Christian Submissives: Brainwashed?

I'm a hermit. I have no social obligations and I like it that way.

I'd ask if this was where I signed up for the Hermit Club too, but, well, I doubt there's anyone else present. Hermits and all.
 
In my case, and I hope this was obvious, I was referring to a specific range of activities and techniques that are actually brainwashing. I don't use that term as a generic for teaching, conditioning, etc. It refers to a combination of psychology, effects, trappings, use of stimuli, etc designed to put humans into a mentally receptive state.

--



I did not deny nurture or culture. I think I was pretty clear in stating that it was an element. And, yeah, the comparison can be made. Enough time has been spent throughout history selecting for such thing. We just have a (thankfully) incomplete understanding of the topic because we're more complex than the livestock to which I am comparing us.



Actually, I said, "Say you find blondes attractive, and tend to go for them as sexual partners. That's selective breeding."



And Recidiva was spot on.

ETA: To clarify, I'm not trying to imply some sort of evil intelligence directing breeding and such to some specific end. It is as simple as a preference for blondes. Societies such as we are talking have a preference for the docile in temperment. They select for that the same way someone with a hankering for blondes selects blondes. As VelvetDarkness said they want those traits and will look for them both in members and recruits.

--



The Golden Ratio is pretty well codified, and present in our pan-human decisions on proper proportions. Symmetry is likewise pan-human vis a vis attractiveness. Hetero men, for example, tend to prefer a certain waist-to-hip ratio (probably the Golden Ratio again) in women, and studies have been done that show the "ideal" human face to be composed of lots of little Golden Ratios, and applicable to either male or female faces.

It may not be understood why we dig 1:0.618etc so much, but it is certainly documented extensively. And we can trace such things as hips-to-waist, skin tone, symmetry, etc to signs of healthy breeding stock. The blonde example may not fit pan-culture, but there are enough markers that do cross human culture and sexuality in broad enough terms to be consistently applicable.

So, no, we aren't peacocks, but this does not mean that we should ignore the lessons peacocks have to teach us, nor that peacocks, and animals in general, are useless for comparisons. When it comes to initial attraction, we are still looking for our version of the peacock's tail. It's just a more complex version.

ETA: Yes, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. Humans is complicated. But there are enough consistencies that we can predict what a serious chunk of the population will find visually appealing.

I guess I shouldn't post before the coffee kicks in. I thought you were saying "you are selecting for ATTRACTION to blondes" , not for blonde hair itself. (which seemed to be more in line with theme of thread).
 
I guess I shouldn't post before the coffee kicks in. I thought you were saying "you are selecting for ATTRACTION to blondes" , not for blonde hair itself. (which seemed to be more in line with theme of thread).

Nah, man. That is WAY too arcane. Some stuff is in our genes, like the golden ratio stuff. Hair colour, skin colour, etc are wildly divergent. There are broad trends that can be looked at, but I don't think anyone has even the slightest clue as to whether they're genetic or not. That would be the divergent trends towards either xenophilia or xenophobia.

Cultural pressures are more commonly to bear though. In the case of the blonde, there can be cultural push behind this, as light hair is rare, or symbolises purity, or some other mess.
 
Back
Top