Porn is evolutionary

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh boy, the Backroom topic to end all Backroom topics!

Scientists at Duke University have shown that human obsession with celebrity may well be an evolutionary trait inherited from our ape past. Even better, it looks like our enjoyment of porn comes from the same source.

Status-Conscious Monkeys Shed Light on Celeb Obsession (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/WaterCooler/story?id=623557&page=1)

Judging by the explosion of celebrity-driven media, America's obsession with the J.Los and Bens, Brads, Jennifers, Marthas and Donalds seems to have never been greater.

Actress Angelina Jolie criticized the public's fascination with the famous and influential on ABC News' "Nightline" earlier this month. "Why is anybody giving any attention?" she said. "Because I made a film? Because I wore a dress to something? It's silly, and it feels very shallow."

But what if our celebrity obsession is more primal than that? Scientists at Duke University say it just might be.

Dr. Michael Platt, a neurobiologist at Duke University Medical Center, led an experiment with 12 adult male rhesus macaque monkeys that he says may help explain the fascination with celebrities like socialite Paris Hilton.

Platt conducted the experiment by offering thirsty monkeys a choice: their favorite drink, in this case Juicy Juice cherry juice, or the opportunity to look at computer images of the dominant, "celebrity" monkey of their pack.

Despite their thirst, they chose to look at the pictures.

"What is celebrity for a monkey but their status?" said Platt.

Monkeys with status have food, power and sexual magnetism — everything the others crave. The impulse to look at these "celebrity" monkeys was so strong, it superceded thirst.

But they were not willing to give up the juice to look at pictures of subordinate monkeys, Platt found. In fact, they had to be bribed with extra juice to watch the rhesus riffraff.

Interestingly, the "celebrity" monkeys, says Platt, were just as interested in their fellow celebrities.

"A male can be at the top of his game and suddenly plummet," he said, sounding like he were describing any workplace situation. "Either if there's a new guy in town who enters the group who's high-ranking, or if his alliances fall apart, right?"

Monkey Porn?

The male monkeys were also willing to pay (with more juice) to see female monkeys' hind quarters. Monkey porn? The study, after all, is called "Monkey Pay-Per-View."

Platt jokes it may be less a simian similarity with adult entertainment and more akin to "when you're walking down the street with your wife or your girlfriend and an attractive woman walks by. You can't help but look over there and then, y'know, your wife hits you with her purse."

The study had a serious medical goal: trying to figure out how the brain acquires and processes visual information about social status.

"We know that's disrupted in autism and a number of other disorders like anxiety disorders and things like that," said Platt.

The primate world, in general, may be hard-wired to look at pictures of the powerful and the sexy — whether we pay for it with cash or cherry juice.

Just relish the keywords in this: Evolution, scientists, monkeys, porn. I can hear Navaros splutteringly incoherent with rage from here... :wink3:

[doc_bean]

These kind of things are why I've wanted to be a scientist growing up !

[Ser Clegane]

rhesus riffraff

I kind of like this term ~:)

*contemplates the idea of offering cherry juice to attractive female co-workers to goggle at their "hind quarters"*

[Navaros]

I can hear Navaros splutteringly incoherent with rage from here... :wink3:


My posts are never incoherent. Perhaps I should make it a habit to dumb down my big words and elaborate sentences so as those with an "ape past" can understand them better.

I definitely don't have an ape past, probably why I am not obsessed with celebrities and I think Paris Hilton is a worthless harlot and any media who "reports" about her are equally disgusting and worthless.

I must admit that the idea that so many people are interested in Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie because their minds are akin to that of apes is definitely the most convincing pro-evolution argument I've ever heard. It almost makes it tempting to believe that some people really did start out as apes.

Even so, in reality that can be attributed that to most people happening to not be very smart rather than an "ape past".

[Vladimir]

I kind of like this term ~:)

*contemplates the idea of offering cherry juice to attractive female co-workers to goggle at their "hind quarters"*

I'll try that here across the pond and we can compare the results. All in the interest of science of course.
:book2: :scholar: :smart:

[KukriKhan]

The primate world, in general, may be hard-wired to look at pictures of the powerful and the sexy — whether we pay for it with cash or cherry juice.


cherry juice = red. Ser Clegane's robes = red. Hmmmm. :idea2:

[edyzmedieval]

I kind of like this term ~:)

*contemplates the idea of offering cherry juice to attractive female co-workers to goggle at their "hind quarters"*

Ohhh, I agree with that. ~D

[Gregoshi]

So according to this article, we were porn this way. ~D

[Banquo's Ghost]

Even so, in reality that can be attributed that to most people happening to not be very smart rather than an "ape past".

It must be so hard for you in our world, where everyone is so much dumber than you.

I bet you thank your lucky stars that Christianity never had any of that Humility garbage in it....

:laugh4:

[Papewaio]

cherry juice = red. Ser Clegane's robes = red. Hmmmm. :idea2:

It's part of the ritual to moderate the backroom... Mith's next.

[Ser Clegane]

It's part of the ritual to moderate the backroom

You mean our red robes or the "cherry-juice-for-female-hind-quarters" part?

(actually people weren't supposed to know about the latter... :thinking:)

[Reverend Joe]

I hate to sideline the thread, but I have an important philosophical point for Navaros to consider- your wording suggests that you know you did not evolve from Monkeys, but rather were created by God. This is a fallacy, because when it comes to understanding reality and religion, you cannot know anything. The correct terminology is always "I believe..."

Every religious person, including myself, has a certain belief; but we cannot know anything, because "knowledge" is a purely philosophical phenomenon. Saying that you know anything pertaining to religion or philosophy makes you come off as looking like a gasbag, and people stop listeing to you.

Just a suggestion for future posting. Of course, if you are very deep into a discussion regarding you philo-religious beliefs, you can skip the "I Think" part, because the other person is generally expressing opinion as well. But for the purposes of general conversation, that is a very serious mistake to make.

Sorry again. :2thumbsup:

[Somebody Else]

I use grape juice. It works quite well if you leave it a while.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Interesting. Though there's only so much you can generalize about humans from studies done on other primates.

[Papewaio]

Particularly as chimps unlike humans have rather obvious visual cues to when they are on heat.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Particularly as chimps unlike humans have rather obvious visual cues to when they are on heat.

Humans are permanently on heat so they don't need clues, visual or otherwise.

Just, apparently, fruit juice and a moderator's robe. :bounce:

[GoreBag]

My posts are never incoherent. Perhaps I should make it a habit to dumb down my big words and elaborate sentences so as those with an "ape past" can understand them better.

He didn't say they were, but trust me, your words aren't big enough for me.


Blah blah, I didn't evolve.

Fight the power.


So according to this article, we were porn this way.

Booooo!


I hate to sideline the thread, but I have an important philosophical point for Navaros to consider- your wording suggests that you know you did not evolve from Monkeys, but rather were created by God. This is a fallacy, because when it comes to understanding reality and religion, you cannot know anything. The correct terminology is always "I believe..."

Every religious person, including myself, has a certain belief; but we cannot know anything, because "knowledge" is a purely philosophical phenomenon. Saying that you know anything pertaining to religion or philosophy makes you come off as looking like a gasbag, and people stop listeing to you.

But...you call yourself Gnostic.

[Spino]

Humans are permanently on heat so they don't need clues, visual or otherwise.

Just, apparently, fruit juice and a moderator's robe. :bounce:

That would explain why some humans are positively flaming...

I like the juice... the juice is good.

[Reenk Roink]

I can hear Navaros splutteringly incoherent with rage from here... :wink3:

Banquo ad homineming!?! :inquisitive:

What is this world coming to!

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo ad homineming!?! :inquisitive:

What is this world coming to!

It's 'cos I'm an ape. :wink:

[Kagemusha]

So when and if this study is made with humans, will it include beer and pron? Since the cherry juice is just not right thing to drink for human male. If my assumption is right, feel free to use me as test animal.:burnout:

[Reverend Joe]

But...you call yourself Gnostic.
And Navaros is a Christian. It doesn't mean any religious people KNOW anything. But I THINK I am discovering the Truth, and that is the point of Gnosticism- that the truth will set you free. What is the truth? You have to find that out for yourself. That's the point; it can't be knowledge if it can't be taught. And anyone who says they can tell you the way to enlightenment (*cough* Buddha *cough*) is a lying gasbag.

[GoreBag]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Gnostic&x=0&y=0

[Vladimir]

Banquo ad homineming!?! :inquisitive:

What is this world coming to!

He must have been out of cherry juice. Low blood sugar can make you cranky.

[Banquo's Ghost]

He must have been out of cherry juice. Low blood sugar can make you cranky.

Yeah, and you don't get any hind-quarter action...

[Lemur]

Perhaps I should make it a habit to dumb down my big words and elaborate sentences so as those with an "ape past" can understand them better.
Let's see a properly used semicolon out of you before you go thumping your chest, o grammarian.

I must admit that the idea that so many people are interested in Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie because their minds are akin to that of apes is definitely the most convincing pro-evolution argument I've ever heard.
Speaking of which, they just found Brad Pitt's midget ancestor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm). Or perhaps it's a freakishly-aged dwarf, or a false arrangement of rocks planted by the Great Deceiver. To each his own.

[Reverend Joe]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Gnostic&x=0&y=0
That is an extremely innacurate definition, not least because the Gnostics predate Christianity by at least 200 years.

And don't tell me I don't know my own damn religion.

[wolftrapper78]

Speaking of which, they just found Brad Pitt's midget ancestor. Or perhaps it's a freakishly-aged dwarf, or a false arrangement of rocks planted by the Great Deceiver.

Or did they... Edit: Nevermind, I am an idiot. I make alot of mistakes. Sorry.
And another thing, who can we really trust. Scientists that make mistakes all of the time or the omnipotent and omniscient God of the Bible?


To each his own.

Another typical moral relativist arguement. Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

[Lemur]

Or did they... link (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4584/)
Your article references the wrong fossils. I have no doubt that creationontheweb.com will produce an article about the new find soon enough, however.

I'm sure you mean well, but we're well-supplied with creationists already. What we could really use would be more royalists, and maybe a couple of flat earthers. We're also dangerously low on Scientologists. Please let us know if you could fill any of these needs.

[GoreBag]

That is an extremely innacurate definition, not least because the Gnostics predate Christianity by at least 200 years.

And don't tell me I don't know my own damn religion.

I'm just telling you because you're using a general Greek word (that precedes Christianity by countless years) that means you have particular knowledge.

[Reverend Joe]

I'm just telling you because you're using a general Greek word (that precedes Christianity by countless years) that means you have particular knowledge.
Well, my own understanding of Gnosticism is that is the process of seeking knowledge- as in, all knowledge in general- as well as the thruth about life, the universe, and everything. And no, I am not satified with 42. **** 42.

Anyway, my point was that you cannot know that which is technically unknowable, just as you cannot percieve more than three dimensions, or understand more than four... unless you're a nerd, as my Chemistry teacher once so eloquently put it.

(Actually, he was talking about the fact that you can describe a moving car as a wave rather than an object, but he had decided to stop several years ago, because 1) it freaked people out and 2) you would not describe your car as a wave anyway; "...you wouldn't be talking about the wavelength of your car anyway, and if you do, you're a nerd." It was funny.)

[Big_John]

jim jones had "red juice"...

[Banquo's Ghost]

And another thing, who can we really trust. Scientists that make mistakes all of the time or the omnipotent and omniscient God of the Bible?

Well, lacking a fertile imagination, I like to go with people that are real. :shrug:

[Ironside]

Or did they... Edit: Nevermind, I am an idiot. I make alot of mistakes. Sorry.
And another thing, who can we really trust. Scientists that make mistakes all of the time or the omnipotent and omniscient God of the Bible?


Always wondered why someone that's omnipotent and omniscient can miss so much and be so clumpsy.
For staters, the Lucifer incident and the forbidden fruit incident. Needing to rest? :inquisitive:

[yesdachi]

And Navaros is a Christian. It doesn't mean any religious people KNOW anything. But I THINK I am discovering the Truth, and that is the point of Gnosticism- that the truth will set you free. What is the truth? You have to find that out for yourself. That's the point; it can't be knowledge if it can't be taught. And anyone who says they can tell you the way to enlightenment (*cough* Buddha *cough*) is a lying gasbag.
I am pretty sure Buddhist try and find enlightenment thru personal meditation, not by being told what to meditate on to achieve nirvana. The Buddha was a million miles away from being a lying gasbag. I understand your point but you should have used a better religious icon as a reference for a gasbag. Maybe Jim Baker? ~D