Women Want Tall Men

[saratink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

[saratink]

then you've been mis-informed - Hare Krishna's don't, and they're human.

[jump]

I hard somewhere that only dolphins and humans have sex for pleasure?

[eFestivals]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

Interesting link - thanks.

I only read a bit of the page, but it appears to suggest that you're wrong in saying that only humans and dolphins have sex for pleasure.

However, what it doesn't do is prove that you're wrong. While 'sex for fun' certainly appears from a human perspective to be happening with many species, no one - except worm of course, because he's clearly the world's leading expert on these things and not winging it at all () - can know for sure if it's a concious and intelligence-led decision of choice to have sex for fun or if they're merely following instinctive behaviour that they don't understand.

And actually, even with us humans it might be said to be that - that we're following instinctive behaviour that we don't understand. Cos while sex is fun, there's certainly countless examples of humans shagging when they don't really understand why they did. Yes, it might have been pleasurable but that same pleasure might well have been available to them at home rather than just with the random they pulled in a club or wherever - so why that one pleasure over another? Was it something that's led ONLY by the intellect and the desire for pleasure, or is there something more to it all?

It's convenient for humans to take the free-will line, that it's a matter of choice only. But no one really knows that it's just that, not with absolute certainty. If there's a "women want tall men" instinct why couldn't there also be a "men want to shag anything that moves" instinct, that the intellect and choice is unable to restrain at times? Both of those things could have biological reasoning behind them, because there's an amount of logical sense if there was.

(Of course, I'd never be so dumb as to try and present such things as my reasons if I was caught by my partner with my pants down, but that's the result of cultural ideals.)

[t8yman]

I'm pretty much 6' and have always preferred petite women, my wife is about 5'4". our 14yo daughter is taller than her!

[worm]

So show me something which proves beyond all doubt that idea.

[worm]

what?!?

Who told you that?

[eFestivals]

An instinct is a made up concept you tool. Just as intelligence is. They are abstractions, not physical entities.

Something that is programmed simply accords. Something that is instinctual is, by definition, not programmed. And something that is intelligent is learned.

Tell me something I don't know.

Like, for example, how you know that "what is learned" has no influence from anything "programmed" or "instinctual", so that it's really as "intelligent" as you like to think.

You can't. Which only gets to prove that any concept that works from "what is learned" as its root cannot know if it's even in the right ball park. Everything that comes from it is merely a loose assumption and not anything close to fact.

But never mind eh? When you can talk to the animals the world and that person is so perfect that none of that matters.

[eFestivals]

All animals try to evade threats and seek pleasure however they can.

I wonder how come the cats in my local aren't pulling their own pints then. Do you have a theory for that too?

Perhaps you should come and ask them, seeing as you've got those super-special talking-to-the-animals skills.

Edited May 25, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

Tell me something I don't know.

Like, for example, how you know that "what is learned" has no influence from anything "programmed" or "instinctual", so that it's really as "intelligent" as you like to think.

Edited May 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I wonder how come the cats in my local aren't pulling their own pints then. Do you have a theory for that too?

[eFestivals]

Right, well if it's all programmed then there's no such thing as instinct is there. Jesus f**king christ, you're dense!

As was said at the beginning, intelligence and emotion can override instinct. Whether this is programmed or not doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

-----

It's interesting that you take the programmed angle here, yet dismiss it totally when talking about sensual processing. We could all be in The Matrix.

What an imbocile you are.

The imbecile is the one who can't spell imbecile and who can't read properly either.

Who said *just* programmed? Not me. It was you, with your normal made-up bollocks. There's no limit of bollocks you won't go to to try and prove yourself right, eh?

There is something called instinct. The problem is that we (yes, you as well) do not know where its influences start and end.

There is an amount of biological programming within us. Just as with instinct, we again do not know where it starts and ends.

This all comes to mean that we can't know what intelligence is either, because we're unable to fully identify what is utterly free of instincts and biological programming.

Therefore we cannot know that emotion and intelligence can over-ride instinct, because we can't identify instinct properly and we can't identify what is (instinct/programming free) intelligence properly.

We can make a stab at guessing, but that means that all we have at the base of any idea which uses intelligence or instinct or biological programming is a guess - and not a fact.

[worm]

There is something called instinct.

[Ed209]

It's known as the pleasure principle.

[eFestivals]

As we have already agreed.

if we've agreed, I wonder why you've been disagreeing?

Learning is, by definition, the opposite of instinction you drivelling twat.

By definition, as ever, you're talking complete crap.

I'm surprised that even someone as daft as you would make that pile of crap up, I must say.

[worm]

if we've agreed, I wonder why you've been disagreeing?

By definition, as ever, you're talking complete crap.

I'm surprised that even someone as daft as you would make that pile of crap up, I must say.

Edited May 25, 2011 by worm

[worm]

great, but that's a term coined by Freud, and is about human behaviour, no?

[Ed209]

I always thought that the idea was that animals didn't seek pleasure, but instead they use it as a tool for guiding them to what the genes actually seek, and that is the continuation of itself. Of course there are animals that seek pleasure, but to me that would at least require a brain, and also the ability to control their movement. *All* animals was a hugely sweeping statement considering how basic some animals get.

[worm]

I always thought that the idea was that animals didn't seek pleasure, but instead they use it as a tool for guiding them to what the genes actually seek, and that is the continuation of itself.

Edited May 25, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

I agree that there are biological things going on to make someone more attractive.

For example , a program I was watching mentioned a study that was talking about attraction.

They got some pole dancers to track their menstrual cycle and over the month they saw how much they were tipped during their cycle. Turns out when the women were the most fertile,

They were tipped a lot more than the days they were not so fertile. They think this is due to hormones and things that make men find them more attractive and want to reproduce with these women.

Edited May 25, 2011 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Ahh, the old Neil's right and everything else is wrong line. Take everything out of context to suit his ignorant banality.

Learning is, by definition, the opposite of instinction you drivelling twat.

I say something is wrong if it's wrong.

Learning cannot, by definition, be the opposite of instinction because learning is, by definition, something that is done by instinct.

Why not look up the definition for yourself? You might instinctively learn something.

Or do you only learn things if you've told yourself "I must learn about XYZ"?

[worm]

The explanation suggested was that women were comparing her to themselves as sexual rivals, while men were rating her according to her sexual availablity.

[worm]

Learning cannot, by definition, be the opposite of instinction because learning is, by definition, something that is done by instinct.

[jump]

yeah, when I was a psychology student, some of the other students did a study, getting fellow students to rate a girl for different traits during her menstrual cycle. interestingly, there was a gender difference. females rated her higher on attractiveness when she was most fertile, while males rated her as friendlier.

The explanation suggested was that women were comparing her to themselves as sexual rivals, while men were rating her according to her sexual availablity.

It's interesting stuff.

[eFestivals]

Or, according to you, it could be done through programming, which means that the outside world is an internal construct.

Only if I buy into the definitions that you buy into, which are indisputably unproven.

I've already explained that we cannot know for certain what is instinct, what is programmed, and what it learnt.