Been there, done that, myself. Then I quit Tae Kwon Do class and actually learned how to fight.




About the clothing thing, many tribes in Africa and South America wear little if any clothing. Some hold the fashion of attracting attention to one's bits by tying on brightly colored ribbons.

Or wearing low-cut shirts, low-rider pants, and a thong. Of course this initiates the ages old mating ritual, beginning with the female of the species acting disgusted that a male would actually be attracted to her exposed skin.

I guess I just don't understand why there has to be the whole disgusted phase. And even if they do wear low cut/belly top/thonginess, they're still covering the key bits. I'm pretty sure we don't need exterior covers to show our willingness or unwillingness to mate. We have the bitch slap for that... I dunno. It just seems overcomplicated to me.

Okay those people are damned awesome.

Apparently everyone is wrong; the answer is concealed ovulation.

Hey alls I know is what dey tells me.

On that note, there's actually a line of argument that asserts that large breasts (unique in humans) - and the male preference for them - evolved because they suggest ovulation (even when it's not happening; however, she can still get pregnant). That's probably the least outrageous theory on the topic, which is in itself on shaky grounds trying to connect current cultural attitudes with an evolutionary basis. It's suspect, at best -- there's no relation between size and fertility or ability to sustain baby's needs. Most likely just there's some survival benefit to having a fat reservoir like that; male attraction is secondary, if not incidental.

Having read a lot of evolutionary psychology theory, it's hard for me to take it seriously as a science. It makes for some entertaining reading, though. My favorite hypothesis: "more successful" mating (whatever that means) can occur face to face, but sex from the back has been our history. Thus: much rounder mammary glands developed as a "frontal counterpart," if you will, to the backside.

More on topic, I suppose that we can and do have sex at any time, and that any of these times could potentially result in offspring, is a distinguishing feature.

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and many of his other books (I recommend the God Delusion) cover this topic very well. There is a Darwinian explanation for all of the "differences" between animals and mankind (remember, we aren't like apes. We ARE apes). Why are we moral? A gene that programs individual organisms to favor their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself and propagate throughout the population.
The theory of memetics also comes into play, but that's probably for a different thread.
Natural selection favors genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity, to give when they can and to solicit giving when they can't. It also favors tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take but don't give when their turn comes. This behavior can be easily observed in humans, bats and hummingbirds to name a few. This works in tandem with deontological imperatives and is the basis of what we call "morality."

While I don't personally believe that common sense and mental capacity is a universal human trait, it is easy to see how an ability to critically analyze the world has evolutionary advantages.

So what separates us from animals? Semantics.

We can go on back and forth on this subject with every example. For greed, e could say how my dogs fight over the toys and for mental reasoning one could mention how animals can solve problems/make tools and it will just bring us around in circles.

Now perhaps that may be our defining trait - overcomplicating superficial details.




nothing really to do with my post, I just love that line..