womanoirish 55F
346 posts
1/9/2006 6:57 pm

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm


As promised in an earlier post, the following is a critical discussion of the study done by David M. Buss, professor of evolutionary psychology at UT-Austin.

An interesting survey conducted in 37 countries with a little over 9,400 participants. Buss et al, found that, over-all, these people, whether male or female, prefer to select mates with whom there is mutual love/attraction, and characteristics of dependability, emotional stability, kindness-understanding, and intelligence. Come here, sweetheart, she said softly, sliding her hand down his chest and twirling her fingers around his tie. Gently tugging him towards her, she keeps him captive with one hand clenched around his tie and with the other she slides it slowly down his Chastity (lack of prior sexual experience) was the characteristic that varied the most across cultures. Buss pointed out the four characteristics (dependability, emotional stability, kindness-understanding, and intelligence) closely follows the “five factor model” of basic personality dimensions. thigh. He bends his head to her eager mouth and they kiss softly at first, tongues tasting, hesitantly at first, then sliding together in an exotic dance. His arms around her, pressing her close enough to feel The biggest “controversial” finding is the so-called sex difference characteristic in that males prefer mates who are physically appealing (indicating better reproductive capacity) and females prefer mates who have the best earning potential. his growing hardness between them and she slides her hand to cup his throbbing heaviness. The kiss deepens and

A couple of problems with this research that I can see are 1) the data is self-report based on choosing a potential mate, not based on rating actual mates or rating actual choices, 2) the results are from correlation and therefore, causal conclusions cannot be drawn, 3) the median ages of the individuals in the study do not rise above age 31, therefore statistically speaking, the sample size is from a specific age group and not inclusive of people who might have made mate choices at a later age or people who have made second or third mate choices after termination of a prior relationship (i.e. divorced individuals who have remarried or widows/ers who remarry). goes wild as he crushes her to him and his tongue plunges into her mouth, stroking her in imitation of Essentially, I think the questions posed are about who a person wants as an ideal mate, not about real people in real situations.

Furthermore, I found on the internet a couple of dissenting opinions regarding Buss et al’s controversial sex difference in mate selection. what her hand was now doing to his erect cock. Stepping back, she breaks his embrace to remove his clothes. Both panting and in the tangle of bra, shirt, blouse, trousers, they stop every so often to kiss, biting and tugging in their lust for In the journal, Psychological Science, an article was published disputing this finding and offering an alternative explanation, “Social-role theory (Eagly, 1987) proposes that gender differences in social behavior result from the roles that males and females internalize from their society. each other. Naked, he shoves her on the bed and lies beside her, kissing her neck while exploring the moistness between her thighs. Wimpering, she gladly receives his gently probing fingers and begins nibbling his According to this perspective, perhaps Buss (1990) found strong gender differences in resource-acquisition preferences because most cultures limit females’ reproductive freedom and educational opportunities, thus restricting the number and flexibility of female roles and orienting them towards mates who can provide the resources the women themselves cannot. ear, delicately circling her tongue on his earlobe, teasing and tasting. His fingers seek and find the wet nub and she moans as he begins stroking her. Quickly, he slides down between her creamy thighs and begins laving her perfect button with his tongue and sliding his fingers into her wet A social-role explanation could explain the current findings, by saying that as females gain more reproductive freedom and educational opportunities, they are able to take on different or more flexible roles, and then have more opportunities to attain their own resources through means other than mates.” pussy. Writhing in ecstasy, she cries out as his tongue and fingers quicken their thrusting. Eagly and Wood (1999) did a reanalysis of the data assembled by Buss et al. (1990) and “using United Nations data to control for the status of women, Eagly and Wood demonstrated that in countries where women had access to education and equal treatment under the law, these gender differences were dramatically reduced. Clasping his head to her pussy, she thrusts her hips into his face. Oh yes baby, she cries softly. Pausing, he tells her he wants her to suck on his cock. Oh yes she wants to suck him and he feels her gush a little at the thought. He quickly moves so she can slide her mouth These findings are consistent with the view that the characteristics men and women use in mate selection are at least partly socially constructed.”

Further research conducted by Wood & Eagly (2002) has shown that “research tracking sex differences across recent time periods in the United States suggests that psychological attributes and related behaviors of women have changed in concert with their entry into formerly male-dominated roles. over his thick manhood. Sliding her hand down his long hard length, she tickles the tip with her tongue, swirling around with wider and wider licks. Taking his head into her mouth, she sucks on it while stroking his shaft with one hand and Research has documented the erosion of sex differences in a range of attributes over varying time periods beginning as early as the 1930s and extending to the present.” Additionally, they point out that patriarchal societies tend to keep in place the traditional male/female roles of mate selection described by Buss et al. tickling his balls with the other. He groans and lies down so she can slide between his legs. Kneeling between his spread legs, she slides her mouth all the way down his shaft and begins to suck, making little popping noises as she lifts her mouth off his head. She slides her hand down his shaft, her mouth and tongue following like a game of “Follow the Leader” and she reaches his That Buss attribute these traditional roles to “innate” human tendencies that have evolved is argued by Wood & Eagly in the same article that, balls, taking first one and then the other in her mouth, sucking. Suddenly, he lifts her up “the traditional division of labor and patriarchy are maintained in addition by the innate psychological tendencies postulated by evolutionary psychologists has not been convincingly demonstrated.” on top of him. She slowly slides his huge cock into her tight, wet pussy, moaning and sighing as he fills her completely. She leans forward while straddling him, her heavy breasts hang between them like twin gleaming globes, nipples rosy in the dusky light. As he alternates taking her nipples into his mouth, suckling, she

In conclusion, Buss et al.’s research is interesting but still has plenty of gaps and isn’t applicable to all people in all cultures. moans and begins to slide up and down his thick, hard length. Up and down on his cock, filling her pussy faster and faster. He grabs her hips and raises his hips up to meet her half-way, fucking and stroking. Their rhythm blurs as they gasp and groan. He explodes inside her as the built up waves of her pleasure crash over her. They both collapse in a sweet tangle of limbs and kisses as the passion tamps down to a bright ember. Personally, I have suspicions about researchers (and their research) who try to use the theory of evolution to defend the status quo. I wonder about their motives for doing so.


rm_NOSTRADAMU 88M
2 posts
1/10/2006 8:49 pm

A Phd dissertation, no less. All yours? May we have your lignum vitae, which appears to be not in evidence?


womanoirish 55F

1/10/2006 9:02 pm

Lignum vitae is the heartwood of species of the genus Guaiacum, the trees of which are usually called guayacan. The name is Latin for "wood of life", and derives from its medicinal uses.

Perhaps you meant "curriculum vitae"? And yes, all mine but not a dissertation.


rm_NOSTRADAMU 88M
2 posts
1/12/2006 7:52 pm

The word is still LIGNUM. Your sheepskin, from either Oxford or Cambridge would cite as above.Suggest you consider replacing "wood" with "TREE". May we, the unwashed,in (mental)and abject poverty, be privy to your scholastic accomplishments.? Which higher halls of learning would you care to divulge..........


Become a member to create a blog