Keira Knightley Coco vids

Coco Mademoiselle with Keira Knightley


website

Keira Knightley Coco Mademoiselle-BTS


Keira Knightley-Elle 2007 and Chanel Promo


Keira Knightley for Chanel Coco Mademoiselle


Planet Keira: Keira Knightley news, views and gossip
Chanel

Too skinny...

Seraphic Single questions whether there is any reason to why men find certain features more attractive to others, rejecting the explanation offered by evolutionary psychology. I tend to think that there is a reason why men are attracted to women who have the signs of healthy, fertility, and hardiness (for a lack of a better word at the moment). While there is variation because men can also be conditioned to respond to other features, nonetheless, that sort of flexibility does not imply that there is not some sort of instinct at the level of sense appetite. And so if one finds that there is a cross-cultural preference for certain features (after properly excluding other possible explanations), it is valid to look for an explanation tied to reproductivity and other bodily goods that are needed for reproductivity, such as health.

I do reject the explanation given by evolutionary psychology that would "excuse" men's promiscuity and desire for multiple partners. This I see as being the result of men's selfish desire, and ultimately original sin. Ignoring for moment the other issues affecting evolutionary psychology, evolutionary psychology cannot take into account original sin.

It cannot accept original sin as a "datum," not because of the error of naturalism, but simply because this is a revealed datum and not one knowable by human reason. (Or so it is said--but I am thinking that while the Fall, as it is recorded in Sacred Scripture, can be accepted only on the basis of supernatural faith, something like original sin--being alienated from God, can be inferred, if we maintain that (1) the natural love of God is something proper to human nature and yet (2) we are incapable of this, and therefore there must be a reason for this.

Still, even if it cannot take into account original sin, it does tend towards the error of determinism, ignoring human freedom and not having a proper understanding of human agency. One needs to look at the formality of the desire--generally men who are promiscuous are not seeking to beget children, but to gratify themselves. In fact, if men were promiscuous for the sake of having more children (as evolutionary psychology might claim), then they wouldn't be using contraception or resorting to abortion. Now the evolutionary psychologist might give an ad hoc explanation along the lines of "we've evolved since then so that we can act against our basic impulses, but the basic impulse to propagate with any available female remains," but then they must explain this freedom that they now accept (but had rejected when looking at the origins of a certain behavior).

This may not be the same as the male preference women with a certain body type, or with red cheeks or soft skin and so on, if indeed the attraction to these features is "pre-"rational, or animal (not to be understood in a perjorative sense, but as referring to the level of sense appetite).

As for sex, I was reflecting recently that the unity that is gained through the conjugal act is oriented towards producing children. It is said, and I think with truth, that in a fallen world, men say "I love you" in order to get sex, while women give sex in order to hear "I love you." While there are women who are promiscuous for the sake of pleasure alone and their numbers may be increasing, this sort of behavior is counter to the feminine nature and repugnant to most women. If they choose not to be chaste, they do not go to the opposite extreme of sleeping with every man they meet, but they do so within what they perceive to be a "committed relationship" though their idea of commitment may differ from that of the man (or from right reason).

Such women offer themselves/their bodies in the name of "love." Some may do so in order to keep a man and because they are afraid to be alone, but others think it proper to unite themselves because of "love," when in fact they are following their natural inclinations to join with a man and reproduce, but without the guidance of right reason. Is it incorrect to say that such an act is selfish in so far as it is counter to right reason and the love of God? Some who accept some version of the "theology of the body" would like to characterize the intention of all those who fornicate or have contraceptive sex in this way, but it does not to me to be universally correct. (Of course, one knows that it is a sin against God and does it anyways. In which case it is selfish.)

The problem for many (women) is not the lack of love of the other, but a lack of a proper understanding of what love entails, and the authentic goods in which love properly consists.