Perceived Quality of an Orgasm
 

I was daydreaming and considering that an orgasm achieved with an ugly person is surely no less pleasurable than one reached with an attractive person? It follows that 2 ugly people have as much pleasure as 2 'beautiful' people . . . . so if that is the case . . what is the evolutionary drive that makes us all chase the attractive person? It must be the forces of 'sexual selection' where we subconsciously consider the other persons 'breeding potential' to produce strong and athletic offspring.

Yes that is correct. The reason we are would prefer attractive people is because these people are healthy.

A sign of a healthy female, who is at the correct stage in her life to be at her optimum for bearing a child, is a curvaceous body.

A sign of a good potential "hunter-gatherer" father figure is someone well built and muscular.

Also it is in our subconcious to attribute percieved sucess as physcial beauty. It has been proven that a "rich" man looks, physically, far more attractive than a not-so rich man, to the same group of women, despite the fact that it was the same man!

At least thats how it was. But now a days I am firmly of the belief that it is social issues that create our ideal of what is considered attractive, via the media, etc, rather than our in-built "instict".

thanks CSFlim. I guess the original point I was attempting to make is that it is the 'pleasure' of the orgasm that makes us want to reproduce (otherwise we just wouldnt bother!) . . . . and I am not understanding why there is not MORE pleasure to be had in an orgasm acheived with a 'beautiful' 'perfectly formed' person than with someone who is less so?

There doesnt appear to be any evolutionary 'pleasure-advantage' in having sex with a perfect specimin, as against a 'plumper'? You would think there would be. The only conclusion can be that our 'rating system' is entirely driven by society and our immediate environment.

I'll tell you, I think a guy gets much more pleasure plugging a skinny chick than a fat chick. Fat chicks aren't as agile and agressive... Grrrr....

I don't think that there is physically any more pleasure to be had with a beautiful partner. However, a large part of our sexual enjoyment comes from our brain. It is often said that the most powerful errogeneous zone is the mind. So you enjoy sex more, if you believe your partner to be besutiful.
Also the prospect of an orgasm is not the sole reason for chasing a partner. Think about a "virgin" primite man. He doesn't "know" what an orgasm is! He is only following his instinct to try and mate with a partner, and will try and mate with the "best" partner that is available. That same instinct drives us today.

simultaneous o's are great, but nature goes for the better mother model

sexual selection happends in nature as well. watched a movie about it in bio class. happends with many animals but with birds it is more pronounced. male birds have feathers of all colors to attract the females to mate, but also to attract predators away from the female.

Females of territorial species are attracted to males with larger.... territories. :p

sexual selection does occur outside of the human species

i always thought about this and how its weird how different societies usually have a different view on what's beautiful.

I also saw a study on how societies take what they think is beautiful and everybody tries to imitate that. After a few generations, people are naturally like that, but a lot of times the societies view has changed.

I believe schonhauper(sp?) a german philospher, said something about we choose our partner based on the outcome of the children we'd have. Like for all your inabilities or disadvantages we look for a partner who compensates for them. Something like tall people with small people, tho i didn't fully grasp or see the idea. It sorted made sense. Also that our attaraction was unconsicously based on our will for life and ability to procreate.

I think more social issues are more relevant today, though. And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, its all subjective.

Speaking from experience, I'd have to utterly and completely disagree. . .

how so?

you 'plugged' an agile aggressive fat chick?

or a non-agile/non-aggressive skinny one?

:p

Boy, you can learn the damndest things on TLC. Like a few weeks ago, they had a program about this very same topic, and they were discussing the human female breast. As it turns out, only about 10% of the physical makeup of the human female breast is used for milk production/distribution. The remaining 90% is the surrounding muscle and fatty tissue that gives the breast its magnificent shape.

In other words, we are SUPPOSED to stare at breasts. That's why they're shaped they way they are.

But just try explaining that to the girl behind you in line at the movies.

I agree with CS Film.. and about the Media part.. Most guys strive after the tall long legged blonde with huge breasts because that's what shown to be sexy in the magazines...

Hmmm . . well i dont beleive its all 'learned' from media, magazines and tv.

I read a study a few years back where they showed young boys (aged 3, 4 and 5) pictures of womens faces, and thet invariably picked out the 'pretty' one! Proving that we are born with a sense of 'beauty' and desirability.

Nobody is saying that it's all learned in the media. It is obvious that it is part of our instict.
However, the media has vastly distorted it, and with constant images of what is defined as sexy being blasted at you, you can't help but be affected. Like I said in my first post, from a naturalistic point of view, sexiness = healthy, mature mate.
However, their is nothing healthy about ridiculously large tits hanging off a stick insect. A curvaceous body... definately... but not this! This perception of sexiness is, in my mind, purely a product of media.
It has also been suggested that the "fetish" of being turned on by very fat women is an unconcious act of rebellion against the media. The media promotes this unatural vision of what is sexy, your body knows it to be untrue, but takes it to the other extreme... a sort of "over-compensation" if you like. (on an unrelated matter, I believe that people turn to the gothic lifestyle for similar reasons).

yeah.. agility has a lot to do with it... Im still looking for someone who could finish certain parts of the real Kama with me :)

Interesting points CSflim . . . . but were rubenesque female forms not once pretty desirable? A couple hundred years ago . . . being fat was seen as being affluent = good catch!

Nowadays the poorest sections of society are grossly overweight whilst the wealthy can afford fresh fruit and memberships to health clubs and gymnasia.

you are right about the media and their gross distortion . . . but I think the media is not as influential as they would have us beleive . . . . i think that your natural instincts dominate . . and you will find someone attractive evn if their shap s not currently 'en vogue'.

I recall an interesting tv programme whereby a fashion designer decided to use women from mens magazines as models instead of the usual stick insect clothes models . . . . .and he was raving about their curves and how they 'filled the clothes properly'. You only have to compare the women in top-shelf mens magazines with the women in Cosmopolitan or fashion magazines to realise they are COMPLETELY different . . . mens magazines know their target audience!

yes I agree. Being sucessful is seen as being attractive. It has been shown in animals. Fail to recall the names of the particular animals involved, so appologies if I'm a little vague:

A particular type of male bird, must build a home for the female. The bird with the best construction will "win" the female.

Many animals will collect food and make a store. This would be seen as a kind of wealth, and those wealthiest are seen as more desirable.

I would also poitn out another feature of humans: Tan. In the past, those with a tan were the poor manual laborers. Pale white skinned, was for people who stayed indoors, and were rich. Hence pale skin was seen as attractive. In fact many women accentuated this, with white make-up.
Now things are just the opposite. Tanned people are the rich people who can afford to fly to sunny holiday locations, and spend all day lieing in the sun. Tanned people are seen as more attractive, and hence the arrival of tanning beds and fake-tan lotion.


I'm not really saying HOW much the media and society distorts our view, its a pretty difficult thing to measure. all I know is that there is definately social issues regarding to what we find attractive. This social/sexual interaction is not unique to humans, as I (badly!) demonstrated above.
I would say that people who are more open minded, and less susceptible to media manipulation tend to have a more natural idea of "what it is to be sexy". Which would lend support to the media influence, however I will admit that this is not a scientific argument, as it is soley from subjective personal observation. (I feel it is alway very important to make that disctinction)

Sorry, fail to see the coherence of this argument. What does the fact that men's magazine models fit designed clothes have to do with the argument?
Or is your argument simply that the two types of women are shaped different? I would be the of the opinion that that would be self evident, but that both shapes are socially decided, and hence subject to the same scrutiny as everything else. But please clarify this point.

My point is that mens magazines women are curvy and busty and exactly what men find sexually stimulating. The models in womens magazines on the other hand, are skinny and not curvy and yet are presented to women as the 'ideal' way to appear to be attractive to men. This is clearly not the case. I am suggesting that curvy busty women have always been the attraction to men . . . irrespective of 'fashion' . . and that media manipulation is targetted mainly at women . . and is in fact irrelevant to this argument.

But like I said, men's magazines are just as susceptible to social pressures as womens magazines. I feel that you are taking the meaning of "fashion" in far too narrow a sense.

Not sure if I agree . . . . pictures in mens magazines are pretty consistant over the years in my experience! Even victorian porn is there or thereabouts . . restricted only by the technology of the day. I suspect that in 100 years men will still be looking at starightforward pictures of young naked curvy busty women . . . albeit on implanted comms chips charged at $1000 / minute to our intergalactic bank accounts.