Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Hello mature adults, Why do women have children with average men?

I do not understand why women choose to have children with average looking men. Those men of short/average height with faces the majority of us would agree are ugly, subjectivity aside, since I think this only applies to attractive people. I believe that a particular face can be viewed as ugly by most people because of the distance between eyes, ears, lips and how they fabricated. A face with features conforming to the golden ratio, for example, a number fundamental in the natural world, would be considered attractive by most people. So clearly, not all faces reside on an isotropic plane open to people's subjective preferences as to which is more aesthetically pleasing.

So, it has come to my attention that, with all of this variation in the world, that some variants, namely, men of great height 6'0+ with a face exhibiting a high degree of masculine dimorphism, are more likely to have children and find partners, even if the intermediate years between allow for their cheating and deceit, they will, in time, find a point of stability in their life at which they are a father of children and the husband to their wife. This is all very well and good, but what about those men who are less fortunate and are born into families who aren't tall nor attractive. I have witnessed that these men follow two distinct routes. If they are intelligent, they will become educated and confide in academia. If, however, they are unintelligent, they will most likely follow a route of crime, as society does not value them. We do not value them because they are unattractive and unintelligent and they realize this around the age of puberty. 

So given what I have said, I don't understand why women choose to have children with short/ugly men. When I ask this question, and I seldom do, because it is highly insensitive, I receive abusive responses from women. The most common one I get is 'because I love him. He has a nice personality. He is funny. etc' and to which I am deeply, deeply frustrated. These women don't realize that if they decide to have children with these men, the children themselves will wonder why they aren't as attractive as their friends. Their adolescent years will be saturated with self doubt and insecurity. Now what loving mother would want to conceive children who will be subject to this?

An irresponsible mother and there are many of them. If they were to have children with a tall, attractive and athletic male, any children conceived will benefit profusely, as society favors these traits. So although you might love a person's personality, it is essential that you think of how likely it is that given your ancestry, your children will be ugly. Yes, please think of the children! I cannot stress the importance of this because the consciousness that is conceived, if it inherits the short and ugly traits from the father, rather than the tall, athletic traits from another father, it's life will have unnecessary feelings of inferiority, which is the catalyst for mental health problems in adulthood. My friend is an example of a man who lost the genetic lottery but he now wants to have children of his own, with another 'ugly' woman. I can only pity the children who will be conceived into the ruthless world, as they themselves will face ridicule, like he once did, should they explore the mechanics of society, like forming friendships, jobs and such. 

So, I say to all women, please try and have children with intelligent, tall and attractive males. Go to your local sperm bank and request sperm from these kinds of men, as there is no reason why you can't remain with the short 'funny' guy whose personality you love while rearing another man's child. It is only fair that the consciousness conceived in this world has an equal footing with others. So, I am for Eugenics and encourage women to find the fittest and most attractive sperm donor they're able to find

What are your thoughts, as mature adults? I am only young but this does not mean that I don't understand how the world works. Those who say your appearance is not as important as your personality, well I think your appearance defines your personality through time. If you believe you are attractive, you are more likely to be extroverted than if you believe you are 'ugly'. Already these choices are defining your life, but woman do not see this for some reason.

There is a certain logic to my thinking which many women cannot grasp, as it involves forward thinking beyond generations. I know this line of thinking is in line with that of Hitler and his Aryan ideologies but this doesn't mean that it's untrue, but I agree that it's impractical and a tad inhumane. 

Views: 586

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

:)

This is exactly what this forum needs.

Mozart was not what most would call good-looking. But he had no problem finding a mate, and this in spite of possessing a very crude sense of humour. He was terrible at managing money also. Yet by all accounts, he had a happy marriage. "Looks" are not as important most think. In fact, it could argued that people with "movie star looks" are actually at a disadvantage, as people don't treat them normally. They are either afraid of them or envious. It's good to be average. There's always someone out there for you. As for Eugenics, we are not smart enough to do this. Better to let nature take its course. So far it has been very successful.

Hi folks, please continue to enjoy your conversation. I've moved it out of Music Dissection -

Well, firstly, is the premise of the argument correct?
Some studies have shown that better looking men and women tend to mate with each other, whereas Darwin's rejects tend to mop up what's left. Everyone has a reproductive instinct. So it is hardly fair to suggest ugly people should not reproduce.
This recent article attempts to explain why good looking individuals are more attractive; it seems they carry healthier genes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2675563/high-blood-pressu...

Also, it is possible for ugly parents to have better looking children; we have all seen it.
Instead of trying to stop ugly people reproducing, why not promote equality in society, where looks are not everything?

On this forum we have discussed astrophysics, and geo-politics, so why not rudimentary psychology?    I feel especially qualified because my psychology is nothing if not rudimentary.  The obvious answer to Viv’s query is, women marry the average guy because they are average.   

     If you have joined a dating club you have filled out a questionnaire to assess your compatibility.  Here is how I would fill it out:  Age: enough.  Height: enough.  Weight: more than enough.  Sex: yes.  Race: white.  Ethnicity: white.  Language: white.  Religion:  on Sunday.  Etc.  In reality all these questions are irrelevant unless they relate to the only two factors which are relevant, looks and intelligence.  We choose our mates on the basis of looks, and reject them on the basis of intelligence.

     If you were born in the middle of the bell curve i.e. have average looks and intelligence, you are lucky.  You’re sitting pretty, and the world is your oyster.  You can walk outside your front door and find eligible mates.  You can pick up a girl in any bar you walk into.  You can even marry the girl next door.

     But, alas, you are on the composer’s forum and therefore are a few standard deviations from normal on the intelligence spectrum.  Let’s take your example of the college professor.  Let’s say he is in the top 2% of intelligence but in the bottom 2% of looks.  Doing the math, 2% translates to 1/50, so that the chance that the next girl he meets is miss right is: 1/50 X 1/50 or 1/2500.  Let’s say he is a little picky and wants someone within 5 years of his age.  Bad move, now his chances have fallen to 1 in 10,000. How many bars can he walk into where there are 10,000 eligible women? 

     So he has to broaden his horizons and geographical zone.  In the meantime he can date ugly bimbos.  It can be fun dating unintelligent women.  Just don’t talk about astrophysics on the first date.  Talk about The Kardashians, Lady Gaga, or Obama.

    But eventually it becomes necessary to get serious and find miss right.  For this you must ignore everything I have said so far.  You must follow your heart.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition people do not choose their mates.  The creator of the universe does.   There is no chance involved.  There are no random events in this world.  In the immortal words of albert Einstein, “God does not play dice with the universe.

Lawrence

This so-called article was obviously written for shock effect. Why are we paying attention to it at all, let alone taking it seriously?

I have to say that this is quite hilarious, and to be honest, I even humored the thought. Taking my share of "rudimentary psychology" courses, I can say that this point, while well unfounded, still perks my ears. Might I say, however, that there is a difference between an "average man" and "a man that is enough". Of course, as Annie pointed out, this was more-or-less written for shock effect.

Point being, this was well worth the uninhibited thinking put into it.

My major in college was psychology although I studied social psychology more than psychology of adjustment. I would find it interesting for a forensic psychologist to analyze the poster's thoughts.

It appears there are some unresolved issues here having to do with body type , facial features and attraction vs rejection.

Blues guitar master Johnny Winter died recently which brings up one of his main influences, black blues guitarist, singer and song writer Robert Johnson.

The story goes that Robert Johnson, who would be considered rather attractive, would take up with a somewhat unattractive woman in the town where he was performing. His affections would be much appreciated, probably with a good meal and a free place to stay when ever he was in town. Unfortunately his life style probably caught up with him and he died quite young, supposedly poisoned by a jealous female lover.

Not exactly a pleasant way to die but so goes the fate of a rolling stone who many consider to be the main head water of the rock music genre. I doubt if he had time to feel sorry for himself but he probably did feel something for all the women he took up with in a utilitarian relationship.

I am ignoring this thread completely, since I don't see it's relevance to any issues connected with music, composers or composing.

I do not intend to reply to it.

However, that being said, I think we might ask the question,

"Which outstanding musical composition, written by one of the truly great composers, actually caused a woman either to get married, or not to get married, or both simultaneously, and--- did the composer in question benefit either from getting married, not getting married, or both simultaneously, AND-- which of the great compositions of the last four hundred years, might have caused a woman to marry the composer, or NOT to marry the composer, or both simultaneously (or at nearly the same time) if circumstances had been identical to those mentioned in the first instance?"

This seems to me a very relevant question, to those interested in composing and decomposing.

Oh, wait. I didn't get it at first. Perhaps the original question was posed in order to find out why Cosima Liszt left the conductor Hans von Bulow and married Richard Wagner. Or why Eva von Braun (using her seductive power) caused Sieglinde to stop sleeping with her brother, Siegmund; and eventually led her to have an affair with Adolph Hitler, thus producing the hero/child/archetype, Siegfried, of immortal song. See the operetta, "Siegfried Idle," or the "Ode to Indolence."



‘If we are to reformulate the question into a more meaningful one, one might ask
"Why do the children of average men have mothers?"’
Ahhhhhhh. Yes. Especially nowadays, when children can proto-clone themselves, and choose their own identical parent, using a time machine and any ordinary contraception method in reverse.
This can be expressed musically.
Please look at table K.
Table T(n,k) = number of skeleta of (3+1)-free parental sets with n clone sets and k tangles.
(Available at http://oeis.org/A221494 ).
Now listen:

(This is the actual sound of cloning, expressed musically, with the essential melody only, played on the piano.)

http://picosong.com/cwGf/

Attachments:

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2020   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service