This is the part that I take umbrage with.
and that's fair - being honest about it, i'd have to put that down to personal perspective more than anything else, i tend to view humans in far simpler terms than most do.
i see the reality that all biological life on this planet is about 4 things: eating, shitting, fucking, and sleeping (well and i suppose technically maintaining homeostasis could be a 5th but that's kind of nebulous)
everything else is just extra steps built on top of that, those 4 things are the foundations of life on on earth.
i see it as pretty obvious that everything is traceable back to one of those 4 things if you drill down deep enough into evolutionary history, but i also understand that a lot of people are utterly mentally incapable of even coping with the idea that someone could conceive that humans are not all super extra duper special snowflakes with bright and vibrant souls who completely undermine the reality of every other form of life on this planet.
so for those folks i suppose live your truth, namaste, sorry the existence of other points of view destroys your ability to deal with reality.
It is NOT all to increase value on the sexual marketplace. In young single people looking to form a relationship, it's certainly going to involve signaling sexual receptivity.
ok and you're still not understanding or responding to the thing i'm actually saying, so i'll just take the hint and give up.
But extending that to the entirety of social interactions is as dumb as it is insulting.
well as for it being dumb, it kinda tracks with evolutionary biology as well as human history.
as for insulting, i completely fail to see how data is insulting, but if this thread has proved anything to me it's that there's a whole lot of people who take data as a personal attack, so i guess i'm just completely out of my depth.
FFS, I'm in my late forties, married, fat, and happy. I choose my clothing for a variety of reasons. When it's just me & my spouse at home, it's almost entirely chosen for comfort. I personally like pajama sets with pants, of a soft material, of a color that pleases me. Some of them my spouse dislikes and thinks are ugly, but I'm not wearing them for him, I'm wearing them for me.
aaaaaand you still haven't read anything i've posted, mmkay.
Very little of my clothing has anything at all to do with sexual signaling.
ok, and since you emily lake solely represent the whole of human psychology, i see now how completely wrong headed i've been this whole time.
glad to know we have found the alpha and omega of human consciousness though, that clears up a lot of things.
To suggest that every aspect of my dress and appearance is dominated by sexual signaling is pretty much to devalue me as a human with a complex personality.
well, two things:
1. nobody has ever suggested that *your* dress and appearance was dominated by anything.
2. if you are devalued as a human being by the existence of things that are, i'm both sorry for offending you by mentioning the existence of things, and deeply sorry for what your life must be like.
In addition, you've framed nearly all of your posts from the perspective of female sexual signaling
which i have done by never mentioning women except in my first post which was directly in response to a gendered question, and having every single thing i've said since then be not only gender neutral but explicitly referring to both genders?
that is some impressive magical interpretation powers you have there.
... and you've ignored and insulted the women in this thread when they've told you that you are incorrect. Which comes across as a bit sexist, even if it might be subconscious.
not immediately capitulating to a declaration by someone who either can't or won't explain their position by providing a rational argument as to why they disagree with your position is not ignoring or insulting someone.
your failure to provide a convincing argument is not me being sexist, it's me not being convinced by your lack of a coherent rationale for stating why my position is wrong - or hell, even addressing my position at all in the first place.
you'd think for what is ostensibly a forum dedicated to inquiry and rational thinking that people would understand the concept that "NUH UH!" is not a compelling argument.
i have the perspective i do about human trait signaling because i've read several articles about humans, human evolution both biologically and culturally, and the history of clothing in the human species.
i have read peer reviewed studies that provide the evidence for the conclusions drawn about macro level human cultural psychology.
i have provided you on at least 3 occasions now with the means by which you can yourself locate some of these studies to read the data for yourself, and invited anyone and everyone to please do so and then advise me on how i've misinterpreted said data to come to the wrong conclusions.
thus far, every single person who has replied to me has instead whined about how i'm a bad person because i pointed out that data exists, and they don't like it.
not a single one of you has mentioned a study to refute any of the data that i am pointing out exists, or given a logical construction for how the data points to a different conclusion.
every single one of you has just had a little snit fit over the fact that you don't like what the data says, and then attacked the messenger for having the audacity to have pointed out that said data exists.