Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting. The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.
Shaddup, before I ban you again.
Originally posted by inimalist
the question is "do women get married for money or love"
And the answer is yes to both...and then a whole lot of other things. But there is science to explain why it is easier to fall in love with Mr. Testosterone and Mr. Money. Doesn't science also show that Mr. Testosterone nowadays is more than likely to be Mr. Money too.
Originally posted by inimalist
why women are attracted to people is moot. Unless you believe love comes before attraction?
You have it backwards. Why women are attracted to people is followed by why they "love" who they do.
Originally posted by inimalist
not my subject of expertise, so I really can't recommend anything. I'd say look into the mere exposure effect and the relationship between subjective love and the amount of resources immediately put into the relationship.
Well, what I linked to was not just resources. It covered the physical (chemical) part of "love".
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, what I am saying is that love is NOT chemical
But...it is. It is a combination of environment and genetics. The initial portion is not as romantic as the romantics would like to believe. In fact, it kind of removes the romance out of it once you get to know it better.
wait....are you a romantic?
Originally posted by inimalist
the chemical limbic activation for love is no different than "Highly excited". It is the other parts of the "conscious" brain that interpret that as love based on other situational factors.There is no "love" brain state. Love is an entirely subjective human experience.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love1.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature2/
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html
What you're speaking about is psychological love after the initial chemical period. You know, the portion of a love relationship that lasts long enough to raise offspring past 2 years old...a nice threshold for early man.
It took a bit, but I found the study that talks about that.
"Dr Enzo Emanuele and his team found that those who had just met were brimming with NGF, whereas people who had been together for a year or more had much the same levels as the unattached.
For the romantically inclined, this may be bad news: all that magic reduced to metabolic processes and the contention that once you are past the 12-month mark, crazed excitement might be beyond your reach."
I agree that, after that initial chemical period, love is very much psychological and the "chemical" portion of it decreases greatly.
However, love literally is a "mind state" that can be measured and found the same in humans. Did my thread talk about the MRIs done on "in-love" people? I thought it did....
Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.
Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.
Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.
For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930
It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.
This was my point.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
It all boils down to the dark recesses of what Man And Woman are. Even if a women says she is enlightened and doesn't care about the money its not true. Men are the providers. From pre civilization humans we "Men" have been programed to attract a mate. How did we do this ? We went hunting and brought back a hunk of Elk flesh to feed her. We Built a Shelter for her to be warm and safe from Saber tooth and cave Bears. Times have changed and modern social construct tell women they are equal(which they are in intellect) and can make their own money and be independent and such but those "programed" behaviors are still there. I have many Married friends. And i have seen trouble in their marriage . At a glance your like ,whats the problem, they both work ,they both have good jobs but the wife makes More money than the Husband and that is a constant issue. Case in point: She is a Hospital administrator 6 figure a year earner. Her husband is a Paramedic. He loves his job,and its an admirable job that he worked hard for two years to get the education to do it, but she is always on his case to go back to school and be something More. Why? He makes a good living doing what he enjoys but, she makes More money and this,weather she realizes it or not ,goes back to The Men should be the "Bread winners". It will always be this way. She emasculates him because he doesn't make as much or more than her. I have seen this many times. Its just the nature of us.
What utter nonsense.
I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.
My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.
We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.
The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.
My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.
I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessHe's a lucky guy, you're his sugar momma haermm
What utter nonsense.I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.
My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.
The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Agreed.And in most cases, I believe that money won't keep your lover with you forever.
imo love is the only real contract, everything else including marriage can be broken, including money, children etc, their not strong glue, love is.
What with the credit crunch going on at the moment those material money grabbers may end up dating a pauper when their fortune crumbles.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessJust kidding 😂
He's 2 years older than me. Don't I have to get a younger man to qualify?I can always way till I'm 40 then have midlife crisis and get a 21 year old and be his sugar momma!
I agree actually that it doesn't matter who makes more money, man or woman. Hell, if I make a decent salary and she makes an extraordinary one, good for her.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What utter nonsense.I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.
My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.
The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.
Wait.
I'm not a chef.
Originally posted by lord xyzI suspect that anyone who feels "the need" to get married is getting married for the wrong reasons. Marriage works best when it is a commitment made by mature people (perhaps something that is increasingly rare these days) who know what they're doing and are prepared for what life may throw their way.
It's ridiculous people still feel the need to get married.
Be careful you're not rationalizing your own fears about making such a commitment.
Originally posted by MindshipSo when the one person wants to get married and voices it to their partner, and the partner is elated at the prospect of wedding this particular person, and they agree to get married, it's a good thing ✅
I suspect that anyone who feels "the need" to get married is getting married for the wrong reasons. Marriage works best when it is a commitment made by mature people (perhaps something that is increasingly rare these days) who know what they're doing and are prepared for what life may throw their way.Be careful you're not rationalizing your own fears about making such a commitment.