?

Log in

No account? Create an account
whatever happens

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
whatever happens


I have often wondered, being a basically tolerant person, why sexually provocative clothing on older people has always made me a bit twitchy. I think I've figured it out.

I passed a woman in the hallway today who was not much younger than I am. Say, in her late 40s. She was well-endowed and wearing a sweater that was tight and so low-cut that it looked as if she were walking down the hall shouting, "Look at me! I have BOOBS!"

I was, like, "Whoop-di-doo." And it struck me then. Younger people wear those kinds of clothes as an evolutionary imperative. At the most nubile ages, they are biologically (if not mentally, emotionally, or morally) impelled to announce to the world in general that they are ready to breed. So they display themselves in a way that says, "Here I am, healthy breeding stock, in all my sexual readiness."

This is perfectly healthy, biologically, even if worrisome to parents and to people who are concerned about their tax dollars supporting a rash of illegitimate children.

When someone is - again, biologically/evolutionarily - past the age of healthy breeding, the display becomes a fake and a farce. Saying with your clothing "Here I am, come and make new little humans" when you have no physical capability of doing so (at least safely, which in caveman terms is about the age of 30) is inappropriate. And silly. This explains why, when I see a grey-haired guy with an open shirt, tight pants, and a convertible car, I'm more inclined to sneer or snigger than admire.

Thank you yet again, tianning, for giving me an evolutionary perspective. *g*

Comments

"So they display themselves in a way that says, "Here I am, healthy breeding stock, in all my sexual readiness."

Oooohh... Kat. Way to make wearing cute clothes less fun and more icky-squicky. -_-;;;;
ROFLMAO!! Sorrrry, didn't mean to do that!
harf!

She calls is like she sees it! And she's right!
Knowing this will make every young woman more in charge of her advertising. :)

more on revealing clothing

I bought a very revealing Halloween costume this year, with no intention of wearing it out of the house (*nudgenudgewinkwink*). But when I put it on, it surprised me how weird it felt. It consisted of a tight, low cut camisole and a very short skirt, and I felt more naked in it than if I actually had been naked. The level of discomfort I felt in it made me realize I actually am a fairly modest person; it has less to do with my body image (which is admittedly miserable) than the fact that I do not want people to see more than a hint of my thighs or my cleavage. :P

Re: more on revealing clothing

I'm trying to decide what that says about you in an evolutionary sense.... hmmmmm. ;)

Re: more on revealing clothing

Well, I prefer other girls, so I think maybe it says I'm not meant to reproduce. XD

Re: more on revealing clothing

Which seems a shame, given how pathetic our gene pool is getting. *slaps self*
I'm with Z on this one. ;) In my simple-mindedness, I always thought that the young kids wore the sexually provocative clothes because they were cute and because they looked good in them. Older people who dress like this? They're frantically trying to hold onto their youth instead of aging with some sort of grace. Having said that, I definitely agree that when I see an older person dressed like a teenager (no matter what shape they're in) it irritates me and makes me inclined to sneer or snigger at them.
I think that "looking good" or "looking cute" are the civilized overlays on the biological imperative. *g*
I guess. I'd rather think that people were having (or wanting to have) sex for fun rather than for some biological imperative to reproduce. *eg*
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive? My point is that the biological aspect of it is merely the initial impulse, as the hormones start kicking in and the body, on its most primitive level, begins to prepare for its contribution to the continuation of the species. We have a few thousand years of civilization that have added social customs and rituals to this, and I'm certainly not trying to deny those! All that I'm saying is that the impulse to display rises from a much deeper cause, *initially* and *basically*, than the desire to have fun or keep up with one's peers or be sociable or whatever.
*g*

There are people who still believe they are awesome looking even when they're not. And there are so many ads on tv for sex drugs I think people think they can still do it for fun at least even in their 60's and beyond.
Ooo, Dragon! You can come teach my Biology and Gender course for me! You have it SO DOWN RIGHT.

Yeah, we hate to think we're bags of chemical programming, but all the scientific data support that sad notion. Those ancestors who had fun having sex had MORE sex, and had a higher likelihood of leaving genes to the next generation. So *liking* sex is a product of natural selection, just like most of what we are.


Which I suppose makes me evolutionarily superior. *coughcough*
That's the sad thing in our society. Women are judged pretty much solely on their physical appearance, which translates into their fecundity. Beyond that, in our male-dominated society (yeah, it still is; and see the problems they cause?), we're just mulch.

Most humans just don't live in their cerebrum, even in this day and age. Until a certain age, we're ruled by our gonads, and that drives almost all of our behavior. That poor Boob wearing the low-cut sweater is a victim of our biological/cultural programming that tells a woman that the only way she can be truly valued and noticed is with her BODY. Who gives a (#@*$ about brains?

We are doing our part to keep our species from getting TOO smart by letting all those idiots breed....

At least, with your help, I can now see a *reason* for it all. I have always hated the idea that the suppression of women was strictly a socio-economic phenomenon.