Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Miss of the world - wtf?
Thread: Miss of the world - wtf? This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted November 26, 2009 03:36 AM

Quote:
unlike other animals, we do not follow our instinct often
No but...
Quote:
Humans have connected virginity and "purity" with beauty forever, and it's not just for religious reasons.  There's a biological, evolutionary connection between "purity" and desirability (and, therefore, attractiveness and beauty).

____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 08:37 AM

Death, sadly for you, instincts are what you hate, remember? Reproducing is about doing it, not about getting children.
You need proof that virginity is preferred for evolutionary/bilogical reasons and has been limnked with purity for other than religious reason.
Until now I don't see any proof, not even a hint of a proof. If you see one I'm sure you can provide some, instead of making unqualified general comments.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 09:27 AM

Quote:
You need proof that virginity is preferred for evolutionary/bilogical reasons and has been limnked with purity for other than religious reason.
Quote:
Humans have connected virginity and "purity" with beauty forever, and it's not just for religious reasons.  There's a biological, evolutionary connection between "purity" and desirability (and, therefore, attractiveness and beauty).
Reading comprehension. I've heard it's useful.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 11:46 AM

You can claim everything. Whether it's true, is the question. Let's ckeck this:

"Humans have connected virginity and "purity" with beauty forever, and it's not just for religious reasons."

That's a claim, isn't it? We know for fact that the Christian religion does connect virginity with purity - but BEAUTY doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it: beauty is something you SEE. Virginity (or the missing of it) is something you don't. The INHERENT link is between purity and beauty - but purity is a completely IDEAL concept BASED on certain religion, as opposed to CLEANLINESS. Which would make BEAUTY an ideal concept here as well. Keep that in mind for later. There is no connection between cleanliness and virginity either. Obviously cleanliness has nothing to do with the fact whether someone is virgin or not.
In fact "unclean" is something used in connectin with the monthly period od the women, which has nothing to do with the fact that you are a virgin or not - just read it in tghe bible.
So this is a CLAIM, for which no proof is given. And a bit of thin king shows that what is claimed here is HIGHLY doubtful.

"There's a biological, evolutionary connection between "purity" and desirability (and, therefore, attractiveness and beauty)."

And here it gets weird; we have established that PURITY is an ideal concept, and ideal concepts have as a rule no connection with biological and evolutionary things, because ideal concepts are based on the ideas of humans, not on evolutionary or biological facts. Beauty IDEALS like the thin, lomg-legged, big models would have no worth for biological and evolutionary purposes - instinczts would still be driven to broad hips and full round breasts, for example. And since purity is an ideal concept it can't have anything to do with desirability as well, which must work on an instinctive level.

What you would have to prove now is hat the instincts of a man can "see" on some subconscious, instinctive level whether a girl is a virgin or not, and whether that subconscious knowledge will fuel the desire as opposed to a non-virgin. This would prove that virginity would mean greater desiarbility.

Now note, that for evolutionary purposes beauty and attractiveness are relevant only in secondary function - all that matters is indeed DESIRABILITY. Beauty, attractiveness, purity, and so on, these are all concepts that already assume a certain ssocial structure with families and male-hereditary structure.

AND it's of course completely leaving out the fact that evolutionary and biologically spoken there's always been a reality behind the first look. Even with the gorillas, where you have a clan-leader with many wifes the wifes cheat. Yes, that's right. They cheat; a substantial part of the children born are not from the actual "husband", but from a "lover", and that's true for humans as well. As it is true the other way - many men have illegitime children.

The bottom line is, that it is just a claim with neither substance, logic or proof.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 26, 2009 05:32 PM
Edited by Corribus at 17:35, 26 Nov 2009.

When did I say that that statement was a proof of anything?  I was just making a statement.  You're free to disagree with it.  I don't really feel the need to spend hours of my time to try to convince everyone about the truth of everything I say.


____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted November 26, 2009 05:44 PM

Quote:
Death, sadly for you, instincts are what you hate, remember?
So what?

btw i hate them for species who are capable of reason -- obviously evolution wasn't prepared for reason, so to speak. Not at that time.
Quote:
Reproducing is about doing it, not about getting children.
You need proof that virginity is preferred for evolutionary/bilogical reasons and has been limnked with purity for other than religious reason.
Ok, open up an evolution book that describes it.
Quote:
Until now I don't see any proof, not even a hint of a proof.
No but you can see the general direction and implications of it, and it does sound more logical.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 06:21 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Until now I don't see any proof, not even a hint of a proof.
No but you can see the general direction and implications of it, and it does sound more logical.

I can't and it doesn't. In fact it sounds illogical and extremely far-fetched.
I'd prefer it, if you'd think a bit more about things instead just accepting something that you would like to be true.
I have already named a couple of good reasons against it, while no one has named even one reason that would speak for it.
Just think about it: why would purity - as a bilogical/evolutionary concept - be important? Why would nature make females so that they become significantly less desirable after an unsuccessful try, when the probability for an unsuccessful try is so high? After all, after one try they aren't virgin anymore, aren't they?
And even if you'd lengthen the desirability period up to being pregnant for the first time, wouldn't this limit women to bearing one child only? After all they would be impure after that - still biological/evoluitionary spoken. That wouldn't be good, would it?

Think farther now. Males have no problem to sire lots of children - if virginity was important - biologically/evoluitionary spoken -, wouldn't males then fight for virgins and try to get as many as possible and to reproduce with as many as possible VIRGINS, while the weaker males would take the non-virgins "thrown away" by the stronger males.

I don't think that nature made it nearly as complicated. Sexual attraction doesn't work with virginity (see above; that would be fatal), and more than that just isn't necessary, evolutionary and biologically speaking.

Now, how about making a point instead just claiming something?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted November 26, 2009 06:33 PM

Quote:
Just think about it: why would purity - as a bilogical/evolutionary concept - be important? Why would nature make females so that they become significantly less desirable after an unsuccessful try, when the probability for an unsuccessful try is so high? After all, after one try they aren't virgin anymore, aren't they?
"females"? Nature doesn't make "females" in any way, it makes MEN think that they're pure, just as nature doesn't make females beautiful, it makes MEN think that they're beautiful. What kinda logic do you use?

Quote:
And even if you'd lengthen the desirability period up to being pregnant for the first time, wouldn't this limit women to bearing one child only? After all they would be impure after that - still biological/evoluitionary spoken. That wouldn't be good, would it?
By that time the man, because of monogamy inclinations, would remain with that woman.

I don't think you know how evolution works. It doesn't THINK. Men are simply "attracted" to that because it was, after numerous and numerous tries (evolution), more successful in keeping a relationship AND having kids (there's no doubt that kids keep them together far much longer).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 07:15 PM

Quote:
just as nature doesn't make females beautiful, it makes MEN think that they're beautiful. What kinda logic do you use?


why in most of the world, slim people are considered more beautiful, but in some places, it's the contrary and people try to be as fat as possible? shouldn't the nature make us all think in the same way?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted November 26, 2009 07:32 PM

Quote:
why in most of the world, slim people are considered more beautiful, but in some places, it's the contrary and people try to be as fat as possible? shouldn't the nature make us all think in the same way?
That has nothing to do with evolution but with social constructs and pressure, culture, etc. And no, nature doesn't make us think the same way, if it did, nothing would evolve. By definition you need variety and select only the ones who survive (it's not a good way, but it's what it is).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 26, 2009 08:16 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Just think about it: why would purity - as a bilogical/evolutionary concept - be important? Why would nature make females so that they become significantly less desirable after an unsuccessful try, when the probability for an unsuccessful try is so high? After all, after one try they aren't virgin anymore, aren't they?
"females"? Nature doesn't make "females" in any way, it makes MEN think that they're pure, just as nature doesn't make females beautiful, it makes MEN think that they're beautiful. What kinda logic do you use?


I thought I had see the most ridiculous post in the marine school thread but this beats everything. Nature makes men think that virgin femnales are pure? For evolutionary reasons? I think you have a serious problem.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted November 26, 2009 08:24 PM

I thought I had see the most ridiculous post in the marine school thread but this beats everything. Nature doesn't make men think that virgin femnales are pure? For evolutionary reasons? I think you have a serious problem.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 6 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0506 seconds