Discussion Forums > The Lounge
A Whole New Light
elvikun:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 11, 2012, 10:26:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---One of the definitions of sapient intelligent being is the ability to not act on and ignore basic instincts. And if you go for the "evolution has taught us so, it's in out genes" excuse you damn well better be into fat girls with enormous boobs. Yes. I mean you.
--- End quote ---
If we're talking from an evolutionary perspective, then you would instinctively be drawn towards the strongest mate, and the one most likely to provide with healthy offspring. In fact it's largely the determination of objective beauty (subjectivity emerges as minor deviations based on person) and I have no idea how overweight women would fit into this. In fact, many overweight women have a far greater difficulty in conceiving. Much larger emphasis would lie on things like symmetry, a medium weight and height (I despise the inaccuracy of the BMI and it's inability to consider different body shapes but it serves as a guide), the ratio between the hips and the waist (slim waist, big hips), and yes, moderately sized firm breasts suitable for child rearing. Sorry if this comes off a little cold, but it was intended to be from a scientific perspective.
--- End quote ---
Well, you see, that is my point, human "natural" instincts and preferences are SO dulled over the years, that they hardly apply at all. How does a big muscular man with wide jaws and huge... chin and rather overweight woman with not moderate breasts by any standarts availiable and extra-wide waist fit into this? Well, those are the ideals everyone would go for if the genes and insticts were trully so strong nowdays. The only remenants availiable are that rather big number of men still find wide wiast and big breasts sexier than anything, while many women can't resist muscles, wide shoulders and particular skull structure. Someone feels it strongly, someone doesn't feel it at all.
And frankly if those instincts and genes still had a strong role, most of people on this board would never came to be at all or would be killed shortly after birth. Also no musicians, artists, scientists, you name it. Things change tho - That is evolution. People are getting more heigh, more fragile and robust skeleton and more space for brain and intelligence. If everyone started to live in woods for several generations, we might start to go the other way again.
--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 11, 2012, 07:20:01 AM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---One of the definitions of sapient intelligent being is the ability to not act on and ignore basic instincts. And if you go for the "evolution has taught us so, it's in out genes" excuse you damn well better be into fat girls with enormous boobs. Yes. I mean you.
If you go for the younger, fragile, pure and flat looking girls, then you are actually genetical deviation, error, mistake just as much as the fragile, flat girls. And since I personally do not fancy calling myself an genetical error, I think it's better to not use genes as excuse for behavior. Just call it personal taste. Opinion. Style. Whatever.
--- End quote ---
Well, of course it's not an excuse, but it's an explanation. People ignore such basic instincts, but still those are there, lurking, and human thought no matter how reprocessed by intellect and culture comes from there. How these instincts reflect in a specific culture (or sub-culture), and how they balance themselves is the result of us being self-aware and capable of abstract thought. By its nature abstract thought brings upon several conflicting behaviours (when instincts themselves aren't already conflicting), like the funny big-boobs vs lolicon joke we can make here, in all its simplicity, sort of represents. There's no doubt me being particulary leaned towards the loli and/or skinny aesthetics might be a "deviation" from the norm (though I could call the Golden Ratio to back me up XD), but that doesn't mean a deviation is less rooted in instincts than the supposed norm.
Certain mammals kill the offspring of others, and sometimes even their own if they happen to have been near others and they got their smell on them. That sure sounds like a deviation, as even though it is sort of consistent with the whole genetic thing it doesn't look very effective from a Darwinian point of view. Yet it comes from instincts.
I mean, homosexuality comes from instincts (there are some primates who are much more bisexuals than humans, for instance, for them sex is just a greeting and a neutral show of herd affection), yet half the world brands it as a sick deviation against nature (damn you Sturm und Drang for confusing nature with gods!).
In the case of sexual aesthetics, as such, I wouldn't really call a deviation from instincts any attraction towards someone who is in his/her fertile years, it might be more a deviation from derivative social customs. Of course, being attracted to a certain aesthetic and actually wanting to be with a young girl when you are an adult and in the current society that means to be on completely different planes of personality, goals, interests etc is an horse of a completely different color (I'd say pink, and oh so random... ;) ).
Paedophilia, on the other hand, being aimed at non fertile children, is a deviation from instincts, or even better probably an ill, pathological extremization of some instincts (the dominance ones) while others get ignored, or twisted in being out place (the reproductive ones).
You may say I'm more of a Freud guy than a Jung one in my views (not that Jung's Collective Subconscious was that different... they still both were seeing penises everywhere), to summarize it. I'm one of those arid, barren people who ended up thinking attraction and love are nothing more than chemistry.
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---Well. Basically, the same goes for the rest. The need to destroy and ravish should apply on other males and animals ore strongly than on females. So unless you maul three dogs and a husband on the way, again, stick with style.
--- End quote ---
I'm a 140 pounds weakling, even a Chihuahua would beat me up, and big boobs are scary, allright!? :'(
One has to work with what God gave him... ::)
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---Also not sure where you live, but you should ove into Europe. Quite a few countries make people legal at 14.
Oh Maker, I hope I haven't suggested something I will read about in the newspaper later.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I'm from Italy, the age of consent is 14 here too. And anyway, I take care to never go pub crawling without my group of mostly all-female friends (I know, this is another something that might be slighty worrying about me...) to watch over me and hit me in the head with a bat should I go too far. I wonder why they never do that when I get into the homo acting jokes to scare the waiters, though...
--- End quote ---
What I said above the quote. That's for you as well.
First of, Never ever, ever, ever talk about evelution, instincts and genes and the say "One has to work with what God gave him". I suspect a joke, but on the other hand I had my share of discussions around this topic and I know not everything what looks like obvious joke is one :D
Overall, yes, you and everyone else have certain chemical-based programming which affects what and who you like, someone has it leaning towards the past of the evolution, someone doesn't. Part of the evolution is that things change. Insticncts change over the hunderths thousandsof years just as much. ... And yes, you are using it as excuse. So many people use this so. In so many areas starting with wars ending with sex. You can just say what you like straight, goes double for the internet and tripply for BBT.
Don't take this personally, but noone really likes the...
"Um hi. I really like you. But... It's just because of the deeply rooted sexual animal instincts and evolutionary instinct telling me you are very good for making lively children, now let me buy a drink and sit next to you because my genes tell me to care for you and protect you and the years of psychology and philosophy tell me it might also get me something I will like. I like it because my genes are programmed to like it so we won't die out a s a species, you know?"
... People. Don't be "that guy".
I -essentially- agree with what you are saying, but not the way you are saing it and reasoning behind it.
rostheferret:
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 03:00:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 11, 2012, 10:26:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---One of the definitions of sapient intelligent being is the ability to not act on and ignore basic instincts. And if you go for the "evolution has taught us so, it's in out genes" excuse you damn well better be into fat girls with enormous boobs. Yes. I mean you.
--- End quote ---
If we're talking from an evolutionary perspective, then you would instinctively be drawn towards the strongest mate, and the one most likely to provide with healthy offspring. In fact it's largely the determination of objective beauty (subjectivity emerges as minor deviations based on person) and I have no idea how overweight women would fit into this. In fact, many overweight women have a far greater difficulty in conceiving. Much larger emphasis would lie on things like symmetry, a medium weight and height (I despise the inaccuracy of the BMI and it's inability to consider different body shapes but it serves as a guide), the ratio between the hips and the waist (slim waist, big hips), and yes, moderately sized firm breasts suitable for child rearing. Sorry if this comes off a little cold, but it was intended to be from a scientific perspective.
--- End quote ---
Well, you see, that is my point, human "natural" instincts and preferences are SO dulled over the years, that they hardly apply at all. How does a big muscular man with wide jaws and huge... chin and rather overweight woman with not moderate breasts by any standarts availiable and extra-wide waist fit into this? Well, those are the ideals everyone would go for if the genes and insticts were trully so strong nowdays. The only remenants availiable are that rather big number of men still find wide wiast and big breasts sexier than anything, while many women can't resist muscles, wide shoulders and particular skull structure. Someone feels it strongly, someone doesn't feel it at all.
And frankly if those instincts and genes still had a strong role, most of people on this board would never came to be at all or would be killed shortly after birth. Also no musicians, artists, scientists, you name it. Things change tho - That is evolution. People are getting more heigh, more fragile and robust skeleton and more space for brain and intelligence. If everyone started to live in woods for several generations, we might start to go the other way again.
--- End quote ---
No, overweight women are NOT what instincts would draw you towards, because the object of human life is to procreate, and overweight women are less likely to produce healthy offspring than a woman of healthier build. As for men, are you excluding the possibility of a man being both intelligent and muscular? It's simple; any trait that pertains to good health, fertility (women) or power (men) is a contributing factor to perceived physical attractiveness. Yes, the definition of "power" has changed since caveman times but these ideals are the same for almost all mammals and haven't changed for thousands of years.
The idea that brain mass determines intelligence is also a common fallacy; the further you deviate from the norm, the higher probability you are to be mentally retarded (medically speaking).
elvikun:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 11, 2012, 03:47:07 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 03:00:05 PM ---
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 11, 2012, 10:26:02 AM ---
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 06:03:19 AM ---One of the definitions of sapient intelligent being is the ability to not act on and ignore basic instincts. And if you go for the "evolution has taught us so, it's in out genes" excuse you damn well better be into fat girls with enormous boobs. Yes. I mean you.
--- End quote ---
If we're talking from an evolutionary perspective, then you would instinctively be drawn towards the strongest mate, and the one most likely to provide with healthy offspring. In fact it's largely the determination of objective beauty (subjectivity emerges as minor deviations based on person) and I have no idea how overweight women would fit into this. In fact, many overweight women have a far greater difficulty in conceiving. Much larger emphasis would lie on things like symmetry, a medium weight and height (I despise the inaccuracy of the BMI and it's inability to consider different body shapes but it serves as a guide), the ratio between the hips and the waist (slim waist, big hips), and yes, moderately sized firm breasts suitable for child rearing. Sorry if this comes off a little cold, but it was intended to be from a scientific perspective.
--- End quote ---
Well, you see, that is my point, human "natural" instincts and preferences are SO dulled over the years, that they hardly apply at all. How does a big muscular man with wide jaws and huge... chin and rather overweight woman with not moderate breasts by any standarts availiable and extra-wide waist fit into this? Well, those are the ideals everyone would go for if the genes and insticts were trully so strong nowdays. The only remenants availiable are that rather big number of men still find wide wiast and big breasts sexier than anything, while many women can't resist muscles, wide shoulders and particular skull structure. Someone feels it strongly, someone doesn't feel it at all.
And frankly if those instincts and genes still had a strong role, most of people on this board would never came to be at all or would be killed shortly after birth. Also no musicians, artists, scientists, you name it. Things change tho - That is evolution. People are getting more heigh, more fragile and robust skeleton and more space for brain and intelligence. If everyone started to live in woods for several generations, we might start to go the other way again.
--- End quote ---
No, overweight women are NOT what instincts would draw you towards, because the object of human life is to procreate, and overweight women are less likely to produce healthy offspring than a woman of healthier build. As for men, are you excluding the possibility of a man being both intelligent and muscular? It's simple; any trait that pertains to good health, fertility (women) or power (men) is a contributing factor to perceived physical attractiveness. Yes, the definition of "power" has changed since caveman times but these ideals are the same for almost all mammals and haven't changed for thousands of years.
The idea that brain mass determines intelligence is also a common fallacy; the further you deviate from the norm, the higher probability you are to be mentally retarded (medically speaking).
--- End quote ---
I have NOT said muscular OR intelligent. I have NOT said larger brain, therefore more intelligent. I have NOT said overweight means 150 kilograms. I tend to not call obese people owerweight. Obese people call obese overweight.
Changing the point like that is the same as if I said now that you are saying it's all evolutionary but evolution does not work. It's not what you said, but why not change it a little bit, no harm in that. No-like? I though so. I don't like it either.
What I've said is that the insticts, all mentioned, are getting weaker and weaker, up to the point where many people completly forget them and/or created (or rather developed) new different ones, same goes with looking for power and looking for fertility or living a life with an objective to procreate.
AceHigh:
Every time a guy thinks "Dat ass!!!", he proves you wrong elvi.
elvikun:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on April 11, 2012, 04:49:31 PM ---Every time a guy thinks "Dat ass!!!", he proves you wrong elvi.
--- End quote ---
Really? Please, I know you're not overly serious kind of person, but put that into a context with what I've said, because it looks like random scream in the dark void of space to me, so to say.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version