Tag Archives: evolution

Why I’m Pro-Plastic Surgery (sometimes)

30 Mar

I don’t how many of you are still with me here after some of my recent posts, and I’m probably going to lose a few more of you now, but here goes:

This plastic surgery thing is still going around the Jblogs, so obviously this has kicked up something deep. First off, I want to say I’m against pushing cosmetic plastic surgery to anyone, and of course not to 20-something year old sheltered seminary girls. That’s totally wrong. However, plastic, gastric, and whatever other surgery is an option that women (and men) have the right to make. There’s nothing morally wrong with it.

Modern, first-world, society is a super-connected, tightly packed mass of humanity. Everyone is competing with everyone from everywhere in the world. Certain facial and body shapes and features have been decided to be most desirable because of social, historical, and to a very minor extent, biological factors. Everybody is now competing for these few individuals who have been deemed better people for these tangential reasons. The internet, tv, movies, are presenting these people to us as superior since before we can even talk. Associations of certain facial types with being heroes or better people are rampant, especially in children’s TV (looking at the Disney Channel, it looks like nothing has changed even with all the backlash).

So, what’s a person with a body that was geared to be evolutionarily fitted out for survival and mating in their own region of the world supposed to do now that all their gear and upgrades are suddenly rendered useless? They developed DNA to be able to store nutrition for a rainy day much better than everyone else. They are able have children 10x easier than other people. They can stay out in the sun longer than other people. These used to be important. Suddenly, these features are rendered useless by technology, geography, history. Not only that, they are detriments to finding a mate. What are people supposed to do? Remutate? Go die alone? No, they are designed for survival and reproduction. They use any tool they have to meet these biological imperatives. If people associate long noses or small chins or round shoulders with certain moral characteristics because of superstitions started in 11th century Germany and are therefore pushing you away, you cut that thing in half. Or move out of NY.

You didn’t choose that nose, or even to be born. You were forced into this world and given a job (ok, a fun job) that you must do or live in agony.  I don’t see how anyone can make a case for this not being natural or honest. Well, I can. Because most people are simplistic fuckin idiots.

P.S. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying someone is responsible or is at fault for not having elective surgery. I’m only saying if nature and a mentally unhealthy society f’d you, you have every right to stack the deck now.

P.P.S. Something that I think has arguable basis for being made illegal is Photoshopping models. But then you’d have to ask why camera tricks and makeup and surgically altered people are allowed in movies, which is a case you can’t win in our legal system. Just look at the what the entertainment industry is doing to the courts and congress over copyright laws.


Fairness: Mission Really Really Difficult

1 Sep

Ooh, lady justice. Looking FINE.

When people say they’re “progressive”, what they mean is they’d like to make changes in society to make it more fair. Equal rights for women, for gays, for black people, for children, for whoever. Personally, I like this idea. I think society can be a lot more fair. But I also think that people who don’t understand the science of life so well are baffled when they run into things that seem naturally unfair.

Men and women should have equal power. But why should the woman be getting screwed? Why doesn’t the man have to take it once in a while? (I’d bet money that there are couples out there right now having some kind of reverse sex to keep it fair.)

In my humble opinion, this all stems from a misunderstanding. Some people think that life was fair before it was messed up by greedy people. But unless you believe in the Garden Of Eden story- which I do, depending on my mood- life is a contest for survival. The strong survive and the weak die. We can try, for moral, religious, or other such reasons to try to make it better, but there are biological walls in place that can’t be avoided. (If you think I’m exaggerating here, you’ve obviously never been to prison. Ok, so I haven’t either, but I know people who have watched the show Oz, and they say it’s crazy in there.)

What’s my point? Well, here:  If it bothers you that your big fat kid is taking the other kids’ snacks, tell him to stop and hope he listens. And if it feels wrong to only have one penis in a relationship, go creative grocery shopping. But at the same time, don’t be too upset if things don’t go as planned. You’re fighting nature with your half a sociology degree Queens Community College. Take it easy.

Why Do Women Like Kids?

25 Aug

Why aren't there more Amazons?

I was thinking last night how great it is that women like kids. I mean, they really like them, even when the parents aren’t around. It really works out well because if it was up to men, I think there would be very few kids around.

Is it a psychological thing, mother’s love? Do women have kids because they are naturally weaker than men and can’t compete in the getting resources/aggressive role, so historically, they’ve adjusted their worth to being in terms of having and nurturing kids for the males, or having males themselves?

If so, then this forced, default value system is really lucky because otherwise there would be no continuity. It seems like someone would have set the system up this way, like God.

Or maybe this is evolutionarily-based. The only members of the weaker sex (or women) that survived in the tribe were those that were submissive to the men. Maybe the women that survived better were the ones that were naturally more submissive. And if we go with this theory, maybe there’s a gene in the human race that makes some people dominant and another gene that makes others submissive. The submissive gene could be like blond hair- either sex can get it, but it’s only helpful for females. And the aggressive one is only helpful for males. But both are passed down equally to the sexes, and men have to pretend to be aggressive, and women, the opposite.

Could we ever test if such genes exist, or if the whole thing is entirely psychological? Assuming that either one of these theories is correct. Maybe one of you who’ve learned some science past the yeshiva high school level can shed some light here.