If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking
about sex. It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one. After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it. I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality. But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection. What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully. See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection "Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating." In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain. Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show. And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this: Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie. And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality. (By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....) The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm su men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality. Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer. And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women. And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative. I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys. Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear. That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality. And that's just common sense. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
RichAsianKid wrote a large Crock O' ****e mercifully snipped ...
Oh. -- C.R. Krieger |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
that's one way to give it a spin.
i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body conversion, (nice photos by the way). for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say superficial. and all bark, and no bite. i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving that "ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much. "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message ps.com... I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex. It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one. After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it. I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality. But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection. What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully. See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection "Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating." In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain. Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show. And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this: Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie. And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality. (By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....) The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm su men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality. Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer. And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women. And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative. I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys. Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear. That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality. And that's just common sense. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in the
translation but, bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek shallow things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes). ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits for. guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message ps.com... I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex. It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one. After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it. I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality. But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection. What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully. See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection "Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating." In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain. Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show. And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this: Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie. And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality. (By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....) The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm su men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality. Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer. And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women. And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative. I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys. Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear. That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality. And that's just common sense. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
Lawrence Lugar wrote: > > that's one way to give it a spin. > i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body conversion, > (nice photos by the way). > for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say > superficial. and all bark, and no bite. > i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving that > "ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much. Absolutely agree there - I'd never do a nsx to ferrari body conversion either. It's basically pretending to be something that you're not. But then again if that's what women want then.....it's like the equivalent of men's makeup. Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc. One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's clothing. > regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in the > translation but, > > bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek shallow > things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes). > > ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits for. > guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol > > Yes, agree there! The new modern minimalist 'in' thing to do is to unpimp yer ride.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy...wagen%20unpimp Stupid commercial > > > > > > "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message > ps.com... > I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking > about sex. > > It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on > newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real > life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very > interesting one. > > After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and > inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the > NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, > especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get > it. > > I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see > cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And > why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag > toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much > less as > a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented > me to reality. > > But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection. > > What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In > biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian > survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully. > > See this very readable Wikipedia entry: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection > > "Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due > to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact > that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the > age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is > effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall > fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, > the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts > of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap > principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, > thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The > principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is > in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have > and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less > discrimination value, and be prone to cheating." > > In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because > of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of > so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is > also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine > reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain. > > Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous > consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class > in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people > increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with > costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show. > > And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading > from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. > http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html > > So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the > work in terms of childbearing. Think about this: > > Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of > semen > Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of > breast milk > > Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the > biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a > sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men > vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee > from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they > have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie. > > And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like > antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until > now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and > status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality. > > (By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd > drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's > overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to > fake, > then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the > future....) > > The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists > will be soooo very delighted I'm su men shoot (no pun there) for > quantity, > and women shoot for quality. > > Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are > cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the > discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure > of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper > middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their > discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" > car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like > whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who > love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love > offroad utility may get a Hummer. > > And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig > rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive > value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with > younger, poorer but fertile women. > > And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy > cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven > by the same biological imperative. > > I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never > thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I > now realize that cars are more than just toys. > > Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear. > > That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality. > > And that's just common sense. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
RichAsianPest decided to share his mental mastubation session with
everybody...who knows why? I read 136 lbs of hubris stuffed into a used 3-series who has delusional thoughts. > RichAsianKid wrote a large Crock O' ****e mercifully snipped ... > > Oh. > -- > C.R. Krieger > > |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
Gently reclines back into sumptuous leather chair simultaneously smoking
pipe held in right hand, basking in the warmth of a perfect fire, and says " here here" referring to "crock O ****e" post. "E28 Guy©" > wrote in message oups.com... > RichAsianKid wrote a large Crock O' ****e mercifully snipped ... > > Oh. > -- > C.R. Krieger > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
Did you mean " hear hear"? Perhaps you did not get the 'ruminations'?
DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "oreely" > wrote in message ... [...] > here here" referring to "crock O ****e" post. [...] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
Dunno. In Europe many/most BMWs and Mercs have their designations removed
so you can't tell the engine size. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message oups.com... [...] Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc. One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's clothing. [...] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship
BTW, if you are going to crosspost you might as well know that the main Merc
NG is at one s less than the you used... alt.auto.merc. DAS Always at your service For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message ps.com... I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex. It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one. After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it. I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality. But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection. What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully. See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection "Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating." In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain. Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show. And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this: Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie. And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality. (By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....) The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm su men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality. Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer. And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women. And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative. I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys. Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear. That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality. And that's just common sense. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|