RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship

Page 1 of 3  
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex.
It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real
life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one.
After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it.
I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality.
But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.
What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.
See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."
In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.
Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.
And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html
So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:
Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk
Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.
And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.
(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....)
The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality.
Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer.
And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women.
And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative.
I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys.
Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.
That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.
And that's just common sense. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RichAsianKid wrote a large Crock O' Shite mercifully snipped ...
Oh. -- C.R. Krieger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gently reclines back into sumptuous leather chair simultaneously smoking pipe held in right hand, basking in the warmth of a perfect fire, and says " here here" referring to "crock O shite" post.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did you mean " hear hear"? Perhaps you did not get the 'ruminations'?
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"oreely" < snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uc5vg.7215$ snipped-for-privacy@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, but he's probably not wrong. It's just not in the right newsgroup.
--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
E28 Guy wrote:

CR, you're too kind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
yaofeng wrote:

Hey! Howzit goin', Yaofeng? When am I goin' to lay eyes on you at some BMW-type event? -- C.R. (Don't have that 'roof in yet)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
E28 Guy wrote:

Roof not in yet? There is no way you'll be as busy as I. Realistically when I put the 540 V8 back in with the 6 speed conversion completed I may consider any event.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
that's one way to give it a spin.
i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body conversion, (nice photos by the way). for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say superficial. and all bark, and no bite.
i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving that "ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much.
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex.
It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one.
After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it.
I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality.
But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.
What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.
See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."
In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.
Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.
And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html
So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:
Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk
Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.
And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.
(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....)
The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality.
Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer.
And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women.
And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative.
I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys.
Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.
That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.
And that's just common sense. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in the translation but,
bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek shallow things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes).
ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits for. guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking about sex.
It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very interesting one.
After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men, especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get it.
I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much less as a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented me to reality.
But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.
What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.
See this very readable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes, the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it, thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."
In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine reiterated the clichd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.
Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.
And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated. http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html
So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:
Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of semen Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of breast milk
Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.
And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.
(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to fake, then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the future....)
The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for quantity, and women shoot for quality.
Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury" car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love offroad utility may get a Hummer.
And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with younger, poorer but fertile women.
And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven by the same biological imperative.
I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I now realize that cars are more than just toys.
Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.
That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.
And that's just common sense. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lawrence Lugar wrote:

Absolutely agree there - I'd never do a nsx to ferrari body conversion either. It's basically pretending to be something that you're not. But then again if that's what women want then.....it's like the equivalent of men's makeup.
Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc.
One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's clothing.

Yes, agree there! The new modern minimalist 'in' thing to do is to unpimp yer ride....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy60bZYI&search=volkswagen%20unpimp
Stupid commercial

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dunno. In Europe many/most BMWs and Mercs have their designations removed so you can't tell the engine size.
DAS
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"RichAsianKid" < snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
even if it's a "subtle" change from a 3 series bmw to an m-series body. the overall concept is Still Cheap.
appreciate it for what it is. don't morph it into something it isn't.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lawrence Lugar wrote:

3-series to M-series is relatively ok, seriously believe me. At least, it's not like some guy who took out the 0 from his cheap cheap C240 and then stuck a fake AMG onto the right side of his trunk! Mercedes drivers are the worst! Hahaha!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
lol.
i just shake my head at those clowns who 'upgrade' their cars w/ those tacky conversion kits.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lawrence Lugar wrote:

I just shake my head at those clowns who don't capitalize and who leave a 212-line-long post for a 4-line comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
it's a casual conversation, dumbass....forgive me if i don't punctualize my sentences correct, mr. english teacher

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey top poster,
Dumb ass is two words and "I" and "English" should be capitalized, also it should be "punctuate" and "correctly".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...i rest my case. good god, are porsche guys usually this bitchy about proper punctuation - it's a f'n casual newgroup, not a damn official press release.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lawrence Lugar wrote:

Methinks he's a Merc man.
No, us Porsche guys don't give a rip how you spell or where you punctuate, if at all.
DS 95 993 Coupe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.