• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

america today

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Ravi, all this talk of love and lust has made me lust after finding what lust actually means. Can there be lust outside sexual sphere, like lust for money or lust for power? Some say they have lust for life, whatever that means. Is lust just an intense desire for something, or is it an uncontrollable craving? Can lust be managed? If so, is it lust to start with?

From what little I have read, it seems to me, whatever it may be, it originates from the deep nooks of our DNA. Whether it is mother's love for a child, brother's love for sister, lover's love for a lover, or love for humanity, why even love for a pet dog or a cat, all of this can be traced to the selfish gene that is "driven" to replicate and survive. The genes that support strategies that succeed in this non-stop process of survival and reproduction, become more predominant. The gene that produces feeling of love, to the extent it has helped men and women succeed in this biological chess game, has become common. Love is not a man-made social construct, it is an innate gene based "strategy" for survival and reproduction, coded deep inside our genes.

So, in summary, love of a mother to child helps her offspring carrying her genes succeed and reproduce. Love of brother to sister helps the sister survive, find a mate, reproduce and pas on part of the gene she has in common with her brother to the next generation. Love for a lover has direct benefit, a whopping 50% of the genes of the product is yours, so very important, no less important than the love of a mother to her child half of the baby's gene is guaranteed to be hers, no such guarantee on the dad's side -- men's enslavement of women through such concepts as கற்பு, etc., are designed to extract this guarantee without working for it.

The genes that cause fond feelings for children, that help children survive, gets automatically activated when we see a cute dog or cat. In as much as this is uncontrollable, is this lust?

Whatever the gene imperative may be, the brain this gene has endowed us with, gives human beings the ability to circumvent that imperative in some ingenious ways -- between me and my genes, I choose me, ImeMine. Let us use it to fashion our lives that increases our happiness and the happiness of people around us.

Cheers!

Sri Nara ji,

I am not sure as to what extent I can answer your questions convincingly...I doubt it for sure...But since I could sense that I can share with you something, I am taking this initiative to express.


Off course, Lust can be outside sexual sphere. As you know, Lust is meant to define an overwhelming desire or craving; intense eagerness or enthusiasm. So lust can be for any thing and for any human in any kind of human relationships and relationship with animals. In the positive side of lust over our pets or any animal, its purely the same overwhelming desire, craving eagerness & enthusiasm that we carry towards fellow human beings in any relationships, that has nothing to do with sexual pleasures, beyond recognized & accepted criteria.

When we associate Lust with body pleasures in terms of Sex, its the same overwhelming desire or craving. This lust can take its toll in a natural form with opposite sex (can be with the liking and approval of the other person and can be by force too) and for some men, can take on animals too and that's called Abnormal Lust. Before I am been questioned by any one, as how I am claiming the existence of such few men who lust over animals in terms of sex, I can say that, I have heard such incidents where both boys and girls were found to be indulging in. To substantiate to yours and others satisfaction, I would suggest to go through Vatsyana's Kama Sutra, that elaborates the existence of such tendencies in men to indulge in abnormal sex with animals in the past.

As you have concluded & added up to my charm, we should use Lust to fashion our lives that increases our happiness and the happiness of people around us.

In line with yours, I would like to conclude that, the lust of sex becomes harmful only when it is truly found to be harmful.




 
Last edited:
Dear Mr. Ravi,
What a long mail!
icon6.png

What is the secret of your stamina?
Is it Boost?
icon4.png

I did not read your message though. It is amazingly long! :fear:
May be when I find enough time to spare,
I will go through it!
:clock:
with best wishes,
V.R.

P.S. If you don't mind being given a useful tip,
the correct usage is "from time immemorial".
And by the way all men are mortals too!
Cheers.
V.R.
Smt.Visalakshi ji,

The secret of my stamina to post long messages is nothing but my love towards some one, that's boosting me to express myself without ignoring..

I certainly would not mind you point out my mistake..It's my pleasure that you have taken the interest to bring it to my notice, my typing error and I am thank full to you. Let me see. If its possible I shall correct it in my post..

Yeah, true, all men are mortals too..I liked this statement of yours..

 
dear Mr. Ravi,
If you hurry up to correct it before this page is exhausted and we reach # 120 ,
it will be possible. Otherwise it becomes a message written on black granite!
with best wishes,
V.R.
 
dear Mr. Ravi,
If you hurry up to correct it before this page is exhausted and we reach # 120 ,
it will be possible. Otherwise it becomes a message written on black granite!
with best wishes,
V.R.

True, Smt. Visalakshi ji...... I have correct my typing error in my post, just few minutes before. I thank you for this once again. :)
 
Dear Shri Sangom,
siblings are very closely related and share a high degree of gene commonality. Therefore, each sibling has a stake in the survival and reproduction of other siblings. As the distance in relatedness grows, the stake in the survival and reproductive imperative of the related individual diminishes. The closer is the relatedness, the more intensely felt is the survival and reproductive imperative, which manifests in higher degree of love/affection/attachment.

...

(Caveat: There are many other factors that go into mutual feelings two people may have for each other. It would be silly to suggest that precise calculations can be made in these matters. What RD is presenting is a method to estimate the overall gene induced tendencies.)
[/INDENT]According to this analysis, between siblings of the same parents the relatedness is 1/2. This is a fairly high degree of relatedness that makes it worthwhile for siblings to be highly vested in the sibling's success of survival and reproduction next only to his/her own. The way these tendencies get actualized may differ between a brother and a brother, sister and a sister, or brother and sister, there are may examples of each kind, the most readily recognizable among my generation is the famous Pasa Malar movie.

Hope this makes sense, it does to me, totally :)

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

While I have nothing against the gene proportion/commonality, etc., what I wanted to put in perspective is that sibling rivalry தாயாதிச் சண்டை is very well known and often times, continues to family feud levels even. This is not only between brothers but also between brother and sister. Examples are not few also, even around us today. So, how far do the gene survival hypotheses apply? That is my point.

Is it that RD's society does not have such instances?
 
Dear Sri KRS,

With permission I wish to intervene in the discussion. Your words bring to my mind two characters from our mythology. Sage Viswamithra and Sri Rama. The great Maharishi was seduced easily by Menaka and Soorpanaka failed to do so with Sri Rama. The difference lies in the strength of the charecter of individuals, and the basic values they held sacred.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Shri Brahmanyan ji,

Permit me to make two observations:

1. More than Sri Rama, we should take Lakshmana as the example. Rama had Sita with him at the point of time Surpanakha approaches with her appeals, but Rama directs her to Lakshmana who also rejects her advances. I am not sure whether Rama should have done it at all, knowing that Lakshmana had been single all the time while he (Rama) himself had the physical nearness of his wife. Whatever the pundits may now say to justify and even glorify Rama for his action, I feel what he did was not at all a gentlemanly act and we cannot attribute strength of character to him. If at all that credit should go to Lakshmana.

2. By the same token, Visvamitra fell for Menaka who came with the express purpose of distracting his 'tapas' because Visvamitra did not have his wife by his side and had freedom to do what he pleased.
 
... what I wanted to put in perspective is that sibling rivalry தாயாதிச் சண்டை is very well known and often times, continues to family feud levels even. This is not only between brothers but also between brother and sister. Examples are not few also, even around us today. So, how far do the gene survival hypotheses apply?
Dear Shri Sangom, dayathi fights are uniquely anthropomorphic, whereas, these concepts apply to all life. But, even in this instance, the choice in dayathi fights is between one's own self and one's children (1/2 in relatedness) on the one side, and on the other side, siblings (1/2 in relatedness) and niece/nephews (1/4 in relatedness). Then, if these relatedness factors can be added, we have 1.5 against 0.75. Further, the stakes are very high, it is not just a scrap of a meal. If the stakes are not high, either because the estate is meager or non-existent, or the siblings are independently well off, these fights are less common.

Also, these concepts work out on the average over large populations. What may happen in a particular individual case can be influenced by many factors.

We must also note that the genes are in the end "selfish", but this "selfishness" also explains, in what may seem paradoxical on the surface, altruism.

Cheers!
 
Dear Sowbhagyavathi Amala Ji,
My comments are in 'blue' below:
Shri KRSji,

I hope you get well soon.

Perhaps as an unmarried girl this is not my arena at all but I find it slightly disconcerting that you would need help (i think you said therapy in another post) if at all you were sexually attracted a woman who is not your wife. I feel that is too harsh a statement to make of oneself.
I did not make this statement of-handedly. Once one is in love with one person totally and completely, I do not understand how a sexual thought about another person would even rise in one's mind. If it happens, then obviously one is not in total love or affected by something that would override the implications of being in love. In the latter case, yes, I would go to a therapist to understand what is happening.

Surely it is entirely normal for someone to be sexually or otherwise attracted to other people as long as he/she doesn't act on it and commit rape or infidelity or be unfaithful to ones spouse. I am not at all advocating random infidelity.
Yes, we are all attracted to others while we are in love. But the operative adjective here is 'sexual'. Obviously, while being married, I have come across a few women that I felt attracted to, but to tell you the truth, not sexually. I may think that a person is beautiful, but that does not automatically transfer to being sexually attractive. In fact, whenever I have seen ladies wearing sexy clothes with behavior matching with it, I have always felt sorry for them. In my opinion such women usually suffer from low esteem.

If one cheats on ones spouse then I agree they need help sorting out their marriage, if they wish to. If one is merely sexually attracted to someone else but never acts on it and probably its just a phase and they get over it, I completely fail to see what help they need.
To me, sex is one but a tool to express one's love. I reject the idea that where there is full expression of love, with the sexual part fully available, one can separate the two. Sex aspect when there is love, is always subordinary to it. Of course, when one is not in love, then, I would assume that one's mind will be subject to various sexual attractions based on one's libido.

In this day and age we are more than ever bombarded with information saying that apparently it is not natural for humans to be monogamous and how monogamy is forced upon us by society etc. We as women are also told that men who succumb to other womens sexuality, does not mean he doesn't love us because for men sex and love are different
Sorry, I do not buy both theories.
1) Monogamy is based on love. And this is the basis for the spiritual growth for all human beings (despite Lord Krishna's example). Of course there are exceptions, but I truly believe that monogamy and the attendant love/devotion is a starting point for a human being to understand how we are all connected as humans.
2) To me, this is the biggest non truth. As I have said, if one puts the mechanics of sexuality ahead of love, then how can one claim that one loves the lady he has cheated on, and also as importantly 'use' the other woman as nothing but a toy for his own gratification. We all know that women have the power of seduction, to make men fall in love with them (progeny, stability, etc. are the reasons), but that does not mean that a woman who willingly enter in to a relationship with men are doing it for sex alone - of course there may be exceptions. So, overall, I put the issue right at the feet of men, who for their own gratification, will justify this behavior.

Of course this is my personal opinion and applies to me and in no way judges others who may have their own reasons to behave the way they do, because I am not in their shoes.

!

Regards,
KRS
 
Last edited:
Yes, Sri Brahmanyan Sir, I agree with you. Worldly temptations are like weeds. They take root only in cultivated areas when the cultivated plants/grass are weak. Of course they readily take root in uncultivated areas too!

I have to defend my Maharishi forefather (I am of Kaushika Gothram) a bit here. All that was disturbed by his seduction was his tapas. He did not hurt another human being (even though, his cursing Maneka was not correct) and so I say, in this case, the weed readily took root in the uncultivated area!

Regards,
KRS
Dear Sri KRS,

With permission I wish to intervene in the discussion. Your words bring to my mind two characters from our mythology. Sage Viswamithra and Sri Rama. The great Maharishi was seduced easily by Menaka and Soorpanaka failed to do so with Sri Rama. The difference lies in the strength of the charecter of individuals, and the basic values they held sacred.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
Chi.Ravi Sir,

Greetings! I refer to your message in post #100. Wow!....I will not be able to address all of your message in one go....it is way too long for me! The risk is,you may write similar or longer messages in reply to the portions I address. I guess, I should handle it if such a situation arises....

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]As per 1st statement - Basically as a natural tendency men would be attracted spontaneously with the beauty of a girl and would yearn for such a lady for his life, unmindful of his aesthetic qualities. This we all know very well. Does not mean that all the men have such a tendency.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]

When you say basic/natural tendencies when explaining certain qualities, such qualities become the 'default qualities'. After claiming something as basic/natural tendencies, you can not turn around and say 'not everyone may have such qualities'. If everyone do not have such qualities, then such qualities can not be qualified as 'basic/natural tendencies'. I was talking about such contradictions. In everyday life, we always come across persons pretty, pretty & intelligent and neither so pretty nor so intelligent but packed with compassion; we may very well enjoy a closeness, friendship etc, but do we yearn for such a lady for life? considering the fact that we may be coming across half a dozen different ladies in the course of daily routines eneryday? Beauty or ugliness are subjective. What is beautiful to you may seem quite ugly to someone else. I am not going to write any examples; you are very intellegent enough to open up your own thinking in those lines. When we talk about subjective things, we may not try to ascertain qualities based on subjective informations as 'basic/natural tendencies'; when we try to qualify such qualities as 'basic', it becomes 'generalised'.

I don't think I would go point by point to say the same thing.

[/FONT]
My posts were to discuss on how and why women are prone to sexual abuses.


That is the whole problem. Women are prone to nothing. A small minority, a single digit percentage may get abused. When we analyse further, we will find, such abuses take place, not for sexual intent per se, but to reiterate the power. For example, women religious minorities in Islamic countries like Pakistan & Bangaladesh gets raped very often; in Darfur, even women following Islam are not spared. The power brokers who orchestrated such events do not get involved directly..sex is not the requirement, but the power. Sexual abuse is a tool used to overpower women or a community. If you say someone is 'prone', that indirectly means, someone somehow invites such situation (when you say someone is accident prone, it means that person may not be following safe practices..). Women are not prone to sexual abuses.

I noticed your five points about girs. As I said, women are too complicated to limit into such defenitions. I have no reason to debate your views. Since I am not a woman, I am the least concerned about your views about women.

Sri.Ravi, I am only interested in a discussion; not in an argument. So, I am skipping how many men you know, how many girls you know questions. I remember asking you a similar question, only to make you aware of the very small population you were refering at that time. If you don't like that question, I am withdrawing those questions unconditionally. I am not interested in 'tit for tat' situations, please.

I am not going further in this post at this point in time, if you don't mind. Thanks.
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]
Cheers!
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
hi Raghy sir,

STREENAAM CHARITHRAM PURUSHASHYA BHAGYAM DEVO NA JAANATI KUTHO MANISHYAHA? its in sanskrit....means even gods cannot

comprehend the characters of women and luck of man........how can a small human being like me comprehend the mind of a woman...its

like searching in a deep occean....never ending.......still trying till my end of life......


regards
tbs
 
hi Raghy sir,

STREENAAM CHARITHRAM PURUSHASHYA BHAGYAM DEVO NA JAANATI KUTHO MANISHYAHA? its in sanskrit....means even gods cannot

comprehend the characters of women and luck of man........how can a small human being like me comprehend the mind of a woman...its

like searching in a deep occean....never ending.......still trying till my end of life......


regards
tbs

Wonderful Sri TBS,

Let me participate with you and share some more, the most meaningful and valid (IMHO) Sanskrit quote..

YATRa NAAYESTHU POOJAYANTHE RAMATHE TATRA DEVATAHA
YATRa THASTHU Na POOJAYANTHE TATRa SARVAAPHALAKRIYAHA..


Meaning - Where women are worshiped, goddesses dwell.....Where they are not worshiped, all actions are fruitless..

GUNADHOSHOU BUDHO GRAHARAn INDHUKSHVEDA VIVEKSHVARAHA
SHIRSA KSHRLAAGHTHE POORVan PARan KANTE NIYACHCHATHI


Meaning - A wise man accepts both the good and the bad. He appreciates the former by a nod of his head and restricts the later in his throat, just as Lord Shiva adorned his head with the crescent moon and restricted the poison in this throat.
 
hi Raghy sir,

STREENAAM CHARITHRAM PURUSHASHYA BHAGYAM DEVO NA JAANATI KUTHO MANISHYAHA? its in sanskrit....means even gods cannot

comprehend the characters of women and luck of man........how can a small human being like me comprehend the mind of a woman...its

like searching in a deep occean....never ending.......still trying till my end of life......


regards
tbs

Shri tbs,

The verse starts with the words "aśvaplutam vāsavagarjitam ca..." and ends as "strīṇām ca cittam puruṣasya bhāgyam devo na jānāti kuto manuṣyaḥ". The word caritram will point at the woman's history, i.e., her habits, exploits, etc.

I think this is from bhartruhari's neeti Sataka, but not sure.
 
[.... I may think that a person is beautiful, but that does not automatically transfer to being sexually attractive.
Dear Shri KRS, Amala, and others,

From a biological sense, the function of beauty is to be sexually attractive. All life instinctively, through the genes, impel us to survive and successfully reproduce. For our progeny to be successful, we need healthy sexual partners. The features in potential partners that seem beautiful to us are surrogates for health and the ability to produce healthy offspring. Those members who possess these features get naturally selected and predominate in the future generations.

When we find some features in the opposite sex beautiful, it is only because our genes, in their silent ways, selected through evolution, make those features attractive for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, appreciation of physical beauty in the opposite sex is ipso facto, sexual. Of course, needless to say, we need to channel this properly, or else, we will become very unattractive and thus will fail in our prime directives, and that will make those genes meet a deadend.

Cheers!
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

You have said:
Therefore, appreciation of physical beauty in the opposite sex is ipso facto, sexual.

Sorry, this has not applied to myself. When I was young and in the 'game', I have found that I was not particularly attracted to some ladies who I thought were beautiful and not all the ladies whom I was attracted to, I thought were beautiful.

Just my experience.

Regards,
KRS
 
Dear Shri KRS, Amala, and others,

From a biological sense, the function of beauty is to be sexually attractive. All life instinctively, through the genes, impel us to survive and successfully reproduce. For our progeny to be successful, we need healthy sexual partners. The features in potential partners that seem beautiful to us are surrogates for health and the ability to produce healthy offspring. Those members who possess these features get naturally selected and predominate in the future generations.

When we find some features in the opposite sex beautiful, it is only because our genes, in their silent ways, selected through evolution, make those features attractive for the purpose of procreation. Therefore, appreciation of physical beauty in the opposite sex is ipso facto, sexual. Of course, needless to say, we need to channel this properly, or else, we will become very unattractive and thus will fail in our prime directives, and that will make those genes meet a deadend.

Cheers!

Perfect...........
 
Dear Professor Nara Ji,

You have said:


Sorry, this has not applied to myself. When I was young and in the 'game', I have found that I was not particularly attracted to some ladies who I thought were beautiful and not all the ladies whom I was attracted to, I thought were beautiful.

Just my experience.

Regards,
KRS

Sri KRS,

Might be Sri Nara is highlighting the Nature's Rule/Creation, in general and I think it would not be or should not be considered as gross generalization. Might be Sri Nara could grasp this concept of gene behavior as a natural tendecies that is general in application as per creation to human kind (as for animals, their genes got nothing to do with attractions towards beauty, it got nothing to differentiate except the sense of mating with their own species).

As you have rightly noted for yourself (and definitely your are not an odd man out), I strongly believe that each human gene got a differential predominance in its motive & wanting. And thus exceptions always do exist, under the foundation of general tendencies of human beings as per the creation.

Since, we can not pin point and list out each exceptions, I have, in this thread, highlighted the base tendencies as per the creation, that I believe were all flawless. If we discuss based on our own gene quality and discard/doubt other gene qualities, it would only prove our self having narrow understanding of the gene qualities as per the creation.

 
Last edited:
Dear Shri Sangom, c are uniquely anthropomorphic, whereas, these concepts apply to all life. But, even in this instance, the choice in dayathi fights is between one's own self and one's children (1/2 in relatedness) on the one side, and on the other side, siblings (1/2 in relatedness) and niece/nephews (1/4 in relatedness). Then, if these relatedness factors can be added, we have 1.5 against 0.75. Further, the stakes are very high, it is not just a scrap of a meal. If the stakes are not high, either because the estate is meager or non-existent, or the siblings are independently well off, these fights are less common.

Also, these concepts work out on the average over large populations. What may happen in a particular individual case can be influenced by many factors.

We must also note that the genes are in the end "selfish", but this "selfishness" also explains, in what may seem paradoxical on the surface, altruism.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

The most common and probably the most intense dayati fights happens among direct brothers or direct brother and sister, each having one-half the genes of their parents. This fight among direct brothers gets carried on by their descendants, in some cases. In such cases the RD hypothesis fails IMO.

Secondly RD's is also a "hypothesis"; he is replacing "God" with "gene" and narrating a sort of unverifiable set of beliefs about his new-found god, viz., the gene, I think. Pl. correct me if I am wrong.
 
....The most common and probably the most intense dayati fights happens among direct brothers or direct brother and sister, each having one-half the genes of their parents. This fight among direct brothers gets carried on by their descendants, in some cases. In such cases the RD hypothesis fails IMO.
Dear Shri Sangom, I think my explanation is what is failing. I don't know whether I can do any better though, than the relatedness quotient explanation I have given. The quotient for one's own side of the extended family is twice as high as that of the dayati's side, and when the stakes are high, the intensity of fight will also be high. Therefore, Dayati fights quite nicely fit with RD's explanations.

We must also note that environmental factors and gene mutations will interfere in this process, thus making precise mathematical predictions impossible, in other words, how a particular individual will react in a given situation is anybody's guess. However, overall trends for large populations and why certain behaviors are dominant and others not, can be and are understood quite precisely, through painstaking observation and research. You will have to read the book for more.

Secondly RD's is also a "hypothesis"; he is replacing "God" with "gene" and narrating a sort of unverifiable set of beliefs about his new-found god, viz., the gene, I think. Pl. correct me if I am wrong.
RD's book is about explaining the current state of knowledge in the field of evolutionary biology to common people like me. Therefore, what he states in the book are definitely not unverifiable, they are based on scientific research findings. The book is profusely footnoted. Further, these are not controversial findings at all, this is established science. RD's views on god and religion are controversial and one may accept or reject those views as desired. But, one cannot reject the role of genes in the way humans fight each other and love each other.

Cheers!
 
....as for animals, their genes got nothing to do with attractions towards beauty, it got nothing to differentiate except the sense of mating with their own species.
Ravi, please note, humans are also animals, we are primates. Beauty is a way to communicate ability to procreate healthy offspring. Beauty for humans constitute certain attributes. Beauty for other animals constitute different set of attributes that only they can appreciate, and we can try to discover what they are through observation. Many animals go to great lengths to attract suitable mates. So do humans. As you go down the tree of evolution, when the competition is less intense mating rituals become less and less elaborate.

Cheers!
 
Ravi, please note, humans are also animals, we are primates. Beauty is a way to communicate ability to procreate healthy offspring. Beauty for humans constitute certain attributes. Beauty for other animals constitute different set of attributes that only they can appreciate, and we can try to discover what they are through observation. Many animals go to great lengths to attract suitable mates. So do humans. As you go down the tree of evolution, when the competition is less intense mating rituals become less and less elaborate.

Cheers!

Yeah, got it...Thank you Sri Nara..
 
Dear Shri Sangom, I think my explanation is what is failing. I don't know whether I can do any better though, than the relatedness quotient explanation I have given. The quotient for one's own side of the extended family is twice as high as that of the dayati's side, and when the stakes are high, the intensity of fight will also be high. Therefore, Dayati fights quite nicely fit with RD's explanations.

We must also note that environmental factors and gene mutations will interfere in this process, thus making precise mathematical predictions impossible, in other words, how a particular individual will react in a given situation is anybody's guess. However, overall trends for large populations and why certain behaviors are dominant and others not, can be and are understood quite precisely, through painstaking observation and research. You will have to read the book for more.

Dear Shri Nara,

I think when two direct brothers - born to the very same parents - become antagonistic to each other and escalate it to court fights and social aloofness etc., we have a situation where the concepts of "one's own side" does not come in at all because the father/mother are not normally taking sides, and, even if they do, both the warring parties have same gene relatedness coefficient; hence if either parent sides with one of their children in their mutual fight, then the gene coefficient stops working. That is what makes this theory suspect. Reality seems to be far more complex than what may be explainable by the gene relatedness concept. Because such fights, very intense dislikes, are observed in a number of families, I feel that the concept of preservation of gene also has to be tested and verified as to how such hatreds can be explained within its parameters.
 
A female friend of mine was telling me that we accept a particular trait in a certain person and not in someone else of the same sex. In many marital separations this appears to a subtle cause for incompatibility, though not expressed. A female may have a strong emotional bond even with a particular dominant repressive male but not in some other male exhibiting similar trait.

This phenomenon is also manifested in asexual relationships with other humans as well.

How can this be explained?

A boy say A may think that if he exhibited a particular trait girls may get attracted, but each girl may have her own criteria and could not be interested in him. I suppose this makes females appear very complicated.

Regards,
Swami
 
America today

Ravi, please note, humans are also animals, we are primates. Beauty is a way to communicate ability to procreate healthy offspring. Beauty for humans constitute certain attributes. Beauty for other animals constitute different set of attributes that only they can appreciate, and we can try to discover what they are through observation. Many animals go to great lengths to attract suitable mates. So do humans. As you go down the tree of evolution, when the competition is less intense mating rituals become less and less elaborate.

Cheers!

Dear Sri Nara,

I agree with your views and wish to add that the accepted generalisation is that women are more of an exhibitionist than men , while men are more voyeuristic than women. This seems to concur with the biological sense that our notion of beauty is based, at least to some extent, on the female body. So, in general, women enjoy displaying their beauty by exaggerating the contours of their body by voluptuous dress and makeup on public display to attract the attention of male of the species. This is different from other animal species, where the Male of the species is the exhibitionist, either show its prowess like the predators or flare up their plumes like peacock to display their beauty to attract the female as prelude to cohabit.

But in both it is the same urge, to propagate the species.


We may consider this nature's balancing of yin and yang energies.


Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top