Official Babe Thread VI

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Uh, in fairness, I think you guys are missing what Alby's getting at here. At no time did he say or suggest a damned thing about "viability of a mate in a modern economy" or modern culture, or who would be most preferable for a long-term relationship, or who would be most stimulating on a personal and intellectual level, or who would be most able to financially support offspring. I think even he would agree that these goals are entirely irrespective of physical appearance.

What he's talking about, rather, is who would, before that captain buzzkill known as the intellect muddies the water with such considerations, catch one's eye in the first instance and make one immediately think "holy crap would I like to bang the **** out of her," which is and always has been, after all, the sole purpose of this thread. That has nothing to do with the intellect and is strictly a question of baser instincts, which developed in an evolutionary laboratory eons ago and could not possibly have been significantly impacted by the mere blip on the radar screen that the past ten thousand years of "civilization" have been in the overall history of primates. In that sense he is surely correct that conduciveness to successful procreation and survival in the wilderness would tend to be the strongest triggers to initial sexual attraction at the most basic, instinctual level, before the intellect chimes in. I'm surprised that anyone would dispute that. It is surely true that once the intellect chimes in one may hypothesize all sorts of scenarios and conditions in which a less biologically "worthy" mate would nonetheless be extremely fulfilling personally and sexually, but that's separate from the very limited issue Alby is addressing. FFS.

Why do you think your conscious mind is completely divorced from your subconscious?

[Al B. Sure!]

Looks like she has a folate deficiency and/or is at very high risk for skin cancer, Koyaan

[Darius871]

Why do you think your conscious mind is completely divorced from your subconscious?

Earlier I declined to dignify that blatant straw man with response. Nobody is saying or suggesting that the "conscious mind is completely divorced from [the] subconscious." In fact I expressly conceded that the intellect routinely overpowers these innate impulses. That tendency does not detract from Alby's position that said innate impulses are nonetheless there, or ought to be there, even if for only a fleeting moment, and even if not consciously perceived. FFS.

[Dinner]

Speaking of the LPGA... Anna Rawson is smoking hot too.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's not a straw man; it's taking the position that a) "innate impulses" are reactive to environment and context, and b) Alby is arguing for attractiveness beyond any split-second "innate impulse" that may or may not exist.

[Darius871]

a) "innate impulses" are reactive to environment and context

By very definition that cannot be an innate impulse. It would be a conditioned response.

b) Alby is arguing for attractiveness beyond any split-second "innate impulse" that may or may not exist.

I don't know that he is going that far. I sure as hell ain't.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not a straw man; it's taking the position that a) "innate impulses" are reactive to environment and context, and b) Alby is arguing for attractiveness beyond any split-second "innate impulse" that may or may not exist.

I am? What is this thread about? It's just pictures of women. It preys upon and excites those very base impulses. Or at least it's supposed to.

Maybe you all are looking at these women a bit deeper than that. I know self_biased probably is since he prefers women with tattoos and piercings and that's an 'intellectual' preference on his part.

My thing is I see women who I'm like because they're scrawny or something (the piercings and mohawks are a whole another issue) and I see you fawning over them. I find that a little odd. But what I find odder is when the women I posted or that Spec posted (women which I am SURE are those that should excite the base biological impulses; you know, women close to that 36-25-36 ideal [the import to the ratio is the waist remains less than 80% of the hip so 36-25-40 would be just as good] which is scientifically established as that which is prefered by men!), you all are barfing and expressing disgust (Oerdin even said, "How can that be anything but a turn off?!"). That is beyond bizarre to me.

Either you all are overthinking these women (I think Guynemer is, for example, since he started talking about how he associates these women with slutiness) or your base impulses are actually screwed up.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

By very definition that cannot be an innate impulse. It would be a conditioned response.

On the time scales we're talking about (the level of actually recognizing attractiveness) the two are indistinguishable. Unless you're taking the position that attraction is purely genetic.

[Thoth]

In the end, it all comes down to this:



Tits= win.

[Darius871]

On the time scales we're talking about (the level of actually recognizing attractiveness) the two are indistinguishable. Unless you're taking the position that attraction is purely genetic.

I don't think anyone's denying that the cultural conditioning, intellectually derived individual preferences, pathological defense mechanisms, etc. capable of stamping out preferences that evolution can be expected to have ingrained are, by early adulthood, so hard-wired as to accomplish said stamping so rapidly as to render it imperceptible. That reality of how action potentials work doesn't detract from Alby's position that this process nonetheless occurs or, in the case of those with some deficiency in their genetic triggers, ought to occur.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It does when you're talking about finding someone attractive for long enough to bother posting their picture on a nerd forum and questioning how others could fail to take it into account when viewing said pics on said nerd forum.

[a.kitman]

this whole argument is retarded. sexual attraction is quite clearly subjective. and can even be based on something as crude as "if she will touch my penis iam attracted to her".

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[Darius871]

It does when you're talking about finding someone attractive for long enough to bother posting their picture on a nerd forum and questioning how others could fail to take it into account when viewing said pics on said nerd forum.

Oh, well...yeah, I have no explanation for that one. I think he's right to the limited extent that guys claiming an outright aversion to "that 36-25-36 ideal" are engaging in quite a bit of denial, but that's a far cry from saying that guys who find a skinny ginger also hot are somehow wrong. The former group essentially rejects that the aforementioned process exists, whereas the latter group merely state what is the understandable conclusion of that process.

Anyway, I'll take anything.

[Al B. Sure!]

I don't think anyone's denying that the cultural conditioning, intellectually derived individual preferences, pathological defense mechanisms, etc. capable of stamping out preferences that evolution can be expected to have ingrained are, by early adulthood, so hard-wired as to accomplish said stamping so rapidly as to render it imperceptible. That reality of action potentials doesn detract from Alby's position that this process nonetheless occurs or, in the case of those with some deficiency in their genetic triggers, ought to occur.

Yes. Thank you. Just because you are an adult with decades worth of experience oggling women and you have set preferences doesn't mean that you innately can't prefer something else.

My thing though is that cultural conditioning could be related to biology. Richard Dawkins has described culture as an extended phenotype. Now, obviously, certain things like clothing, hairstyles, piercings, tattoos, etc. can definitely make or break someone in the eyes of another and those areas would be highly subjective and highly intellectually-determined; the biological role in those cultural artifacts would be difficult to determine, if there even were any role. But some more basic things like the general shape of a potential mate's body, I'm not so sure that cultural conditioning can override that nor that the cultural norms wouldn't just be a reflection of that desire. It is well-established, for example, that men around the world prefer women with waists between 60 and 80% of the hip circumference.

Yet some men do not. Why is that? I think either they're consciously overriding their biology (which is done all the time to various extents, obviously, since we're not all running around naked) or something is misfiring in their brains.