Repulsed by obese females - normal?

rainbowstar wrote:

deformities...

abnormalities...

"miss-wiring"

Nature never makes mistakes. There is no wrong in nature. You're actually mixing moral interpretation with objective fact. What you're up to is called "philosophical essentialism" which tends to exclude and dehumanize persons and the way we live.

On the contrary, I used those terms to identify what would be considered those cases as a medical view, not a personal view.

As I stated before - in agreement mind you - that there is no consciousness behind nature, thus no rights, no wrongs, no intentions, so on and so forth. Not only that, but I've demonstrated how nature works by referencing a vague description of the functionality between Evolution and Natural Selection, to further show to you that I indeed understand how choice is not a factor.

So seeing how I have, yet again shown that I completely understand, and agree with you that nature does not function through conscious actions, why are you attempting to argue with me?

Ghost147 wrote:why are you attempting to argue with me?

I wouldn't personally consider DNA and molecules and other kinds of "Wooden Leg" rationalizing projective materialisms when trying to get people's sexual experiences; I'd look at emotional dynamics and social structure and phenomenology.

Reductionist abstraction sucks the life out. It's limiting. The OP was writing about his sickened disgust *mod edit*

I had added some graphic description of how viscerally and emotionally the OP experienced fat people but it seems the expression has been lost to moderation. That's how emotional and in-your-face this stuff really is: a genuinely evocative description of the OP's sense of utter physical and moral revulsion was moderated on a forum where stark descriptions of psychosis or sex with animals is common. Go back and read the OP and sense his feelings, that's a totally different way of understanding than detached scientific explanations about genes and evolution.



On a personal note, I was pretty disappointed to see my artistic expression capriciously deleted. Stifling a discussion actually perpetuates prejudice. Especially as I had written several time already in this thread that a timely post-modern perspective couldn't judge either fat people or those who are attracted to them I was a bit surprised to see my creative trope moderated.

I'm afraid personal opinions do not substantiate claims. If you truly believe that emotional dynanics, social structure and phenomenonology are the backbone of human attraction, then please demonstrate those claims with your evidence. I have already shown how the core of attraction stems from ones personal biological makeup, and millions of years of evolutionary mutation and the intrinsic presence of healthy reproduction.

It appears as your only real quarrel you have with this evidence is that it feels detached from the emotional aspect of love and social interaction.

I'm not totally sure that your demonstration is as sound as you are believing? A few links and an article about mens' beards...

Social dynamics are not provable in the sense that something that can have scientific method applied to it is.

For example, I've heard it said that some races are genetically more susceptible to alcoholism. That's "Wooden Leg". Scientists can find gene's easily enough but the much more powerful explanation is to look at the historical social denigration of those races and the resultant addictions.

Or, it's common for genetic and chemical factors to be researched in the search for the cause of Autism spectrum, meanwhile plenty of non-scientific observation exists that point to social construction feed-back loops with individual psychologies.

Or, scientists and popular imagination claim there is a gay gene, yet meanwhile social structural theories of homosexuality are abundant among the more erudite thinkers.

Contemporary society is exceedingly materialistic and externally oriented and tends to look to physicalist causes while more subtle understanding of emotional and psycho-social dynamics go unnoticed by most.

rainbowstar wrote:I'm not totally sure that your demonstration is as sound as you are believing? A few links and an article about mens' beards...

I can post thousands of links of actually, peer-reviewed scientific articles that continue to demonstrate attraction due to evolutionary matters. What I supplied you was not some opinionated website, but actual scientific articles and references to them. These are confirmed, and reconfirmed studies. I'm not quite sure how you can deny the fact, of fact?

rainbowstar wrote:Social dynamics are not provable in the sense that something that can have scientific method applied to it is.

And yet the scientific method has been applied to the links I've listed, and can continue to list. Not only that, but they are continually reconfirming the findings within those studies with successive studies.

Social dynamics studies group interaction - to put it bluntly - and psychology is one of the large contributing fields in those studies. We witness specific choices, actions and reactions in individuals through Social Dynamic studies, apply studies using Psychology (if we haven't already), and draw conclusions on why those individuals are acting the way they are through psychological means. Then what? Then we ask "What makes them act this way?" And we begin to dwell into the realm of neurology, which leads us further into biology, and further into the initiation of the reason for these reactions, which involves Evolution.

It all relates back to Biology if we look far enough. Social Dynamics and Psychology are not scientific; however, they are important keys in leading us to asking new questions and forming new hypothesis within Biological problem and unknowns. Social Dynamics and Psychology are not answers, they are the beginnings of new questions.