Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
10 Oct 1995 22:58:14 -0400 (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>> I don't see any way to prove or disprove sex selection changes for
>> anything in general.

>Which would turn you on more?
>A woman with nice smooth naked skin,
>Or a woman with nice sleek fur?
>Be honest.

I certainly prefer a female with nice smooth skin. But that's not the
problem. As far as it's used "sex selection" is equivalent to
"whatever we cannot show/demonstrate convincingly that is attributable
to some other cause." It doesn't seem to have much value ;it's
as if we said that whatever survived had characteristics which
had survival value. There's no predictive value and sounds almost
as if justification after the fact or a kind of cheap hindsight
which is almost certain to be 20/20.

>I know it is difficult to seperate societal effects, but
>some evidenct can be gained from "what turns you on" I would

Well, as far as societal effects go, I remember reading that in
some Latin American countries some women don't shave their legs
so as to show descent from the Spaniards instead of the native
Americans. In some countries women don't shave their legs because
they haven't yet picked up the habit/custom and nobody really cares.


Regards, Mark