You were thinking too hard about it, Reelya. A food Americans think is too disgusting is easy: this abomination was only willingly consumed by one dedicated xenophile in a group of 20 or so Americans in my time in Taiwan. Even the Korean we had with us refused.
Pretty sure the measure was sell, not eat. There's plenty of stuff the vast and near total majority of americans consider too disgusting to eat, but there's precious little food wise that's not very explicitly illegal that isn't for sale somewhere in the country. That doesn't always stop it either, for that matter.
And there's definitely places stateside that sell stinky tofu.
And the metric I was thinking of was more like "no combination too gross to try" where the two ingredients are something that's on the menu. e.g. like deep frying coca cola or similar. That metric doesn't imply e.g. that Americans would eat sewage.
also, kinda random thought but shouldn't we just get rid of the words straight, gay, and lesbian for their sexuality meanings and instead replace them with 'likes guys' and 'likes girls'?
That's too reductive. gay, bi, lesbian, straight doesn't just signify
your orientation, it carries information about where you fit into society in terms of dating.
The thing is, even though some categories are orthogonal, that doesn't mean at all that there isn't a correlation. e.g. the "male body" / "female body" trait and "likes girls" / "likes guys" trait may be unrelated in terms of the biology that creates them, however natural selection is
biased towards bodies in which these traits are
correlated because the goal of biology is making babies, not making people.
however, the
machinery for making all the range of traits exists in every person, so when you get outliers they tend to be a mix of the dominant traits of either existing "sex". e.g. an "outlier" would be someone who wants to have sex with men or women almost all the time when they're not "supposed" to, but you
much more rarely get someone who's sexual preference is anything completely non-human. Because, you know, there's no machinery in humans that's intended for that purpose.
Evolution only cares that
just enough of the current generation are breeders, so while non-breeders aren't an intentional goal, they're also not detrimental enough to have any evolved mechanism to prevent them existing. Also, there's evidence that the amount of "breeders" could be regulated by biology
on purpose, e.g.
the fraternal birth order effect. Basically if the same mother's womb produces more boys the chance of each successive one being gay is higher. However, it still happens if they're raised apart and
doesn't happen if you merely have step-brothers. So what's the interpretation? Well, it means that if you have
many sons then it damps down on competition between them for mates, and biological feedback was the only signal prehistoric evolution had to play with. This is definitely something that could have evolved for, using pre-existing "code" that all humans have, because perhaps having all your boys hyper-competitive with each other for mates actually makes them less competitive since they fight over resources.
Additionally, there's evidence that the mother's body can regulate the gender of babies. e.g. if you have more resources, male babies are more likely, and with less resources, female babies are more likely. The interpretation for this is that if you have high-resources, a male can grow strong and sire
many children with different mothers, but if you have low-resources, then your more likely to get grandchildren from a girl. e.g. weak boys don't get as many dates.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14517742 times)