Well, let us reconsider the point again:
We might consider the "bitchin' Camaro", for instance. Many unfortunate men, and I am included in this number, remain puzzled at how one's car speaks to mate selection. Certainly, in the case of a new Lexus or Mercedes, it might speak to economic issues in much the same way as the "bulge in the pants" that really counts, the one caused by a fat wallet. But in the case of a '79 Camaro? It seems an aesthetic consideration, and one that is self-centered as opposed to anthropological or evolutionary.
All evolutionary considerations are selfish. Evolution doesn't run to a preplanned design, it's more like a bunch of kids running around making finger paintings, one of which every now and then will turn out to be marketable.
Women in recent times have progressed from being reliant, to some extent or another, on men for their survival. They are now in an economic position, at least in the more advanced countries, which makes aesthetic considerations far more prevalent than they were as little as a hundred or so years ago.
How does the Camaro fit?
Firstly, with regard to the financial considerations, an old car can take as much and more to buy, restore and run than a new one. I don't know how these things currently stand in the US, but as an example a '73 E49 Valiant Charger (not the Dodge) will sell these days for anything up to the 250K mark for one in decent condition with compliance plates. To restore it to showroom and then keep it running costs considerably more long term. That's an extreme example, but by no means is an old car cheaper necessarily than a new one - particularly not in the long term.
A minor point. The perceived correlation between car and wallet thickness is otherwise obvious when considering those which aren't really considered collector's items down the scale.
I'll digress for a moment to tell a story, of sorts.
It ties in a little with MZBoy's thread the other day about totaling his Mustang. I had to read it to find out if he meant an old '65 - '70, in which case I would have been conflicted between being far more sympathetic for his loss, and wanting to hurt him if he hadn't been already.
I owned a '70 Valiant VG Coupe for about 8 years.
It's a little like a Dodge Dart, except our version was slightly longer in the nose, a touch more sleek, and overall a better looking vehicle, particularly when it was done up a little.
I fell in love with it from the first moment I saw it cruising around the town I lived in, a middle aged man at the wheel, with apparently no particular place to go. I followed him for about an hour, and finally bailed him up in his driveway.
It took a month for it to become mine. He didn't want to sell.
I loved that car. I'd drive it for hours on weekends to see what there was to see, and take it on long nighttime cruises on dark lonely highways just to think for a while. It was the car that made those trips as much as making them did. There was something about it that changed the relatively mundane into something slightly magical. Doing the same thing in a more modern car just never measured up. I'd be hard pressed to tell you why, unless you've done it yourself and already know. Sounds as though you don't.
I didn't buy it to impress girls. I wasn't so blind as to dismiss the potential, me being young back then, but it wasn't the primary concern. I just loved that old thing. It cost me more to run than any modern car, more to just keep it on the road. As you said, an old car is an old car. If I'd wanted to impress women, I could have bought something a whole lot cheaper and a fair amount more practical, and could have gotten something more in vogue at the time which looked good enough to do that anyway.
For about two years of that time I worked in a law firm in the city. I'd take the train, most days, because cost was prohibitive and it would have been a long drive otherwise. But every Friday, I'd take the old girl on the long run all the way in to the city and pay the exorbitant parking fees required to park it.
That evening, I'd come back out into the parking lot, sometimes walking with girls from work, and there were more than a few who lit up with a wide smile when they saw it and say "is
that your car?" - and we're not talking in a condescending fashion either. Some of them absolutely loved it. City career girls... accountants, lawyers, personal assistants, all designer clothes and Gucci handbags. My old Val would often become a talking point, an icebreaker of sorts, which once or twice led further.
Eight years I drove it, and when the time finally came to sell, it felt a little like I'd just taken an old, blind, arthritic, but faithful-to-the-end family dog out behind the shed and shot it, because it just couldn't move anymore.
You don't understand that. Your question is Why.
See, a car can be more than just a vehicle. Most of them are something to get around in for a while before you move on. Some are cheap and nasty and just end up a pain in the ass. Some of them are average, reliable, trustworthy, and downright boring. Some of them cost a fortune and don't turn out to be anything different to all the others, when you get right down to it. A little more comfortable, maybe. Sleek looks, a smoother ride, air conditioning, leather seats, handles the corners easily. All the mod cons. But when it comes to emotion, they feel like they've just come off an assembly line... there just isn't much there. Put your foot down once in a while and you still can't feel what makes them tick.
But then, every now and again, you fall in love with one. They're the ones with character, something which sets them apart from the rest. The Keeper.
They might need some expensive upkeep from time to time, and you'll do it just to keep them happy. Might cost you a little more to keep them running smooth, and you'll do that too. You may have to deal with getting them started on a cold winter morning, but that applies to nearly all of them anyway and for most even that isn't a problem when they're treated right.
But one thing the keepers all have in common is that they make the journey to whatever the destination is more than it would be otherwise.
... Sorry. Bit of a digression on the digression there. I was warming up to the story. *chuckle*.
Back on track. What might it be that makes some women take notice of the Camaro?
As I said, women these days aren't reliant on men anymore. Generally speaking, they can look after themselves just fine without one. So aesthetics come into play more than they have in the past. Good looking men have always been in demand, but it was a secondary consideration until fairly recently. Haven't you noticed that's changing? Take a look at the billboards of the past to those of today, and tell me you don't see a difference in the ones that feature men.
A car can say a lot about a man. It might tell you he has a fat wallet. It might tell you he is broke. It might tell you if he prefers the practical over the whimsical. It might tell you what section of society he identifies with in himself, or where he wants to go. It can speak of ambition, or of living in the here and now. It can certainly tell you how much care he takes with his possessions. Conservative or not, prefers to buy what he's expected to buy or is told he should be driving.
Or it might tell you that he's someone who prefers to tell society to go hang itself and he'll drive what he damn well pleases, as long as it has something he can feel and that he isn't going to be parked alongside ten more just the same, regardless of the makers badge.
Damn it, man. A woman will even look at your
shoes for information, you think they're not paying attention to your car says about you?
We're in the middle of the Great Leveling. Aesthetics are more important now than they've ever been.
And that woman might see something of what she perceives as a rebellious spirit in the man who drives a Camaro, that she identifies with in herself, that she doesn't in the one driving a Lexus. Long term, that might not turn out to be the case. But it's an
indicator.
It really doesn't have much at all to do with evolution anymore, other than in social terms.
And how about the fine ass (any gender) or the nice rack (women)? How does this play into any sense of mate selection that is not purely aesthetic? In the case of breasts, someone might postulate something about motherhood, but that is superstition insofar as a nice rack does not necessarily translate to good milk for the offspring, and, furthermore, it is not exactly rare to find a man impressed by silicone implants. Beauty does not necessarily translate to anything more than an aesthetic advantage; we might recall that Western standards of beauty, even into the twentieth century, included some traits that happened to come about through what we would conventionally describe as incest. And, incidentally, it is worth noting that much of European incest came about because the nobility, unwilling to marry a lower socioeconomic class, often became so limited that cousins were the most appealing option.
One possibility regarding beauty is that it points to health, and youth. A woman certainly doesn't look as beautiful as she was when old or cancerous, and neither one lends itself to successful breeding.
In addition, studies of beauty have found that symmetry plays an important role. Symmetry can often indicate a more "perfect" example of a species, whether we're speaking of butterflies or humans.
Another is that in times long past, our social systems went along the lines of an Alpha Male pecking order, such that some Chimpanzee groups have, where only one male is (supposed) to do the breeding. What, then, would be his choice in females? Certainly, he's unlikely to be willing or able to do
all of them. And if beauty indicates symmetry, which indicates a prime example... it all becomes more logical. He begins to pay attention more to the ones who look like prime examples of the species. Along comes the concept of beauty.
Over time, our social systems changed. But evolution doesn't necessarily eliminate anything which is no longer necessary, does it? We still retain all sorts of "leftovers" from a past which we no longer need.
The attraction to "beauty" still serves a purpose, albeit minor...or, at least, hasn't revealed itself as anything of a disadvantage. Therefore there was no reason for it to disappear from genetic consideration. The nature of what we might consider beauty to be might change, from time to time. But the concept itself does not.
Only guesses. But when it comes to evolutionary theory, guesses are about all we have, in many cases. Mine generally come after a few bourbons.
Yes, there is an aspect of advertising for a mate, but the question as such fails to account for what we might call the "Blue Oyster effect"; that is, a sweaty, bearded, even ugly top is sometimes desirable. And heterosexuals are not immune to this idea, either, although my own failure to find the charm or appeal in the "Slim Shady" look does not make for any definitive judgment. Rather, it is enough to point out that the appearance of sleaze, poverty, and even danger, is sometimes considered desirable. It is hard to account for desiring someone who looks like a reckless, unwashed biker if the appeal is genetic insofar as we might expect to desire soft hands, a three-piece suit, and other symbols of success in the culture.
Going back a long ways, the male was expected to be both provider and protector... including against other males. A male who
looked the part might have been even more successful.
Any good protector could keep the wolf from the door. But it took an ugly, big, hairy, sweaty one to make a man think twice. He wouldn't have had to fight too often, if you catch my drift. The smaller one who might have been just as capable would have had to prove it more often, potentially one time too many.
Thus the hairy ape survived longer, and so did his mate - even if, as undoubtedly sometimes happened, she snuck off at night for a bit of the better looking one and had his kid instead. Didn't matter.
Her kid survived... provided hairy ape never found out.
Looks, in the male, probably came a long way after utility in terms of permanent mate consideration. Short term, yes. Long term, the big hairy guy was the likely choice.
Many aspects of human evolution have become mere echoes of their former necessity. And in an age where aesthetics have become prominent, those echoes may still be making themselves manifest. The woman may not
need a protector anymore, per se... but her choices might still reflect her instincts, whether she's aware of it or not. We're going to be acting out roles until something comes along to replace them... and that takes time. Already, we're seeing women choose mates based more upon "beauty" than anything else. Simply because this is one of the first periods in history they've been able to.
I'm saying, basically, that you're not going to see any overnight changes.
Where is all this leading... Eloi and Morlock?
I have a feeling we'll all be something approaching androgynous, tending towards the feminine side in thought patterns, come the end. Perhaps only vestigial tackle and a few pheromones will tell the difference.
With regard to gays, I can only surmise that there is a feminine thought process there which isn't as apparent in straight males. Gays come in as many types as anyone else... submissive, dominant, straight, queer acting... some are likely to have exactly the same thought processes as females do.
And come to think of it, they aren't necessarily even female thought process. They're thought processes we all have, only females have been the ones who had to make use of them more often in choosing mates.
So why shouldn't a more submissive or feminine gay male start thinking along the same lines and make the same choices?
(This section was rewritten last, and probably the least though-out. Getting pretty damn sick of it by now).
I would think it fairly self-evident: A gay marriage will join two disparate families. An incestuous marriage will not.
Only recently. People don't let go of their traditions, attitudes and prejudices easily.
Sure, a gay marriage might do that. But in times not long past, there was more to it - children. They were the cement that kept the alliance intact long after the demise of the parents. If a gay couple split or die, there isn't anything tangible left to do that. No continuity, in real terms.
An incestuous liaison does. You've already brought up the point about the great houses in Europe. A legacy is a legacy.
It's comparing a paper alliance with one of the blood.
Children in the past have always been necessary. The survival of humanity demanded that they were, and in the case of the incestuous it was often more to do with the survival of a specific bloodline. That consideration is evolutionary in nature as well, regardless of how distasteful we might find it now. It
canbe shown to serve a purpose. With homosexuality, you have to stretch to find one, and then it is usually more social in nature than expressively evolutionary.
I've only recently read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene", and while Ophiolite nearly threw an apoplectic fit over it (thinly disguised as intellectual snobbery), to the layman it opens new directions of thought. So fuck him. Which is, more or less, what I said at the time. I don't need details and fine distinctions, but I do admire someone who pushes me in a direction I hadn't previously considered... I'll do the rest myself for as long as I'm interested.
Personally, I have nothing against gays. I actually wish there were more of them - there are billions of people wandering around on this poor earth now, and gays don't breed. Yet.
Food for thought, regarding the overpopulation/evolution thing and the role of homosexuality. Can't make it stick myself, maybe someone else can.
I'm thinking along the lines of it having (nearly) always existed, but never before in such numbers due to having been weeded out or suppressed. It could never have been entirely weeded out though, due to bisexuality or even the ones who managed to get it up once in a while for a woman, faced with the alternative of social ostracism (or worse).
More food for thought. The homosexual is, albeit slowly, becoming more acceptable. The incestuous liaison is becoming less so, far more rapidly.
They've changed positions in the social pecking order, and coincidentally also changed positions as far as usefulness goes.
It's not really self-evident at all, is it? Dig deep enough, open your mind to possibilities, however repugnant you might find them, and you can justify just about anything.
Go tell it in Sand Point. The racists lost, and are still losing. And they can be as figuratively or literally as bloodyminded as they want, and they're still not going to win.
Without actually looking up whats going on in Sand Point, I would surmise that we're speaking of a situation in which a minority who care enough about something are confronted with a majority who care just as much in the opposite direction.
I feel obliged to point out that I was speaking of a minority who consistently press their views upon a relatively uncaring majority.
In Western Australia in the last decade or so the issue of daylight savings has arisen on a number of occasions. The businessmen are all for it, the farmers are worried about their cows getting confused about feeding time and the majority really don't care all that much.
So they held a referendum. In the first instance, it was "trialled" for a summer, and defeated marginally because those that didn't really care all that much thought, in the main, that it was a silly idea to have to reset your watch every six months and so voted no.
A couple of years later, they held the referendum again after another 6 month "trial". This time the result was much closer. The farmers still held firm, the businessmen were getting more numerous and those that didn't care all that much were beginning to get a little annoyed that they were forced to make the same decision again. But the answer was still no.
After the third "trial", and the third referendum, it was finally passed. It might actually have been the fourth, I'm finding it hard to remember now.
The farmers were by now a clear minority, most thought that cows getting confused was a rather silly argument and the numbers of businessmen were still growing. Those in the middle, by and main, were sick and tired of the whole affair and realised that "they" were going to have their way eventually if it took 20 years of trials and referendums, so finally voted yes just to shut everyone the hell up about it.
At the moment, the gays and human rights activists are the businessmen, the farmers are the conservatives and the majority are what they always are - those who really don't care much one way or the other other than in disliking inconvenience.
You'll get your way, eventually.
That was the Cecille B. DeMille, or at least a close enough approximation to the original.
Pretty damn bored today.
high-5 brother!