489

Absolutely brilliant 👌

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago

Evolutionary throwback.

Foot health was like one of the biggest things for survival.

Same as teeth, just not as visible.

So some people see a nice clean foot free of disease and without a bunch of calluses and ingrown nails and think "this is the kind of young healthy person is should be reproducing with!"

That's all it is, a sign of good health.

[-] e8d79@feddit.de 49 points 8 months ago

[citation needed]

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 8 months ago

In terms of human evolutionary history, our feet were generally filthy and very heavily calloused. Actually, a heavily calloused foot provides a significant survival advantage in the wild. Keep in mind that shoes are a new invention in evolutionary terms. I don't think you'll find answers in evolutionary psychology on this one.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And teeth naturally got yellow and worn down, from use or damage.

But we still like a perfectly straight ridiculously bright white smile because it's a sign of health and youth.

Same with feet, you're not going to find someone with perfect feet before shoes, but there would have been an obvious difference between a teenagers feet and a 40 year olds.

But back in the day "good" was mostly absence of parasites.

[-] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

But back in the day “good” was mostly absence of parasites.

Well, relatively speaking anyhow. Just about everybody had them, it was more of a question of which parasites and how many – and this was largely how things were up until indoor toilets & plumbing became more common and of course still is in many areas.

Funnily enough our immune systems sort of co-evolved with some intestinal parasites, and not having parasites is one factor in people developing autoimmunity. Some autoimmune diseases can even be treated to some extent by purposefully giving you some specific parasite (can't remember which one, too lazy to search)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I mean, kind of?

An autoimmune disease is when your body attacks itself, and it's possible giving yourself a parasite gives it something else to focus on...

But man, that sounds like when people gave themselves tapeworms to lose weight. There was some vague logic to make it sound ok. But any medical professional that condoned it probably wasn't a very good doctor.

Especially if they are infecting people to treat autoimmune disorders

[-] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

An autoimmune disease is when your body attacks itself, and it’s possible giving yourself a parasite gives it something else to focus on…

It's more complex than that. If someone is exposed to parasites when they're still developing, their chances of having autoimmune issues later in life goes down – the fancy way to say that is that exposure to some parasites lessens the chances of immune system dysregulation. Some parasite proteins can also be used to modulate the immune system to eg. treat asthma. See eg. Helminth Immunomodulation in Autoimmune Disease from 2017, abstract here:

Helminths have evolved to become experts at subverting immune surveillance. Through potent and persistent immune tempering, helminths can remain undetected in human tissues for decades. Redirecting the immunomodulating “talents” of helminths to treat inflammatory human diseases is receiving intensive interest. Here, we review therapies using live parasitic worms, worm secretions, and worm-derived synthetic molecules to treat autoimmune disease. We review helminth therapy in both mouse models and clinical trials and discuss what is known on mechanisms of action. We also highlight current progress in characterizing promising new immunomodulatory molecules found in excretory/secretory products of helminths and their potential use as immunotherapies for acute and chronic inflammatory diseases.

But man, that sounds like when people gave themselves tapeworms to lose weight. There was some vague logic to make it sound ok. But any medical professional that condoned it probably wasn’t a very good doctor.

Especially if they are infecting people to treat autoimmune disorders

Just because giving someone a tapeworm for weight loss is not a great idea doesn't really mean anything here. Immunomodulatory therapy with parasites isn't woo-woo despite how weird it may sound, and the idea isn't to necessarily give people worms (although that's not entirely ruled out either!) but to learn how they do what they do

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

There have already been attempts to treat immune-mediated diseases by artificially infecting them with helminths. Because Trichuris suis can be obtained from experimentally infected pigs, the parasite has been used in immunotherapy research to artificially infect people. There are some clinical reports that patients who ingested T. suis had a reduction in several immune disorders such as Crohn’s disease (73) and ulcerative colitis (74). However, some clinical trials have shown no therapeutic effect (75, 76) and in a large study using meta-analysis, T. suis showed no apparent benefit for inflammatory bowel disease patients (77). Besides, therapeutic benefit by parasites may be limited to the infection sites but not systemic. A clinical trial of artificial infection with T. suis, a parasite of the intestine, did not provide relief from allergic rhinitis (78). Furthermore, infection with live parasites for therapeutic use may not be practical, and can sometimes cause other unintended consequences. There is also a risk of inadvertently transmitting pathogenic parasites. For this reason, it is imperative to identify immunomodulatory molecules and apply them to treatment of immune-mediated diseases rather than using live parasites. In order to ensure safety, it is also necessary to elucidate the detailed mechanism of how the molecule regulates immunity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8977410/

You're right that people are trying it.

I never said no one was, I said only shitty doctors would prescribe it.

I didn't see anything about it being prescribed, but there have been studies.

The studies just show it doesn't work.

[-] Assman@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

So why did he need her feet to be absolutely filthy here? What's the evolutionary reason behind that?

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Some people like dirty feet...

But clean or dirty, I don't think Margot Robbie has any part of her body that someone would lable as unhealthy.

It's not like there's one reason that contributes to every aspect of feet fetishes. Some people like them dirty because it's also humiliating. Either to the person attached to the feet or the ones looking at it.

Sexuality is like donkeys and onions, they have layers.

But for the general question of "why feet" that's why feet come up so much. It used to be a visible indicator of overall health. It's still an indicator of overall health, just not visible 24/7. Which makes it even more likely to be fetishized

[-] discostjohn@programming.dev 6 points 8 months ago

Ogres have layers

[-] Bobmighty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

She's walking around barefoot a lot in the movie. Hell, they should be even grosser considering how nasty city sidewalks can be.

[-] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Gonna need some data to back up this claim.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That foot health was a lot more important back in the day?

That it was any easy to notice sign of health back then and now mostly not seen?

Or that a big factor in who animals reproduce with is the perceived healthiness of a potential mate?

Because, I said a couple different basic things, and it seems to really have confused a lot of people.

So to give you a good answer, you kind of have to be specific with questions.

Do you not understand the pieces? How they combine?

Just all of it?

Like, if I told you a=b and b=c so a=c, and you asked that same vague question, would you be wanting me to explain with logic why a=c, or are you saying you need a source that flatly just says a=c?

I just don't know what kind of answer you're looking for

[-] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Wow dude. Calm down. You're the one that made the claim. It's on you to provide the facts needed to back it up.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago

I mean, I still have zero idea what you need explained.

But by now you definitely could have googled it yourself

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
489 points (95.7% liked)

Shitty Movie Details

1198 readers
1 users here now

Share your favorite movie (and other motion picture media) details, potentially with a shitty twist.

To be clear, this is a place for satirical and meta^2^ references. Not really the actual movie details, unless they're truly stupid or have strong meme potential/background. "Oh hai Mark" kind of stuff. Tho sometimes even these can span a good debate.

For maximum funni, include full name of the movie, its release date and all the detail right in the title of the post.

Try to avoid actual shit and other nasty stuff. Mark nsfw when appropriate.

For shitty videogame details, there's !shittygamedetails@lemmy.world

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Have fun.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS