[ExI] Sex, Science & Profits

spike spike66 at att.net
Mon Dec 20 00:06:42 UTC 2010

>... On Behalf Of Tom Nowell
>...(Kealey does also mention things like the concubines of egyptian
pharaohs and the like, in a section sure to please Spike.)...

Ja, it works for me, thanks Tom.  {8-]

 >...So, sexual attraction to money is no more perverse than finding dyed
hair; or the airbrushed models on the cover of a beauty magazine; or
internet Z-list celebrity attractive.  Tom

I have long thought that the whole money-as-a-sexual-attractant notion has
traditionally gotten a bad rap that it doesn't deserve.  I am pleased to
live in a world where wealth can (to some extent) serve as a proxy for
actual sexual attractiveness, for the latter is so random, so genetic.  One
is born with it or without it, or with more or less of it, whereas one has
the option of working one's ass off, or being especially diligent in saving
and investing and so forth.  Thus one can actually earn a certain amount of
sexual attractiveness to compensate for what nature failed to supply.  So
what's the big crime in that?  

Do we not you remember (with disdain) high school?  No one had any money
back then, so we geeks were forced to compensate for lack of attractiveness
by actually being nice, and kindhearted, and all that, oy vey.  Now all we
need is to have a ton of money.  Such a deal!  And for some, the whole being
nice thing still works (even without money) for those who are good at it,
such as John Grigg.  If you meet him you will know exactly what I mean.  

But the Beatles had it all wrong with that whole money can't buy me love
biz.  It damn well should be able to.  In any ideal world, we should be able
to buy a certain amount of beauty.  I begrudge no one for either buying
sexual attractiveness, or for selling that which nature so generously
bestowed on the fortunate few.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list