u/jjbcn

pheromones - you might be right.

warmth - it seems a strange area to choose to keep warm specifically. I don't think there is any biological justification for this reason.

An evolutionists perspective on the matter.

It seems to be clear that human males have had a preference for non-hairy women for quite some time in our evolutionary history (note how men have hair on their faces and chests but women tend not to have either). It looks like non-hairiness has been a sexually selected trait in human females.

So why do women still have pubic hair? Because it actually has another purpose that is even more important from an evolutionary perspective than its atheistic. Pubic hair stops bare skin rubbing on bare skin and the resultant cuts and abrasions. Skin abrasions so near to the reproductive/excretory organs are bad news - they have a high chance of becoming infected, and any infection could potentially risk the fertility of the individual.

In other words, it could be that man has actually had a preference for completely hairless women, but the functionality of the pubic hair has stopped women from evolving without it, i.e. liking women without pubic hair may be the natural state of affairs for men, but our desire for hairless women has been foiled by even stronger evolutionary pressures.

(Note - this is speculation and I don't think there has been any scientific research on this).

Of course protecting your children from potentially dangerous activities is going to reduce accidents.

If you prevent your children from climbing trees, you eliminate the risk of them injuring themselves falling from a tree. But what does your child lose?

Like many parenting issues, it's a question of getting the right balance.

midlands

I am also from the UK and I'm surrounded by religious people. I guess it depends on where you are.

Like retards?

(Sorry couldn't resist. So sue me.)

But she could have 10 more with hubby.

Or any other man. That's why from an evolutionary point of view it is more important to save the kid. The kid is genetically hers, the father is not. She can get another of those easily (from an evolution point of view), she can't get another kid that's genetically hers without going through years of pregnancy and looking after it.

"Puddle thinking", is an illustrative metaphor, not a theory. Sorry but you've just demonstrated that you really don't understand it at all.

Study evolution and really get to understand it.

Well in that case wouldn't a sensible solution be that staff in restaurants are told to stir baby food if they heat it up in a microwave (or alternatively not heat it in a microwave at all but by other means) and to tell the parent they must test it first?

Babies should be treated like babies, not adults. That's the whole problem with the kind of rules and regulations that we're talking about here. They even have a name for it in the UK: "Nanny state".

You may be happy obeying rules designed for simpleton teenagers but I'm not.

Well I'm not going to give food a baby without testing it first.

It is a stupid situation when sensible adults can't do basic things like warm up baby food. If you've got a teenager that's been told not to do it, fine, but when you're got a sensible adult refusing to do stuff because they are just following stupid orders then that is another thing.

No, it is like that in the UK as well. I think it is mainly just a fear in people's head rather than a reality though.

Speaking as a Brit who has lived in various other countries, firstly I would say that as someone moving to another country it is natural to generalise about a country based on your own experience of it - but you must realise that other people will have completely different experiences and come to completely different conclusions. It is even possible to come to a completely incorrect picture of a country based on one experience. I'm sure you can imagine that a foreigner going to Sweden might have completely different experiences of the country depending on what part of the country they go to, or what part of society they mix with, what college they go to or what job they do.

Having said that, I completely agree with your observation about restrictions and regulations in the UK. It seems to be a national obsession. It drives me nuts that, for instance, I can't get a restaurant to warm a pot of baby food because of Health and safety or fear of legal action. All common sense seems to go out of the window - and many people seem actually proud that regulations are stupidly restrictive.

It's not censorship.

If all your media effectively works as a oligopoly and decides not to cover an issue, it is effectively censorship, even more so if it is encouraged or forced to do so by all manner of organisations and businesses.

Similarly if your laws and society effectively makes it impossible to do certain things (for example, smoke marijuana) , then that is suppression of freedom. And if your government accepts money from companies to change its policies, then that is corruption. And yet most people in the USA for some reason believe it is a country free from censorship, suppression and corruption. I see this as one of the big problems with the USA -- somehow you have been convinced that censorship, suppression of freedom and corruption only apply to other countries.

There is something seriously wrong with a country that censors David Attenborough.

I don't see it as such a big deal. Treat it, done. Nothing to get upset about.

If he isn't bothered about the kid, I wouldn't be bothered about him. Find yourself a better man.

Do you actually understand what it means? Your previous comment suggests otherwise.

Puddle thinking.

Ooohhh. Well that sounds all very sensible and logical doesn't it?

7 Million years is relatively recent in the evolutionary scale of things isn't it? When you consider the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

I can see you're new here.

But if you're an evil scientist with access to an evil clean lab?

It would be a fabulous way to dispose of superheroes.

I asked this question some time ago and got some excellent responses:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/eu58a/the_resolution_of_our_eyes/

By keeping these men in the priesthood, they still exercise considerable influence over them, rather than loosing them on the world.

Wow. Although I've seen Catholics make this argument before it never ceases to shock me.

The Catholic Church is not above the law. They are not the police, they are not judges, they are not the legal system. Any case of child abuse should be reported to, and handled by, the appropriate authorities.

Oh not this again.

Human understanding has moved on a bit since the 13th Century. Do try to keep up.