Desmond Morris: Crack Pot

In his latest book, The Naked Woman, British zoologist (and psuedo-socio-biologist) Desmond Morris seeks to provide explanations for why men find the female body so appealing (as if "because" isn't a good enough answer). His predictable answer, in short, is that each part of the primate female body has been molded by millions of years of evolutionary struggle to finally give rise to the reproductively appealing human female form.

Here's a sample of Morris's accounts of various parts of the female form. You'll be able to pick holes in the accounts almost the instant you read them. I'll save my basic criticism of the whole approach for the end.

Legs: Long legs signify sexual maturity and "therefore transmits super-female signals"... this is an actual quote, people! Smooth, curved legs indicate the female of the species and also indicate a healthy body for breeding. Legs, in general, are "sexy" because they cause men to focus on the point at which they join, "which is the focal point of male sexual interest".

Breasts: Breasts operate as visual and tactile information-senders. Most basically, they identify the sex of a humanoid and also, obviously, indicate sexual maturity (capable of raring young). Less basically, on closer inspection, they indicate age via their shape. Here's Morris's breast-chronology: 1.) "nipple breast" of childhood; 2.) "breast-bud" of puberty; 3.) "pointed breast" of adolescence; 4.) "firm breast" of young adulthood; 5.) "full breast" of motherhood; 6.) "sagging breast" of middle age; (7) "pendulous breast" of old age. "Super breasts" are unusual because they fall between (4) and (5) and are only exhibited in teenage breasts that have developed slightly more quickly than average - "thus exhibiting the perfect roundness required, yet retaining the firmness of extreme youth".

Back: The curve of the back (women's backs are naturally more arched than men's) accentuates the female buttocks and so "adds a sexier outline to the profile of the body". The two sacral dimples on each side of the base of the spine are also erotic.

Buttocks: Protruding female buttocks "transmit a powerful gender signal", and naturally protrude more than men's. Relatively large female buttocks (compared to men) serve as fat stores and so indicate good survival potential. Undulation (hip swaying) - due naturally to the physical structure of the female pelvis - is another distinctive signal of femininity.

Armpits: Women tend to shave under their arms and this is due to a desire to appear "cleaner, younger and helps them reduce their scent-signalling". This, presumably, is alluring to men.

Each line here could be subjected to ridicule. For example, saying that legs are sexually attractive because they form an "arrow" (Morris's word) to the female naughty bits, is moronic: creatures as no-brained and no-legged as snails seem to have no problem finding each other's naughty bits, but the most intellectually advanced creatures on the planet need road maps? Riiiight. And "sacral dimples" are attractive because...? If you can come up with an evolutionary explanation for this one, good luck. And "super-breasts" are most desirable because they express the best survival combination - simultaneous youth and maturity. So all those guys who like small or voluptuous breasts are evolutionary defects? That's one hell of a lot of defects! But I'll put these aside. My criticism is more basic than these (although these particular criticisms allude to it).

Most socio-evolutionary 'explanations' for human phenomena are pseudo-scientific; that is, they appeal to a scientific theory (Darwinian evolutionary theory, in this case) but do not actually empirically investigate matters in a scientific way. How so? Most socio-evolutionary 'explanations' are unfalsifiable: that is, they presuppose a single causal process (evolutionary survival) for every conceivable outcome. What's wrong with that? Well, to take Morris's topic of interest, if all features that are attractive to men are "selected" by an evolutionary process, and we predict according to an evolutionary selection story that feature X is attractive to men but it turns out that in a good many cases the 'opposite' feature, not-X, is attractive to men, then according to the 'explanation' that just means X and not-X are both due to evolution. It's a bit like saying, "The weather is due to the will of the gods"; if it rains, we conclude, "thus it is proved that rain was the will of the gods", and if it is sunny we then conclude, "thus it is proved that sun was the will of the gods"; no matter what happens, no matter what you predict, you always have the same explanation (the will of the gods). In both cases, there is no real empirical testing here (empirical testing being the hallmark of science.) So, if women shave under their arms, that's due to the evolutionary desire to look younger to attract a mate, and if they don't that's due to the evolutionary desire to look mature to attract a mate. If women get breast implants that's due to the evolutionary desire to look younger to attract a mate, and if they get their breast implants removed that's due to the evolutionary desire to look natural to attract a mate. And so on and so forth. You might object that the explanation is actually talking about what men find naturally attractive, not about women's behavior. OK, let's do it that way. Men find big butts attractive because they indicate "healthy fat" and thus survival potential for offspring. And men who find small butts attractive? That's because small butts indicate youth and nubility and thus survival potential for offspring. And round and round we go again. This is not some kind of scientific explanation; it's imaginative storytelling: give me a characteristic and I'll tell you a story which always has the same ending. Mother Goose, eat your heart out.

Now, that's a basic criticism of the usual socio-evolutionary account of social phenomena. Curiously, Morris doesn't go down this path, but he does employ a reasoning strategy that has the same basic flaw. Morris doesn't ignore the fact that there is cultural variation in the particulars of female beauty (e.g. Japanese men think neck-lines are very erotic according to Morris), but he certainly doesn't subscribe, of course, to the view that the notion of beauty is culturally determined. He pulls this off, acknowledging the influence of culture while simultaneously discounting it, in the following way: he claims there are "biological features all women share" that are the underlying or essential sources of judgements of beauty (as determined by the evolutionary reproductive struggle), and then there is culture, which is responsible for attempting to modify in countless ways the basic evolutionarily 'given' female form to make it "even more" beautiful; the template, however, for what IS beautiful in essence, and therefore worthy of "improvement", has already been set by Nature. So, anything that doesn't seem to 'fit' the basic evolutionary story is just a transitory cultural variation or some other 'deformation' of the basic gifts bestowed by Nature. Now Morris tries to be "politically correct" with his explanation by saying "every woman has a beautiful body." But when it gets down to tin-tacks, his account is explicitly exclusionary: there are such things are naturally and objectively perfect breasts, perfect bums, perfect backs, perfect legs. If men (or women) claim that Morris's version of 'perfect' Y is not their ideal, he can just write-off their opinions as transitory cultural variations from the objective truth of the matter. So for Morris, his 'perfect' Y is not really his personal aesthetic judgement - the judgement is in fact determined by Nature (and there is no arguing with Nature).

Maybe this could be excused to some extent if his account were based on factual claims which could be tested. The problem is that it isn't factual at all. The scientific sounding explanations are nothing more than that - sounds. The real "engine of investigation" is in fact nothing more than Morris's own mind (Morris, not all of humanity for all time, likes long, slender legs, firm, full breasts, a curvacious back, protroding buttocks and shaved armpits). Insidiously, at no stage does he admit this. It is insidious because, say, a woman who isn't aware of the basic flaw in Morris's explanation (its pseudo-scientific character) could well falsely conclude from Morris's book that Science has established that by her very nature she is an objectively undesirable monkey who fell out of the evolutionary tree.

Communism = Religion?

Many people believe that Communism and Atheism come hand and hand every time. Countless books and websites have popped up claiming Communism to be it's own religion. Communism is NOT a religion, although. Nor does affiliation with Communism dictate one's religion as Atheist (although typical.)

Communism can't be defined as religion because of one, small aspect... spiritualism. People will tell you that anything that is an institutionalized system based around belief and worship, like Communism, is a religion. Well, do you consider Monarchy a religion? No, of course you don't. So, Communism is not a religion because it lack of spiritualistic appeal.

So, is Communism essentially Atheism? Nope. I'll use Romania for an example, if you don't mind. I can tell you that religion wasn't the main reason people were persecuted in Romania. Just because they tortured Christians doesn't mean that it was BECAUSE they were Christian. Sure, Communist countries typically have a flair for inquisitions, but the fact-of-the-matter is that almost the whole population of Romania was, and still is, Christian. You can't tell me that Ceausescu managed come to power in a country when he wanted to slaughter/torture all of the citizens? Is the religion of the Communist leader the religion of the Communist country? No, thus Romania, a COMMUNIST country, is a chiefly CHRISTIAN country. Actually, a census taken of Romania showed that it had the highest concentration of Christians in the WORLD (with a resounding 99.5% of the population.) Some would argue with the persecution of Baptists in Romania, but that has nothing to do with Communism. It's on a very small level (more people are killed for hate crimes in the US in a month than Romania in a five years) and it's because that almost everyone in Romania is Romanian Orthodox, Romanian Catholic, or Protestant (making Baptist the religious minority.) Of course, things have change quite recently, but I'm talking about... the... old... Romania... yeah!

Do you know why Communism is so short-lived in some countries and not in others? Because there are certain pre-requisites for the Communism to succeed. These are the society should be a "free society", meaning it should give importance to an Individual over the society and that it should be based on equality, fraternity and liberty. These have been brought to China by Buddhism, Russia by Christianity and Vietnam by Taoism. The absence of these factors in Hindu India society could not foster the growth of Communism in India. So technically, "free society" (which also insinuates freedom of religion) is necessary in a Communist government... anything without is either 1. not truly Communism or 2. destined to fail.

Additionally, people have added on extra meaning to Communism. Why do most Communist leaders push for Atheism? Because it allows more influence for the government, of course! The technical definition for Communism is "a totalitarian system of GOVERNMENT in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production". We have all these Communist/Atheist leaders, but why? You know it's because instead of taking on just Marxist theories of economics they adopted the theories on religion, too ("opiate of the masses", etc.) Hey, if you're going to go Marxist... go all the way!

People think that just because Communism is secular it's automatically Atheist. Just because Communism isn't associated with religion, doesn't mean that there is NO religion. It's disproving induction again.

Went a little overboard, but I'll go to extensive lengths to prove I'm right... even if it's to myself.

Music Elitists

NOTE - Just because someone doesn't spend all their time on sites like noconformistindielabel.net and musicnoonehaseverfuckingheardof.com doesn't make them a loser, it makes them sane. Step back, re-evaluate. If I'm the loser then how come you're the one with all this free time?

Mission Tranc3, yes!

Plato on the Nature of Love

Symposium is one of the greatest literary pieces in existence. Aesthetics, love, what more could I want?

"He who has been instructed thus far in the things of love, and who has learned to see the beautiful in due order and succession, when he comes toward the end will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty (and this, Socrates, is the final cause of all our former toils)-a nature which in the first place is everlasting, not growing and decaying, or waxing and waning; secondly, not fair in one point of view and foul in another, or at one time or in one relation or at one place fair, at another time or in another relation or at another place foul, as if fair to some and-foul to others, or in the likeness of a face or hands or any other part of the bodily frame, or in any form of speech or knowledge, or existing in any other being, as for example, in an animal, or in heaven or in earth, or in any other place; but beauty absolute, separate, simple, and everlasting, which without diminution and without increase, or any change, is imparted to the ever-growing and perishing beauties of all other things. He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is. This, my dear Socrates," said the stranger of Mantineia, "is that life above all others which man should live, in the contemplation of beauty absolute; a beauty which if you once beheld, you would see not to be after the measure of gold, and garments, and fair boys and youths, whose presence now entrances you; and you and many a one would be content to live seeing them only and conversing with them without meat or drink, if that were possible-you only want to look at them and to be with them. But what if man had eyes to see the true beauty-the divine beauty, I mean, pure and dear and unalloyed, not clogged with the pollutions of mortality and all the colours and vanities of human life-thither looking, and holding converse with the true beauty simple and divine? Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life?"

Fucking brilliant, man.

Totally Random

To great insult to my ego, I thought I got an okay grade on the Romanticism Test, but Alex Weaver got a 95% and had to kill my good mood with "eh, it's all right... it's not a 98% or anything". Progress reports are out tomorrow. I'm somewhat depressed over it. You know, I try to fight the man, but it's so difficult when my success is contingent upon working with the man. I know I am going to end up in some shitty university over this.

I'm reading a book about Japanese internment camps in WW2. Two accounts particulary disturbed me. A Japanese man was shot in the leg by one of the guards and had to have his leg amputated, instead of offering reparations after the war had ended, he was charged for the bullet he was shot with. Another story, a teenage boy was shot trying to escape, and the guards hung his blood stained t-shirt in the cafeteria to remind the other prisoners of the "consequences" of trying to escape.