Which body parts are we supposed to like sexually besides genitals then? I thought that most if not all body parts can be arousing if we consider them attractive.
It doesn’t always “make sense” from reproduction point of view, especially if we consider homosexual relationships, so I thought that sexuality is about procreation as much as bonding.
In my opinion, most of the crap in life is a result of social constructs. Including many parts of sexuality. I may be wrong about this. For example, large muscles would be a result of men’s oversexualization in movies, porn, etc. It is false that women are naturally attracted to “alpha males”. That’s sexism, a macho way of thinking. Muscles are more important to men than to women, I can assure you. I think humans have evolved to a point where our “sexual instincts” have begun to disappeared. Now I think that it’s more about emotional connections, while other things, such as boobs and the “perfect body”, are social constructs that society is promoting. A skinny woman with big boobs doesn’t make a good mother and neither does a man who looks like an ‘alpha male’ make a good father. That’s ridiculous.
I want to add something. My view is that, the concept of the alpha male marks the beginning of fascism. The imagined ideal female is attractive, has big breasts, a curvy body, and is always white. Those who consider themselves to be “alpha” desire that. Ultimately, it completes fascist thought and leads to eugenics, the inevitable end of fascism. Fundamentally, fascists believe in Social Darwinism. In every aspect of their lives, they live by the principle of survival of the fittest. My belief that liking boobs is just a “kink” is sometimes discussed on Reddit. And those who are against this idea always bring up the “survival of the fittest” crap. You people who are educated in Marxist theory probably have a different view than mine. But I firmly believe that if we want to defeat capitalism/fascism we must fight the Social Darwinists. Darwin’s evolution theory is used by those people to argue that the “strong” should dominate the “weak”. Anyone who cares about humanity’s future and has empathy should fight against it on every front. It also leads them to racism, ableism and homophobia.
Darwin’s weird. I feel like I always hear Marx had something good to say about someone and then later something bad. In Darwin’s case Marx and Engels sent a letter to Darwin saying his theory confirmed their dialectical materialist view, and later he said “it applies the social Victorian model to nature,” as in he projected English society on to natural laws. Similar with Lincoln. I guess this makes sense with a dialectical view where things like the theory of evolution have contradictions, good and bad. BTW, it is Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin who is credited with the phrase “the survival of the fittest.”
I doubt it is mostly instinct, there’s only so much information that can be stored in our genes so we instead rely on social relations for most things including adopting social constructs.
There’s a surprising amount of stuff that can be stored in our genes, including reflexes. I doubt this has any relevance to what we’re talking about, but sometimes people with degrading genomes have been seen throwing their arms into the air when falling, which is a reaction generally found in infants as a vestige from our tree-bound days, when a falling child could grab hold of a branch to avoid death. There are undoubtedly more examples, but I don’t know any of them.
Personally I don’t really like prescribing everything humans do to social interactions— it feels too much like hasty guesswork, but most of the time I tend to be wrong when messing around with things I have no idea about.
I think the forbiddeness aspect is a major part. Didn’t people used to think knees and shoulders were obscenely sexual when women were forced to be “modest” and always wear long shirts and skirts?
Which body parts are we supposed to like sexually besides genitals then? I thought that most if not all body parts can be arousing if we consider them attractive.
It doesn’t always “make sense” from reproduction point of view, especially if we consider homosexual relationships, so I thought that sexuality is about procreation as much as bonding.
In my opinion, most of the crap in life is a result of social constructs. Including many parts of sexuality. I may be wrong about this. For example, large muscles would be a result of men’s oversexualization in movies, porn, etc. It is false that women are naturally attracted to “alpha males”. That’s sexism, a macho way of thinking. Muscles are more important to men than to women, I can assure you. I think humans have evolved to a point where our “sexual instincts” have begun to disappeared. Now I think that it’s more about emotional connections, while other things, such as boobs and the “perfect body”, are social constructs that society is promoting. A skinny woman with big boobs doesn’t make a good mother and neither does a man who looks like an ‘alpha male’ make a good father. That’s ridiculous.
Sure, I agree with you on that. 🙂
I want to add something. My view is that, the concept of the alpha male marks the beginning of fascism. The imagined ideal female is attractive, has big breasts, a curvy body, and is always white. Those who consider themselves to be “alpha” desire that. Ultimately, it completes fascist thought and leads to eugenics, the inevitable end of fascism. Fundamentally, fascists believe in Social Darwinism. In every aspect of their lives, they live by the principle of survival of the fittest. My belief that liking boobs is just a “kink” is sometimes discussed on Reddit. And those who are against this idea always bring up the “survival of the fittest” crap. You people who are educated in Marxist theory probably have a different view than mine. But I firmly believe that if we want to defeat capitalism/fascism we must fight the Social Darwinists. Darwin’s evolution theory is used by those people to argue that the “strong” should dominate the “weak”. Anyone who cares about humanity’s future and has empathy should fight against it on every front. It also leads them to racism, ableism and homophobia.
Darwin’s weird. I feel like I always hear Marx had something good to say about someone and then later something bad. In Darwin’s case Marx and Engels sent a letter to Darwin saying his theory confirmed their dialectical materialist view, and later he said “it applies the social Victorian model to nature,” as in he projected English society on to natural laws. Similar with Lincoln. I guess this makes sense with a dialectical view where things like the theory of evolution have contradictions, good and bad. BTW, it is Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin who is credited with the phrase “the survival of the fittest.”
deleted by creator
I doubt instincts can go away in a few centuries. After all, we still get goosebumps, and we haven’t had fur for a few millennia.
I doubt it is mostly instinct, there’s only so much information that can be stored in our genes so we instead rely on social relations for most things including adopting social constructs.
There’s a surprising amount of stuff that can be stored in our genes, including reflexes. I doubt this has any relevance to what we’re talking about, but sometimes people with degrading genomes have been seen throwing their arms into the air when falling, which is a reaction generally found in infants as a vestige from our tree-bound days, when a falling child could grab hold of a branch to avoid death. There are undoubtedly more examples, but I don’t know any of them.
Personally I don’t really like prescribing everything humans do to social interactions— it feels too much like hasty guesswork, but most of the time I tend to be wrong when messing around with things I have no idea about.
I think the forbiddeness aspect is a major part. Didn’t people used to think knees and shoulders were obscenely sexual when women were forced to be “modest” and always wear long shirts and skirts?