Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
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 » 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.

Eduk
Posts: 2251
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

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

Post by Eduk » November 29th, 2018, 5:18 am

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: 2059
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 » 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.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2863
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

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

Post by Burning ghost » November 29th, 2018, 4:10 pm

I’d like a definition of “sexually fit” please.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR » 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.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Kathyd
Posts: 55
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

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

Post by Kathyd » December 1st, 2018, 3:10 am

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: 55
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

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

Post by Kathyd » December 2nd, 2018, 4:52 am

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: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR » December 4th, 2018, 2:46 am

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: 55
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

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

Post by Kathyd » December 4th, 2018, 6:40 pm

LuckyR wrote:
December 4th, 2018, 2:46 am
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.
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: 107
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 » December 4th, 2018, 9:19 pm

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: 107
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 » December 4th, 2018, 9:21 pm

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: 107
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 » December 4th, 2018, 9:27 pm

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: 107
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 » December 4th, 2018, 9:30 pm

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: 107
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 » December 4th, 2018, 9:31 pm

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