Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,217
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
you quoted one sentence out of a much larger post. and you also completely and utterly dodged the entire body of my response to you.
so come on Politesse, you're the one getting indignant at me abusing "your discipline", actually put some effort into it and show me where my facts are in error instead bleating like a goat stuck in a trash can over a falsehood you've created.
my statement of fact is that non-utilitarian clothing evolved in humans as a means of trait signaling, and as such from a social and cultural anthropological perspective the purpose of non-utilitarian clothing in humans is ultimately to signal traits.
if you dispute this statement of fact, provide me with evidence. i'd rather be correct than be proven right, so if i have misinterpreted the data available from numerous studies which i have perceived to all conclude that non-utilitarian clothing in humans is trait signaling, please show me the information which shows this is not true and educate me.
my personal assertion in light of the above is that due to non-utilitarian clothing in humans being trait-signaling, the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')
ipso facto (and wow do i kind of feel like a douche for saying that, but in that case i literally mean what ipso facto means), all non-utilitarian clothing in humans comes down to trait-display because that's the entire reason that non-utilitarian clothing exists in the first place.
it seems pretty bog-standard logic to me to then conclude that non-utilitarian clothing is by necessity of its existence about showing off for potential mates, since showing off for potential mates is (as just established) the entire purpose of trait display in the first place.
this isn't rocket science or some wild conspiracy theory, i didn't just dream this up out of nowhere in order to invent a reason clothing exists, i posit this assertion because it is the valid conclusion of the facts in evidence.
look at the studies, look at the data - this is all well established.
if i've misinterpreted the data, fine - show me where i'm wrong and i'll gladly change my perspective.
but just sitting there crying that i'm a sexist meanie poopoo head because.... what, because you don't like the data?
well that's just pathetic.
so am i, and yet you people keep doing it. it's honestly kind of impressive.
and you evidently joyfully ignored all the other words around them in order to harp endlessly on the most ridiculous extrapolation one could possibly make based on a single sentence.Those are your words. You typed them. And then you quoted them again.
and then, despite the fact that i have no said "no, that is not what i meant" to your ridiculous straw man, you're here STILL harping on me about it completely ignoring the fact that i've attempted to correct you people a dozen times.
at this point it's rather clear that you're going the route of "ignore what is front of you because you have a pre-existing rage boner you need to satisfy" and i'm just the unfortunate target of your bias.
i'd also like to point out the delicious irony of people, notably toni, doing literally the thing they're falsely accusing me of: making the claim that they know the inside of another person's head better than they do.
way to follow fox news logic, people.
This post is simply contradictory. I don't see how you can be taking other social aspects of display into account while also insisting that
Either there are social displays for reasons other than sexual receptivity, or there aren't. The claim that "all" social status is connected to sexuality is ridiculous, considering that human fertility and human social displays aren't correlated; people still produce conscious affect well before and long after their fertile period, very much unlike the sexual displays of other animals.the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')
You also seem to be extremely confused about the definition of a biological trait. Clothing is not a trait, and it cannot evolve. Indeed, traits themselves do not evolve, though evolution in a sense produces them. But clothing is a human artifact, and thus not a phenotypical question at all. We produce it, we define it, reinvent and redesign it. Our creativity and capacity for complex planning such as is necessary to manufacture tools is a trait. But those tools are not themselves traits, and are not subject to phenotypic variation in the same way that traits are. If you're going to continue manspalining biology as you understand it, you could at least stop misusing the basic terminology of the field.
I'll be happy to analyze your "data", should you actually produce any. But it seems you are similarly confused about the meaning of that term. For instance, no data is cited in the quoted post. To a scientist, data is not a synonym for your opinions, or of vague appeals to authority, it has have certain qualities to be considered data. Such as being, for instance, a quantifiable measurement garnered in some way from observations of the natural world.