Im not

Influenced, yes. Enslaved, no. Not me, anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.

I agree with this statement.

Yup, same here.

Some are but not all.

Men are more visual than women. By that I simply mean that is part of their biological make up in order to be aroused to the point of mating and getting together long enough to create more little humans.

Women actually have the capability of seeing colors in a broader spectrum than males. We also possess a greater sense of smell. These attributes of the female animal were more vital to the preservation of the species as they had to account for infants. If a female dies with babies, the species takes a blow overall.

Do I feel that human males are "enslaved" by their visual capacity as it relates to women? Yes, some men surely are. Especially in the realm of men that are submissive in their sexuality.

While your comments are true I think it wise to keep in mind that there are those men who are capable of looking past appearance and see a woman for the things contained and held dear in her heart. Her ability to show love, kindness, compassion, empathy, forgivness, etc can at times far exceed that of a man. However there are those men who are capable of displaying those same qualities.

As someone here mentioned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So while appearence is important to both men and women I hope I will always look at the heart of a woman.

If you were speaking of me, I actually said physical attraction was subjective and arbitrary at best, but it equates to the same thing.

Like a lot of guys will go ga-ga over Angelina Jolie, but that woman does absolutely nothing for me.

I see this point made all the time; and, while I suppose it makes sense from a biological, let's-keep-the-species-going perspective, I can truthfully say that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in creating more little humans. Or big ones either.

Maybe I suffer from some sort of dire malfunction, but I'm not really even attracted to women who seem to be more structured for reproduction (i.e., the old farm-boy comment, "That one'll make a durn good breeder!"). Astarte holds no appeal for me.

Carl Sagan mentioned in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" that most male mammals seem to show a preference for breeding with females who have already reproduced (although he specifically stated that this did not necessarily apply to humans) -- as if this was proof that the genes would not be wasted.

Still, I'm not a tree shrew, and I'd like to believe my intellect has developed to the point where I'm not expected to live my life like a tree shrew. Some of us have the ability to take a few steps up the ladder and see more than the back of Biology's head.

.I was also speaking from the stand point of human biological evolution and the propagation of the species. Though it is impossible to get away from these physical realities, it is not to say that a person's individual personality, upbringing, and experience will not take a significant role. As society has modernized over the course of thousands of years, so have the traits that will be conducive to sexual interest to either male or female of the species. I am simply looking at this from the perspective of the scientific and medical aspects of reproductive physiology and pathology, endocrinology, andrology, and other physical attributes of human reproductive biology.

They are there for a reason.

I'm thinking that maybe the reason becomes a little more diffuse and nebulous as the actual "need" for human reproduction -- and what a can of worms THAT is, if we can step outside our vested interests for a moment! -- diminishes. We have more than enough people already.

Going back to the same Sagan book, I find it interesting that he refers to a study by a Dr. Calhoun, who took a number of Norway rats and placed them into a crowded environment, but always assuring all had plenty of food. There were some bizarre social changes. One can read the results and be forgiven for seeing the same sort of things being paralleled in human behavior at times.

Whales used to be land creatures (see ambulocetas), and some whales still have little bumps on their bodies where the legs used to be. They were needed at one time, but now seem entirely vestigial. I have heard the appendix referred to in the same way. What's needed at one time is not necessarily needed forever.

Not saying that rudimentary biology can ever be completely overcome -- it's probably too elemental, too much the "driving force" for too many, even now -- but some of us really don't use "what will the kids look like?" as a basis for being attracted to someone.

I think shes very pretty but I can see how not all guys would think she was gorgeous. She probably had one of those faces she had to "grow into" I bet.

I dont think I ever suggested that we as modern day humans are slaves to our reproductive drives..I was simply stating the biological reality of the situation. No arguments here. I dont want kids either, nor did I ever want them. You and I realize that at about 6.6 billion humans on this planet currently, we have overpopulated. Our reproductive biology is unaware of that fact however. I have always been far too driven and career oriented to even consider kids. I also worked in a field that being female could have been seen as a liability so that meant I always had to be at the top of my game because of what I was up against.

Some might consider that a selfish move on my part and that assessment would in fact be based on a knee jerk response based in the needs of reproductive biology.

I only addressed the question from the physiological standpoint anyway. I was not taking into account our current ecological crisis nor any notions of compatibility or romance either. I suppose since Im on the Mingle 2 forum I should just be silly about it and lighten up.

<--------Is this why Im single???

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

and some women get more attractive with every word they say

I'm enslaved by big boobies.

Yes, men are!!

And so are some women!!

There is something to that because I know I have fallen for men in the past that were not much to look at by the current standards of attractiveness yet they were brilliant, or had a great sense of humor so the more I talked with them, the more I grew fond of their overall character

Now I dont know if that is solely a trait of females however.

Does this ever happen to men I wonder?

although we all (men and women) prefer someone nice to Look at.....

Dropdead dont keep me warm, make me laugh, have meaningful conversation.

Not to say It cant, but more times than not,
Dropdead is kinda ......dull

There is so much more to compatability than looks.

JMO