Another reason why BDSM will never gain acceptance in the US

[satindesire]

I was talking to my mom about this recently. I think it was my mom. Anyway, we were talking about why young, in women, is considered more attractive, and that's pretty much what it is. With men, and this is my theory, they're considered more attractive as they age because when our brains were hard-wiring these reactions, an older man gave you and your children a better chance at survival; he would have been able to make a living, he proved he isn't frail in health, and he could (most likely) protect and feed you. Younger men were just starting to learn whichever trade they were going into, they hadn't proved themselves as providers and protectors, yet, and therefore were a risk.

A lot of people go on and on about people being shallow and only caring about looks, but looks are simple genetic cues telling the world how liable we are to carry offspring to term. It's really that simple, it's human nature, and the reason why we're a successful species. If we didn't know who was fertile and healthy and who wasn't, the human race would have died off ages ago. And we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

 

[graceanne]

A lot of people go on and on about people being shallow and only caring about looks, but looks are simple genetic cues telling the world how liable we are to carry offspring to term. It's really that simple, it's human nature, and the reason why we're a successful species. If we didn't know who was fertile and healthy and who wasn't, the human race would have died off ages ago. And we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

I think people should try and rise over their instincts, honestly. But, yeah, that's the biological reason behind why young women are considered beautiful.

 

[satindesire]

I think people should try and rise over their instincts, honestly. But, yeah, that's the biological reason behind why young women are considered beautiful.

Oh absolutely! And these days, where we have great things like modern medical dentistry, prescription drugs and adoption, fertility doesn't mean survival of the human race anymore. Plus, with the invention of plastic surgery, you can't really trust who is as healthy as their looks say.

Fact of the matter is, now that monogamy is so important, it's better to get along spectacularly well with your offspring's co-creator than it is to think they're drop-dead-gorgeous and sexually irresistible.

 

[SubNebGuy]

I think its messed up that the mother only got 15 years. She 'sold' a human...her own daughter...to this freak.

Life without parole.

Granted, she's probably not going to fare well in prison...only person worse than a child molestor is the knowing parent who enabled it (well, ok, that's debatable...there's a special hell for both of these people that none of us will ever see)

 

[graceanne]

I think its messed up that the mother only got 15 years. She 'sold' a human...her own daughter...to this freak.

Life without parole.

Granted, she's probably not going to fare well in prison...only person worse than a child molestor is the knowing parent who enabled it (well, ok, that's debatable...there's a special hell for both of these people that none of us will ever see)

I agree, actually. I think she should have gotten more time than she got. But I think they should tie her down and torture her in jail, too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Slightly off topic here...but...

Scientifically, we respond to cues of fertility as cues of beauty. Many men stay fertile and capable of breeding well into their 70's, where as most women go through menopause and cannot breed any longer in their 50's. To imply that women have the same 'shelf life' as men is simply NOT realistic. The same aging cues that tell us that our fertility levels are dropping off in the different biological genders aren't viewed as 'attractive'. Crow's feet are okay on men, but they airbrush them off an actress's face on her magazine covers.

This isn't about personality, you can breed with someone you can't get along with, and it happens all the time unfortunately. Beauty equals fertile hormones. Men have the edge when it comes to that.

No, younger women are not 'always better' than older women, but they are almost always certainly more fertile, and men's hind monkey brain responds to a younger woman's fertility cues without him being able to help it.

Being all snippy to him isn't doing you justice, JM.

I always have to laugh when I see the "scientific thinking" argument trotted out to explain human preferences and human behavior.

Especially when the explanation assumes that middle-class American standards of beauty and desirability are totally universal.

"airbrush an actress on her magazine covers;" you think that proves anything scientific, sweets?

Really?

 

[cathrynb]

.....

 

[graceanne]

I don't know that this is true. Why do all the women in the magazines look so skeletal? Where are the wide child-bearing hips???
The girl in the article was sold at age 12! At that age she's probably just going through puberty and not 'fertile' yet.

In our society someone who is turned on by a 12 year old is considered a pedophile and is not considered 'normal'.

Beyond that, no one said that the skinny thing had to do with fertility. And women think that skinny is attractive, most men want a healthy woman.

I always have to laugh when I see the "scientific thinking" argument trotted out to explain human preferences and human behavior.

Especially when the explanation assumes that middle-class American standards of beauty and desirability are totally universal.

"airbrush an actress on her magazine covers;" you think that proves anything scientific, sweets?

Really?

this is not just a 'western' thing, or an American thing. Most societies are attracted to young women. Look at all the third world countries where girls are married at 12, and that's considered normal. China, the middle east, Korea, Africa, Vietnam. None of these countries are 'western' countries. It's in the west that marrying really young is considered taboo.

 

[JMohegan]

Slightly off topic here...but...

Scientifically, we respond to cues of fertility as cues of beauty. Many men stay fertile and capable of breeding well into their 70's, where as most women go through menopause and cannot breed any longer in their 50's. To imply that women have the same 'shelf life' as men is simply NOT realistic. The same aging cues that tell us that our fertility levels are dropping off in the different biological genders aren't viewed as 'attractive'. Crow's feet are okay on men, but they airbrush them off an actress's face on her magazine covers.

This isn't about personality, you can breed with someone you can't get along with, and it happens all the time unfortunately. Beauty equals fertile hormones. Men have the edge when it comes to that.

No, younger women are not 'always better' than older women, but they are almost always certainly more fertile, and men's hind monkey brain responds to a younger woman's fertility cues without him being able to help it.

Being all snippy to him isn't doing you justice, JM.

I wasn't being snippy with him. That was sincere.

As for the rest of this, I don't have anything polite to say in response to your dehumanizing comments on men.

 

[JMohegan]

I always have to laugh when I see the "scientific thinking" argument trotted out to explain human preferences and human behavior.

Especially when the explanation assumes that middle-class American standards of beauty and desirability are totally universal.

"airbrush an actress on her magazine covers;" you think that proves anything scientific, sweets?

Really?

It proves that companies advertising in those magazines peddle stuff they want you to think you desperately need, in order to look as flawless as possible.

 

[culloden]

Slightly off topic here...but...

Scientifically, we respond to cues of fertility as cues of beauty. Many men stay fertile and capable of breeding well into their 70's, where as most women go through menopause and cannot breed any longer in their 50's. To imply that women have the same 'shelf life' as men is simply NOT realistic. The same aging cues that tell us that our fertility levels are dropping off in the different biological genders aren't viewed as 'attractive'. Crow's feet are okay on men, but they airbrush them off an actress's face on her magazine covers.

This isn't about personality, you can breed with someone you can't get along with, and it happens all the time unfortunately. Beauty equals fertile hormones. Men have the edge when it comes to that.

No, younger women are not 'always better' than older women, but they are almost always certainly more fertile, and men's hind monkey brain responds to a younger woman's fertility cues without him being able to help it.

Being all snippy to him isn't doing you justice, JM.

While that's probably right, I'm old enough to be nearly child free. Fertility holds no interest for me at all.

(Having said that, congrats to you, SD. Fertility is great at certain times of life.)

 

[FungiUg]

I'm not yet cougar age

Aren't there terms for the age brackets? Kitten, puma, cougar? Whereas men who are old and horny are "rhinos".

 

[satindesire]

I always have to laugh when I see the "scientific thinking" argument trotted out to explain human preferences and human behavior.

Especially when the explanation assumes that middle-class American standards of beauty and desirability are totally universal.

"airbrush an actress on her magazine covers;" you think that proves anything scientific, sweets?

Really?

Beauty Is Not A Cultural Concept.

Do some reading before you bash me. Sweets.

http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcoff/dp/0385479425

 

[Stella_Omega]

Beauty Is Not A Cultural Concept.

Do some reading before you bash me. Sweets.

http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Prettiest-Science-Nancy-Etcoff/dp/0385479425

Reproduction is not the reason we choose sexual objects of desire.

Beauty is a universal concept with many specific cultural manifestations.

I've been "doing some reading" for thirty years, and this easy-answer evo-bio stuff is really pernicious and debilitating for our society.

 

[satindesire]

Reproduction is not the reason we choose sexual objects of desire.

Beauty is a universal concept with many specific cultural manifestations.

I've been "doing some reading" for thirty years, and this easy-answer evo-bio stuff is really pernicious and debilitating for our society.

The more we're afraid of the "beauty myth", the more we'll be enslaved by it.

I can't see how understanding and accepting that beauty isn't something that is constructed by "them out there" to sell products in the Western Nations is debilitating.

Red pigments have been used as lipsticks and rouges for over 5 THOUSAND years. How can anyone with as much research behind her as you imply that beauty is some kind of modern-day media driven 'concept'? And note, never in ANY of my previous posts did I ever mention ANYTHING about the middle-America 'standard' of Caucasian beauty as 'the only universal concept'. Those were your words, NOT mine.

http://mirrorofbeauty.com/science.html

Da Vinci was researching this before you were a spark in your great great great grandmother's eye. The golden ratio of perfection...BEAUTY...is 1.618, and people are hard wired in our DNA to prefer to mate with symmetrical people who fit that average ratio. Fetishes, phobias and other 'miswirings' that can control who (or what) we desire only affect the human race when it's en masse, and the masses want to mate with beautiful people, not with chickens or aliens or shoes.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot turn my nose up at the facts in front of me just because they make SOME people uncomfortable. Once we accept the fact that our hind monkey brains do control some of the things we do, (like buy Rolexes and get highlights) we can rise above and most past. Denying our instincts isn't growing, it's just denial.

 

[graceanne]

Aren't there terms for the age brackets? Kitten, puma, cougar? Whereas men who are old and horny are "rhinos".

My littlest sister is 16. I guess she and some buds were hanging out and some old guy, in a nice car, started revving his engine at them and wiggling his eyebrows. They just started singing that Kesha song 'D I N O S A YOU ARE A DINOSAUR O L D M A N YOU ARE AN OLD MAN HITTING ON ME WHAT?'

I guess he ran a red light, he was pretty embarrassed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

1) You were talking about fertility as a criteria for sexual attractivness.

2) And according to the evobio theorists, the things that drive us are MILLIONS of years old, not five thousand. To me, five thousand years of lipstick is plenty of precedent. But using that particular argument begs the evobio question.

3) we certainly buy rolexes and get highlights for "monkey brain" reasons, but those reasons have nothing to do with procreation-- not for us, not for chimps. Among the many drives that humans are pushed around by, one of the biggies is status. Rolexes and highlights are statements of ambition. You are presenting a demand for status when you enthuse over being preggers-- if being preggers were all that was important, you'd withdraw from society, your ambition achieved. But you don't withdraw, you announce, and remind, and get your congrats and cheers and blown kisses-- and that satisfies a need that is every bit as crucial for you as the pregnancy itself is.

I am not asking you to turn up your nose at the empirical data-- I am asking you to look at the pat theories with a more skeptical eye.

 

[satindesire]

1) You were talking about fertility as a criteria for sexual attractivness.

2) And according to the evobio theorists, the things that drive us are MILLIONS of years old, not five thousand. To me, five thousand years of lipstick is plenty of precedent. But using that particular argument begs the evobio question.

3) we certainly buy rolexes and get highlights for "monkey brain" reasons, but those reasons have nothing to do with procreation-- not for us, not for chimps. Among the many drives that humans are pushed around by, one of the biggies is status. Rolexes and highlights are statements of ambition. You are presenting a demand for status when you enthuse over being preggers-- if being preggers were all that was important, you'd withdraw from society, your ambition achieved. But you don't withdraw, you announce, and remind, and get your congrats and cheers and blown kisses-- and that satisfies a need that is every bit as crucial for you as the pregnancy itself is.

I am not asking you to turn up your nose at the empirical data-- I am asking you to look at the pat theories with a more skeptical eye.

I did have a skeptical eye, I was raised in middle America as much as you were, taught by the media that the media was the creator and controller of the concept of beauty. Until I grew up and started researching. I changed my mind, once I saw the facts.

You actually believe that Rolexes and highlights have nothing to do with sex, that they're status symbols? Sorry, but the pursuit of status does not exist in a vacuum. Status equals money and power. And what do you get with money and power? Pussy.

When you have pussy, you have children. The urge to MATE (I.E. Fuck) isn't always recognized as the urge to mate (I.E. have kids) but it comes from the same hind brain monkey place. Without the concept of beauty, and the sensitivity to it (like every other animal on the planet) we wouldn't continue as a species. To imply that beauty is a shallow and modern concept is to patently deny that humans are animals. We're animals, with language. We don't call a peahen a shallow bitch because she mates with the peacock with the biggest and most beautiful tail, do we? If there's one thing all animals have in common, it's the instinctual desire to continue the species.

Status equals sex. There's no separating the two. In loincloth days, the guy with the biggest hunk of meat over his shoulder got the most pussy. These days, the banker with the three mil in a Swiss bank account and a house in Hollywood is that guy. Men don't go to the gym and eat chicken breasts and boiled eggs for nothing, they do it because it makes them more attractive. Attractive people have more sex. Almost nothing we do to ourselves to gain SOMETHING (money, power, attractiveness) is done for purely sexless reasons. Ambition isn't a modern concept, nor is it a sexless one.

Lipstick is one example of something that is easily recognized as something to make a person more attractive, and therefore a more desirable mate. I'm sure we as the human race as a whole, have done MANY things to make ourselves more attractive since the loincloth days. Why did we start using lipstick? Because red lips specifically are sexually attractive, BECAUSE red lips specifically are a sign of fertility and health.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was not raised in Middle America. You're making assumptions.

Status certainly equals sex, but sex does not equal mating for human beings. Status brings pussy, but pussy also brings status-- it isn;t a one-way street.

And for the love of mike, don't start with the loincloth days talk, or the mighty hunter, or any of those Tarzan fantasies.

 

[satindesire]

I was not raised in Middle America. You're making assumptions.

Status certainly equals sex, but sex does not equal mating for human beings.

And for the love of mike, don't start with the loincloth days talk, or the mighty hunter, or any of those Tarzan fantasies.

Unless you were raised in the Amazonian jungle with no exposure to things like electricity and movies, you were exposed to and raised in the same Western Modern society as I was. Whether you were born in The UK or in Mexico, you were still exposed to the same stuff as me.

Sorry for not being verbose enough with my explanation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Unless you were raised in the Amazonian jungle with no exposure to things like electricity and movies, you were exposed to and raised in the same Western Modern society as I was. Whether you were born in The UK or in Mexico, you were still exposed to the same stuff as me.

Sorry for not being verbose enough with my explanation.

No, actually, I wasn't exposed to the same stuff as you. I was raised without movies and TV for instance-- still don't watch much of either.

And you were not exposed to the same stuff as me. Really, really, not.

 

[teknight]

A quick sum up monster post

Let's see how many people I'll piss off with this one:

... we can actually do things in public without worrying about being bombed or burned or murdered. I'm going to a BDSM event in September in *Gasp!* Tulsa! And it's being hosted in a *gasp!* Hotel! ^_^

But this only shows that hotels are money whores. If there's money in it, the hotel will do it even if each and everyone of the employees thinks it's objectionable. it's a job, and you don't get to choose your play partners on the job.

I mean-- someone from this very forum read some of my new writing which has gender issues, puppy play, boot blacking, and pride event politics all in one go.

The gentleman spent more time being surprised by the details of the fetishes than he did actually editing-- I found his reactions very helpful really; assuming I want a more general readership to appreciate the story, I now have some ideas of where I need to "sell" or explain.

Who are you calling a gentleman?
Thanks!

I have a theory that they are driven by a need for something "simpler" than the complicated world we all live in.

Quick pet peeve here: if it's your own idea, it's a hypothesis. If there's empirical science behind it, it's a theory. I dislike that the term theory is treated so lightly, and it'd seem that the general populace overlaps the two terms (hypothesis i.e. educated guess and theory) and I don't see this as being informative or beneficial.
</rant>

Because women aren't cars, a 1980 "model" is not necessarily an upgrade from a 1960 version.
But you already knew this, right?
If not, I can't explain it to you, and I'm genuinely sorry. Sorry for the apparent absence of a particular kind of intimate relationship over the course of your life.

But the 1980 model's bodywork is a lot nicer than the sagging lines on that 1960s' heap. Sure, it has too much horsepower and it will run you into a wall, but, hey, Corvettes are popular with the middle aged crowd.
Frankly, I'm happy that you've come to accept a woman (or a sequence of women) as being unique, lovely beings, worth more the more you get to know them....but here's the flipside to that coin:
Any woman could be that..whether she's the 1960s' model or 2015's. Thus denying the younger woman's value for no other reason than that she's young is quite frankly sexist and weirdly snobbish.

Also, take a chill pill.*

*that's gonna end nicely. I need a chill pill too.

With men, and this is my theory, they're considered more attractive as they age because when our brains were hard-wiring these reactions, an older man gave you and your children a better chance at survival; he would have been able to make a living,

Not theory, but hypothesis.

Not an older man:
You have to consider the human animal and his ancestors as social creatures, holding to a hierarchy. The alpha male needn't be the oldest guy in the roost, just the strongest guy in the roost.
Plus you seem to be mixing your histories: monkeys don't have trades. Paleontology ain't prehistory ain't history.
Seriously: old guys exist and are "sexy" in part because the monkeys (apes, in truth) had things happen this way. For one: if a monkey got to live to an older age (for some genetic reason) it'd probably pass on that trait to the next generation, leading to a bunch of older monkeys than before. That, in and of itself is cold hard fact, and, what's more, the trait of "old" needn't belong to a particularly outstanding fella in the "survival of the fittest competition". As long as one old monkey mates and passes it on, the trait will then spread into the population. What is more, an older monkey will get to fuck more, thus possibly having more kids, making it even more likely that the trait will be passed on.
That has nothing to do with making a living, which is a far more modern concept, going back to about 8000 years ago, when we settled down and decided agriculture was cool...thus encouraging our fascination with patterns and simplicity.

I think people should try and rise over their instincts, honestly.

And what should we sublimate our instincts into?
Why deny that we are animals? I think coming to terms with that shocking concept would go a ways to us better understanding ourselves, society and all that jazz,and might even be more beneficial for us, rather than placing abstract, idealized concepts on a pedestal and trying to emulate then in RL.
</rant #2...I'm all about the human animal, btw>

------
The Nature v. Nurture Debate:

Fact of the matter is, now that monogamy is so important...

Says who that monogamy is important? It's touted as such, but, if anything we were more serious about 2-3000 years ago, when adultery resulted in public stoning. Isn't monogamy akin to property rights, to an extent? I mean, let's be serious, for most of history, the act of marriage has been one of ownership, whether direct or implied. The man owned the woman and got married to her to mark the fact and mark her as taken, off the market. If anything, nowadays feminism or whoever is conspiring to insure that the woman winds up owning as much of the man (or, that one partner owns as much of the other) as she (they) are giving away.
Monogamy is not important. Lit's proof of the fact.
---------------------
Whence beauty?

I always have to laugh when I see the "scientific thinking" argument trotted out to explain human preferences and human behavior.

Especially when the explanation assumes that middle-class American standards of beauty and desirability are totally universal.

a) evolutionary psychology is a bunch of running around in circles, so, S_O has a point
b)S_O and SD are, in effect, talking about two kinds of beauty. Let's follow along, shall we?

I don't know that this is true. Why do all the women in the magazines look so skeletal? Where are the wide child-bearing hips???
The girl in the article was sold at age 12! At that age she's probably just going through puberty and not 'fertile' yet.

Cause the media's out to make money? Why does any one trend take off? Why were flappers (who were rather tomboy looking) popular in the 20s?

I hate to say it, but hasn't the age for reaching puberty been dropping steadily?

Beyond that, no one said that the skinny thing had to do with fertility. And women think that skinny is attractive, most men want a healthy woman.
this is not just a 'western' thing, or an American thing. Most societies are attracted to young women. Look at all the third world countries where girls are married at 12, and that's considered normal.

Define a healthy woman. And who says skinny isn't healthy (of course, here I'm playing with words, 'cause I'm not defining skinny either. That actually makes for bad debating...but I find that skinny chicks make for good master-debating)...but, I digress:
Let's use that most horrible of instruments, the BMI as a way of defining skinny: Is a woman with a BMI under 18.5 skinny? If so, is she inherently unhealthy?

Frankly, given that 74.1% of the US adult population is overweight, I can understand a backlash against using skinny people as paragons of beauty, but it doesn't make them inherently ugly...They're merely the minority and being discriminated against accordingly.

Third world countries (under new PC rules, "the developing world") treat 12 y.o. girls as property and bargaining chips. They're not beautiful, they're useful. Don't confuse the two.

Reproduction is not the reason we choose sexual objects of desire.
Beauty is a universal concept with many specific cultural manifestations.
I've been "doing some reading" for thirty years, and this easy-answer evo-bio stuff is really pernicious and debilitating for our society.

S_O is talking about beauty from a purely abstract sense, as a concept.

The more we're afraid of the "beauty myth", the more we'll be enslaved by it.
Red pigments have been used as lipsticks and rouges for over 5 THOUSAND years.

The golden ratio of perfection...BEAUTY...is 1.618, and people are hard wired in our DNA to prefer to mate with symmetrical people who fit that average ratio.

SD is talking about a cold hard biological fact =1.618.
However, the 5000 y.o. concept speaks to me more of markets than biology: if woman A can make herself more desirable than woman B by using rouges, etc, then she'll find a better mate. That is a rational behavior, not something hardwired.

Without the concept of beauty, and the sensitivity to it (like every other animal on the planet) we wouldn't continue as a species.

Status equals sex. Attractive people have more sex. Almost nothing we do to ourselves to gain SOMETHING (money, power, attractiveness) is done for purely sexless reasons. Ambition isn't a modern concept, nor is it a sexless one.

Here, SD specifically outlines the kind of beauty she's talking about- but it's "beauty" as a sign of mating-worthiness...a rather narrow band in the spectrum of the concept of beauty.
I agree, we're animals, alas we've used language to corrupt our view of ourselves.
Do attractive people really have more sex? I mean, is this empirically proven? Or do we perceive them as sexy and thus see them as having more sex?

I was raised without movies and TV for instance-- still don't watch much of either.

But, if it's not on CNN, then it's not really taking place....although Fox News might wanna convince you of the exact opposite.

So, there's bio-beauty that tells my monkey genes that the girl over there, should she be down for some monkey loving, will produce fine offspring.
Then there's beauty- which lies in the eye of beholder, to a point, and is shaped by society/culture.

 

[FungiUg]

Let's see how many people I'll piss off with this one:

I've never understood why a good discussion should result in people getting pissed off. And it's not a good discussion if we all start in agreement (or even necessarily end in agreement.)

Quick pet peeve here: if it's your own idea, it's a hypothesis. If there's empirical science behind it, it's a theory.

That's true in mathematics and related fields (physics, for example). If you hit the definition of the word though (taken from dictionary.com), you get the following:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

So it's perfectly valid in an english sentence to use theory as meaning a guess or conjecture. You'll have to depeeve yourself over that one!

Says who that monogamy is important? It's touted as such, but, if anything we were more serious about 2-3000 years ago, when adultery resulted in public stoning.

Er... really? In which culture? While I agree with your opinion that monogamy isn't as important as it is touted to be, I don't agree that it ever was important. Nor am I sure how you get to this:

"Monogamy is not important. Lit's proof of the fact."

Er, do you meen proof or theorem or conjecture?

 

[graceanne]

Not theory, but hypothesis.

Not an older man:
You have to consider the human animal and his ancestors as social creatures, holding to a hierarchy. The alpha male needn't be the oldest guy in the roost, just the strongest guy in the roost.
Plus you seem to be mixing your histories: monkeys don't have trades. Paleontology ain't prehistory ain't history.
Seriously: old guys exist and are "sexy" in part because the monkeys (apes, in truth) had things happen this way. For one: if a monkey got to live to an older age (for some genetic reason) it'd probably pass on that trait to the next generation, leading to a bunch of older monkeys than before. That, in and of itself is cold hard fact, and, what's more, the trait of "old" needn't belong to a particularly outstanding fella in the "survival of the fittest competition". As long as one old monkey mates and passes it on, the trait will then spread into the population. What is more, an older monkey will get to fuck more, thus possibly having more kids, making it even more likely that the trait will be passed on.
That has nothing to do with making a living, which is a far more modern concept, going back to about 8000 years ago, when we settled down and decided agriculture was cool...thus encouraging our fascination with patterns and simplicity.

Which is your theory.

I'll call it a theory if I want to. And if you can only be picky about that that part your argument is pretty week.

And what should we sublimate our instincts into?

Who said anything about sublimation, or denial for that matter? It's a matter of knowing why you're acting the way you are and using your brain to decide whether to follow your instincts. For instance, my instincts routinely try to put me with abusive assholes. I know that's what my instincts want, so whenever I have a visceral reaction to a man I know he's an abusive jerk. I also have dated, longish term, a guy who I didn't not find physically attractive because I know that attraction can be learned. I am not at the mercy of my hormones, which is why I'm married to a man who, while hot as all get out, did not get a viseral reaction out of me when I first met him.

Why deny that we are animals? I think coming to terms with that shocking concept would go a ways to us better understanding ourselves, society and all that jazz,and might even be more beneficial for us, rather than placing abstract, idealized concepts on a pedestal and trying to emulate then in RL.

See above.

Define a healthy woman. And who says skinny isn't healthy

I didn't. Anorexic isn't healthy, but most healthy women aren't fat. Definition of a healthy woman is one with a healthy amount of body fat, because women need body fat, who's in good physical shape. That's a healthy woman.

(of course, here I'm playing with words, 'cause I'm not defining skinny either. That actually makes for bad debating...but I find that skinny chicks make for good master-debating)...but, I digress:
Let's use that most horrible of instruments, the BMI as a way of defining skinny: Is a woman with a BMI under 18.5 skinny? If so, is she inherently unhealthy?

I don't pay much attention to BMI because I think it's stupid, but I can tell you my step mom is WAY below BMI and it's a constant concern for her AND her doctors; she's very prone to health problems BECAUSE of her lack of body fat. A certain amount of body fat is healthy. My daughter is also way below BMI, and this also concerns her doctors. She's been on whole milk, by doctors orders, her whole life (she's 9, as of today) because a lack of body fat is not healthy. Period.

Frankly, given that 74.1% of the US adult population is overweight, I can understand a backlash against using skinny people as paragons of beauty, but it doesn't make them inherently ugly...They're merely the minority and being discriminated against accordingly.

Um, wow. Talk about reading a lot into what I said that isn't there, but I didn't say they were ugly, I said they're unhealthy. I also said that men usually go for healthy skinny, not anorexic skinny. Women, which last I checked I am, find anorexic skinny beautiful, which is why they use too slim women in fashion magazines. Well, that and the camera adds pounds, so to look healthy, you have to be underweight.

Third world countries (under new PC rules, "the developing world") treat 12 y.o. girls as property and bargaining chips. They're not beautiful, they're useful. Don't confuse the two.

And why are they bargaining chips? Because the men of that world think they're hot. If they were thought of as nasty they wouldn't be much good as a bargaining chip. Duh.

 

[FungiUg]

And why are they bargaining chips? Because the men of that world think they're hot. If they were thought of as nasty they wouldn't be much good as a bargaining chip. Duh.

Um... that's a little simplistic, isn't it? I mean, historically, children of either gender have been used/abused in our societies by people of either gender (not just men). Just look at child labour historically in our own culture's not-too-distant past.

My personal theory is that cultures evolve, and as they do they learn to take better care of their children (other things too, this is just one factor). Children are, after all, the future of our own society. So I could grade a society's evolution on how well it manages to achieve caring for children. One that is more evolved in this area would look on a lesser evolved culture with horror and disgust (rightly so!) But seriously, even in our own cultures it's not that long ago that kids were treated in similarly wrong, evil ways.

There's a reason why cultural ethics evolve, and one of them is to preserve the future of the culture. A culture that doesn't care for children just doesn't compete long term with one that does.

Of course, I am assuming that cultures do evolve and compete.