Notes Around
Meursalt said:
Whoa. Are you saying that aesthetic considerations do not/should not have any relevance in the selection of potential mates?
That those same considerations, subconscious or not, play no part in the evolutionary process?
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.
Aesthetic considerations do play a part, but in what way and to what degree?
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.
An aesthetic consideration that also represents something more fundamental does play a part in the evolutionary process. Most people are not inclined to blend their genes with the village Quasimodo, for instance. But neither is it always so blatant. In another discussion,
about a month after I wrote that post, I considered a certain facet of the point:
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.
Aesthetics might play an evolutionary role, but they also might not. Or, more accurately, yes, they play an evolutionary role insofar as one choosing to weaken the next generation of their genetic lineage certainly reflects nature about its selection. The aesthetics of a Lexus or Mercedes represent, in American culture, the appearance of success. The aesthetics of a '79 Camaro, to the other, represent a self-centered focus insofar as those things really are about pride, and also stupidity, as however nicely one might restore such a car, it's still a Chevy.
For what reason? You're going to have to justify that.
I would think it fairly self-evident:
A gay marriage will join two disparate families. An incestuous marriage will not.
Or, if that's not clear enough, try this, from a 2003 episode of
The Mark Steel Lectures:
As Darwin pieced his theory together, it caused him enormous anxiety; he became obsessive. For example, he used a similar method to the one he'd used to work out natural selection to decide whether or not to get married. He wrote out two columns headed, "Marry", and "Not Marry". Under "Marry" was,
Constant companion and friend in old age; better than a dog, anyhow .... Charms of music and female chit-chat .... Intolerable to think of spending one's life like a neutered bee.
A biologist's way of saying, "Well, at least I'll get me end away on a regular basis." Under "Not Marry" was,
Conversation of clever men at clubs, perhaps quarreling .... Not forced to visit relatives.
Which may be why he married his cousin. He was thinking, "Well think of the time I'm saving in visiting relatives. 'Cause her relatives are the same as mine. I'm laughing!"
When your mother-in-law is also your
aunt? You were already connected to her through family.
That applies to everyone, doesn't it.
What do you think the "traditionalist" will look like in a century or so?
Applies to everyone how? If a homosexual doesn't like being called flamboyant or melodramatic? Sure. If a homosexual doesn't like being called a faggot, or compared to a child molester or bestialist?
I'm not sure
what traditionalists will look like in a century. Part of me wonders if we're going to be having logical discussions about the merits of having sex with goats, since so many homophobes seem to think either that, or polygamy, or incest is next, but they're separate arguments. Polygamy, I think, is an argument yet to come. Incest will probably be laughed out of the public discourse. And bestiality makes no sense in that context whatsoever, as animals cannot give proper consent to engage in sexual intercourse with a human being.
Those who don't care enough always will, when confronted by those who do.
If you hammer an issue long enough, eventually you will get what you want through sheer bloodymindedness.
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.
Quoting this merely because I like it. It applies to aspects of human interaction reaching far beyond the scope of this thread alone.
Question is, are you aware of that?
As far as I can tell, yes. After all, I share this world with redemptive monotheists and the Republican Party. As much as I like to believe in the rational and intellectual potential of the species, there are glaring reminders to the other. And I don't have to look far abroad to find examples; many exist in my own neighborhood.
Maybe I'm on his ignore list or something. I wanted to see what he'd say about the girls choosing the guy in the Camaro.
Hardly. But there
was, as I noted in my response to Asguard, a Solstice Parade today.
• • •
ShredMetalBlues said:
Heterosupremacist...no way...that is one of the stupidest terms I've ever heard. A term that demonizes straight people, bravo.
Are you suggesting that all heterosexuals are heterosupremacists?
And a disorder called "ego-dystonic homosexuality" appeared in and disappeared from DSM-III in the 1980s. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was marked by a dearth of heterosexual arousal and emotional distress over one's own homosexual inclinations. In other words, a self-hating gay. An ego-dystonic homosexual would tend to be heterosupremacist, which means that even
homosexuals can be heterosupremacist.
Are the financial benefits of marriage that good? Why does anyone need to be "officially" married?
I would refer you to my
December response to Prospero, specifically the second section considering validation of love.
The certification, as such, brings much to the relationship. Taxes are a fairly small issue, as far as I'm concerned. If we wish to stick with the superficial, I'll also point out a post that is over four and a half years old, written for
the thread this one is designed to accompany. As I recall, I rather enjoyed writing that one.
• • •
EmmZ said:
What the fuck problem do you have against Patch Adams Tiassa?
You know, I actually liked
Awakenings. I thought Robin Williams did very well in that one. But
Patch Adams ... the script struck me as simplistic and even patronizing. Williams did the best he could with it, but that one should have been shelved before a single frame was ever shot. We went and saw it as a family thing over whatever holiday because, frankly, our mother would not enjoy the same kind of films my brother and I do. And, you know, I've seen some pretty good films over time with my parents.
A Test of Love (a.k.a.
Annie's Coming Out), for instance, the essential story of Anne McDonald and Rosemary Crossley. I was
eleven when that came out. It was a benchmark for me, one of the first real dramas that ever held me truly spellbound. (I had seen
A Death in Canaan, a 1978 murder melodrama, on television not long before.) And my dad and I saw
Proof (directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse and starring a pre-
Romper Stomper Russell Crowe) and
Passed Away (a jaw-dropping cast written and directed by Charlie Peters) together when I was nineteen. But my poor mother ... how many
Star Wars and James Bond films did she sit through with us? Or Indiana Jones? Or
Jurassic Park? It didn't seem like a whole lot to sit through
Patch Adams. And, hell, I'd liked
Awakenings. Sadly, though,
Patch Adams was one of those films where I'd like those ninety minutes or two hours, or whatever it was, back for everyone in the family. And the cinema.
Oh, well.
I couldn't believe it when one of the married men brought
Forgetting Sarah Marshall to watch on the annual "guys' weekend". But we also suffered through
Death to Smoochie for his benefit. And Robin Williams is entitled to make a bad film every now and then. Just like Jim Carrey is entitled to make a good one ... um ...
once? Twice? Whatever. Something like that.
____________________
Notes:
Mark Steel. "Charles Darwin". The Mark Steel Lectures. British Broadcasting Company. Originally broadcast November 4, 2003.