An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
curvedinfinity
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 28th, 2018, 1:36 pm

An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by curvedinfinity »

Hello, I am new here and have never thought of myself as a philosopher, but after searching for someone to speak to about ideas that have been burning into me lately, I saw that the people who consider themselves philosophers speak and think about exactly these types of ideas.

The philosophy I bring to you today is that humans have a bias against humans with low sexual fitness, and that it is the largest and most pervasive type of discrimination.

The predominant belief of the current western culture is that all people are created equal and all people have equal opportunity. We know this is not true for race and gender, so one could posit that other types of discrimination exist that aren't accepted. When I began thinking about the concept that sexual fitness discrimination exists, the world changed completely in terms of my view of interactions.

I believe the easiest place to see a stark example of this type of discrimination is in super hero movies.

Categorically the heros have inherent powers which they were often born with. The distinction of "born with" is important because it signifies hereditary sexual value that can be passed down to children. For example, Superman has his super powers and eventually passes those on to his son. Batman has peak-human fighting skill, but more importantly was born with incredible wealth that can be passed down to his children. The mutants of X-Men similarly have inherent power. All heros are among the most physically attractive characters of their sex and they typically come from healthy families.

Categorically the villains have inherent flaws which they were often born with. Almost across the board villains have mental disabilities which are predominantly hereditary such as autism and psychopathy. Furthermore most villains are ugly. Many are frail and disfigured. They often come from poor backgrounds and fought for their place.

We watch these movies because we enjoy fantasizing about being the hero, and we project the flaws of villains on our own enemies.

However if you imagine yourself playing the role of the hero instead of the beautiful actor on screen, and imagine watching yourself in the movie, you will may be uncomfortable or embarrassed. I personally would feel extremely embarrassed because the audience would not react the same to my body and face in place of the actor's even if I acted identically.

I believe this is a shining example of how the primary attribute that gives us bias for heros and against villains is not their actions. Sometimes we witness heros kill and abuse their enemies (the expendable no-name grunts who the villain sends against the hero) more than we do witness the villains, yet we remain on the hero's side. He was justified for some reason. I believe that reason is ultimately as simple as the hero is more sexually fit.

If you begin looking at life through this lens, it gives a new perspective to all social structures. Social groups of peers are almost always organized with the most sexually fit person leading, and the least sexually fit person having the least attention and most responsibilities.

In this way, if a person is born unfit sexually, be it physically or mentally, they have a much harder life than someone who is born more sexually fit. If they resist the social pressure to conform as subservient follower, they are pigeonholed as villains -- "creeps". Some villains in superhero movies are good examples of this. A typical story of a villain has them starting life as an innocent follower, but they are bullied until they snap, and decide to wreak vengenance in some way. If we watched a hero's character in the same storyline, we would likely not approve of the "snap" but we would justify their actions and call the man "broken" instead of "evil" and think of them as redeemable instead of unredeemable.

In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Eduk »

Looks matter. This is pretty obvious.
The effects are complex though.
There are endless examples of extremely good looking individuals who have lived miserably and counter examples of ugly people with happy lives.
Let me put it this way. If I go to a job interview I speak my mind honestly. Do I do this to increase my chances of employment? Or do I do this to test whether this is a company I would wish to work for?
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Hereandnow »

curvedinfinity
In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
SInce you think it would be good to air this issue in a philosophical conversation, you must be interested in philosophical answers. So: look to basic assumptions that underlie what it is you are arguing about, which is fairness in the distribution of advantages in society. No reason to single one, but if you want a particularly poignant one, go to India, say, and observe true wretchedness.
Granted,talking about basic assumptions is not nearly as sexy as batman and sexual unfitness, but I only mean to point out that the indignation you seem to have for the lesser endowed stretches across the board. Steven Hawking was not very attractive in his later condition, but was he not compensated? Perhaps yes, but this doesn't take the matter far enough, for more question lie on the horizon, ones that go deeper still: Should we all be "compensated" like Hawking was, and should this be built into a system of government? What is the morally justifying basis for inequality? Does it exist? That is, can inequalities be resolved on grounds of utility, what works, that is? Why do we owe any respect to issues about inequality at all? Why not just let the social Darwinists have their way and let the lesser fall away? How about eugenics?: surely the sexually unfit, and all kinds of "unfitness" are an undesirable presence in our gene pool and what say we just weed them out to make the world a better place without the nuisance of having to help nature's errors (i.e., flawed people). Can't do any of this? Why not? Where lies the dignity of a human being if not solely in that that which is observable IN a human being? We admire those who have it all, batman, for example, but does he deserve our admiration having done nothing come to possess all he has?
This is the unglamorous side of ethical inquiry.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Burning ghost »

I’d like a definition of “sexually fit” please.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by LuckyR »

Burning ghost wrote: November 29th, 2018, 4:10 pm I’d like a definition of “sexually fit” please.
I share your interest since the OP could substitute "sexually attractive" successfully, which implies (for most people) a very different meaning.

In addition, in the context of the subject matter the use of the word "discrimination" is more likely to mislead than clarify.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Kathyd »

LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2018, 3:56 pm
Burning ghost wrote: November 29th, 2018, 4:10 pm I’d like a definition of “sexually fit” please.
I share your interest since the OP could substitute "sexually attractive" successfully, which implies (for most people) a very different meaning.

In addition, in the context of the subject matter the use of the word "discrimination" is more likely to mislead than clarify.
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Kathyd »

LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2018, 3:56 pm
Burning ghost wrote: November 29th, 2018, 4:10 pm I’d like a definition of “sexually fit” please.
I share your interest since the OP could substitute "sexually attractive" successfully, which implies (for most people) a very different meaning.

In addition, in the context of the subject matter the use of the word "discrimination" is more likely to mislead than clarify.
I agree. Yes, it seems the OP is lamenting the fact that sexual attractiveness plays a big role in the social hierarchy, and in particular because this attractiveness or lack thereof has nothing to do with merit. And I would think most people would agree with this.

I think that all of us have witnessed this kind of "discrimination", and most of us are probably disgusted by it. However, this is "human nature", isn't it? Not much we can do about it, although we can make sure that we ourselves do not succumb to it. But it will probably always be a part of how humans generally interact with each other in society.

I remember thinking a lot about this sort of "discrimination" growing up, as my younger sister was what the OP would call "sexually unfit", and I saw the way people treated her, which was quite terrible to say the least. She was a very nice person - helpful, caring, the kind of person who would never let you down - but in spite of this she was ostracized, teased, and made fun of by all the other kids at our school. It was agonizing to watch, but it instilled in me the desire to never judge someone by their looks, but rather by what they are.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by LuckyR »

Kathyd wrote: December 2nd, 2018, 4:52 am
LuckyR wrote: November 30th, 2018, 3:56 pm

I share your interest since the OP could substitute "sexually attractive" successfully, which implies (for most people) a very different meaning.

In addition, in the context of the subject matter the use of the word "discrimination" is more likely to mislead than clarify.
I agree. Yes, it seems the OP is lamenting the fact that sexual attractiveness plays a big role in the social hierarchy, and in particular because this attractiveness or lack thereof has nothing to do with merit. And I would think most people would agree with this.

I think that all of us have witnessed this kind of "discrimination", and most of us are probably disgusted by it. However, this is "human nature", isn't it? Not much we can do about it, although we can make sure that we ourselves do not succumb to it. But it will probably always be a part of how humans generally interact with each other in society.

I remember thinking a lot about this sort of "discrimination" growing up, as my younger sister was what the OP would call "sexually unfit", and I saw the way people treated her, which was quite terrible to say the least. She was a very nice person - helpful, caring, the kind of person who would never let you down - but in spite of this she was ostracized, teased, and made fun of by all the other kids at our school. It was agonizing to watch, but it instilled in me the desire to never judge someone by their looks, but rather by what they are.
As everyone knows children are very cruel (and young single dating people often act like children). OTOH adults can act... more adult-like and therefore the tendency to judge women by their looks and men by their earning potential can be blunted, that is folks are more appreciated for their character.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 59
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by Kathyd »

LuckyR wrote: December 4th, 2018, 2:46 amAs everyone knows children are very cruel (and young single dating people often act like children). OTOH adults can act... more adult-like and therefore the tendency to judge women by their looks and men by their earning potential can be blunted, that is folks are more appreciated for their character.
Well, I agree that adults are generally more mature about this than children. But it seems that in my sister's case they still can't get past appearances. I mean, I know it can be hard given how disfigured and scarred she is, but I still expect better from grown adults. So even tho I myself have never had to experience this kind of thing as I've been extremely blessed in this area, I can definitely relate to the OP's viewpoint.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by h_k_s »

curvedinfinity wrote: November 28th, 2018, 2:31 pm Hello, I am new here and have never thought of myself as a philosopher, but after searching for someone to speak to about ideas that have been burning into me lately, I saw that the people who consider themselves philosophers speak and think about exactly these types of ideas.

The philosophy I bring to you today is that humans have a bias against humans with low sexual fitness, and that it is the largest and most pervasive type of discrimination.

The predominant belief of the current western culture is that all people are created equal and all people have equal opportunity. We know this is not true for race and gender, so one could posit that other types of discrimination exist that aren't accepted. When I began thinking about the concept that sexual fitness discrimination exists, the world changed completely in terms of my view of interactions.

I believe the easiest place to see a stark example of this type of discrimination is in super hero movies.

Categorically the heros have inherent powers which they were often born with. The distinction of "born with" is important because it signifies hereditary sexual value that can be passed down to children. For example, Superman has his super powers and eventually passes those on to his son. Batman has peak-human fighting skill, but more importantly was born with incredible wealth that can be passed down to his children. The mutants of X-Men similarly have inherent power. All heros are among the most physically attractive characters of their sex and they typically come from healthy families.

Categorically the villains have inherent flaws which they were often born with. Almost across the board villains have mental disabilities which are predominantly hereditary such as autism and psychopathy. Furthermore most villains are ugly. Many are frail and disfigured. They often come from poor backgrounds and fought for their place.

We watch these movies because we enjoy fantasizing about being the hero, and we project the flaws of villains on our own enemies.

However if you imagine yourself playing the role of the hero instead of the beautiful actor on screen, and imagine watching yourself in the movie, you will may be uncomfortable or embarrassed. I personally would feel extremely embarrassed because the audience would not react the same to my body and face in place of the actor's even if I acted identically.

I believe this is a shining example of how the primary attribute that gives us bias for heros and against villains is not their actions. Sometimes we witness heros kill and abuse their enemies (the expendable no-name grunts who the villain sends against the hero) more than we do witness the villains, yet we remain on the hero's side. He was justified for some reason. I believe that reason is ultimately as simple as the hero is more sexually fit.

If you begin looking at life through this lens, it gives a new perspective to all social structures. Social groups of peers are almost always organized with the most sexually fit person leading, and the least sexually fit person having the least attention and most responsibilities.

In this way, if a person is born unfit sexually, be it physically or mentally, they have a much harder life than someone who is born more sexually fit. If they resist the social pressure to conform as subservient follower, they are pigeonholed as villains -- "creeps". Some villains in superhero movies are good examples of this. A typical story of a villain has them starting life as an innocent follower, but they are bullied until they snap, and decide to wreak vengenance in some way. If we watched a hero's character in the same storyline, we would likely not approve of the "snap" but we would justify their actions and call the man "broken" instead of "evil" and think of them as redeemable instead of unredeemable.

In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
I will un-load your statements one at a time as follows in the following responses to your original post (O/P):

"... people that consider themselves philosophers …" -- So YOU do not consider us as philosophers ??

A - What is your definition of philosophers ??

B - What do you know about us ??

It would seem likely if not self-evident (a prior according to Immanuel Kant) that the answers to "A" and "B" are "none" and "nothing".

Ergo by Aristotle's syllogism (not to be confused with Stoic syllogism) you cannot judge us.

Say rather "according to philosophers LIKE YOURSELVES … ".

Just a recommendation.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by h_k_s »

curvedinfinity wrote: November 28th, 2018, 2:31 pm Hello, I am new here and have never thought of myself as a philosopher, but after searching for someone to speak to about ideas that have been burning into me lately, I saw that the people who consider themselves philosophers speak and think about exactly these types of ideas.

The philosophy I bring to you today is that humans have a bias against humans with low sexual fitness, and that it is the largest and most pervasive type of discrimination.

The predominant belief of the current western culture is that all people are created equal and all people have equal opportunity. We know this is not true for race and gender, so one could posit that other types of discrimination exist that aren't accepted. When I began thinking about the concept that sexual fitness discrimination exists, the world changed completely in terms of my view of interactions.

I believe the easiest place to see a stark example of this type of discrimination is in super hero movies.

Categorically the heros have inherent powers which they were often born with. The distinction of "born with" is important because it signifies hereditary sexual value that can be passed down to children. For example, Superman has his super powers and eventually passes those on to his son. Batman has peak-human fighting skill, but more importantly was born with incredible wealth that can be passed down to his children. The mutants of X-Men similarly have inherent power. All heros are among the most physically attractive characters of their sex and they typically come from healthy families.

Categorically the villains have inherent flaws which they were often born with. Almost across the board villains have mental disabilities which are predominantly hereditary such as autism and psychopathy. Furthermore most villains are ugly. Many are frail and disfigured. They often come from poor backgrounds and fought for their place.

We watch these movies because we enjoy fantasizing about being the hero, and we project the flaws of villains on our own enemies.

However if you imagine yourself playing the role of the hero instead of the beautiful actor on screen, and imagine watching yourself in the movie, you will may be uncomfortable or embarrassed. I personally would feel extremely embarrassed because the audience would not react the same to my body and face in place of the actor's even if I acted identically.

I believe this is a shining example of how the primary attribute that gives us bias for heros and against villains is not their actions. Sometimes we witness heros kill and abuse their enemies (the expendable no-name grunts who the villain sends against the hero) more than we do witness the villains, yet we remain on the hero's side. He was justified for some reason. I believe that reason is ultimately as simple as the hero is more sexually fit.

If you begin looking at life through this lens, it gives a new perspective to all social structures. Social groups of peers are almost always organized with the most sexually fit person leading, and the least sexually fit person having the least attention and most responsibilities.

In this way, if a person is born unfit sexually, be it physically or mentally, they have a much harder life than someone who is born more sexually fit. If they resist the social pressure to conform as subservient follower, they are pigeonholed as villains -- "creeps". Some villains in superhero movies are good examples of this. A typical story of a villain has them starting life as an innocent follower, but they are bullied until they snap, and decide to wreak vengenance in some way. If we watched a hero's character in the same storyline, we would likely not approve of the "snap" but we would justify their actions and call the man "broken" instead of "evil" and think of them as redeemable instead of unredeemable.

In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
"The philosophy I bring to you today …" -- THAT is NOT philosophy.

Aesthetics is Philosophy. You are on a topic that is within the realm of aesthetics (physical beauty) however your statement is merely a supposition within aesthetics. It is NOT a philosophy.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by h_k_s »

curvedinfinity wrote: November 28th, 2018, 2:31 pm Hello, I am new here and have never thought of myself as a philosopher, but after searching for someone to speak to about ideas that have been burning into me lately, I saw that the people who consider themselves philosophers speak and think about exactly these types of ideas.

The philosophy I bring to you today is that humans have a bias against humans with low sexual fitness, and that it is the largest and most pervasive type of discrimination.

The predominant belief of the current western culture is that all people are created equal and all people have equal opportunity. We know this is not true for race and gender, so one could posit that other types of discrimination exist that aren't accepted. When I began thinking about the concept that sexual fitness discrimination exists, the world changed completely in terms of my view of interactions.

I believe the easiest place to see a stark example of this type of discrimination is in super hero movies.

Categorically the heros have inherent powers which they were often born with. The distinction of "born with" is important because it signifies hereditary sexual value that can be passed down to children. For example, Superman has his super powers and eventually passes those on to his son. Batman has peak-human fighting skill, but more importantly was born with incredible wealth that can be passed down to his children. The mutants of X-Men similarly have inherent power. All heros are among the most physically attractive characters of their sex and they typically come from healthy families.

Categorically the villains have inherent flaws which they were often born with. Almost across the board villains have mental disabilities which are predominantly hereditary such as autism and psychopathy. Furthermore most villains are ugly. Many are frail and disfigured. They often come from poor backgrounds and fought for their place.

We watch these movies because we enjoy fantasizing about being the hero, and we project the flaws of villains on our own enemies.

However if you imagine yourself playing the role of the hero instead of the beautiful actor on screen, and imagine watching yourself in the movie, you will may be uncomfortable or embarrassed. I personally would feel extremely embarrassed because the audience would not react the same to my body and face in place of the actor's even if I acted identically.

I believe this is a shining example of how the primary attribute that gives us bias for heros and against villains is not their actions. Sometimes we witness heros kill and abuse their enemies (the expendable no-name grunts who the villain sends against the hero) more than we do witness the villains, yet we remain on the hero's side. He was justified for some reason. I believe that reason is ultimately as simple as the hero is more sexually fit.

If you begin looking at life through this lens, it gives a new perspective to all social structures. Social groups of peers are almost always organized with the most sexually fit person leading, and the least sexually fit person having the least attention and most responsibilities.

In this way, if a person is born unfit sexually, be it physically or mentally, they have a much harder life than someone who is born more sexually fit. If they resist the social pressure to conform as subservient follower, they are pigeonholed as villains -- "creeps". Some villains in superhero movies are good examples of this. A typical story of a villain has them starting life as an innocent follower, but they are bullied until they snap, and decide to wreak vengenance in some way. If we watched a hero's character in the same storyline, we would likely not approve of the "snap" but we would justify their actions and call the man "broken" instead of "evil" and think of them as redeemable instead of unredeemable.

In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
"... in … movies …" -- you like movies.

Movies is a word that comes from "moving picture shows".

Moving picture shows were a form of lite drama from the early 1900's.

They are just entertainment -- mostly comedies.

The ancient Greeks invented comedies to satirize their political leaders, mostly in Athens.

There was also drama and tragedy but those are separate topics.

Drama was to the Athenians like modern documentaries are to us -- drama about war and intrique etc.

Tragedy is about the Gods and the fate of humankind.

That Achilles fought against the Queen of the Amazons in a deadly struggle at the battle for Troy, and after he had vanquished her and she lay dying is his arms, they actually then fell in love. And with that unrequited love she died in his arms. THAT is Greek tragedy.

Modern movies are quite shallow. I would not recommend that you go there for your philosophy.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by h_k_s »

curvedinfinity wrote: November 28th, 2018, 2:31 pm Hello, I am new here and have never thought of myself as a philosopher, but after searching for someone to speak to about ideas that have been burning into me lately, I saw that the people who consider themselves philosophers speak and think about exactly these types of ideas.

The philosophy I bring to you today is that humans have a bias against humans with low sexual fitness, and that it is the largest and most pervasive type of discrimination.

The predominant belief of the current western culture is that all people are created equal and all people have equal opportunity. We know this is not true for race and gender, so one could posit that other types of discrimination exist that aren't accepted. When I began thinking about the concept that sexual fitness discrimination exists, the world changed completely in terms of my view of interactions.

I believe the easiest place to see a stark example of this type of discrimination is in super hero movies.

Categorically the heros have inherent powers which they were often born with. The distinction of "born with" is important because it signifies hereditary sexual value that can be passed down to children. For example, Superman has his super powers and eventually passes those on to his son. Batman has peak-human fighting skill, but more importantly was born with incredible wealth that can be passed down to his children. The mutants of X-Men similarly have inherent power. All heros are among the most physically attractive characters of their sex and they typically come from healthy families.

Categorically the villains have inherent flaws which they were often born with. Almost across the board villains have mental disabilities which are predominantly hereditary such as autism and psychopathy. Furthermore most villains are ugly. Many are frail and disfigured. They often come from poor backgrounds and fought for their place.

We watch these movies because we enjoy fantasizing about being the hero, and we project the flaws of villains on our own enemies.

However if you imagine yourself playing the role of the hero instead of the beautiful actor on screen, and imagine watching yourself in the movie, you will may be uncomfortable or embarrassed. I personally would feel extremely embarrassed because the audience would not react the same to my body and face in place of the actor's even if I acted identically.

I believe this is a shining example of how the primary attribute that gives us bias for heros and against villains is not their actions. Sometimes we witness heros kill and abuse their enemies (the expendable no-name grunts who the villain sends against the hero) more than we do witness the villains, yet we remain on the hero's side. He was justified for some reason. I believe that reason is ultimately as simple as the hero is more sexually fit.

If you begin looking at life through this lens, it gives a new perspective to all social structures. Social groups of peers are almost always organized with the most sexually fit person leading, and the least sexually fit person having the least attention and most responsibilities.

In this way, if a person is born unfit sexually, be it physically or mentally, they have a much harder life than someone who is born more sexually fit. If they resist the social pressure to conform as subservient follower, they are pigeonholed as villains -- "creeps". Some villains in superhero movies are good examples of this. A typical story of a villain has them starting life as an innocent follower, but they are bullied until they snap, and decide to wreak vengenance in some way. If we watched a hero's character in the same storyline, we would likely not approve of the "snap" but we would justify their actions and call the man "broken" instead of "evil" and think of them as redeemable instead of unredeemable.

In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
I think you would be quite surprised to find out how many sexually unfit morons find each other in life and fall in love.

Take your parents for example -- nothing stopped them did it?

I am sure you do not want to be anything like them but in reality you are a perfect clone of them both together.

The good news is that you will likely be as successful as they were -- sexually unfit or not.

Carry on.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: An argument that people predominantly discriminate by judging sexual fitness

Post by h_k_s »

Hereandnow wrote: November 29th, 2018, 11:06 am
curvedinfinity
In this way, the discrimination is pervasive to every person a sexually unfit person meets. They are either servant or evil, with no option for social freedom. I think in some way most people are aware of this pattern, but there is no name for it. Is there a solution to it? Probably not. However I believe the people -- perhaps 10% of men -- deserve recognition that it does exist and their life is difficult for a reason beyond their control.
SInce you think it would be good to air this issue in a philosophical conversation, you must be interested in philosophical answers. So: look to basic assumptions that underlie what it is you are arguing about, which is fairness in the distribution of advantages in society. No reason to single one, but if you want a particularly poignant one, go to India, say, and observe true wretchedness.
Granted,talking about basic assumptions is not nearly as sexy as batman and sexual unfitness, but I only mean to point out that the indignation you seem to have for the lesser endowed stretches across the board. Steven Hawking was not very attractive in his later condition, but was he not compensated? Perhaps yes, but this doesn't take the matter far enough, for more question lie on the horizon, ones that go deeper still: Should we all be "compensated" like Hawking was, and should this be built into a system of government? What is the morally justifying basis for inequality? Does it exist? That is, can inequalities be resolved on grounds of utility, what works, that is? Why do we owe any respect to issues about inequality at all? Why not just let the social Darwinists have their way and let the lesser fall away? How about eugenics?: surely the sexually unfit, and all kinds of "unfitness" are an undesirable presence in our gene pool and what say we just weed them out to make the world a better place without the nuisance of having to help nature's errors (i.e., flawed people). Can't do any of this? Why not? Where lies the dignity of a human being if not solely in that that which is observable IN a human being? We admire those who have it all, batman, for example, but does he deserve our admiration having done nothing come to possess all he has?
This is the unglamorous side of ethical inquiry.
I don't think he/she was even close to the topic of ethics.

I think this is an aesthetics issue.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021