Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chesterbennediction t1_izava8v wrote

Has anyone noticed she sidesteps or reframes most of the questions? It feels very lawyer like as they basically make up their own question and answer that instead of what the other person was actually asking.

I also don't agree with her notion of sexual selectiveness and that we are forced to put a value to people because society bullies us into wanting certain traits. Basically no matter the stigma I don't think that obese men or women or asymmetry will be a desirable body type no matter how much we try to condition that out of people because those are evolutionary markers of health and fitness.

I also would like to see what her definition of hierarchy is and what part she wants to get rid of. Hierarchy gets a bad rap but it's also essential(as far as we know) to organize people to be a productive work force, how can anything get done if everyone's say is equal? Decisions would take far longer and people without the relevant experience could lead to a tragedy of the commons as they aren't aware of the consequences of their actions.

20

xRafafa00 t1_izb1ol1 wrote

I agree with your second paragraph, but I'd like to provide different reasoning - yes, certain aspects of body type are indicators of fitness and survivability, but that's only considered attractive in modern society. A few hundred years ago, skinny people were viewed as undesirable because they were poor and couldn't afford food. Now the people who can't afford healthy food are overweight. But being overweight isn't unattractive to everybody. Some people have unconventional "types". Some people have perfectly conventional types. Some have no type.

Her main assumption (and yours) about sexual hierarchies is that everyone has a type, and that statistics can effectively predict what everyone's type is. That's not true, as nobody has a purely identical sexuality as someone else, so no amount of statistics can predict what or whom someone is sexually attracted to. Widespread, uniform sexual selectiveness is neither the result of social pressure nor evolutional markers of fitness; it just doesn't exist. There simply is no widespread uniformity to sexuality.

Thing is, that's already widely accepted in western public discourse, especially within social circles that would be inclined to read this article in the first place. Basically, this article isn't philosophy, it's reaffirming the beliefs of its likely readers, while decrying a problem that is already in the process of resolving itself.

4