The all-inclusive "Sexiest Trek character" poll

There's no gene, my friend, only cultural conditioning. I certainly don't have the compulsion to "protect-the-women", and I'm every bit as male as you are. Saying men are hard-wired with the command "Protect women" is no different from saying women are hard-wired with the command "Obey men".

 

The only thing I ever liked about "Seven" was when she said to Chakotay, "I have changed the parameters of our relationship". What a hilariously cold way to tell someone you're breaking up with them, period, and you're not open to discussion about it.

 

Oh my god. There are few things that annoy me as much as these 'evolutionary' theories of sexuality - that basically all human sexuality and relationships amount to procreation, and we're all basically just cavemen, either looking for spread their seeds and find a suitable womb, or walking wombs looking for healthy seed and a big strong protector and the best hunter. Just how ridiculous is it to believe that these are the things that motivate people's behavior in the 21st century?! I hoped we had moved on beyond the idea that the main - or even the only - purpose of sex is to have children. It makes no sense at all. If people were attracted to other people because they want to spread their seed or to be fertilized, how do you explain homosexuality? Why would anyone be attracted to people of the same sex? How do you explainpost-menopausal women still being interested in sex? (Or is that one of the reasons some people can't accept the fact that they are?) How do you explain sterile people being interested in sex? How do you explain the existence of oral sex, anal sex, BDSM and other forms of non-genital sex? Finally, how do you explain why so many people use birth control - if sex is about procreation, why are people having sex while trying hard not to conceive?

Yes, secondary sexual characteristics are a big part of the physical attractiveness. But is it that outrageous to suggest that usually this has absolutely nothing to do with finding a mother/father for our children? I do find a masculine shape of the body attractive, broad shoulders and narrow hips, reasonably developed muscles and lower fat percentage, deep voice... but I really do not believe that the reason I find men attractive is because I am subconsciously thinking "This guy looks like he has good genes! He could fertilize us me with his healthy sperm many times!"

And if I actually find those secondary sexual characteristics attractive because they are sending some sort of message to my sucbonscious mind... well, what if the message is closer to something like: "This guy looks like he has a lot of testosterone, he looks like someone who'd be interested in sex - and um, capable of sex - very often?" How about that? If you ask me, when you find someone sexy, it's because you want to have sex with them. Not because you want to find a healthy womb or good genes for your children.

 

I can't say I care for the "animal instinct" thing, either.

See...I guess I take a more philosophical attitude towards what folks finds sexy because of my interest in philosophy.

But again, "Tell me what a man/woman finds sexually attractive...and I will tell you his/her entire philosophy of life."

What one finds "sexy", frankly...is an indication of how one basically views one's life.

 

It isn't theory, it's evidence and fact. You ask any man what the most attractive woman is in a line up, and each and every single one will pick the woman that has the figure closest to the 6/7:10 hip : waist ratio. And this is across cultural boundaries, and races.

It's even so much, that a man finds a woman that is ovulating more attractive than a woman who isn't. Subconsciously, through sent/pheromones and other cues he can pick up if a woman is ovulating and zeroes in on it. This happens consistently, again, again, and again in tests.

A hormonal imbalance. More hormones of the opposite sex will make the brain grow more like that of the opposite sex. Enough like the opposite sex will produce sexual attraction of the opposite sex; thus attraction toward the same sex. Produce even more of the hormones, and the brain grows so much of the opposite sex, people will feel like they are the oppoiste sex trapped in the wrong body.

Pleasure.

But also sex has evolved a secondary purpose beyond simply pleasure, it strengthens emotional bonds.

That does not however mean, that the mechanism for choosing mates is gone.

Because whether or not the seed, or eggs are sterile, this has no impact on the brain.

Because this is pleasurable and strengthens bonds; however this has no impact on brain chemistry and underlying instincts.

Because we have brains so evolved we can think and reason and override (some) instincts; that however does not mean those instincts are gone, or that we can override all of them. For one thing, we must first be aware these instincts exist, before we can recognize their influence and override them.

And yet tests show we do. Deep down, somewhere at the instinctual level, there is that consideration.

And why does a person want to have sex with another person, beyond just pleasure, because deep down there's an instinct.

Your problem with these facts seem to be pride: "I'm not an animal." Sorry, but, you are, we all are, a incredibly intelligent and self-aware animal, but still just an animal.

An example of another instinct, this time in females, that on average a woman will wear sexier clothes when she is ovulating; she's in a sexier mood when she can get pregnant. You could override such an instinct if you're aware of them, and look out for when they influence you, but if you're not aware of them, they will influence you.

Another one; a woman is more likely to cheat on her partner while she's ovulating.

We find hairy bodies less attractive, because hair diminishes our cooling mechanism, full body sweating, that keeps our brains from overheating. Less body hair in our mates means offspring with less body hair, thus offspring that would be better and thus has better chances for surviving.

And we can go on and on. These things aren't theory, they're observed facts. Our instincts are a part of us even now.

 

Um, no. My problem with these "facts" is common sense. I have no problem with the fact that I am an animal - what else would I be, a plant? But I sure am not looking for someone to fertilize me. In fact, I'd rather avoid it as long as possible. I find it really silly that someone would go to such lengths to try to convince me that I am actually subconsiously yearning to get sperm in my ovum so I can get pregnant, even though I don't know it.

 

LOL! If that were the case, I'd be a huge slut. I'm not. I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 20 years. I don't see how what somebody finds sexy tells you much of anything about their ethics, morals, or character, or how they go about living their lives. All it really tells you is who they'd like to have sex with if other factors were no consideration.

 

^Exactly. If no other factors were a consideration.

But...I do think I worded that last phrase awkwardly. I just re-wrote it.

See...it is a strong indicator of the subconcious mentality. A man views life a certain way, which expresses itself (in part) in what one finds "sexy".

 

I can agree with that phrasing. I think there is much more of a subconscious aspect to it than a conscious one. People usually don't decide to find somebody sexy. They either do or they don't. The view may change over time and become more conscious and even more of a decision, but the initial impression is a gut reaction quite divorced from choice or reason. It is also only partially based on viewpoint or beliefs. There is an instinctive component as well.

 

You're tossing around the word "fact" quite a bit here.

What documentation do you have for these "facts"?

 

I hadn't bothered to read his entire post the first time, but some of his so-called "facts" are not just dubious, but obviously wrong. Since he is not a woman, it is understandable that he is not aware of this, but the time of the month when a woman is actually in the physically "sexiest" or, if you will, horniest mood, is not ovulation, but pre-menstrual period and menstruation. And that's the time when a woman is least likely to get pregnant! I really would love to know how he explains that from the "it is all about reproduction" point of view?

This is really what all those so-called "facts" are like: men who postulated them claimed certain things - such as, that women are most sexually stimulated during ovulation - because they would support their thesis, not because of how much they are based on actual facts of life.

Or, he says "We find hairy bodies less attractive, because hair diminishes our cooling mechanism, full body sweating, that keeps our brains from overheating. Less body hair in our mates means offspring with less body hair, thus offspring that would be better and thus has better chances for surviving." Who is we? Men in general? Or people in general? As far as I am aware, there are quite a few women who love a certain degree of hairiness on a man. I think you'll find that female tastes vary in that respect. Some will tell you that hairy chest is "disgusting", other will tell you that it's masculine and sexy (and opinions will, again, be split on the acceptable level of hairiness). So how does that fit with those theories above? Unlike 3D Master, I will not speak for "everyone" or "we", but I will tell you that, while I am not into the Robin Williams-degree of hairiness I prefer to see a somewhat hairy male body (in the normal boundaries) and that I am turned off by men who shave their bodies. So there, I have just disproved the theory. Why am I no turned on by a totally hairless male body? I should be looking for a mate with a better cooling mechanism?

 

Ahem, if it's all about fertility and breeding, what about gay folks?

 

OK, I've seen this, but it's not accurate. To quote the American Psychological Association:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles;"

There is an established correlation between WHR and attractiveness, but you're deriving some pretty bold conclusions from that fact. Indeed, I'd say it's quite clear that not every man will give the same answer. WHR may be important, but it isn't some magic factor that overrides all other aspects of a woman's appearance.

 

Go watch any documentary (series) on human sexuality, sex, and gender, like say "Brain Sex".

Most likely you're wrong, as it is a documented statistical fact that women dress sexier when they're ovulating, and are most likely to cheat when they are ovulation. That must be because they're not that sexually interested at all; it makes no sense.

Nope, they keep propping up in research, not theory, but simple questionnaires and statistics.

BBC: Horizon - What's the Problem with Nudity? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j0hnm

You know what the problem is with psychologists?

They're not neurologists.

In other words; if they admit that homosexuality and other issues, especially things that are problematic, are neurological in nature and not psychological in nature - they're all but out of job.

You go however to those who actually deal with genetics, the hormones, the neurology, the brain structure; anyone that did actual tests with the actual physical brains, you'll find not one of them will say it's nurture. It's all the structure of the brain with them, nothing to do with nurture at all.

Which doesn't matter. Other factors come from the higher brain functions, they are capable of overriding instinct. However, instinctively, it's always the 6/7:10 WHR. That's the first part that attracts us, the WHR is even one of the first parts of another person's body we check out and a major part of how we determine (especially from afar) whether we're dealing with a man or a woman.

See the above BBC Horizon documentary.

 

So your backup is "something I saw on TV"? That's not likely to win anyone over to your side of the discussion.

 

It isn't simply "something one saw on tv", it's a documentary series made by scientists and experts in the field. It's about as close as you can get to doing the research yourself.

 

Um... I don't know when women are 'dressing sexier' (my guess is, when they are going out...) or 'more likely to cheat' (I would really love to know how that research was conducted!)... I am speaking of periods of higher physical arousal.Ovulation is one, but it is nowhere near, in my experience, to pre-menstrual/early menstrual period. I speak from experience, and OK, maybe I am some kind of aberation or freak of nature and no other woman in the world has similar hormonal cycles , but at least I can speak from experience, since I am female, which can't be said of some other people here who are professing to be the experts on female sexuality.

And what about it?

 

Yet you're quoting "facts" from memory and offering the reader nothing in the way of verification. You haven't done any research other than watching the show on TV, so your claims cannot be treated as fact. If you want to argue those items as opinion then that's very different and I will support your choice in doing so.

 

Maybe you should go watch it.

Everyone quotes facts from memory. And I've given plenty show as verification. Of course, that requires you to go watch the verification. And another thing, it is NOT a show. It's a documentary, and a scientific program. These things are not opinion; anyone who goes to watch those things, or look little around on human sexuality, will find the same things I'm saying.

 

So not just the hormones? I really doubt that a respected professional body is misrepresenting the evidence. See also the American Academy of Pediatrics: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1827.pdf
There's plenty of interesting research, but there is not, as far as I can see, a conclusive, widely accepted answer to the question of what determines sexual orientation. The point I'm trying to make is that your explanation of a hormonal imbalance is an oversimplification. It may contain part of the truth, but it probably isn't the whole truth.

Lord knows why I'm posting this on a Star Trek message board