| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » Current Movies Forum » proof that susan sontag lost her mind in her last yrs....
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| brigit bardot brigade... |
 Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Stockbauer... |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
proof that susan sontag lost her mind in her last yrs.
********************************************
Maybe we could have a scavenger hunt for it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 5:51 am, Flasherly <gjerr... at (no spam) ij.net> wrote:
Quote: On May 10, 2:21 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 9, 7:19 pm, brigit bardot brigade <brigitzkr... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
her lesbian lover in her stage of her life was this hideously ugly
cross between howard stern and noam chomsky. ewwwwwwwwww.
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/72156170.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17...
A general argument against the invocation of any standard for beauty
has come to be known as a form of "the problem of the criterion."
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge that
justifies the very odea of beauty and ugliness. If the dispute is to
be settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It
would do no good of each side simply to assert its position without
argument, and say this is what ugly is and that is the end of the
matter. So how would a standard of knowledge or beauty be defended? It
could only be defended by reference to some standard or other. If the
standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged.
If another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be
answered either by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another
standard. So either the process of invoking standards does not
terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in neither case would
the dispute be settled rationally. Or we just agree to what ugly
means. But we have not agreed but yet you jump out and condemn tha
woman by you personal likes.
Q: The dichotomy of criteria as separate entities provides the bases
of secularization -- that God's perfection in Adam and Eve need be
invested in further refinement. Beauty can be defended in fat women,
which in Hittite lore symbolizes the Mother Earth figurine. As are
standards extrapolated over the widest cultural mean. If anorexic
bulimia patterns of filed teeth, silicon augmentation, or cosmetically
constructed facial proportions is seen sold for commodification, a
mean simply exists, irrelevant to whether or for so long reasoning
circularly titillates over standards of secondary instances. What
rationale is simply abides in greater form relative to greater utility
to derive truth in lending cultural implementation.
Beauty appreciation may be instinctually hard wired into us. Not as a
type but of proportion so that a fat venus figurine could be sexy
universally as long as certain proportions hold, like the hit-to-waste
"ratio." And we may be driven to appreciate balance since the most
healthy have usually had similar aspects to different sides of their
bodies.
1. [Ratio]
SELXUAL SELECTION AND THE HOURGLASS FIGURE
The body shapes of men and women are sexually selected traits,
analogous to the plumage of the peacock. Strange as it might seem,
this conclusion is supported by much compelling evidence. To begin
with, feminine curves emerge around puberty, just like the colorful
train of the peacock (see fig. 2). They are produced by the same
mechanism, a surge in production of sex hormones. A surge of the sex
hormone estrogen stimulates the filling of fat cells located away from
the waist. The "loudness" of the signal (i.e., the size of the sex
difference) diminishes with age. In the same way, the greater height
of men, their broader shoulders, their deeper voices, and their
greater upper-body musculature are due to the growth spurt produced by
a surge in testosterone production at puberty.
Both sexes agree that women with "hourglass figures" are sexy and
attractive. This contrasts with the attractive male body. In sexy men,
there is little difference between the hip and waist dimensions, the
torso is moderately muscled, and the shoulders are broad. The
attractiveness of an hourglass figure for women is a constant across
cultures and across time, although the amount of curvature considered
desirable varies greatly in different countries and at different times
within a society.
Scientists assess the curvaceousness of the human body using a
statistic known as the waist/hip ratio. A small waist/hip ratio is
equivalent to a highly curvaceous body. Highly attractive women, such
as Miss Americas, have a waist/hip ratio of about 0.67 (the ratio
produced by a waist of 24" and hips of 36", for example). The normal
range for women is 0.67-0.80, whereas the normal range for men is
0.85-0.95. Lack of an overlap between the male and the female range
means that body shape is a highly predictable sex difference.
The intensity of the signal (i.e., the size of the sex difference)
declines with age due to a change in hormone production. If you are on
the beach and spot a couple strolling away from you in the distance,
distinguishing the silhouette of the man from the woman will be very
easy if the couple is in their twenties, but much more difficult if
they are in their fifties.
One distinguishing characteristic of the peacock's tail is that it
interferes with movement. Similarly, storage of fat away from the
waist is not mechanically efficient. It makes more sense to store fat
close to the center of gravity, in the abdomen. Highly curvaceous
women are at a distinct disadvantage in sports and rarely win Olympic
medals-for example, in events requiring agility and speed, such as
basketball and running. This is not to claim that curvaceous women
cannot be very athletic. Some are, but when they compete at the
highest level, they experience a mechanical disadvantage because
weight stored away from the center of gravity introduces turning
forces that use up energy.
Just as peahens are attracted to an extremely colorful mate, so
extremely attractive women are at an extreme of the range for
curvaceousness. Beauty contest winners cluster at the curvaceous
extreme of 0.67 compared to the normal range for women of 0.67-0.80.
Perhaps the most important and compelling point of similarity is that
curvaceous women, like showy peacocks, have superior immune systems.
According to recent research ot'Devendra Singh, an evolutionary
psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, college-aged women
and men agree that curvaceous women (whether of normal weight,
underweight, or overweight) are more attractive, healthier, and more
capable of producing children than less curvaceous women. What makes
these findings really interesting is that they are borne out by
medical data. Women with low waist/hip ratio (i.e., with a curvaceous
build) not only have less difficulty becoming pregnant, they are also
healthier in terms of a lower incidence of many illnesses. Women with
relatively noncurvaceous bodies are at a higher risk for gall bladder
disease, some cancers, diseases of the heart and circulatory system,
and for diabetes. (It is important to realize that a curvaceous body
is different from an obese one: curvaceous women store fat away from
the abdomen whereas obese women usually have thick fat deposits around
their middle which pose major health risks.) Noncurvaceous women are
also more prone to behavioral disorders such as anxiety and drug
abuse. (It is true that some drug addictions can cause people to lose
weight, which might make them less curvaceous, but the finding applies
equally for alcoholism, which can have the opposite effect.) Less
curvaceous women are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric
hospitals for depression and other psychopathologies. They also have
higher mortality rates. The health consequences of body shape in men
have received less attention because the waist/hip ratio is not
routinely measured for medical records and is thus unavailable to
researchers. Women are at their most curvaceous in early maturity, and
one reason that men are attracted to women with sexy bodies is that
this is a cue to youthfulness. Exceptionally attractive women have
youthful facial dimensions that make them seem more attractive than
they really are.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
2. [Symmetry]
Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively
attracted towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of
"health" in a potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the
appreciation of symmetry in nature and art?
<quote>
Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body,
is important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the
face should be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a
far more symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is
considered better looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy
Thornhill and his colleagues at the University of New Mexico at
Albuquerque have shown that people with symmetrical faces generally
have symmetrical bodies.
Bodily symmetry is an esthetic cue used to assess the biological
fitness of potential mates among other species. For example, research
on swallows, which have forked tails, has shown that females prefer to
mate with males having symmetrical tails. Asymmetry is caused by
interference with normal development, which might be due to poor
nutrition early in development or might reflect the impact of viruses.
Symmetrical animals have superior biological qualities either because
they experienced a favorable early environment or because their immune
systems were effective at warding off viruses and other pathogens.
Swallows and people attracted to mates with symmetrical bodies acquire
a superior immune system for their offspring.
This explains why women should be attracted to highly symmetrical men.
Thomhill and his colleagues have discovered that symmetrical men have
more sex partners, and even that women get more excited during
intercourse with these physically attractive men. Symmetrical men
produce a pheromone (or airborne hormone) that is more attractive to
women than the secretions of less symmetrical men, suggesting that
women's attraction to men is based on assessment of biological fitness
through different sensory channels. Men's biological quality declines
with age, which is reflected in declining facial symmetry, for
example. This may have important implications for off- spring. Thus,
declining sperm quality of older men increases the risk of Down
syndrome and other chromosomal disorders.
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
Quote: --
A: The loudest moaning whore is certainly to be esteemed most
underpaid.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| \"jordy\"... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 3:01 am, "The Wanderer" <Wande... at (no spam) nowayatall3.com> wrote:
Quote: I've never seen evidence that she had one to loose.
actually, she had an extremly brilliant mind... For one thing, she
was of the most famous intellectuals in the country, I'd think she'd
have to have a pretty intelligent mind...
-"Jordy" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Flasherly... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 10, 3:03 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
Beauty appreciation may be instinctually hard wired into us. Not as a
type but of proportion so that a fat venus figurine could be sexy
universally as long as certain proportions hold, like the hit-to-waste
"ratio." And we may be driven to appreciate balance since the most
healthy have usually had similar aspects to different sides of their
bodies.
Key may also be proportional to instinctual aggregates and conditional
structures as cultural counterbalances. A point insular to symmetrize
a wasp figurine for an hourglass, at a cultural imposition inculcating
minimal substantiative means accounting agricultural. If want of food
were to rule over a state where anorexia is defacto an extensible
dimension, for some point and contingent to full-figured proportions,
actually, given evidence and esteem reserved in traditional and its
artifacts. Conversely, if suffusive fats and disorderly orientation
of efficiency marketing were to instill everyone eat if not
hamburgers, then most profusely (for another array of marketing drugs
to be sold to counterbalance), a preponderance of overall weightiness
evident may then occur to act in counterbalance of perception provided
by populist media principles -- that an anorexigenic stimulus of
ectomorphic proportions indeeds holds sway over published gloss form
-- usually aside every national grocery checkout distributional
checkout lane.
No doubt universally accredited, genetic and chemical scent trails, as
well ideal perceptual ratios can be established throughout time and
across distance, common to all peoples, for both distribution bodily
figures compose, no less than for a face of symmetrical anatomical
reference, no morning women broadcasters on financial news networks
are certain to disqualify. Furthermore, at what point is cultural, if
not individualism, atypically an appeal for one to circumvent
another. ....Is it fairer then to say, inasmuch that in the finer
proportions of a face one may digress from either too heavy, or light,
body proportions -- so being preferential that facial construction
most comprises desirable qualities, if and for consideration tenure is
then to said bias the decision whereby a mate is chosen... . |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anim8rFSK... |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 9:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<d34e1a2a-0b48-4544-9507-b162a4e48cd5 at (no spam) d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"\"jordy\"" <Icnh at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 10, 3:01 am, "The Wanderer" <Wande... at (no spam) nowayatall3.com> wrote:
I've never seen evidence that she had one to loose.
actually, she had an extremly brilliant mind
She kept it in a jar on her nightstand.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Flasherly... |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 13, 11:08 am, "steve" <st... at (no spam) steve.com> wrote:
Quote: On 10-May-2008, Flasherly <gjerr... at (no spam) ij.net> wrote:
Key may also be proportional to instinctual aggregates and conditional
structures as cultural counterbalances.
LOL! Say that three times fast.
The question is: academic or satirist?
Instinctual aggregates - an attractively proportioned woman. Would
you romp on off into a South American jungle, along with five other
guys and an otherwise perfectly willing woman, to pull train?
Conditional balances within cultural settings is import to know for
what's going to happen next. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| steve... |
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 13-May-2008, Flasherly <gjerrell at (no spam) ij.net> wrote:
Quote: Key may also be proportional to instinctual aggregates and conditional
structures as cultural counterbalances.
LOL! Say that three times fast.
The question is: academic or satirist?
Instinctual aggregates - an attractively proportioned woman. Would
you romp on off into a South American jungle, along with five other
guys and an otherwise perfectly willing woman, to pull train?
I might be interested in her aggregates and counterbalances, but I'm not
pulling my train into her jungle without protection.
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:38 pm
|
|
