Re: Subject: Re: BOOKS: Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty
Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:10:27 -0400

David Gobel writes:
>Here is a pet theory which was not quite in the book which applies >MOSTLY to males...females might help us out here for their >"selection" program.

I think that this is a false distinction. I also think that your theory is based on an assumption that does not apply to all humans. Allow me to quote you again:

> do you keep a proven genetic sequence success from >"spinning off" entropically while generating novelty thru sexual >reproduction?
> preprogram a sensory "template" conveying "beauty" >which forcefully directs mating selection to the Median of the >genome.

We might have more success in tackling this subject if we were to take into account that reproduction (i.e., the production of baby humans) has become increasingly divorced from carnal matters (i.e., sexual intercourse). A motivation to engage in intercourse may involve goals other than reproduction, such as satisfaction, intimacy, experimentation, even the satiation of narcisstic impulses. Conversely, if a human wants to produce a baby, direct intercourse in many cases may not provide the safest or most productive route to that goal, thanks to technological progress in conception. These cases may involve situations where the partners are of the same sex, one partner is infertile, or one person wants to conceive a child without benefit of a partner.

In other words, please to base your model solely on the traditional model of heterosexual mating games does not take into account the social evolution that has taken place in sexual coupling, and it does not take into account the technological advances in fertility and conception medicine.

Also, hetersexual norms of beauty differ from that of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons, because they hold their own standards of what they find attractive. A woman that a 'straight' man may find unfeminine, too old, or simply not pretty may in fact be very desireable to members of another community. It is for this reason that, while I value the research in this book and am glad that it has been published, I would encourage it to be assessed within a wider context.

Kathryn Aegis