HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to some fundamental disagreement

Re: some fundamental disagreement

1. By "weak" I meant flawed as people, not necessarily physical wimps. They may very well be manly, action-hero types, and maybe even good at their jobs.

2) We don't like to think of ourselves as herd animals, but we are. As apes, our herds are better organized, with an alpha leader, hierarchy, internal competition and all the rest. There isn't that much difference between a herd and a pack, except pack animals like wolves and apes have more layers in their hierarchies. Herds have many followers, and maybe one leader.

But most of us follow and do what we're told, usually led by someone who's fundamentally weak (see no. 1 above). But we make ourselves feel better by congratulating ourselves on how independent and self-reliant we REALLY are. Have you noticed how those in our society who are most conformist, controlled, orthodox, regimented, dependent on the social order and organized are the ones who are always talking about "freedom"? As Lawrence Peter once put it, "If you can convince everyone they're rugged individualists, they'll never organize against you."

3) Now that you mention it, lately, fashion models and other paragons of beauty (like Miss America contestants) have been putting flesh on their bones and curves on their frames. Perhaps this is due to the modern propensity of women to exercise, and engage in sports. The ladies on "Dancing with the Stars" are stacked. However, I do recall when I was more interested in keeping up with such things, the ideals of American feminine beauty all looked like 12 year olds with big tits. There are trends and fashions in such matters. If you watch a lot of old movies like I do, there was a time (from early 50s to late 60s when the girls were all too skinny. But I'll stand by my remarks on the pout.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (28 posts)

Related discussions