Del, I hope you were speaking blithely in this post...
It seems well founded that female erectus sapient humans, or whatever, were evolved to 1) be sexually desirable (soft features, no needless hair - only striking bits of pubic and axillary growth - and with the only permanently distended mammaries of all mammals) so procreation would have an imeptus, the guys thingies would get eager for an encounter with where the hair most most dramatic; 2) These females produced, reproduced, and then became totally functinal in helping sustain the life-style of their progeny, as the burden of children began pressing upon them - in other words, they became caretaking grandmas; 3) The male needed nothing sensual, in his presentation, power, strength, and social position were enough - so he laid it into the pretty womam; 4) Once the male had completed his copulations and his vigorous bout with the burdens of 'providing,' he was basically a drag on the group. He had spewed enough seed. His labor was no longer efficient. And he didn't cook and bottle-wash well at all. 5) So the males rotted out. (I love Christine's loving thought that it, the hair and shit that all of this subject has arisen about, is just a system saying, "Let me warm you when you can no longer warm yourself," but I believe it was more like saying, "We don't need you anymore. Get lost and begone and vamoose and that."
I know that I, and probably most folk, do not read excessively long posts. So, I am effortlessly into freefall at this point.
The fascinating point, for me, is Christine's optimism and hope. All shitty things, like hair on men's backs, or in their ears is a lovely temperature protecting mechanism. I see it as simply the male has, at that stage of his existence, lost any functional validity - and is being alowed to physically display this.
geo
ps: Some day soon, someone will come up to a post like this and say, "Hey, you are an idiot!" (And I will have to agree.) g |
