Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In another thread an issue emerged over looks and evolutionary science which involves Sexual Selection.
A number of people argued--at least with respects to males being able to attract female mates--that looks are meaningless* and personality is really all that matters. They pretty much snubbed Sexual Selection (a significant part of the Theory of Evolution) the same way Creationists snub the Theory of Evolution (except Creationists have a more coherent belief system).
Now, while I appreciate and respect science I'm not sure I love it. I probably have a greater lover for the humanities and arts. A novel in many ways, can captures aspects of the essence of being human far better than the natural sciences can. Of course, that's sentimentalism.
That said, science as well as the philosophy of science tries to instill in a mind a very logical, coherent, step by step way of thinking. Sometimes that might mean critiquing the strength of a hypothesis, or if one subscribes to one hypothesis and not another, asking, "Well... if you believe in X why don't you believe in Y?"
Thus we get to the title of this thread pansexualism vs heterosexuality and homosexuality.
"Looks" are what those in the science of biology (and those that subscribe to the Theory of Evolution and even those in the science that subscribe to the genetic heritability of homosexuality) refer to as "phenotype." I'll call it physical phenotype over behavioral phenotype to distinguish behaviors (theft, murder, dancing, or the act of same sex sodomy etc.) from physical appearances (height, weight, skin color, shape of nose, shape of genitals on the person).
So, it seems to me those that subscribe to pansexualism, the ability to be sexually attracted to a persons personality, their "invisible interior," have a view more coherently tied with the conception "looks don't matter but a great personality is all that is need," than those that subscribe to the genetic heritability of homosexuality and heterosexuality (both of which in theory begin at conception with exchanges of genetic information.
This is connected with "relationships" to the extent pansexualism, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are not just constructs people will use to identify themselves as, but they are part of the discourse on both attractions ("looks") and dating/marriage as it all applies to discrimination/selecting for mates.
A phenotype (from Greek phainein, 'to show' + typos, 'type') is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, phenology, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two. When two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species, it is called polymorph.
The genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.
*At least one person acknowledged that the weight or "being out of shape" of the person matters but did not regard it as constituting "looks."
Human sexuality is a complex behavioral system. To that extent I'm not all that in disagreement with pansexualism. I do disagree with it to a point. I think looks matter significantly, however, I think it's possible for people to train their minds through exercise, to disregard phenotype or looks and to focus more exclusively on the "interior" of a person.
I love information. And learning. I think yes looks fade and then you just have personality. Can a person grow to like a person that they are not attracted to ingtionaly yes. Is it in our genes and evironment? Yes
*At least one person acknowledged that the weight or "being out of shape" of the person matters but did not regard it as constituting "looks."
The issue with weight outside of looks department...While there are exceptions to everything, an overweight person is not going to do a lot of physical activities. EG, climb a mountain with you, a triathlon or run a full marathon. Being overweight can often be associated with being lazy, lacking ambition or not taking care of yourself. Perceived health concerns of higher odds of an early death, higher risk of being hospitalized with a heart attack or stroke and the "inconvenience" it causes the partner. The parnter will forever worry that they're going to have another stroke/attack and the time spent at the hospital which takes them away from work and their hobbys. Lastly, it seems that everyone who's overweight and snores get diagnosed with sleep apnea...There isn't many out there who have a CPAP machine fetish...lol
I agree we are programed to find a mate that we are attracted to.
That's not what I said. I do not subscribe to determinism. Both Nazi and Eugenics United States did, and today those that subscribe to the genetic heritability of heterosexuality or homosexuality do.
But even if one subscribes to the genetic heritability of heterosexuality and homosexuality then they can not logically, coherently, claims looks do not matter. If that is true then gay men can marry women (they have actually) and lesbians can marry men because physical phenotype ("looks") do not matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe'sTavern
His posts are soo...exhausting.
Science and philosophy are a lot more exhausting. You wouldn't make a couple weeks in either. The amount of information is monumental. In the natural sciences especially, and you're expected to try to learn how to interconnect things coherently.
The humanities sometimes referred to as "soft subjects" are a lot less mentally demanding and rigorous.
All that said... my basic point is the Theory of Evolution (which includes Sexual Selection) offers a logical explanation (to some degree, Creationists do offer some legit criticisms and weaknesses about the Theory of Evolution) as to how life on earth evolved and why humans both look and behave as we do. That includes Sexual Selection, especially given the Theory of Evolution is all about reproduction.
Basically, it's asinine to claim two contradictory things: "looks don't matter" and "looks do matter."
In two-valued logic a contradiction is always marked as: false.
A number of people argued--at least with respects to males being able to attract female mates--that looks are meaningless* and personality is really all that matters. They pretty much snubbed Sexual Selection (a significant part of the Theory of Evolution)
No, it is sexual selection (and evolution) based on personality characteristics.
It is probably a major (or the major) reason that traits like empathy, altruism, kindness, sacrificing self for loved ones, honesty, etc. are so common among humans. Those traits make people want to make babies with you!
Quote:
So, it seems to me those that subscribe to pansexualism, the ability to be sexually attracted to a persons personality, their "invisible interior," have a view more coherently tied with the conception "looks don't matter but a great personality is all that is need," than those that subscribe to the genetic heritability of homosexuality and heterosexuality (both of which in theory begin at conception with exchanges of genetic information.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say here, but I will note that no-one thinks sexual preference is 100% or 0% inherited. Like many behavioural traits, it is partly inherited and partly a result of social environment.
Plus you get stuff like: a gene that codes for 'willingness to go against your society's rules' may make you gay if you are christian, and straight if you are an ancient greek . And pansexual if you are a modern liberal.
But even if one subscribes to the genetic heritability of heterosexuality and homosexuality then they can not logically, coherently, claims looks do not matter.
Not true. Vision is not the only way to tell male from female.
For example, most women (gay and straight) choose their mates partially based on genetic compatibility as determined by smelling their sweat.
Quote:
If that is true then gay men can marry women (they have actually) and lesbians can marry men because physical phenotype ("looks") do not matter.
Just because they are married does not mean they have sex. Even if they do have sex, it may be more akin to masturbation than sex with a preferred partner.
The issue with weight outside of looks department...While there are exceptions to everything, an overweight person is not going to do a lot of physical activities. EG, climb a mountain with you, a triathlon or run a full marathon. Being overweight can often be associated with being lazy, lacking ambition or not taking care of yourself. Perceived health concerns of higher odds of an early death, higher risk of being hospitalized with a heart attack or stroke and the "inconvenience" it causes the partner. The parnter will forever worry that they're going to have another stroke/attack and the time spent at the hospital which takes them away from work and their hobbys. Lastly, it seems that everyone who's overweight and snores get diagnosed with sleep apnea...There isn't many out there who have a CPAP machine fetish...lol
That may be true. But one can argue people associate height with various abilities at survival too.
My height is not a problem for me. Some men on this board claim their height (shortness) is an obstacle for them. Certainly, a few professions (NFL, NBA), height can be a significant obstacle if you're short. But I digress. The point is looks do matter I woulds contend. And they mattered in the antebellum South for Sexual Selection.
Anthropologists like to refer to humans as apes, just a particular species of apes, but they acknowledge humans have developed culture to such an extent that we cloth ourselves in articles to symbolize our status in society and our allegiances.
Both philosophy and science like specifics. One can't say "life" without describing what "life" is and one can't say "killer personality" without describing what that is. Creative writing demands no such rigor though. And one can express contradictions galore and make vague statements.
But "killer personality" seems to Americans and Western people to really mean "express the popular views and beliefs held by the majority in your setting." That is all. It takes no rocket scientist to imagine all I had to do was come on this board and make statements every feminist and liberal both finds pleasing and enjoys hearing to be "popular." But then that would mean I would have to be like those in Germany that bowed before Nazis out of fear they would be shunned or persecuted. It would mean I'd have to be intellectually dishonest.
Currently, Sexual Selection is as popular in the USofA as the claim by Galileo during his time that the earth revolved around the sun. Although Sexual Selection is a significant part of the Theory of Evolution it contradicts a long held sacred dogma that liberals and feminists have held. So, people get hostile and mean over its proposition.
Creationist actually have a more coherent belief system than most liberals that deny Sexual Selection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And pansexual if you are a modern liberal.
