The all-inclusive "Sexiest Trek character" poll

[3D Master]

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.

So not just the hormones?

I never said it was just hormones. I said that levels of hormones determine how a brain - aka neurologically - grows.

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

There's another problem with both these groups: they're Americans. This is the country that houses fundamentalist Christianity on a scale nowhere else found in the western world. And that Christianity loves to think that gays are evil sinners that go to hell, unless they save them from themselves in anti-gay camps. And that lot has power and money in America, and that means ways to influence things, and a group you don't want to piss off.

Go outside of America, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who thinks homosexuality comes from nurture not nature, that is, if you find even one at all.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ Please don't start any discussions about Christianity in this thread. I don't want to have it closed.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

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.

So not just the hormones?

I never said it was just hormones. I said that levels of hormones determine how a brain - aka neurologically - grows.

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

There's another problem with both these groups: they're Americans. This is the country that houses fundamentalist Christianity on a scale nowhere else found in the western world. And that Christianity loves to think that gays are evil sinners that go to hell, unless they save them from themselves in anti-gay camps. And that lot has power and money in America, and that means ways to influence things, and a group you don't want to piss off.

Go outside of America, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who thinks homosexuality comes from nurture not nature, that is, if you find even one at all.

I find it hard to believe that American medical associations lie about science to appease the homophobes.
I never said homosexuality came from nurture rather than nature - I merely pointed out that there is not the consensus you suggested. I suspect few scientists would suggest that homosexuality is caused purely by environmental factors, but that does not necessarily mean that there is not an environmental component in addition to the genetic and developmental ones - see here for a Swedish (not American) study suggesting something like this. Maybe environmental factors don't play any role at all, but even then, there is not a consensus on what precisely causes homosexuality.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Sorry, here's the link to that study. I can't vouch for its validity, since I'm certainly no expert. I'm merely linking to it to demonstrate that researchers are looking at environmental factors and not just in America.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

 

[Pemmer Harge]

OK, I think I've said all I've got to say about this and I'm conscious that we're now way off topic. My point was simply that things are a bit more complicated and uncertain than 3D Master suggested.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Okay...this update on the scores should help get us back on topic:

Seven's still in the lead...with 38.

Ezri's closing in again...with 34.

Jadzia claims Third, with 32.

T'pol takes Fourth--31.

Kira's in Fifth, with 27.

Leeta falls behind by two, thus knocking her outta the top five....

 

[timelord1010]

I thought Dr. Helen Noel would get more votes. There is a big difference between "beautiful" and "sexy". Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder, sexy is knowing how to use what you got and Dr. Noel intentionally or not knows how to use what she has got!

 

[Rush Limborg]

Oh...I think she knows too well. She often seems to take this "huffy" attitude with Kirk--like when Jim wants to get a look at the neutralizer. Just before he leaves the room, he turns to Noel. She rolls her eyes, smirks, and says in a sing-song tone, "Coming, Captain...."

Dang that's off-putting--regardless of how "hot" she's supposed to be....

 

[JuanBolio]

I went with the Romulan Commander, Valaris, Ezri, and Leeta

 

[3D Master]

OK, I think I've said all I've got to say about this and I'm conscious that we're now way off topic. My point was simply that things are a bit more complicated and uncertain than 3D Master suggested.

Except that that study is about same-sex sexual BEHAVIOR.

There is a massive difference between homosexuality and same-sex sexual behavior.

 

[Odo You Didn't!]

I voted for both Ezri and Seven, however the guy is, well, wrong in being right.

What men are attracted to is the 6/7:10 - waist : hip ratio aka the hourglass figure. Why? Because women that have that hip ratio are more fertile, and more likely to produce viable offspring. And the closer a woman gets to that ideal ratio the more fertile she is.

Men instinctively know this, they instinctively look for women to procreate with, and so they consider women with that ratio sexier.

Of course, the rest of the body doesn't matter. She can have big breasts, small breasts, tall, a 100 pounds overweight, or small and petite, it's the waist : hip ratio that's indicator of fertility, and when men see that ratio, they're golden.

So, yes, the corset indeed helped a lot.

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.

It's a pretty reductionist point of view to accept only the evolutionary theory of attractiveness. Animals we may be, but to use a Star Trek analogy, I believe we've 'evolved past our programming'. Have you considered, 3D Master, exploring other theories from other psychological perspectives? Proximity theory, for example? Similarity? Is what we find 'sexy' really only about a person's body? Or can it be about their demeanour and attitude also?

Additionally, there is evidence to dispute claim that WHR is the deciding factor in what determines physical attractiveness, including a study by Furnham et al, (2001) which contradicts first pass filter theory by finding that women with lower/higher than 'ideal' WHR were rated as more attractive than those with the ideal 0.7 ratio when they had (conventionally) prettier faces.

As a psychologist, I would never presume a theory proven by examining it from one perspective. I think it was Socrates that said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

 

[Rush Limborg]

It's a pretty reductionist point of view to accept only the evolutionary theory of attractiveness. Animals we may be, but to use a Star Trek analogy, I believe we've 'evolved past our programming'. Have you considered, 3D Master, exploring other theories from other psychological perspectives? Proximity theory, for example? Similarity? Is what we find 'sexy' really only about a person's body? Or can it be about their demeanour and attitude also?

Good points. I think it may be a combination of all--but particularly "demeanor and attitude".



There also may be something, for some guys, about women who seem, for the most part, unconcious of their feminine "powers". I get a kick out of Rand not really noticing that Charlie has the hots for her...until he actiually spells it out.

Ezri also, for much of the season, seems blissfully unaware of Bashir's and Quark's constant advances towards her. Also, she usually seems "unintentionally" hot.

Interestingly enough, this provdes a nice contrast to when she does act purposely sexy--like in "Penumbra", when she playfully teases Worf about his operas (note the swagger she does at one point: "Which one...Shevok'tah gish...?" ).

With Jadzia, this is kinda the norm--and the impact is therefore often lost. With Ezri, the rarity enhances the "hotness" of the moment--IMHO, of course.

 

[3D Master]

I voted for both Ezri and Seven, however the guy is, well, wrong in being right.

What men are attracted to is the 6/7:10 - waist : hip ratio aka the hourglass figure. Why? Because women that have that hip ratio are more fertile, and more likely to produce viable offspring. And the closer a woman gets to that ideal ratio the more fertile she is.

Men instinctively know this, they instinctively look for women to procreate with, and so they consider women with that ratio sexier.

Of course, the rest of the body doesn't matter. She can have big breasts, small breasts, tall, a 100 pounds overweight, or small and petite, it's the waist : hip ratio that's indicator of fertility, and when men see that ratio, they're golden.

So, yes, the corset indeed helped a lot.

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.

It's a pretty reductionist point of view to accept only the evolutionary theory of attractiveness. Animals we may be, but to use a Star Trek analogy, I believe we've 'evolved past our programming'. Have you considered, 3D Master, exploring other theories from other psychological perspectives? Proximity theory, for example? Similarity? Is what we find 'sexy' really only about a person's body? Or can it be about their demeanour and attitude also?

Additionally, there is evidence to dispute claim that WHR is the deciding factor in what determines physical attractiveness, including a study by Furnham et al, (2001) which contradicts first pass filter theory by finding that women with lower/higher than 'ideal' WHR were rated as more attractive than those with the ideal 0.7 ratio when they had (conventionally) prettier faces.

As a psychologist, I would never presume a theory proven by examining it from one perspective. I think it was Socrates that said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

And where did I say that procreation and these factors are the ONLY thing going on?

Nowhere, that's where. In fact, I've said on multiple occasions that higher, newer evolved brain structures are capable of overriding the lower ones (and your chances of doing that are better if you know the exist and how they work to influence you).

What I've said is that there our choice in mates is for a massive amount determined by our instincts. The WHR is one. One that is true for both sexes is scent; through scent we can detect if the other person's immune system is complimentary to our own, or just the same thing. The more different the immune system of the mate, the stronger and greater range the immune system of the offspring.

Are we capable of overriding them? Yes. Is more going than just our base instincts? Yes.

Are those base instincts some of the biggest deciding factors in our choice of mates? Yes.

Unlike some people here, who wish to go on as if none of those instincts exist at all? WHR, nah! Mate selection toward offspring? Nah! Scent? Nah! None of it matters or even exists, nope, the only thing occurring is each individual's modern culture induced mind, and nothing else exists.

And then you claim I'm the one who is being reductionist. If anyone is being reductionist is those who like to stick their heads in the mud about our instincts.

 

[Misfit Toy]

^Try to get back on topic please. I know I've contributed to the derailment as well, but lets keep it on the main issue of Trek's sexiest character. A discussion of what others see as sexy properly belongs in Miscellaneous or The Neutral Zone.

Thanks!

 

[Geckothan]

Ezri is catching up again! Let's get her in the lead again.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^That's right, Geckothan--Seven's still in the lead, with 38--

But the gap is closing...with Ezri only behind by two!

Jadzia's still in Third, with 33.

T'pol in Fourth, 32.

And...Kira takes Fifth, with 27 votes.

 

[DevilEyes]

^ And of course, among the men, Spocks are far ahead of everyone else. After a neck to neck race, QuintoSpock has taken the lead with 25 in front of NimoySpock.

Third place belongs to Trip, and I notice a bias towards humans in the results. With the exception of half-human Spocks, the rest of men's top 10 is all made up of humans, which I find a little surprising, since humans tend to be boring.

 

[KimMH]

^ I'm sorry to hear that, mine surprises me all the time!

 

[Rush Limborg]

I find the Quinto-in-the-lead thing a little amusing.

There was a time...where women throughout Trek-fandom were obsessed with Nimoy-Spock.

In I Am Spock, Nimoy describes one memorable incident where a female fanzine had a shirtless Spock with the caption: "SPOCK ENSLAVED!!!"

 

[KimMH]

I'm not surprised, I think SpockPrime has reached the point of "Elder Statesman" and NuSpock can now pick up the "Mysterious Alien Hottie" mantle . . .