It has been a while since I've posted as I'm pretty tied up with other things, but looking at this thread, I'd like to interject some points. Please hang with me -- I'm going to pick on men first so this might not at first seem topical; but then come back around to the ladies.
Men and women are the products of evolution. Evolution in our case not only involves natural selection, but also sexual selection. That is to say, traits often remain in our gene pool -- not due to any particular survival advantage that they offer -- but simply due to their being preferred by the other sex. An example of this is blond hair.(1)
Though it is unpopular to state this among the Boasian anthropology crowd; there is likewise a sound basis for the field of Behavioral Genetics (which gives "we are all identical" Marxists apoplexy) and its spin-off of Evolutionary Psychology (which is a bit more politically correct). For example, even the American Psychological Association has finally admitted that intelligence as measured by modern IQ tests is a largely heritable trait.(2) And, in fact, a good many personality traits show varying degrees of heritability as well; indicating that our evolution does indeed affect our behavioral tendencies.(3)
The simple fact is that in the nature vs nurture debates, both are right and wrong because neither, alone, is correct. We are a product of nature AND environment.
The key here, and it is an important concept, is that though a particular tendency may be inherited; how that tendency is manifested can be affected by a number of cultural conditioning factors as well as the ability to foresee adverse consequences and mediate behavior. I cannot kill that dumbass who cut me off in traffic and blame it on my genes.
So Sensual Lina, in attributing certain factors to evolution, is in fact correct. For further exposition of this topic, please see "10 Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature."(4)
Men and women have both evolved to pick the best mates. This is rather tricky, as we have no way of predicting the future and for the 4.5 million years that our evolution has diverged from apes, we haven't had the ability to sequence DNA. Therefore, we tend to use phenotypic manifestations as a proxy. Examples of this include near universal standards of beauty that include symmetry (lack of birth defects), certain measurement ratios (ability to pass babies through the birth canal for the 4 million years that C-section didn't exist), etc.
Other preferences are more a matter of sexual selection than natural selection.
For example, recessive genetic traits are seen as more attractive in women; likely because this makes the paternity of offspring more easy to identify thereby inspiring greater altruism on the part of fathers on the basis of genetic similarity. (Altruism is a trait that theoretically should not exist on the basis of Dawkins' selfish gene; but behavioral geneticists have credibly posited its existence is an artifact from the fact that helping those most genetically similar to ourselves helps the survival of at least the portion of our genes that is shared with those we help.) (5)
But -- there are problems with our use of proxy traits as a means of mate selection. Specifically, we can be fooled. In the modern era, it is extremely common for men and women alike to do various things to present a more mate-worthy appearance than they actually represent. Though this is most commonly age-related; it isn't even unusual for people to use surgical means to present an appearance not in keeping with their underlying genetics or true age. (Examples include hair plugs and breast augmentation.)
Men are notoriously easy to fool in this way. Women long ago discovered the magic of make-up and how profoundly differently men will react. Blush and lipstick mimic both youth and states of arousal, mascara mimics extremely good nutritional status, etc. The simple fact is that make-up has a substantial and measurable effect on the sexual responsiveness of men to women.(6) This effect works in spite of men's awareness of it, incidentally.
I have overheard women laughing about how easy it is to manipulate men through purely superficial means. (*shrug*) This is essentially a throwback to the fact men's mating instincts have by necessity evolved to evaluate genetic fitness by proxy.
As I mentioned earlier; this can also be influenced by cultural conditioning through environment, media, etc. I bet I'm not the only guy out there whose head immediately turns in the direction of the click-clack of high heels. (actually, I recognize and fight the impulse, but you get the idea) It is a purely conditioned response made from years of environmental and media observation associating otherwise attractive women with high heels. Suddenly, the proxy evaluation is a step even further removed. The irrational equation becomes (implicitly): "Women who wear high heels are hot."
I'm going to use Lauren Summerhill as an example. Obviously, she is a naturally attractive and highly intelligent woman in her own right with strong intuitive skills regarding men. I looked at her webpage back before she blurred her photos. Holy crap! She was posed to show her perfect proportioning, wearing heels, a long cigarette holder, and perfectly made up like the most idealized glamour model imaginable. The lines were perfect. Even though I am intellectually aware of exactly what is going on, it practically short-circuited my brain. And I didn't even have to sequence her dna. (The foregoing is an example and not an endorsement. I've never seen Lauren.)
The term "glamour" means to enchant -- as with a magic spell. The term is entirely appropriate, as studies indicate that when first confronted with an attractive woman, a man's brain can literally freeze and he'll forget his own name.(7) In general this isn't a problem for me as taxpayer dollars trained me to deal with the phenomenon for social purposes. Nevertheless, the key point remains that men can be seriously affected by culturally endorsed PROXY manifestations that have nothing to do with underlying genetic fitness. (Not that a woman who effectively uses proxy manifestations is unfit. To the contrary, the high intelligence required to use them effectively argues in favor of her fitness -- albeit for other reasons.)
These acculturated and conditioned correlations can even go further until the high heels themselves are fetishized and a man doesn't consider a woman attractive *at all* unless she is wearing them. So then, it backfires and women find themselves in an attractiveness arms race in their competition for the attention of what they consider the best men. I saw an HDH recently whose apparrel, I am quite sure, could have fed a family of four for a month.
Women, of course, are no more immune to these things than men. They can't sequence genomes directly, and so in most respects must use proxy manifestations to judge genetic fitness. And just as men can become enamored of high heeled shoes as opposed to the woman; women can be enamored of the proxy manifestations as opposed to the man.
I say that in *most* respects a woman cannot judge genetics directly; because it turns out that women -- so long as they aren't using certain types of hormonal birth control -- can literally smell-out a proper mate for creating offspring with the greatest range of immunities and other complementary genes.(8)
One of the primary reasons (see footnote 4) why men have superior upper body strength to women is women's sexual selection of physically strong men combined with historical polygamy (one man to many women). Though women are no more naturally lifetime-monogamous than men as can be seen in the biological adaptations for sperm competition (9), their nature tends more toward hypergamy (10) than having multiple simultanous mates.
The implication of hypergamy is that women want the BEST mates. Whereas the reproductive strategy of males tends toward quantity with quality as a secondary (though NOT absent) factor; the high individual costs of pregnancy and childbirth for women tend to prioritize quality of mates over quantity. As a man, I could literally impregnate five different women daily indefinitely; whereas a woman can effectively only be impregnated in a natural setting (where lactation suppresses ovulation) once every couple of years while gravid.
Obviously, the upper body strength of males indicates a long-term (many millenia) overall female mate-selection bias for physically strong males; as does the average height of males being taller than females. This, for a very long time, represented the woman's proxy phenotypical manifestation of what constituted the "best" man. Physically strong males come in handy for protecting mates and offspring from the raping and pillaging hordes, as well as for kicking the @ss of saber-toothed tigers and similar fun. Thus, this greater physical strength in past eras also likely equated with the man's capacity to provision a mate during pregnancy and lactation.
(Side note: the pleasure of sex for men induces them to come back for more. It is classical conditioning. But it is sort of a trap because it just so happens that if he comes back to the well often enough -- specifically, often enough to have, on average, impregnated a woman with hidden ovulation (something that only exists in humans), he will experience a bonding effect greater than that of the oxytocin from a single sex act that will induce him to wish to provision the woman during the subsequent pregnancy/lactation period. This effect can occur in men even with explicitly and deliberately infertile (through contraception) women as encountered in hobbying.)
So, of course, women prefer men to be strong and healthy, on average, and quite often have a very explicit preference for men who are taller than them. Men who are shorter and have read personal ads from women stressing their desire for tall men are no doubt acutely aware of this preference.
BUT -- there is another proxy characteristic at which women often look: wealth.
Obviously, wealth has not really been around long in terms of human evolution; therefore it is a PROXY for underlying desirable characteristics, rather than desirable in itself beyond the quantity of resources required to provide the base of Maslow's hierarchy.
Just as a woman can use cosmetic surgery to manifest an appearance not in keeping with her underlying genetics; in the modern era a man can come by wealth in many ways unrelated to his underlying merits. But, just as men can come to fetishize human-made third-hand proxies as sexually desirable; women can -- and often do -- fetishize wealth for its own sake quite apart from the other merits of its possessor.
Probably the most striking study I have seen reported on this is the one demonstrating that overall, women have more and better orgasms with men they believe to be wealthy.(11) Female sexual psychology is complex, and sexual responses are highly tied to conceptual rubric. Hence, this proxy trait can become more important to some women than practically anything else.
Of course, as previously mentioned, proxy traits are not as reliable as phenotypic preferences at determining mate genetic quality; and wealth is an especially good example.
It turns out that in our society, wealth acquisition -- and quite specifically success in the upper tiers of corporate America -- correlates positively to psychopathic traits. And not just by a little bit. It turns out that upper managers score just as high on psychopathy scores as incarcerated felons.(12)
A female sexual preference for the proxy trait of wealth can have profound negative consequences when these preferred mates also manifest likely heritable psychopathic qualities. Commenting on this phenomenon, one professor noted that: ""If we continue to go this way in our Western culture, evolutionarily speaking, it doesn't end well."
So just as men being fooled by lipstick and botox can lead to more children being born with Down's Syndrome, women being fooled by a fat wallet can lead to an increasingly psychopathic and inhospitable society.
THIS is how this relates to the topic.
Sensual Lina is, imho, manifesting a natural desire for a man to demonstrate strength (getting her doors and such), and for her to provision her within the context of dating.
This is entirely reasonable, and it makes evolutionary sense that a woman untainted with the feminist variants that reduce us from homo sapiens to merely homo economicus would find such male behavior attractive.
This is NOT the same thing as wanting a man for his wallet! As she pointed out, if her BF is short on cash, then they do something inexpensive. She doesn't LEAVE him because he is short of cash.
I can entirely sympathize with men who are sick and tired of being seen as little more than a wallet; and how they might be a bit oversensitive on this issue. Even in cases of divorce where children are involved; our court system enforces child support with an unerring iron fist while allowing custodial parents to play endless games with visitation as though a man's only value in life is to pay and he has nothing else of value to offer a child.
HOWEVER, I also think Ms. Lina has made a sound point that people in a p4p world may already believe to a certain extent that women are for sale to the highest bidder; and that men are useful only as walking ATMs. If they don't already believe that, they can quickly come to adopt such attitudes if they are not careful in the choice of people with whom they come into contact.
I'll admit it -- I'm not a Marxist-feminist nor am I an implicit believer in female supremacism that is often billed as feminism. I hold open doors, show deference and priority, etc. to women. I consider women my political and moral equals; but certainly NOT men in skirts with strange plumbing.
As for paying? It depends on the situation. Obviously, in the hobby, I pay. Some people (erroneously) think I am paying for sex. I'm not. I am paying for someone I like and think is a worthwhile person to be able to spend time together, when otherwise she'd have to be in a cubicle jungle or an assembly line somewhere. There is also a possibility that I will derive more value from the encounter than the woman (because I'm not every woman's cup of tea); and the payment is to make good any differential in value. I frankly like the few women I see (or will see as soon as I can, my cyber-lover!) and never resent the money. I consider it well-spent because it enables good women. If they weren't good women, I wouldn't see them.
Civie relationships are slightly different. I believe that relationships are mutual and reciprocal. I believe that my company is intrinsically every bit as valuable as a woman's; and hence that there is no additional debt due and owing on either side. I believe that time spent together is a cooperative enterprise from which we both benefit equally. If the woman feels that she is coming out on the short-end of the stick and requires additional compensation to be in my company; then she should find a man she considers an equal.
However, I believe I should be allowed (allowed, not required) to contribute some portion to defray costs incurred to enable us to enjoy each other's company; this is because I would not wish the woman to be financially harmed.
I'll admit to being old-fashioned in some respects in that I have a general preference to pay for meals, etc. on dates. However, depending upon the woman, this is negotiable. It is more important to me that the woman be comfortable and happy than that I make some sort of mis-placed stand on tradition.
So if I were Lina's boyfriend -- I would pay for the dates. Her position is entirely sensible and works fine. It wouldn't bother me at all, as that is simply something she finds attractive and I'm happy to accommodate. And if I were short of cash, we'd simply stay inside and explore whatever activities were available at no cost. She's the exact opposite of a gold-digger.
However, I am someone else's (coincidentally also in this thread) boyfriend; and as two competent and independent people, my GF and I will decide what works for us -- and the details of that require nobody else's approval.
Like Butterflydust, I disagree with the OP. However, as I hope this post has explained, I need not condemn it because certain attitudes manifest consequences that do not require my intervention.
(1)
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html
(2)
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...d-eugenics-796
(3) Personality Psychology, McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2002, Chapter 4
(4)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...t-human-nature
(5)
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20...CLES/101019423
(6)
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...omen_wear.html
(7)
http://www.mindpowernews.com/PrettyWomen.htm
(8)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4516566.ece
(9) Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 2. 2004.
(10)
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...ns_of_hyp.html
(11)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5537017.ece
(12)
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C1
butterflies are known for their penchant to flit about unpredictably, but i'm sure you'll see me pop up here and there.
I was especially struck by this paragraph because: (a) comments on ECCIE or other boards make it so clear that the ladies don't want to feel like a commodity POA and the men don't want to feel like a walking ATM; but (b) hanging around boards like this seems to make it more likely that they will feel that way, and possibly more likely that they will treat the other that way. Exactly your point, I gather.
