparing for procreation. No offense but "responsibility and commitment, hardwork, tolerance" compensates for the lack of physical attractiveness in a man and can't supplement or replace perceived physical attractiveness. This is why women aren't perceived as attractive are expected to compensate. Get in where you fit in.

Smooth Skin
Straight Teeth
Lean Physique but not too skinny
Taller than her
Nice Shaped Head
Nice Smell (Breath and Body)
Stylish


If he is lacking anything of these then his personality, income/status, and intellect has to compensate.

....Basically the masculine equivalent to what men want find attractive in/on women.

lastpage: ^^^^^That comment must be biting you soooo much ... to post it 3-TIMES!

Whether you call it "manipulation" or "dog training", GO AND MANIPULATE/TRAIN YOUR OWN DOG!


Mine is LOVING IT, like Mc Donalds!

Lastpage!

BTW: If that your "over-sabi, confrontational attitude" is what works for you, carry-go please ...and park well!

The triple post wasn't intentional but hey-look at who I replied to; a woman (right?) who equates her partner (a man right?) to a lesser species. Your partner's desire to be trained isn't shared by most men, thank goodness. Unfortunately most women can be manipulated into a false sense of empowerment. You offer the perfect example of women believing they have the upper hand in romantic relationships when they really don't. Your attitude is more confrontational than mine, I just wrote something you didn't like. You kinda went off on the deep end. Go figure.

lastpage:

I have said it before: WE DONT NEED LL THIS COMPETITION IN THE FAMILY a.k.a "Woman's Right"!

What we need is " A Wife" who knows the "weakness" of her hubby and uses it to full advantage, to keep the home and family HAPPY!

If a man is "egoistic", a woman should be "subtle" enough to know how to massage that ego and get things working!

A SMART WOMAN like you have discovered this principle (compared to all those "gra-gra women"! ), and l bet that you will use that man till all his teeth fall out!

Kudos to women like you!

Let all the "l am too enlightened, l am equal, l am too educated, l am too civilized, l no go gree lai-lai, it is fire-for-fire women, e.t.c", .........continue to "fight a war of gender" in their marriage" while their "smart mates" are enjoying the bliss of being married, as it should be!

Lastpage!

@OP: I dont ever question the headship of "my boy"!

If l offend him or do something out of turn, he will simply demand an explanation (he assumes l will not offend him on purpose!) and l will first apologize and that melts him down!
He knows l dont keep grudges and l always mean my "apology" from the heart.

What follows depends on where we are at that moment.
...if its outside the house, l will touch his nose to mine.
If it is inside the house, somebody go shout o!

That's manipulation and pretty much makes men look like idiots. Men are complex and diverse, you train a dog not a man.

lastpage:

I have said it before: WE DONT NEED LL THIS COMPETITION IN THE FAMILY a.k.a "Woman's Right"!

What we need is " A Wife" who knows the "weakness" of her hubby and uses it to full advantage, to keep the home and family HAPPY!

If a man is "egoistic", a woman should be "subtle" enough to know how to massage that ego and get things working!

A SMART WOMAN like you have discovered this principle (compared to all those "gra-gra women"! ), and l bet that you will use that man till all his teeth fall out!

Kudos to women like you!

Let all the "l am too enlightened, l am equal, l am too educated, l am too civilized, l no go gree lai-lai, it is fire-for-fire women, e.t.c", .........continue to "fight a war of gender" in their marriage" while their "smart mates" are enjoying the bliss of being married, as it should be!

Lastpage!

@OP: I dont ever question the headship of "my boy"!

If l offend him or do something out of turn, he will simply demand an explanation (he assumes l will not offend him on purpose!) and l will first apologize and that melts him down!
He knows l dont keep grudges and l always mean my "apology" from the heart.

What follows depends on where we are at that moment.
...if its outside the house, l will touch his nose to mine.
If it is inside the house, somebody go shout o!

That's manipulation and pretty much makes men look like idiots.