General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This killer that went on a rampage shooting [View all]TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Some amateur anthropologists come up with an old theory of evolutionary mate selection and another group of amateur psychologists jump up to claim he's full of shit.
Meanwhile, hardly anyone has an actual claim to research, study, or any real claim to know just what's going on here. Just keep fanning the flames and digging yourselves in deeper to your own personal ideologies. Most replies here are exactly what would be expected from the usual suspects. Nothing new from them at all-- just yet again "You're wrong!"
Would anyone be affected by a reminder that understanding of, and maybe even sympathy with, tortured souls does not in any way imply acceptance of things they do?
FWIW, who the hell has ever said that males and females have ever looked for the same things in a mate? Or a quick fling? Given that we've changed over the few thousand years and such things as tribal rank, protection, and potential for healthy childbirth don't mean as much as they probably used to, just what does anyone on any side of this argument think are the differences, if any, in criteria for mate selection?
It would be interesting to know if any of the participants actually have some idea, a list even, of what they think proper criteria would be.
Or, are they just reacting blindly according to their own prejudices?