From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 00:43:52 MDT
From: "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
> Spike wrote:
>
> > For instance: mammal females love and nurture
> > their babies. For that reason, perhaps adult
> > males which maintain some juvenile characteristics
> > would enjoy a relatively greater appeal to the
> > female population. This would explain why we
> > have the term "boyish good looks."
From what I've observed, gay males generally relish "boyish good looks" more
than females. In spite of all the progress that has been made since the
"sexual revolution" - it seems to me that far too many heterosexual females
are still primarily attracted to prestige, money, fame, power. Why else
would young females hang out with the likes of The Donald, Hugh Hefner and
Woody Allen? (to cite just a few examples). For females it seems that looks
count somewhat, but not as much as status; for males, it may be just the
opposite. Many exceptions abound, of course.
> Yes, and it might also explain the ongoing sexual revolution started in
the
> 70's.
You're right - and the sexual revolution (a revolution in every sense,
mainly due to the advent of The Pill and IUD) will be "ongoing" ... that's a
good word for it. Procreation and sex - although still riding a tandem
bicycle on many outings - have been liberated from having to travel on the
same path or even going in the same direction.
Nurturing females would better appreciate males who share their
> nurturing values, leading to the "sensitive guy" attraction. Sensitive and
> nurturing male character traits might then might be passed on to future
> generations.
Bill Nye likes to say "Science rules," and I think science will eventually
have better (i.e., more predictable) results with "passing" character traits
to future generations ... whether they be humans, transhumans, or what have
you.
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 00:52:22 MDT