Evolutionary logic of the thin fad

Naked Ape by Desmond Morris is one cool book. Reread it. Gained by the new trains of thought it provided. Train of thought, very much influenced by my passion and success to lose a few kilograms of body flab. If for centuries men went behind women with wide hips, big breasts and flawless skin, it makes a lot of sense, evolutionarily as these could have been possible guarantees for good fertility, child rearing capacity in a woman. And similarly tall, big, brawny, hairy men must have been loved by women too . Tall- for the larger vision range, big anf brawny- for the offense capability, and hairy - for the camouflage (:-D!! who knows). hee hee. But why I am elaborating so much on long long ago trends is that, I really wanna enter into a serious ponder on why suddenly men lost their interest in wide hips and butts and boobs!

ofcourse if there is a suggestion of ponder, it is but a facade to present a theory! :-) and here it is.

Human kinds must really be at it's end. As in, the resources and space is running out. More family is a maladaption indeed for the modern day mom and dads. Less fertility is indeed more adaptive. So maybe, it's the need of the times, that the huma genes are facilitating. By changing, and there by programming men to be attracted to skinny women with teeny tiny hips and breasts that could fit in a contact lens case! I know am exxagerating. But if one looks through the popular divas and actresses, one can actually see a reduction in voluptuousness. People often say that's only because of increasing health consciousness. But though there are studies saying obesity is unhealthy, there is no proof that a thin body is more healthy than a moderate constitution.

So is the case with women. Now metrosexual, mauve, light green type men are more appealing to women than the mountain man type dark brown , maroon type ones. A little less the masculine virility and a little more the accomodating companiability.



PS: Here is a sculpture of a woman from Mauryan times. It's not that one is beautiful than the other. It's just adaptation logic. To be thin. And desire thin. Follow it and get more mates :-P. So unthin women go go exercise. But hey also know k? That you just were born in the wrong century and that you'd have probably had warriors running after you and artists sculpting and painting you, having that body that you have!

Kinds; Of loving

Neruda was right.
There are two types of love.
One in which you love like certain dark things are to be loved. To see the other as the plant that doesn't bloom but carries within itself the light of those flowers.
One in which you love like certain simple integral things are to be loved. The other, the evening breeze which doesn't hide anything but plays on your hair all that it is.

On conditioned conversations

Associations, perceived between entities. Facilitated by proximity in time and space.. they are the building blocks to our tendencies to anticipate, act, avoid. Psychologists are funny people. They have gone to great lengths to prove and disprove this. They went around collecting cocroaches. Found good comfortable boxes to keep them in. Painstakingly made arrangements to give them electric shocks every time light was let into the box. :-) the cockroaches were kind. They rewarded the psychs with obedient learning. Every time they saw light they ran away. Apparently they had associated light with the electric shock soo to follow..

Us, a number of classes, families genera and species apart from the bugs, are the same.. You flex your hand a little up when you hear a name. Then you try pressing it down when you hear someone else's. Apparently the name you heard when ur hands were flexed up will seem more appealing the next time you hear the names .. Why? Because the mind , readily follows an association between the pleasure of stretching muscles with the sound of the name.A simple association..

Magnified, Integrated, can you imagine how powerful such small associations are in determine our attitudes and behavior?

Lately I have realised that I have conditioned to talk more when there is silence.

Usually how is it? You talk. Some one talks back. You talk again. That's the rule of conventional conversation.

Strange circumstances made me talk on and on when there was silence from the other side.. Conversation to fill in the other's silence became the habit. Soliloquy became the conditioned response.

Months later, I see the same dynamic operating in my soliloqy with the silent other. I find the silence makes me talk more than his words ever does. Is it conditioning that is at play here or is it just because silence offers a more fertile ground for interpretations of the other, there by making us talk in all the way to respond to all the 'interpreted' comments of the other?

:-) I better not befuddle myself too much thinking about this while am sitting next to my new text book to be read.. would end up associating it with befuddlement too.