Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66259)	12/18/2004 10:00:06 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71178

As usual, I will bring this elevated discussion down to my level. Last night, we were watching a movie with some gorgeous, nubile starlet and my boys were drooling and it led to a discussion of what they want in a relationship. Ammo isn't really interested right now in a longterm relationship since he is very committed to his career and has no money anyway, so he just wants a hot, willing babe who will buy her own dinner. CW, turning 24, demands more. He wants a hot, willing babe with a brain. A lot of brain. He wants smart kids and someone to talk to. Obviously they still respond to the physical traits that I suppose have driven man from time immemorial to choose mates, but I wonder if along with our increasing IQs we are starting alter our survival instincts to be attracted to smarter mates? Or is that more like hoping for whipped cream on your pie? Not necessary, but nice. I seem to remember a discussion long ago about how men choose instinctively on childbearing ability, and women on the ability for men to protect them and their child. This means different things now, doesn't it? I would prefer,say, Bill Gates over whoever won the Mr. Universe title this year. On the other hand, I could never have mated with Donald Trump. At least not with that hairstyle.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (66259)	12/18/2004 4:52:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

I say women's fertility choice is the mating choice which matters I think you are on solid ground saying that, I just wouldn't use the term sexual selection for such a choice. I do think that the situation with Blunkett and Quinn is closer to sexual selection (and pretty much has the same effect as sexual selection) than someone using contraception just because they don't want to have a child right now (or have decided that they never want a child). Tim