> CurtAdams@aol.com wrote: ...Basically, humans
> are unusual in that a great deal of our sexual selection cues are learned. We
> do like other people with bumps in the right places, but we are also attracted
> to good singing, witty conversation, stylish clothes, fascinating music
> collections, etc. So it would benefit us to pay more attention to the sexually
> attractive
> of our own sex, to learn how to attract the opposite...
Curt, Im not saying I disagree exactly, but reread the three sentences
in your first paragraph. It is not at all clear to me that they support
each other in any way. Certainly we are attracted to the right bumps,
the singing, the conversation, the clothes, notions all perfectly in accordance
with those presented in Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind. It is not
clear to me from your discussion, however that sexual selection cues
are learned behaviors. Looks to me like most of them are instinctive.
If I had the ability to choose the sexual cues that would turn
me on, I would select those that would have secondary benefits,
such as overweight and wealthy. Reasoning: since the pool of
competitors for overweight mates is smaller, my individual
probability of success in mate attraction would be higher if
I were to hunt in that field.
If turn-ons are basically instinctive and we have no real control
over them, I (and many others of us) are forced into competing
for the thinner mates against other males who are more fit in
the sense that they present greater appeal to the instincts of
the ever shrinking pool of underweight females in this world
of well fed populations.
Please dont flame me, just consider the argument: many
men actually *reduce* their chances of reproductive
success by our evidently-inborn instinct for liking thin. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT