Kate recently made a posting about weight, and for some reason chose to link me in it while she wondered why American white people seem to be obsessed with overweight.
Throughout most of human history, most people didn't get enough to eat. Being somewhat-slender was the normal state of human affairs, because most people were at least a little hungry most of the time.
I invite you to read much classic literature, going all the way back to the writings of the likes of Homer. Obsession with great feasts where people ate enormous amounts of sumptuous foods was quite normal for the literature of the day. If you read this ancient literature with the notion that most people were usually at least a little hungry, this isn't in the least bit surprising. Reading a description of sumptuous feasts was rather like reading porn is for us today: titillating and evocative.
In such times, either a man or a woman who was significantly overweight was an odd thing to see. Because most people simply couldn't eat enough to get fat.
Fast-forward to the modern West: we are so wealthy that even the majority of our poor people are overweight. In fact, in today's wealthy American society, it's a sign of poverty that you're fat, because you eat a lot of hot dogs, macaroni & cheese, cheap white bread, potato chips, and other things likely to make you fat, and you have neither the leisure time nor the spare income to afford low-cal foods and a gym membership.
Thus, go back 200 years ago: if you were fat, you were likely powerful, well-respected, and wealthy, and an ideal mate. Whether you were female or male, carrying extra weight was a sign of prosperity, and power.
Indeed, in such calorie-deprived cultures, anyone, male or female, who had a metabolism that was slower than others (and thus tended to retain weight better) tended to look like someone better able to survive harsh times.
Today's modern world is the only time in human history where being obese is a sign of poverty. All that mac & cheese, cheap hamburger, and so on, that would be a veritable feast of unbelievable wealth in Homer's time, is what our "poor" people here in early 21st Century America take for granted.
Long and short of it: 200 years ago, if you were fat, you were prosperous and powerful, or at least better able to survive harsh winters. Whereas today, being fat is a sign that you are simply slovenly or poor, and not particularly desirable. Lots of Twinkies and Big Macs and Coca Cola and so on. In fact, it's a little ironic that such sumptuous fests are now the everyday meal of poor people.
The curse of modern poverty: more calories than you know what to do with.
If you want me to get even more crude, for the male, 200 years ago, a voluptuous female indicated a woman who could probably bear and nurse many children even through harsh times. Today, at a time where we know that most children and mothers survive childbirth, and that 99% of our children will survive to adulthood, such a trait no longer seems quite so desirable.
Thus a slender female indicates a desirable sexual playmate who'll bear you the 2-3 children you instinctively know you need to spread your progeny--as opposed to the 6-9 you needed in centuries past to assure that your genetic line would be passed on. In earlier times, a male who was slightly overweight was no big deal, just a sign of power and prosperity. Today, a little extra weight on a man is no big deal, but if he's extremely fat, then you know he's likely got diseases (diabetes, heart disease, slovenliness) that make him less desirable as the father of your children. So a few extra pounds on a man is no big deal, but a lot of extra pounds makes him less desirable.
Because sex is, in the end, all about how to produce the most survivable offspring. Even for people who intellectually think they don't want children, the primal urge still predominates.
Thus, in modern society, men will always seek females who are not particularly overweight, while women will care somewhat less about such things, although too much overweight will still repulse them.
And none of it, really, has anything to do with cultural values. Because instinct still predominates.
Such is my opinion, as a late 30-something male who has lost 80 pounds in the last year, and still needs to lose more. People with upbringings in poor cultures tend to still value overweight as a sign of power and prosperity, whereas people raised in wealthy cultures (and, really, "middle class white American" is obscenely wealthy by most historical standards) have an instinctive bias toward thinness as being a desirable sign of wealth and power.
Thus spaketh the Dean. ;-)
Er, Dean? The reason I linked you was simply to observe that when I've been sleep-deprived I tend to think on higher, evolution-based topics like you regularly do.
It wasn't a weight thing.
Well, you asked. ;-)
You said: "Because sex is, in the end, all about how to produce the most survivable offspring. Even for people who intellectually think they don't want children, the primal urge still predominates."
This directly contradicts most of what you said in our discussions/disagreements on the nature of homosexuality. As a matter of fact, while I recognize you were speaking simply in support of your point, I would say that "sex is all about satisfaction of primal desires, one of the most primal being the desire for immortality through passing on genes; in short, having kids."
While that still insists that having children may be an unconscious motivation for many people who don't think they want children at all, it still recognizes the very real possibility that some people feel sexual attraction for completely different reasons.
You've touched on something I've noticed going on in Hollywood. Most of the white women have to be extremely, terrifyingly skinny. But women like Halle Berry and Jennifer Lopez get to be curvy. Women like Kate Winslet who are not fat and would be considered extremely desirable in Hollywood 30 years ago are now denounced as fat. Look at the reaction to Renee Zellwegger gaining weight for her role in BJD. Afterwards so that she could be hired again she became a skeleton. I'm convinced that the only reason Catherine Zeta Jones slipped through is because a lot of people thought she was Spanish or Mexican when she first appeared and now that she has more power, it's easier for her to dictate terms.
Linden, I've noticed that, too. Now imagine my surprise when browsing through a magazine yesterday as I encountered an article about how to get "Hollywood-quality Body Parts" via exercise. Who'd they pick as their role models for the perfect posterior? Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncee. I'm telling you, it did my heart good to see women with curves being touted as an ideal.
Nathan: My view of homosexuality is to simply to take gay rights activists at their word. There's a genetic link there. Their brains are wired to be sexually atracted to the same sex. Call it a genetic quirk or error or whatever, but it's no different than being born with six toes or having one blue eye and one green eye: not the normal state of affairs, but so what? It's harmless, and reason for neither condemnation nor pity. I myself have a genetic inheritance that tends to give me sinus problems. Does this mean I'm perverse, or could stop having runny noses in winter if I "really wanted to?"
Some will hate me for saying this, but, gay people simply have a misfiring in their brains--they're attracted to the same sex. This is no more reason to condemn them or be repulsed by them than to condemn or repulsed by a child born with asthma. Why by cruel about it? No one's genetically ideal, except maybe Michael Jordan. ;-)
And no, just because you've in your lifetime occasionally felt a homosexual inkling--which every normal person has felt at one time of his or her life--doesn't mean you can generalize about people born with such urges predominating.
Venomous Kate, maybe women with curves are being touted again because the economy is in bad shape.
Dean, I'm actually somewhat happy to hear you write that. I've sort of kept my mouth shut about the fact that I came to the conclusion long ago that homosexuality was a biological error. Mainly because the point of a reproductive system is to reproduce and two men cannot do so. This doesn't mean I think gay people should be 'fixed' (hell no!) or not be able to get married (they have as much right to happiness as straight people), but that it is just a quirk like you said.
Linden (& Kate): I am with you in that modern American society has an unhealthy, rather sick obsession with ridiculously skinny females. In fact, I am rather repulsed. When I look at Sarah Jessica Parker, for example, all I can think is: WILL YOU PLEASE EAT SOMETHING??!?!?!?
I understand that the 2-dimensional nature of photography makes such people look more weighty than they really are, but puh-leeeze!
But since we're delving into evolutionary psychology: if we've reached a point where we've disconnected reproduction from sex, then a very thin woman is a limber sexual playmate, and thus desirable from that aspect.
A few extra pounds on a man doesn't get in the way of that, fairly or unfairly.
I don't dispute, at all, that today's society tends to put a ridiculous amount of pressure on women to be unnaturally thin. My only observation is that in ancient Greek and Roman culture, in which masculine ideals of beauty tended to predominate, I'm not sure life was all that much better for anyone.
"if we've reached a point where we've disconnected reproduction from sex, then a very thin woman is a limber sexual playmate, and thus desirable from that aspect."
Not really. More like a bag of bones.
I can hope it is, to some extent, a fad - think of the poor flapper, who had to do contortions and wear the equvalent of an Ace Bandage if she was larger than a 34A. Alas, it's been going on too long for me to believe it, even if Twiggy would be called overweight in today's model market.
But I don't really buy the photography bit: sure didn't hurt Jayne Mansfield, Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe (whose BMI at her height would have called her dangerously thin, heh-heh) or a host of others. Nor was the figure all-important: mid-size, or average, is great, too, and has been for some time.
No, it is the world of "fashion" that insists on naught but skin to drape over bone. A couple of years ago, a niece said she was glad she could wear white stockings at work: I reminded her that her grandmother and great-grandmother, also nurses, fought to be able to wear something other than white. And a couple of years ago the big thing was low boots (about 2" above the ankle) that buttoned up! My own great-grandma HATED those! Now, hers actually buttoned, they did not use a hidden zipper, but they still look less than comfy...
I could go on, most people could, but one final thing: neckties. A French (ah-HAH) cavalry wore scarves so they could recognize each other in battle, the English thought it a useful idea, and now we seem to be stuck with this military holdover. Oh, well, beats a ruff.
Holy Cow, Dean.
Admitting our reproductive organs exist primarily for the purpose of reproduction has been a long time in coming.
If, indeed, homosexuality is a quirk of nature, a misfiring of the brain, then what is wrong with trying to correct it? No one would argue with the moral desirability of attempting to overcome genetic "defects" of a physical nature. Certainly, there is much acclaimed scientific research into overcoming mental "defects" as well. So if homosexuality is a "defect" or "quirk of nature," why is saying so wrong? And what is wrong with asserting that such defects are ultimately undesirable and need to be overcome, if possible?
Of course, there is currently NO scientific proof for this assertion. Your willingness to accept the assertion of the homosexual lobby is just your way of being nice. And the simple assertion that it might possibly be attributable to genetic defect will certainly alienate you from the homosexuals you are trying to accomodate.
Welcome to no man's land, Dean.
Actually, there is substantial proof that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality--at least as much proof as there is for there being a gentic basis for being left-handed anyway.
And yes, there is evidence that it could perhaps be corrected chemically. There is none to speak of that says it can be corrected through behavior therapy, but certainly, what we have available to us says that, theroetically anyway, that homsexuality might potentially be "cured" in the same way as we correct depression.
Now the next question for you, Scott Harris: if I suffer from mental depression, do you have a right to force me to take "therapy" for it?
Or if through some biochemmical quirk, I wind up sexually attracted to my own sex, do you have a "right" to force--force--me to take whatever pills or treatments will make me stop feeling that way?
And what if I don't want your pills, or your psychological treatments? Who the hell am I hurting--besides, in your worldview I suppose--me myself?
In fact, let's just view it from a Christian determinist perspective. Let's say I like to drink too much: do you have a right to force me to take treatments for alcoholism, whether I want them or not?
And do you, as a Christian, have a right to condemn me as morally inferior to you if I choose not to take such treatments?
I ask you, once again: what right have you to determine the free choices made by others, most particularly if they aren't directly harming others?
Or do you argue that, somehow, the homosexual is more dangerous and more harmful than the rapist, thief, murderer, or child molester?
Please enlighten me.
I'll take a shot at that.
According to today's USAToday.com, obesity cost American taxpayers $75B last year. I have no idea how much the AIDS virus, alcoholism, various tobacco-related heart and lung disorders and diabetes cost (perhaps some of these are factored into the $75B figure) but I feel that either:
a) we who pay the taxes that underwrite the true costs of elective diseases should get to abolish the behaviors which give rise to the costs, or;
b) insurance companies should be permitted to charge everyone different rates based on the deductables we are willing to select for treatment of elective diseases.
I've raised this topic several times both here and at Kate's, and no one has been willing to support the idea of legalizing buffet-style health insurance, despite the fact that it's obviously the quickest and fairest way to drive down the cost of health care while maintaining solid coverage for treatment of non-elective diseases.
As a Christian, I'd like to direct my charitable resources towards people who have no choice to avoid their diseases, and use what's left over to help those who smoke, drink, eat more than they exercise, have promiscuous unprotected sex with strangers, throw themselves off of buildings or otherwise harm themselves voluntarily.
And I'd like to leave you completely free to direct your money towards whatever causes you feel to be most worthy of your support.
Dean,
Just to jump in here. As a Christian, I actually agree with most of what you say. I don't believe is forcing anyone to change things in their private life (trying to do so us usually a waste of time anyway).
However I do have comments on this:
"And do you, as a Christian, have a right to condemn me as morally inferior to you if I choose not to take such treatments?"
On what basis do you consider morality? As a Christian I base morality on the concept of sin as defined by Christ. From that perspective I would say you would certainly be immoral if you persisted in sin. (Incidentally we are all immoral, as God's standard is far beyond our reach) Still it is not "being gay" that is a sin any more than "being an alcoholic" is. It is the action, not the desire or the temptation. If you continued to drink to the point where it was a problem you would be sinning and therefore behaving "immorally" from my perspective. The existence of a genetic factor that increases your likelihood or your desire to exhibit such behavior is irrelevant. Your not seeking help to correct such a factor is also irrelevant. The only factor that matters is the action. Not seeking such help would be foolish in my view, but not in itself immoral or a sin.
I see homosexuality the same way. The practice of homosexual sex I see as a sin and therefore as immoral. The desire for it, the inclination toward it I do not. For that matter I see heterosexual sex outside marriage the same way. Though it is completely natural for us all to desire it, the fact that we do does not make us immoral. In the same way someone who is gay is not immoral, but those who practice it are behaving immorally.
I do not see that as a condemnation, as I am not judging the person (I am in no place to make such a judgment, I am no better my sins are merely different).
Aaron Pohle
Jonathan,
While I don't think your plan is completely without merit I do see a few problems.
1) How does one define elective disease? Many diseases that are defined that way are only elective in the sense that they are increased by certain behaviors, not completely created or caused by them. Diabetes for example, affects many people who are not overweight and have healthy diets. Your system would penalize them for having a condition that is defined as elective despite the fact that they did not receive it through their decisions.
2) You must also factor in that electively harmful items such as tobacco and alcohol are heavily taxed already. Therefore these elective behaviors are already penalized in a way that causes those that choose them to pay a higher rate of taxes to offset the higher government care they require.
3) Allowing insurance companies to cover less increases rather than reduces health care costs, as you end up with more people being treated for things that they are not insured for and are unable to pay for. Hospitals cannot simply not treat people who suffer from life threatening illness, they are therefore forced to give care on credit to those who are uninsured and are often unable to collect.
I'm afraid that if poor health is not enough incentive to get people to correct such elective behaviors then nothing will motivate them to change. It is a cost that society must bear unless it is willing to allow people to die. That cost can be offset, however, through selective taxes as has been done with high risk items such as tobacco and alcohol. Sadly you cannot in every case, but that is unfortunately a part of life.
On the other side, however, consider that you also pay for the health care of people who have high risk behaviors that are not seen as negatively as the ones you suggest, for example armature sports and other risky behaviors. So it's not all one sided. ;) It's not a completely fair system that we have, but it is far more fair that most alternatives that I have examined.
Just my thoughts anyway.
Aaron Pohle
Dean,
We have all sorts of desires. Sometimes I wish I was dead. Sometimes I want to kill somebody. But acting on the desire to kill myself or kill someone else would be an immoral act. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that some killers become adicted to the thrill of killing someone else. Indeed, in those with bipolar disorder, it might be argued that they have a genetic predisposition to violence. Does that make killing morally neutral?
But you might say that killing and homosexuality are not morally equivalent. When you say this, you are invoking the Harm Principle of Morality. This is the idea that as long as no harm is done, actions are morally equivalent. I don't subscribe to this moral philosophy.
What about someone who is a danger to themselves? I have never met a single homosexual whose homosexuality did not destroy at least some of his family relationships. This is because the practice of homosexuality is at odds with the whole notion of family. Families are generational, and the natural desire to reproduce oneself is thwarted by a child or grandchild who embraces homosexuality.
The desire to engage in homosexuality is not evidence of its moral equivalence with the natural state of heterosexuality. Engaging in homosexuality will tend to increase the desire, when the principle of self-discipline should come into play in informing us not to go there. Also, the Harm Principle is an invalid moral philosophy, primarily because it reduces everything to physical harm and ignores the psychological, moral, and cultural harm that actions which produce no physical harm can have. (Example: Orally abusive parents who nevertheless never spank their children are not moral)
We can play this game all day. Bottom line is you are willing to grant homosexuality equal moral status in society and I am not. Everything else is arguing past each other. I am not willing to concede my morality to your morality.
Okay Scott.
I do subscribe to the Harm Principle of Morality.
So you're right, we have nothing else to talk about.
Now, when I see you speak with equal passion, equal heat, equal emphasis, on cigarette smoking, alcoholism, premarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, and masturbation as you do on homosexuality, I will take you seriously on the argument that the "harm principle of morality" is wrong.
And let's not forget the sin of pride.
Until then? I cannot take your view seriously at all.
Jonathan,
The cost of social programs is not a valid method to justify interference in personal lives. The social programs themselves are voluntary and artificial structures. Either something is moral or immoral. Something is an individual right, or it is not.
I don't have a problem with refusing to criminalize homosexual activity. It is not necessary, nor even desirable, to criminalize all immoral behaviour.
I do have a problem with anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuality. I do have a problem with the demand that homosexuality be recognized as a normal and equal lifestyle choice. I do have a problem with allowing homosexuals to adopt children, or even to maintain custody of children which are naturally theirs. I do have a problem with the demand that homosexuals be allowed to marry, share "domestic partner" benefits, or have legally recognized civil unions.
It is one thing to refuse to criminalize immoral behaviour. It is quite another to provide legal protection to immoral activity. For this same reason, I don't think alcohol or drugs should be illegal. But I also don't think those who commit crimes while drunk or high should be able to use "incapacity" as an extenuating factor in getting lighter sentences. In fact, it should be a multiplier.
Civil society should have the right and the means to embarass, or cause immoral people to be ashamed of their actions without resorting to criminal law. And Civil law should allow this public censure without exposing citizens to lawsuits.
In the end, all laws are codification of someone's morality. It is important to know where to draw the line. Unfortunately, our current legal system equates legality with morality. It doesn't have to be that way. It is possible to allow some immoral acts to nevertheless be legal while simultaneously exposed to the moral pressure of civil society.
Dean,
In Protestant Christian theology, freedom is important because without freedom, one cannot freely choose God. This implies a freedom to choose to do evil. But it doesn't change the nature of evil just because freedom is more important.
As far as I am concerned, my Christian belief is not threatened by allowing homosexuals to choose to engage in immoral activity. But asking me, as an equal citizen in our society, to voluntarily provide special legal protection for immoral activity is going too far. Asking me to validate immoral actions by artificially granting homosexual relationships the same status as actual marriages is going too far. I think a majority of Americans would agree with this position.
Dean,
Marriage has always been a cross-gender relationship. Homosexuals already share the same right to marry as any other citizen. They can marry any time they want.
But what they are trying to do is change the meaning of marriage to include something that it is not. This is not acceptable. We are under no obligation to give public blessing to immoral actions - even if they are legal.
Hi Aaron:
Thanks for your comments. I don't consider my system as "penalizing" anyone's behavior any more than I consider the Pike's Peak road builders as "penalizing" those who disregard the signs and drive off the mountainside. The road has inherent risks. The decision is of which behaviors we want to subsidize.
Your point about the semi-electability of diabetes is a good one. To the extent that a disease can be scientifically proven to be more genetically-determined than elective, I would prefer that it be grouped among those diseases for which no variation in deductables is permitted.
I would also expect hospitals to be run as for-profit enterprises, and for people to have the right to carry no insurance whatsoever if they are risk-neutral and pay for treatment out of their own pockets if they so choose. They can also treat uninsured patients with their own funds if they so choose. I will opt to patronize those which don't, since such hospitals won't demand that I subsidize anyone else's care.
I agree that some health-destructive products are taxed, but what about health behaviors (e.g. promiscuous unprotected sex) for which no product can be blamed. Better to sell the products at their market price, with the understanding that everyone is going to pay the full cost of his or her behavior down the line.
I am not asking anyone to change his or her behavior. It is not my place to enforce my moral code on these life choices. What I objectively know to be true is that some life choices are stupid (and to my view, immoral) and some are smart. I don't need anyone to subscribe to my way of thinking. I just need them to stay away from my cash.
No system can be completely fair, but the closer we get to fairness ("internalizing the externalized costs of bad behavior" in economic terms) the better life will be for our society as a whole, since everyone will be getting as close as possible to what he or she has chosen. When "good" (societally helpful) behavior is rewarded and "bad" (societally injurious) behavior is punished, things get better--though certainly not easier--all of us.
Anyway, to get back to the point of your initial post, I like women with curves as well.
Hi Scott:
I think you and I are on just about exactly the same page, actually. I think there are plenty of things which are immoral but need not be illegal. I wasn't making a moral argument with regard to health care cost allocation (though it certainly has moral dimensions) so much as a societal-efficiency argument.
On an unrelated note: people seem to be using "curves" as an inaccurate euphemism for "excess body fat." In purely geometrical terms, the "curviest" women are those with large bust and hip dimensions and small waistlines. Women with large measurements across the board are more "round" than "curved."
I read somewhere (probably here) recently that homosexuality is natures way of allowing exceptional men to avoid the burden of children.
If so, then there's a survival advantage to having a small proportion of homosexuals in the population; ie it's not "unnatural" and it's not a "defect" - it's a successful variation.
As far as the Gov't is concerned, God's opinion on homosexuality is irrelevant. It's not a matter of "special legal protection for immoral activity". The Gov't is not permitted to impose special legal protection of your morality upon others.
Peter,
The acceptance of marriage as a cross gender relationship is world wide, regardless of belief in God or not, and regardless of religion or morality. Government did not create marriage. It only recognizes it. And homosexuals should not ask for government to use its coercive power to force a change in the historical and natural definition of marriage on the rest of us.
As pertains to my morality: My morality is just as valid as your morality, whatever its source. And since all laws are the codification of morality, and since I am an equal citizen in this country, I have just as much right to project my morality on the society as you do.
Government should not even have the right to ask if the source of my morality is religious or not. To do so would be to establish my morality as a religion, something the government is forbidden from doing. Any moral philosophy, whether religiously rooted or not, has equal access to our system. As far as the government is concerned, all philosophies are equally religious and equally secular. You can argue that my morality is invalid. But you cannot argue that I don't have the right to pursue my morality in the public square. That is restricting the free exercise of my religion, something else the government is not allowed to do.
Scott, as to the validity of your source of morallity, and the government's interest in it, I totally agree.
But if some weird homosexual cult that considered heterosexual marriage sinful wanted the government to impose it's morality on you, we'd politely ignore them. Why do you get to impose your morality on homosexual marriages?
Government doesn't need to change the historical or natural definition of marriage. Just the legal definition. Government doesn't need to create gay marriage, just to recognise it.
Peter:
If homosexuality were nature's way of unencumbering "exceptional men," these men would behave far less self-destrucively, from an evolutionary biology perspective. If not for homosexual sexual promiscuity, we might not even yet know of the existence of AIDS, let alone consider it a global epidemic.
Of course, intravenous drug use and heterosexual promiscuity haven't helped things either, but are beside your main point.
If you throw out the traditional definition of marriage as being between man and woman, by what logic do you limit it to only two humans, or to living humans, or to humans at all?
Dean,
I'm going to let this go after this post, because I realize that the intent of your original post was to celebrate curvy women. You certainly did not expect to get caught in a contradiction from earlier arguments.
As to cigarette smoking, alcoholism, premarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing, and masturbation.
1) Cigarette smoking is morally neutral. What is morally wrong is addiction, i.e. the inability to practice self-control. Same for Alcohol use vs. Alcoholism. In fact, Proverbs 31 actually gives a couple of cases where getting plastered is acceptable.
As to Premarital Sex, Lying, Cheating, Stealing, and Masturbation, there is no national push to legally sanction any of these activities. Indeed, no one argues that lying, cheating or stealing is morally equivalent to honesty. And the government does not punish those who discriminate against liars, cheaters and thieves. There is no "pre-marital sex" lobby or "masturbation rights" activists movement.
Again, there is a difference between refusing to criminalize immoral activity (although some forms of lying and cheating, and most forms of stealing are illegal) and giving legal protection and recognition to immoral activity.'
Certainly the Harm Principle of Morality might be invoked concerning criminality. But the legal recognition of marriage falls within the civil society portion of government activities, and within that sphere of influence, it is legitimate to consider the majority consensus of societal standards. The minority have no right to ignore and invalidate the moral concerns of the majority within the Civil realm of government.
Gorging on fatty foods is nature's way of making the most of an oppurtunity to eat. But that's self-destructive behaviour today - nature's not quite keeping up with Western civilisation.
It's hard to avoid circularity when dealing with evolution - all I can say is: we're still here, so it can't be too disadvantageous.
Where do we set the limit on which marriages to recognise? I'm a liberal. It's conservatives' job to set limits on the silly things liberals think should be allowed. Dead people can't consent, but if an unspecified number of living creatures wanted to get married to each other, then I'd probably support that.
Peter,
The government has a vested interest in recognizing marriages as a unique relationship. Society itself cannot be sustained without families. And marriages are what create families. From a "rights" standpoint, we protect individual rights. But the basic organizing unit of society is the family, not the individual. Unless children are created, nurtured, educated, civilized, and trained, the society will cease to exist. This is the only reason the government is even involved in marriage at all.
Originally, marriage was only a family organization. It was women claiming the legal right to child support from irresponsible men that created the need for government involvement. In some cases, men would promise marriage, then dump a women. In other cases, a woman would promise free sex, then illegitimally claim wife rights. It was the abuse of the oral contractual agreement of marriage that required government interference. And this was only required to protect the rights of children.
The government has no similar compelling interest in recognizing homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships cannot be generational, and therefore do not sustain society. They can be legal, but government has no business in them. And government has no right to equate marriage with homosexual relationships and all that implies.
Gay couples can adopt. Straight couples can remain childless.
Why should gov't recognise the second relationship? The first is more valuable to society.
Sheesh. Yet another thread that turned gay. At least no one's arguing that all fags are anorexic.
Dean:
"...you have neither the leisure time nor the spare income to afford low-cal foods...."
Oh, come on. I hate when people say this. I grew up working-class, among German-Americans whose idea of breakfast was molasses cake and coffee, and even our cruddiest supermarkets had tuna and affordable vegetables. Factory workers may not have time to put up their own ratatouille, but steaming a head of broccoli takes less than 20 minutes. Low-income people's carts don't steer themselves to the Tastykake aisle.
On an unrelated note: people seem to be using "curves" as an inaccurate euphemism for "excess body fat." In purely geometrical terms, the "curviest" women are those with large bust and hip dimensions and small waistlines. Women with large measurements across the board are more "round" than "curved."
Actually, when I use the word "curves", I'm referring to women with large bust/hip dimensions and small waists. When I'm referring to women with "large measurements across the board" I use the words "fat" or "big". You're the only person interpreting "curves" as a euphemism for fat.
OK, now someone said something to make ME jump into a conversation on obesity, and it has to do with "the government says it costs..." BULL SHIT.
First off, fat people eat more. That's a generalization, some fat people eat less, but IN GENERAL, they consume more. They consume more of a lot of things, but when you add it all up, they pay more in sales taxes for the food they buy. Is that in the statistic? NO!
Second, fat people also pay higher premiums in health and life insurance. Is that in the stat? NO!
Third, EVERYONE DIES! The sooner you die, the better it is for society from a cost perspective. Is that in the stat? NO!
Those statistics are so blantantly BOGUS and erroneously extrapolated, it amazes me that anyone actually repeats them in reasonably intelligent company.
Obese people die sooner. That means it is actually a long term COST SAVINGS. Someone who lives to be 90 costs society more in social security, roads, hospitals, etc. Most people stop earning wages in their mid 60s, so that means they've been living off of everyone else for 30 years. Fat people who die in their 70s only live off tax payer bennies for 5-10 years. Some don't even reach retirement age--which means they never collect a dime in social security--no medicare, drug benefits--NOTHING.
So, I don't want to hear another person quote those damn statistics. When you factor in all of the above, then talk to me, otherwise, stop repeating the lie.
From fat and thin to homosexual marriage? Well, everyone knows by now where I stand on homosexual marriage: I'm for it, but it must be left to the states, or else the radicals will take over and ban it altogether.
About the origins of homosexuality, I don't really care whether it's genetic like being black or a choice like being a Jew. It's a deviation from the statistical norm, but I disagree that it's a defect or deficiency. Here's the way I think of it by way of analogy:
I have perfect color vision. But what if I didn't? And what if nobody did? Then it would be like, e.g., John Kusch seeing only reds and and greens vs. me seeing only blues and yellows. He would see colors that I don't see and I would see colors that he doesn't see. He sees the masculine (linear, angular) beauty of the male in a special way, sees it and feels it all the way down, in his inner being. I see the feminine (encircling, curvaceous) beauty of the female, see it and feel it all the way down. And I must mention that, e.g., Mrs. du Toit or Rosemary is seeing what he sees while a Lesbian, e.g., I.T. is seeing what I see. The more fundamental division, as I see it, is androsexuals (drawn to the male) and gynosexuals (drawn to the female).
Mrs. du Toit:
"they pay more in sales taxes for the food they buy"
You're right in the main, but it should be pointed out that food and other government-approved necessities aren't taxed in some states (or at least in my home state of PA, but I don't think it's the only one).
I'd also like to point out how hilarious it is, considering the topic, that Mrs. du Toit's posted e-mail domain contains the phrase NOSPAM.
Well, I thought it was funny.
I'd also like to point out how hilarious it is, considering the topic, that Mrs. du Toit's posted e-mail domain contains the phrase NOSPAM.
Well, I thought it was funny.
Anyway! Back to my own sexuality and fat and thin and in between. That was a very interesting historical perspective Dean gave us, complete with the great feats of the Homeric epics. Also, the Eddic sagas. Lots of roast boar and mead.
I must say I'm like Dean. I prefer curvaceous, voluptuous women, full, round and smooth. Not the "Twiggy" type! I even find some fat women sexy. I also like muscular women, though preferably round and smooth rather than in "contest form".
Maybe he's right that it has to do with some sort of biological imperative to have lots of offspring. Maybe so, maybe not. If so, I'm not aware of it. It must be buried down there in my unconscious along with my Oedipal urge. All I'm aware of is that I have not only an intellectual but a gut-level aversion to the very idea of my precious bodily fluids hatching into a sprogling. I have a deep revulsion toward "sex" and "children" being used in the same sentence.
I know, I know, the self-referential irony of that last sentence. This sentence is false. Every word Steven Malcolm Anderson writes is a lie.
Back to women! (Adult, non-pregnant women.) Curvaceous, sensuous, pulchritudinous.
Typo: I meant to say great feasts. The ancient heroes enjoyed great feasts after they performed their great feats.
Jonathan, Aaron:
The idea of modifying the health insurance system is something that I have spoke of elsewhere, and I think that the idea has merit. Let me offer an alternate approach. What if we were to base the cost primarily on risk factors, the way that we do for auto insurance?
When the insurance agent calculates my premium he takes into account factor such as my age, driving record, sex, marital status, type of car, neighborhood, etc. All of these are factors that are statistically proven to impact the possibility that I will get into an accident. The base premium is adjusted up based on factors that increase my chance of getting into an accident and it is adjusted down for factors that decrease my cahnces. The system works because the actuaries constantly review the available data and adjust rates as necessary.
Now, lets apply this to health insurance. What are the risk factors in my life? I am male, so I am at risk for heart disease. There is also a history of heart disease in my family so that would be another risk factor. These would increase my premium. On the other hand, I don't smoke, don't do drugs, exercise regularly, have low (but not too low) BMI and body-fat measurements, and have a very healthy blood pressure. These things decrease the possibility that I will need health care so they would lower my premium.
Using a risk-based health insurance system we accomplish several goals. People who are insured don't have to worry about receiving treatment regardless of their premium. People who choose to live healthy lives are spend less money on services that they don't use. People who leade unhealthy lives are free to do so without worrying about being covered, but they pay extra for this luxury. These people also have the ability to lower their own premiums simply by changing their behavior, so there is now incentive to live healthy. Best of all, this can be accomplished with no government intervention including no taxation
For a libertarian like me, it seems perfect. People have the freedom to live the lifestyles that they want and the system is market-driven.
Thoughts?
Dean, I truly apologize for the unforeseen turn I brought about.
Interestingly, I feel like it has been a more honest discussion of homosexuality than the posts directly about homosexuality, but that's just me.
For the record, I have no interest in outlawing homosexuality or forcing people to undergo therapy to change.
All I have ever tried to do is fight against the defeatist "I'm gay, can't change, don't want to ever consider the possibility I could change, and anyone who says homosexuality is a choice at all is a homophobe" attitude. I've studied and observed the greater risk involved in homosexual behavior, and so I want to help mitigate the coercive aspect that the homosexual community forces onto many borderline individuals.
Interestingly, I don't think homosexuality is a defect, I think it is the confluence of different influencing factors (one component of which is often a genetic predisposition, although not a genetic destiny), and yet more people consider you more open to homosexuals than me.
Ah, well. Most of us don't understand each other anyway.
Here's the way I see the fat issue: you are pretty much on the mark, but you missed the bottom line (so to speak). The masses generally want to be the elite. The elite thus form the standard for sexual attraction. Therefore, whatever is the most prevailing characteristic of the elite will become the sexual attraction marker for the masses.
Thus, when the elite were the only ones wealthy enough to get fat, being chunky was attractive. It still is attractive in many 3rd world countries.
Thus, when we were an agrarian society, being pale was attractive because you were rich enough to not have to work in the fields. When the industrial revolution hit, the poor had to work inside, and became pale, and the rich began traveling to Mediterranean and Caribean beaches during the winter...thus, being tan became more attractive by around 1920 or so. That lust for paleness still holds in many societies where agriculture has deeper roots, like China.
Heck, big noses and weak chins were considered attractive in England because of that aspect among the royalty...until global media gave them Hollywood elites to replace that trait.
Nathan: That's another excellent historical analysis. Thank you.
As for sexual orientation being choice/not choice, I have 2 things to say:
1) It's certainly not a choice like, e.g., voting for a Republican or a Democrat or, e.g., converting to Catholicism. I sure don't remember _choosing_ to fantasize about girls instead of boys. I just did. That's interesting psychologically, but, morally, it's irrelevant.
2) I have only contempt for the whining "I can't help it, I was born this way" argument of too many homosexuals. That concedes the premise of the enemy, i.e., that homosexuality is something undesirable in some way. There are too many who say "would I choose to be vilified and persecuted?" I keep coming back to this parallel: There was that other minority who _did_ choose to be vilified and persecuted rather than give up their faith. All the Jews could easily have converted to Christianity centuries ago and thus disappeared from the pages of history. I'm so glad they didn't. I'm glad they stuck it out in the face of persecution and remained who they are. Homosexuals must do the same. I say homosexuality, both male and female, is _good_, and I, for one, don't want to live in a world without homosexuals.
There was a time, in the 1970's, before, this "it's not a choice" argument became fashionable, when they were openly proud of who they were. Blacks didn't win their rights by whining "it's not a choice, I can't help it". Instead, they proudly asserted "Black is Beautiful".
And, I must say, it is. I'm very attracted to many black women.
As someone who is both fat and married to someone of the same sex, I feel I have something special to share on this thread, but for the life of me I can't figure out just what it is.
Heh.
Men date skinny women--especially as young men, but they marry fat women.
Actually, many young men marry skinny women who turn into fat women :)
Hey Guys:
Mrs. Du Toit: it's a pretty big jump from a study being incomplete to being "a lie."
First off, fat people eat more. That's a generalization, some fat people eat less, but IN GENERAL, they consume more. They consume more of a lot of things, but when you add it all up, they pay more in sales taxes for the food they buy. Is that in the statistic? NO!
Sean already addressed this, so I'll just ask: for those states which do tax food purchases, do you for a moment imagine that these taxes (a) are directed solely at defraying the costs which consumption of the food causes, and/or (b) that this is all they were intended to cover in the first place?
Second, fat people also pay higher premiums in health and life insurance. Is that in the stat? NO!
Not nearly enough more, or else the rest of us skinny and healthy people wouldn't be experiencing rising premiums as the true cost of treating us falls. Also, the study covers government expenditures, unless I misread it. Since private insurance is a separate issue, it's natural that it wouldn't be included.
Third, EVERYONE DIES! The sooner you die, the better it is for society from a cost perspective. Is that in the stat? NO!
Yes and no. Mostly no. If you live a long time and require constant heroic efforts to keep you alive, while you aren't working any longer because you're retired, and you would have willed your unspent accumulated wealth to the government, then you're absolutely correct. Since (a) many people age gracefully and die suddenly of natural causes, (b) fewer and fewer people are retiring at age 65, and (c) the inheritance tax is in the crosshairs, I'd say your basic premise applies in many but not most or certainly all situations.
Those statistics are so blantantly BOGUS and erroneously extrapolated, it amazes me that anyone actually repeats them in reasonably intelligent company.
Hey, nothing spurs intellectual debate like insulting your opponent's intelligence. Thanks for doing your part.
Obese people die sooner. That means it is actually a long term COST SAVINGS.
Some do, some don't. It is the resources spent on someone before he/she die which is relevant, not the age at which he/she dies.
Someone who lives to be 90 costs society more in social security, roads, hospitals, etc.
Only if he or she retires and consumes more resources in retirement than he/she generates.
Most people stop earning wages in their mid 60s, so that means they've been living off of everyone else for 30 years.
Actually, almost no one retires completely by age 65 anymore, and if they paid into Social Security then they're withdrawing in accordance with the way the program is set up, and if they're living off their accumulated savings then they're not living off of everyone else. Do you believe in private property, or are you some sort of communist?
Fat people who die in their 70s only live off tax payer bennies for 5-10 years. Some don't even reach retirement age--which means they never collect a dime in social security--no medicare, drug benefits--NOTHING.
If their obesity gets to the point that they qualify for assistance as disabled, you're wrong, but this one paragraph is actually generally accurate, though also accurate for thin people who die off in their 70s as well.
So, I don't want to hear another person quote those damn statistics. When you factor in all of the above, then talk to me, otherwise, stop repeating the lie.
I've heard you post before and you're generally fairly rational. I assume this is a sore point with you, hence the tone. If you have a better study that addresses the legitimate inaccuracies you point out, I'm interested to hear it. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, the study stands with caveats pending counter-evidence. There's plenty of unincluded societal costs of obesity which I haven't complained weren't included (seat dimensions reducing theatre seating capacities, passenger weight increasing structural demands on passenger aircraft, capacity limitations on mass transit vehicles, ambulance gurney sizes having to be overengineered to carry the obese, and the treatment of physical injuries sustained by EMS personnel required to carry them to hospitals, etc.) As a first estimate, I bet the study is actually fairly neutral.
Oh . . . I married a slender woman, and her mom is a stone fox at 50+, so I'm guessing she'll age quite nicely in the weight department.
Stumpjumper: I think your proposal is fine. The reason I didn't want to leave everything purely up to market forces is that I really have no problem pitching in to help those who aren't actively trying to kill themselves through lifestyle choices, and I also don't want to give insurance companies the incentive or license to adjust their rates based on genetic profiling, as genes are something we don't (yet) have behavioral control over.
You'll find that a lot of people around here profess to be libertarian until the subject of health care funding rolls around. But I'll take what I can get.
I think we should charge healthy, active people who engage in strenuous sports more for health insurance, since they are always spraining ankles, breaking legs, and so on, which costs money to treat. I mean, look at those skiiers, snowboarders, mountain clibers and recreational basketball players, constantly getting hurt and needing medical care.
(note: the above is sarcasm, but my point is that pretty much EVERYONE does something ricksy, and the whole point of group pooled insurance is to spread risk around and give the majority of people the lowest rates possible)
Hey Mike:
Since you're capable of constructing sentences, I'm guessing you haven't been whacked in the head enough times to actually believe that the cost of a sprained ankle (or several sprained ankles) is not geometrically smaller than even the most minor heart surgery, or lung transplant, or AIDS treatment course.
But if you do, that's also okay. Please join me in supporting deregulation of the health insurance industry, and we'll see what kind of premiums (premia?) are assigned to treating these various ailments.
As an added bonus, if you think the health insurance companies are really gouging consumers out of proportion to their true costs to serve consumers, you can start your own health insurance company and capitalize on the above-average rates of return these guys are earning.
Or, if the doctors are the ones overcharging, you can become a doctor and do some overcharging yourself. Good luck with the malpractice insurance premium.
My theory is that there's a lot of people out there who are doing a lot to raise the true cost of keeping themselves alive, and they're the ones to whom the resultant bill needs to be delivered. There's nothing incompatible about pooling the costs of shared unavoidable risks while ensuring that the costs of avoidable risks are paid by those choosing to take harmful risks. In fact, I am totally certain that it's the one system that will deliver the lowest-cost and highest-quality health care in the fairest possible manner.
Jonathan, I was being sarcastic (and I even said so).
You are also putting a lot of wrods into my mouth. Do you have me confused with someone else who poster more earlier on this thread?
I don't think insurance companies are necessarily gouging consumers, I think that they are in a business to make money, and they do what they think will give them the best profit, just like an airline, or a cola company, etc. Frankly, I see the insurance industry as amoral, that is, morally neutrall, and that is likely how it should be.
I do however think much of the insurance industry policies are short-sighted. For example, since this thread is ostensibly about obesity, why is it that insurers will pay for an expensive gastric bypass operation for very obese people, as well as pay for the increased health care costs of an obese person, yet they will not (generally) pay for a physican-directed weight loss program or exercise program?
The medical/insurance industry right now is flawed because it follows two principles which are almost a gurantee for continuing spiraling health care costs. They are:
1. Pay to treat sickness/disease after it happens, but do not pay to try to prevent it, even if it would save money later. (a flaw in the insurance industry)
2. Spend extraordinary amounts of time and money extending the end of life for the extremely sick and elderly for even a short while, no matter what the quality of that life. (a flaw in the medical industry)
I have no idea how to change both of those, but if they were somehow changed, health care and insurance would become much more affordable for more people.
To paraphrase an old TV commercial from a simpler time, I like my women like I like my cigarettes, short and lumpy.
I have always associated fat with authority and power.
Hey Mike:
What part of . . . my point is that pretty much EVERYONE does something risky, and the whole point of group pooled insurance is to spread risk around and give the majority of people the lowest rates possible) is intended to be sarcastic?
If you agree with my central thesis, then I apologize for misinterpreting you, but you seem to be heading off in some whole other direction.
As to your other points:
. . . why is it that insurers will pay for an expensive gastric bypass operation for very obese people, as well as pay for the increased health care costs of an obese person, yet they will not (generally) pay for a physican-directed weight loss program or exercise program?
Probably because the physician-directed weight loss programs are far less effective. I would have to defer to Dean on this, since he's done copious research, but I can personally attest that in the case of each of my co-workers who had a gastric bypass or stapling, the rest of us had to duck and cover to keep from being hit by the fat flying off of them. Highly impressive results.
1. Pay to treat sickness/disease after it happens, but do not pay to try to prevent it, even if it would save money later. (a flaw in the insurance industry)
This sounds good, conceptually, but I would need to see the a priori/post hoc statistics to see what fraction of the stitches in time save nine, so to speak. It's very possible that neglecting a lot of people's early health issues and having to treat some later is the most economically efficient course or action, when time, risk and the propensity of people to shift carriers is factored in.
2. Spend extraordinary amounts of time and money extending the end of life for the extremely sick and elderly for even a short while, no matter what the quality of that life. (a flaw in the medical industry)
I'm with you, here. I think this stems from our society's total dread of death. Maybe if we spread the Gospel, people will relax a little and not rage so hard against the "dying of the light," believing that there's a reward to come.
I found some interesting information on obesity and dieting back when I was researching a thesis on body image. A quick quote:
"Up-and-down dieting changes the body's metabolism, making it easier to gain weight and harder to lose it, and possibly also increasing the risk of becoming hypertensive. When rats are put on a regimen of yo-yo dieting, their blood pressures rise significantly and dangerously after the third 'crash diet.' The link between hypertension and being overweight that doctors warn about may be a result of the person's having been on several crash diets, not a result of the weight per se." Tavris, Carol. The Mismeasure of Women. (USA: Simon & Schuster, 1992) p. 34-35.
In other words, the correlation between certain "dangers of obesity" and obesity itself have not been researched; many of the health dangers may result from the attempts to lose weight (especially "yo-yo dieting") or not exist in a specific patient. We have too little information, especially as the obese tend to be poor and to not make regular medical visits.
"I have no idea how to change both of those, but if they were somehow changed, health care and insurance would become much more affordable for more people."
1. It doesn't really make sense for insurers to pay for preventative care any more than it makes sense for insurers to pay for brake fixes or oil changes. They'd only pay for preventative maintenance if they had a way to keep you paying them premiums during the entire time that the preventative maintenance actually prevented health issues, which would be quite problematic from your point of view.
A better approach is to offer discounts to those who can show that they've gotten preventative maintenance. You pay for the maintenance, and if the discout is higher than the maintenance cost, the maintenance actually saves money. Otherwise, it doesn't save money, and it doesn't pay you to get it, and it sure as hell wouldn't pay the insurance company to pay for it.
2. You decide whether to buy a policy that will pay for any means necessary to keep you alive, or buy a stingier policy for less money. When you're actually in the situation, you can exhaust all of your own resources and any insurance proceeds to fight for your life if you so choose, no matter how long the odds are against you. Once the money's gone, you can beg for more to keep up the fight, but no one has to give it to you.
Of course, all this presupposes that we've fixed the tax code and stopped having everyone buy their insurance from the company store.
"Stumpjumper: I think your proposal is fine. The reason I didn't want to leave everything purely up to market forces is that I really have no problem pitching in to help those who aren't actively trying to kill themselves through lifestyle choices"
Go for it. Don't let us stop you...
Fat women are sexy.
Having only read some of the above comments, but finding that "fertility" doesn't show up on a search of this thread, let me interject the following.
Sometime in the last 15 years research has shown some interesting things about fertility rates. Below around 5% body fat, female fertility is around 0%. Above that it's a pretty linear relationship between body fat percentage and fertility rate. The more reserves a woman has, the higher her odds of carrying a baby to term in the (evolutionarily pre-dominant) situation of calorie restriction.
Overpopulation hasn't been much of an issue except locally until the 20th century. I've been curious for a while to see what a graph (if constructed) showing population rate, some measure of food availability, and pop. density looks like for the past 200-300 years. I wouldn't be surprised if stick thin women being in vogue showed some correlation with perceived overpopulation (too much fertility in that case being bad for EVERYONE).