Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

1356713

Posts

  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »
    Patriarchy (and thus male dominance) developed with the societal ability to accumulate more property.

    What you say sounds plausible, but, and I may be misunderstanding something here, was there some point of something akin to general male and female equality in history for this economic history of patriarchy to diverge from?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ZeeBeeKayZeeBeeKay Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »

    I don't think this is really related to dominance because dominance is a direct result of the hormone testosterone. The gender with more testosterone is more aggressive and territorial and status-obsessed, and therefore ends up being the dominant gender in society.

    I was referring to cultural dominance, sorry for being unclear.

    Also the rest of your post pretty much backs up what I was saying. Men, who used the agricultural system that women developed (or so I've read, again just through my history class), were all of a sudden able to gain more power. Thus, the development of male cultural dominance, which I've learned was based primarily on their new economic power and incentive to keep their women away from other men. Also with sedentary agriculture came the fact that women could now have more children (they didn't have to be able to walk before mom could pop out another), and so were out of commission for longer periods of time, but I'm not entirely sure that that's relevant.

    Still, no evidence for an inherent gender split here.

    ZeeBeeKay on
  • Options
    DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So boys are (diagnosed as) hyperactive and ADD more often. But the entire schooling system works very much in their favor. Which means that the system is unfair to boys.

    Okie doke.

    (You do realize I'm a pre-service teacher, right? And that I've taken classes on things like working with ADD or LD students, and how to build multiple transitions into one 45 minute class, and such? Like, seriously, almost no one would consider giving notes for an entire class period these days, there are several different activities built in and usually at least some of them involve moving around and/or interpersonal interaction so this whole "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE ADD BOYS" thing wears a bit thin with me.)



    P.S. Your opinion is totally wrong. Cheers.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ZeeBeeKayZeeBeeKay Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »
    Patriarchy (and thus male dominance) developed with the societal ability to accumulate more property.

    What you say sounds plausible, but, and I may be misunderstanding something here, was there some point of something akin to general male and female equality in history for this economic history of patriarchy to diverge from?

    See, and here is where I blow what little credibility I have, I don't know. In what I've read there's always been an implication of a more egalitarian society before they settled down (ie women being able to own property, businesses, etc) but I've never seen it explicitly spelled out. There certainly is a contrast between, say, Muhammed's first wife being a wealthy widowed business owner and the women in Greece being locked in their rooms wearing veils, but I'm not sure how equal the sexes were in purely nomadic societies. It's always seemed to be one of those things that only developed with sedentary society because in a nomadic one everyone is needed to help keep everything working.

    ZeeBeeKay on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    So boys are (diagnosed as) hyperactive and ADD more often. But the entire schooling system works very much in their favor. Which means that the system is unfair to boys.

    Okie doke.

    (You do realize I'm a pre-service teacher, right? And that I've taken classes on things like working with ADD or LD students, and how to build multiple transitions into one 45 minute class, and such? Like, seriously, almost no one would consider giving notes for an entire class period these days, there are several different activities built in and usually at least some of them involve moving around and/or interpersonal interaction so this whole "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE ADD BOYS" thing wears a bit thin with me.)



    P.S. Your opinion is totally wrong. Cheers.

    There's also the fact that the whole societally imprinted "You must be more active and bored if you are not" may have something to do with that preponderance of ADD diagnoses.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    So boys are (diagnosed as) hyperactive and ADD more often. But the entire schooling system works very much in their favor. Which means that the system is unfair to boys.

    Okie doke.

    (You do realize I'm a pre-service teacher, right? And that I've taken classes on things like working with ADD or LD students, and how to build multiple transitions into one 45 minute class, and such? Like, seriously, almost no one would consider giving notes for an entire class period these days, there are several different activities built in and usually at least some of them involve moving around and/or interpersonal interaction so this whole "WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE ADD BOYS" thing wears a bit thin with me.)

    P.S. Your opinion is totally wrong. Cheers.

    I'm fine with my personal opinion being wrong. If you're a teacher I'll trust your judgment in the matter.

    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »
    Patriarchy (and thus male dominance) developed with the societal ability to accumulate more property.

    What you say sounds plausible, but, and I may be misunderstanding something here, was there some point of something akin to general male and female equality in history for this economic history of patriarchy to diverge from?

    See, and here is where I blow what little credibility I have, I don't know. In what I've read there's always been an implication of a more egalitarian society before they settled down (ie women being able to own property, businesses, etc) but I've never seen it explicitly spelled out. There certainly is a contrast between, say, Muhammed's first wife being a wealthy widowed business owner and the women in Greece being locked in their rooms wearing veils, but I'm not sure how equal the sexes were in purely nomadic societies. It's always seemed to be one of those things that only developed with sedentary society because in a nomadic one everyone is needed to help keep everything working.

    I guess it just sounds a little too similar to the myth of the "noble savage". Not to strawman your statement, which I think has more than a few grains of truth in it, but there's a queer notion that everything was cool and equal and friendly before society came along and started making haves and have nots, and I think some of this sneaked into the beginning of your story.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    That they need to sit down, shut the fuck up and learn some self-control?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ZeeBeeKayZeeBeeKay Registered User regular
    edited December 2007

    I guess it just sounds a little too similar to the myth of the "noble savage". Not to strawman your statement, which I think has more than a few grains of truth in it, but there's a queer notion that everything was cool and equal and friendly before society came along and started making haves and have nots, and I think some of this sneaked into the beginning of your story.

    Oh that's totally true. It does sound waaaay too cool and equal and friendly the way I've described it, specifically because I've never gotten a good idea of the way it actually was before agricultural society came into play. I was mostly trying to tie it into something semi-cohesive, rather than a bunch of blather about Greece and fertility goddesses and economic power.

    ZeeBeeKay on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    That they need to sit down, shut the fuck up and learn some self-control?

    How is that any different from telling women that they have to be aggressive and dominant if they are to succeed in the corporate world?

    Is the problem with women, or the corporate world?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    That they need to sit down, shut the fuck up and learn some self-control?

    How is that any different from telling women that they have to be aggressive and dominant if they are to succeed in the corporate world?

    Is the problem with women, or the corporate world?

    The problem is men who discriminate against aggressive and dominant women, actually.

    FYI.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ZeeBeeKayZeeBeeKay Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    And with a society that actively discourages women from being aggressive and dominant for their entire lives.

    ZeeBeeKay on
  • Options
    HalberdBlueHalberdBlue Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I agree with the OP, simply because if (for example) men are predisposed to be hairier than women, than I don't see how there would be some sort of evolutionary barrier against anything ever being different in the mind between sexes.

    HalberdBlue on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    That they need to sit down, shut the fuck up and learn some self-control?

    How is that any different from telling women that they have to be aggressive and dominant if they are to succeed in the corporate world?

    Is the problem with women, or the corporate world?

    The problem is men who discriminate against aggressive and dominant women, actually.

    FYI.

    That's about it yeah. But more importantly, the only time these sorts of issues come up is when the jerk end of the spectrum find out no one likes them for being jerks. Usually when an aggressive, dominant women puts them in their place.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Question though: it's true that boys are called on more often, but isn't it true that they also get in trouble far more often than girls due to their aggressive and challenging natures? How does that factor in?

    That they need to sit down, shut the fuck up and learn some self-control?

    How is that any different from telling women that they have to be aggressive and dominant if they are to succeed in the corporate world?

    Is the problem with women, or the corporate world?

    The problem is men who discriminate against aggressive and dominant women, actually.

    FYI.

    What about workplaces with women bosses? Have any experiments been done measuring the success of women employees in a corporate atmosphere in which women consisted of half the employee population and held half of the power and authority positions?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ZeeBeeKay wrote: »

    I guess it just sounds a little too similar to the myth of the "noble savage". Not to strawman your statement, which I think has more than a few grains of truth in it, but there's a queer notion that everything was cool and equal and friendly before society came along and started making haves and have nots, and I think some of this sneaked into the beginning of your story.

    Oh that's totally true. It does sound waaaay too cool and equal and friendly the way I've described it, specifically because I've never gotten a good idea of the way it actually was before agricultural society came into play. I was mostly trying to tie it into something semi-cohesive, rather than a bunch of blather about Greece and fertility goddesses and economic power.

    Most likely, your bit comes into play and compounds preexisting situations and, as you indicate, may have created some new ones.

    I wish I'd brought some of my books with me, I've been reading a ton of interesting stuff on the development of agriculture (and some myths about it) and its effect on society. Damn.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Isn't ADD on the X chromosome? That might explain the disbalance.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    The problem is men who discriminate against aggressive and dominant women, actually.

    FYI.

    What about workplaces with women bosses? Have any experiments been done measuring the success of women employees in a corporate atmosphere in which women consisted of half the employee population and held half of the power and authority positions?

    A corporate atmosphere in which no woman has ever had her promotion in the hands of a man?

    Good luck with that.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    From the OP:
    ege02 wrote: »
    We see this in social sciences a lot; studies and experiments will not get funding because they aim to challenge topics that certain social or political groups are sensitive to, and on the rare occasion that they do get funding, if they end up finding results that go against notions related to political correctness - for example, in topics such as racial, ethnic, and gender studies - instead of confirming modern society's bull-headed and blind bias towards "equality", they are simply ridiculed and rejected by scientific authorities and by society at large.

    This isn't really true.

    A controversial study proposal will have no problem getting funding if that study is rigorous and the potential benefit to society outweighs the harm it could do if certain prejudicial groups used it to bolster their own agendas.

    There are studies finding neurological differences between male and female brains (and homosexual and heterosexual brains) all the damn time. They don't get shut down out of forced political correctness.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    The problem is men and women who discriminate against aggressive and dominant women, actually.

    FYI.

    What about workplaces with women bosses? Have any experiments been done measuring the success of women employees in a corporate atmosphere in which women consisted of half the employee population and held half of the power and authority positions?

    I fixed Adrien's post.
    It's been shown that women often discriminate against other women as well. Discrimination is largely ingrained, it can end up a very subtle and pervasive component of an entire corporate culture.
    I agree with the OP, simply because if (for example) men are predisposed to be hairier than women, than I don't see how there would be some sort of evolutionary barrier against anything ever being different in the mind between sexes.

    Nobody with half a brain has ever said that there's an "evolutionary barrier against anything ever being different in the mind between sexes." The problem is that there's a very short leap from "men and women are predisposed towards different behaviors" to "men and women are predisposed to XYZ specific behaviors (that also happen to support a bunch of pre-existing cultural notions about how men and women are supposed to behave)."

    For example, there's pretty solid evidence that men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women and women are more aroused by aural stimuli than men. That alone is not a controversial statement. However, if somebody tried to connect that to a shallow cliche narrative about the life of prehistorical man, or tried to explain female mate selection that way, I'd have to cry "bullshit!" unless there were some exceptionally strong evidence to make either of those connections.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    T OP: If you really think that research agendas pander to avoid offence to minority groups then you have plainly never been within cooee of a scientific database. But then, I already knew that.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    For example, there's pretty solid evidence that men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women and women are more aroused by aural stimuli than men.

    And here's an example. Those studies were largely based on showing women male-oriented mainstream porn, or asking questions that when honestly answered by a female buying in to mainstream gender ideals contribute to a self-image of one as a 'bad person'. It is bullshit research that flies in the face of reams of other information - why is women-made porn so popular? Why do teenage girls commonly paper their bedroom walls with male pinups? Why are women commonly expected to be the ones obsessed with looks, fashion, interior design, 'pretty' things? That research supports a purely fictional view of women that constructs them as passive objects and creatures of feeling rather than solid, 'seen' things. Even more telling, that narrative flies in the face of the old stories about women, that they were insatiable creatures easily distracted by the visual. Fail.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Daaaaamn. The Cat knows shit. Which is doubly impressive, her supposedly being a woman and all.

    But the answer to most of your questiosn Cat could probably be answered simply by falling back on some base response like, "It's the Devil in them."

    And, my interest in this topic always and ever was the idea that these research institutes would pander to minorities, or even majorities. Anyone. At least for a while.

    Some major socially upsetting, controversial discovery? Maybe I'm just naively cynical, but I just have a hard time not seeing at least administrators of the facility or anyone's knee-jerking so hard they hit themselves in the face.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Its really not at all profitable for research to get too countercultural, tbh. Most experimental design across the board is fairly unimaginative, and the interpretations cast upon findings tend to reinforce common cultural narratives. 'course, the media is far worse at this than actual researchers, in the endless search for taglines.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    We know that the first societies were matriarchal, so I guess females are born dominant.

    I'm trying, and failing, to understand this comment.

    You mean the first societies of humans, right? Where and when was this? How did you mark line between humans and human predecessors, and exactly what records do you have of their societies?

    I suppose you might mean something along the lines of "most modern day cultures had matriarchal predecessors", but that wouldn't prove the second part of the quotation.

    Lykouragh on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    his conclusion is bollocks, but a lot of ancient societies were matrilineal in one way or another, mostly because reproduction was a scary mystery. Also, you always knew for damn sure who your mother was, not necessarily your father. Which, as we're coming to understand, is pretty much a constant in human history. What it doesn't necessarily mean is that women held much power, and certainly not in the way males have. There are still a few real matriarchies around though, like the Mosu in China, and that society is hardly a terrible place to be a bloke. Female control of property and the family unit isn't necessarily scary.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    LykouraghLykouragh Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    My problem was with the "the first", really. If you tell me that a lot of ancient cultures were matrilineal, I'll agree. If you tell me that a lot of ancient cultures were matriarchal, I'll listen. If you try to tell me anything about "the first human societies" I'll boggle at you.

    Lykouragh on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    ah, fair call there.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I mean the societies founded before and around the first humans exited Africa (which is being found to be quite late, as evidence is making the multicontinental evolution theory look doubtful).

    A simple understanding of statistics disproves the theory that men have greater sex drives. Self-report studies almost always find that men have more sexual partners on average (mean), but mathematicians know that all this shows is that somebody isn't being honest. This is because the studies were neither held in Provincetown nor The Castro, begging the question "who's screwing all these men?"

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I mean the societies founded before and around the first humans exited Africa (which is being found to be quite late, as evidence is making the multicontinental evolution theory look doubtful).

    A simple understanding of statistics disproves the theory that men have greater sex drives. Self-report studies almost always find that men have more sexual partners on average (mean), but mathematicians know that all this shows is that somebody isn't being honest. This is because the studies were neither held in Provincetown nor The Castro, begging the question "who's screwing all these men?"

    I think this is interesting, because my personal experience (in relationships) has always, at least subconsciously, lead me to believe that. Obviously the data I base that on is to low to draw any conclusions. :lol:

    But, the evidence quoted for this is usually:

    1. Studies on heterosexuals, which as you mention are hard to verify.

    2. Studies on homosexual males and females, which of course suffer from the same problem, but nonetheless show very interesting results, ie LARGE gaps in number of partners between males and females.

    3. Studies on prostitution, which always and not surprisingly show that there is and has been historically a LARGE majority of female prostitutes compared to male. Supply and demand etc.

    What is the general consensus here. Are there any good studies to look into?

    Yann on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Yann wrote: »
    Studies on prostitution, which always and not surprisingly show that there is and has been historically a LARGE majority of female prostitutes compared to male. Supply and demand etc.

    Only in large towns, which was after the male takeover (Mesopotamia is probably the stock that patriarchies were born from, as most matriarchies are in Africa), meaning that the selling was to those with the money and were allowed to spend it in such a way.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    RedShellRedShell Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    A simple understanding of statistics disproves the theory that men have greater sex drives. Self-report studies almost always find that men have more sexual partners on average (mean), but mathematicians know that all this shows is that somebody isn't being honest. This is because the studies were neither held in Provincetown nor The Castro, begging the question "who's screwing all these men?"

    Uhhh.. a relatively small slice of women who have found a sweet spot in the sexual economy?

    Put it like this: if you're a guy who finds yourself in the position of being willing and ready to fuck every day, and with whomever (doesn't matter to you), are you going to *get* anything out of this other than sexual satisfaction? Of course not -- unless you're gay.

    But if you're a woman in the same position, you are in demand.

    Men are willing to pay for sex and women (by and large) are not. That, alone, seems to prove that men have a 'bigger' sex drive than women. Maybe bigger is the wrong word... but I have never heard of a prostitute that specializes in lesbians.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2007
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    RedShell wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    A simple understanding of statistics disproves the theory that men have greater sex drives. Self-report studies almost always find that men have more sexual partners on average (mean), but mathematicians know that all this shows is that somebody isn't being honest. This is because the studies were neither held in Provincetown nor The Castro, begging the question "who's screwing all these men?"

    Uhhh.. a relatively small slice of women who have found a sweet spot in the sexual economy?

    Put it like this: if you're a guy who finds yourself in the position of being willing and ready to fuck every day, and with whomever (doesn't matter to you), are you going to *get* anything out of this other than sexual satisfaction? Of course not -- unless you're gay.

    But if you're a woman in the same position, you are in demand.

    Men are willing to pay for sex and women (by and large) are not. That, alone, seems to prove that men have a 'bigger' sex drive than women. Maybe bigger is the wrong word... but I have never heard of a prostitute that specializes in lesbians.
    I explained that. It's the post right below yours.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    And even if they do - and I won't believe this until I see some very strong cross-cultural evidence - how do we know the reason is that they are just as sexually-driven as men, and not:

    a) going against social taboos is compelling and thrilling, and/or
    b) they are over-engaging in sexual encounters as a result of the vacuum created by the easing of social pressures against women's promiscuity in Western societies recently (although I do accept that it is nowhere close to being totally abolished)?

    You see the latter sort of vacuum-effect in other behaviors - teenagers drink a shit-load of alcohol within the first few months of turning 21, and then they eventually stop drinking so much as they "normalize" their behavior.

    As for liking being viewed as "mindless genetic-driven idiots", honestly speaking, if a person is stupid enough to view males like that - or, in an equally stupid way, females as sex objects - then their opinion isn't worth anything to me. So no, it does not bother me. There is a huge difference between being influenced by genes and being driven and governed entirely by genes. Nobody in this thread is suggesting the former, although it seems to be a popular straw-man to use against my stance (unsurprisingly).
    Feral wrote:
    For example, there's pretty solid evidence that men are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women and women are more aroused by aural stimuli than men. That alone is not a controversial statement. However, if somebody tried to connect that to a shallow cliche narrative about the life of prehistorical man, or tried to explain female mate selection that way, I'd have to cry "bullshit!" unless there were some exceptionally strong evidence to make either of those connections.

    Look, the thing is, we are what we are today because of natural and sexual selection. If men today are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women, that means men with such genes were, at some point in our evolutionary history, at an advantage, either against environmental conditions or in mating. There simply is no other plausible explanation.

    Hell, you see this sort of thing holding true for all sorts of animals. Male birds of paradise are colorful because female birds of paradise, for one reason or another*, have preferred colorful male birds of paradises as mates. It is not an accident or a conspiracy of social conditioning.

    *most likely because 1) being colorful may be a sign of health and/or b) being colorful makes males easier to spot predators, so if they have survived that long enough to mate, they must be strong/fast/agile/clever enough in the female's eyes to father her children

    With this in mind, why are you so quick to dismiss similar explanations for the way humans are today? We are intelligent because being intelligent gave us a fitness advantage, both against nature and in mate selection. Why can't it be that males are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli because it has given them an advantage in reproduction throughout history?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    Seriously. Can't we go back to the old misogyny where men never had sex and all sat around smoking cigars and wearing fedoras?

    Instead of this. footballery nonsense we have here today.

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Tarranon wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    Seriously. Can't we go back to the old misogyny where men never had sex and all sat around smoking cigars and wearing fedoras?

    Instead of this. footballery nonsense we have here today.

    It never existed. Your image is part of the nostalgia trap (read Thomas Hardy, who wrote about the dark side of the time you idealize).

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Tarranon wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    Seriously. Can't we go back to the old misogyny where men never had sex and all sat around smoking cigars and wearing fedoras?

    Instead of this. footballery nonsense we have here today.

    It never existed. Your image is part of the nostalgia trap (read Thomas Hardy, who wrote about the dark side of the time you idealize).

    I think he was being sarcastic.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Quite frankly, it's always best to be safe on threads like this, or else I'd assume you were being sarcastic.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Quite frankly, it's always best to be safe on threads like this, or else I'd assume you were being sarcastic.

    yeah, I was joking. Sorry. :(

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Women were originally the "sexual" ones, ege.

    Hell, there are biblical rules pertaining to how often you need to sex up your wife depending on your job, lest she become unsatisfied with the infrequent loving and have reason for complaint.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.