Photo © 2002 by Dwаynе Bеll

Are you addicted to female beauty?

Many today believe science to be merely another in a long series of human mythologies that become popular for a while and then disappear. Their reasoning goes something like this: "Thе Rоmаns believed the world and its forces were governed by the Gods. Modern men believe the world is governed by forces that follow observable laws. Who knows what men will believe in a thousand years? Therefore science is an illusion."

We at Body in Mind hope mankind never gets so blind as to miss the difference between science and superstition. We hope we don't need to see the world sink into another dark ages over the next thousand years in order to see that the reason we believe science is true is not because of habit or tradition, but because we have proof. And we hope we don't need to lose forever all the human life-giving discoveries it has made in order to see that those who attack the validity of science do so because they are the kind of corrupt monsters who would love to see this happen.

The worst among such creatures are those who use the nobility and respectability of science itself - or rather, quasi scientific 'experiments' - to convince us that mankind is as hopelessly corrupt as they themselves are, and doesn't deserve respect or life on earth. There was a great example in the media lately: the announcement that scientists had 'discovered' that female beauty is a male drug. [Click here to read it.]

Notice the depraved character of this conclusion as evidenced by the inherent triple attack on human beings hidden within it. The conclusion holds that:

1) all men are born addicted losers

2) beauty is no different than crack or heroin - implying that it should be outlawed at the very least

3) that those addicted to real drugs are not to be despised - since no attempt is made to distinguish them from those who love beauty

Of course, Body in Mind has a completely different theory. We believe mankind is great, that we are all the culmination of billions of years of the evolution of the universe - a heroic, spiritual, courageous species that has reached a level of consciousness unsurpassed by any other species or form of matter, a level so profound that we are now able to study the very workings of not only the universe from which we are constructed, but also of the consciousness with which we know it!

We also have an alternate theory of beauty. We believe female beauty is the representation in a human female, of objective human values. Our theory is forced to disagree with the conclusions set out in this experiment. In fact, it says they've gotten it completely backwards.

Body in Mind holds that beauty is not a drug, but that drugs are an artificial substitute for beauty. None of the evidence or experimental data contradicts our theory or our conclusion, In fact, the facts prove our theory as much as they prove theirs. In this light, the error in their conclusions should become clear. In fact, there is no evidence in these experiments to support their theory at all. This is junk science.

All good scientists know that if two completely contradictory theories explain the results of any particular experiment equally well, then strictly speaking, the experiment is a complete bust, and no self-respecting scientist would want anything to so with it, let alone rush their 'findings' into print!

Truly scientific experiments always include controls, things which eliminate the possibility of alternative explanations for observed results. Conveniently, at least as far as we can tell, these tests didn't include such controls.

We wonder why.

Unfortunately, this kind of 'science' is quite common these days, especially in the media favored subject of female beauty. The method consists of strictly scientific procedures followed up by a completely biased, unnecessary and unprovable conclusion - but one which is sufficiently outrageous that it gets picked up by the media.

For example, in this case the scientists are right in their observation that female beauty effects a very real part of the human brain, the same part that gets affected by food and cocaine. The unwarranted and potentially damaging conclusion (damaging if left unexposed) is that men's reaction to beauty is, as they say, 'basic'.

[Click here for a definition of 'basic'.]

Scientifically, 'basic' means 'fundamental' or 'indispensable', but this is not the way they are using this word. By 'basic' they mean denoting an intrinsic lack of character, an unfiltered primal urge, or some unstoppable animal instinct.

(We'd like to see these same tests done on non-cocaine users. It's easy to conclude that all men are drug addicts when drug addicts are all you admit into your tests. I'd also like to see these tests administered to men of different races and to infants. It's easy to conclude something is hard-wired when the only subjects of your experiment all have identical tastes in beauty.)

Thе Bоdy in Mind theory agrees that the perception of beauty is a basic human faculty, but basic only in the true scientific meaning of the word. We believe beauty deeply affects a fundamental part of the human brain, and we believe it is indispensable to human beings - not a flaw, a necessity. Our theory predicts that the part of the human brain affected by beauty, food, and cocaine, is also the part that is affected by our 'higher' or more spiritual needs, such as love and God and truth. Don't these things often give us just as much pleasure?

As a result of its lack of controls, this 'proof' that beauty is a male drug amounts to nothing more than a sloppy parlor trick in which the evil magician concludes that since serial killers get pleasure from butchering people, and lovers get pleasure from making love, that there is no real difference between the two! We should all stay as far away as possible from anyone who believes this, both physically away, and intellectually away.

The discovery that our pleasure centers can be stimulated by representations of both beauty and food seems to prove our point, not theirs, which is, that the experience of beauty is fundamentally connected with our perception of things we desire - of our values. The fact that both men and women can become addicted to various chemical highs is proof that there is a way to artificially stimulate the place in the brain where beauty interacts with our pleasure centers.

So which is necessity and which the flaw - beauty or drugs?

We conclude that beauty is not a drug, but that drugs are a cheap substitute for beauty. And our theory even explains why (another point in its favor): Since beauty is the representation of values - drugs are only needed by those who don't get enough beauty in their lives. What kind of person is that? Depraved people, those who don't hold any values dearly enough for the representation of these values to stimulate the experience of beauty in their brains.

We admit that our theory has yet to be proven - we simply don't have enough knowledge of how the human brain is built to prove it conclusively, yet. But it could easily be proven by some industrious young scientist who is not looking for a way to justify his hatred of mankind, or a way to appease his guilt for lusting for only the most depraved things in life, but is instead looking for a truth that fits all the facts.

Body in Mind fits the facts. That's the job of philosophy. We invite science to prove it.