Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences

Expand Messages
  • Julienne
    At 06:32 AM 11/30/2012, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote: (...) ... Oh, jeez, Robert - I don t know where you came up with these figures. They are clearly not
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:32 AM 11/30/2012, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
      (...)
      RKS:
      Studies done of college age people approached by an attractive individual of the opposite sex and offered casual sex returned more than 75% agreement among the males and zero percent among the females.  It is clear that you are projecting your own gender-specific bias onto males, which doesn't really make any sense to them.  Even a recluse like myself would not be morally opposed to a casual sexual encounter but I would not even contemplate a relationship of any kind ~ far too much time and too much money to possibly be worth it...

      Well, then, I guess you can tell that I would prefer one of the 25% of the men who didn't choose to
      treat a woman as a mere sex object to be used, than one of the 75%. But then, I would suggest that we
      would probably find that one of that 25% would have other qualities I would also prefer.

      I also don't see the decision to use a women this way to be moral at all, and I would then
      consider the total character of the man who would make such a choice.

      As to your comment that a relationship with a woman would be  "far too much time and too much money to
      possibly be worth it." - that's similarly a projection of your own gender, or at least of the 75%. It
      also confirms my own feeling,which I have mentioned to you,and tried to discuss with you before, that
      you don't understand or value women, Robert, which is why you so frequently shut down topics on women's
      issues like "rape", "clitoridectomy", etc., and why you have shown you don't fully understand the clitoris
      and women's  other "parts" and issues.

      Further, it may well have something to do with why you were unable to understand the reaction of
      so many women to Steven Moxon's misogyny. It may also have s great deal to do with why you are
      unable to get as many women to contribute here as you have told me you would like to. The
      heavy anti-woman bias, to this day, is very obvious to most women. Not all women - there are
      women as well who are anti-woman, falling into that cultural pool. One doesn't have to hate men
      to defend women against their attacks - but the gigantically enormous imbalance in this group
      on attacks and negative attitudes toward women is unavoidable.

      However,the "studies of college age people" which you mention, are just that - college age, when
      impulse control and far range thinking are not yet fully developed in the brain. That's an age when
      insurance companies, at least in the US, raise the costs of insurance for driving, etc., quite a
      bit for young males because they aren't very good yet at making all sorts of mature decisions.

      However, it's a pretty Saturnine attitude for a middle aged man to so completely feel relationships
      with a woman to be so empty for him and costly for him, so that those costs of time and money
      so outweigh any possible pleasure or value.

      It would be interesting for this test to be repeated with middle aged men.

      One other comment - I wonder if this study really represents the actuality for these college men.
      I wonder how much their desire to show off their masculinity/virility/macho nature might be
      involved in the answers of the 75%. .


      Julienne
       
      RKS:
      Of the 25% you prefer, around 10% are gay, 10% are already in committed relationships that they did not want to risk and around 5% are very religious and any left over are just very timid or overcautious (I'd probably fall into that category), paedophiles or didn't find the female attractive ~ which ones do you prefer: gay, religious or already taken??

      Oh, jeez, Robert - I don't know where you came up with these figures. They are clearly not accurate, as my life alone would refute that information. One's life may be splattered with the occasional one in your 3 fatal categories, but it's only a splattering, and, I must say, a very unsatisfactory splattering to be pulled into.

      It would seem Robert, that I have managed to find the hidden exceptions to your fatal trio - but I don't believe that. I talk, every day, to both men and women who are struggling with their love lives - and most are looking for love, not for just casual using of other human beings.  The "casual" daters are usually afraid or disillusioned like you, or a bit
      sociopathic, or have a low EQ.

      As to your fears, Robert - we're all scared. It's just a matter of giving it a try - a leap of faith, at some point.
      Or not. Forget about the "expensive" - it isn't all about money at all, despite the traditional evol-psych chatter.

      The time which you begrudge vanishes out the window when one's in love - all one wants to do is to talk to/be with the other - and it's a lot more rewarding than taking out the rubbish or sending another professional e-mail.

      Have you never been in love? Or do you think it's just about hard drives? Or do you think love is just a hard drive?
      If it is, then how have you managed to avoid it? Why fight Saturn?

      That said, we are all different, and in truth, some are more "relationship" people than others - and some are more driven by their work than love/romance/passion.

      Cheer up - and remember, nothing ventured, usw.

      BTW - you didn't answer or comment on some of my other points above...:) ?

      Julienne

      PS - if you do meet someone, get his/her birthday, and I can tell you what the relationship potential is.
      Your friendly astrologer. :))

      To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged. -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)

    • Edgar Owen
      Brad, Aha! The truth is out! Excellent first paragraph. Confirmed by the ENORMOUS money and time spent BY WOMEN to OBJECTIFY THEMSELVES AS SEX OBJECTS IN THE
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Brad,

        Aha! The truth is out! Excellent first paragraph. Confirmed by the ENORMOUS money and time spent BY WOMEN to OBJECTIFY THEMSELVES AS SEX OBJECTS IN THE EYES OF MEN!

        Edgar



        On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Brad wrote:

         

        julienne writes: "Well, then, I guess you can tell that I would prefer one of the 25% of the men who didn't choose to
        treat a woman as a mere sex object to be used, than one of the 75%. But then, I would suggest that we
        would probably find that one of that 25% would have other qualities I would also prefer.
        "

        "I also don't see the decision to use a women this way to be moral at all, and I would then
        consider the total character of the man who would make such a choice."



        Again Julienne degrades males and undermines their value.
        Take, for example, the unending complaints about “objectification.” Feminists have long been complaining about the objectification of women. One theory I have is that much of this angst is simply due to the fact that other women are being objectified — it’s demoralizing for women to see other females soaking up attention from males. Being the “object” of sexual attention is both psychologically gratifying and sexually arousing for women, so when feminists complain about women being objectified, what they are really saying is “it is a terrible injustice that it is not me who is the object of universal desire.

        This is not the sexual objectification you are accustomed to hearing of. This is not objectification of individuals as objects of desire or beauty. The true objectification of human beings occurs when we treat them as disposable utilities, use them to the point of destruction, and then discard them like store brand appliances from wall mart. Male rape victims, thrown away and refused treatment by UN aid agencies -- because once they're broken, they're no longer men, and thus, not human. American veterans shattered by their combat experiences, returned home to be discarded. And unlike females who are objectified as items of desire or beauty, and thus protected and coveted, men objectified are discarded as actual objects, and abandoned to die. They are also invisible, and never discussed under the heading of sexual objectification.
         
        Brad



        "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."


        -- George Orwell

        From: Julienne <julienne@...>
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 5:27 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences

         
        At 12:34 AM 11/30/2012, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
        From: Julienne
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences

        At 03:28 AM 11/29/2012, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Julienne
        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com ; Evolutionary-Psychology ; Evolutionary Psychology News
        Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:34 PM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences

        Robert,
        How are you defining "casual sex"?

        Julienne  

        RKS:
        Sex outside of established relationships e.g. one night stands, occasional sex after drinking to much etc.

        I think that's assuming that the level of feeling and attraction is pretty superficial
        and based on curiosity or just a desire for "action" - pretty much "user" sex. Granted
        that there may be people who approach other people as masturbation partners, so to speak,
        but my experience, personally nd professionally, is that most people hope for more that
        that - and that"casual sex" is not what most are looking for - only the desperate or
        hopeless or emotionally shallow. Unfortunately, there may be a lot of those who are
        desperate or hopeless or shallow. One's reaction to sexuality is an expression of the
        rest of one;s character,

        However, are you suggesting that all sex outside "established" relationships is just casual?
        I don't think so - I think it depends on whether one is looking just for sex - or for
        something more meaningful - a real connection. I think there is a period where a relationship
        is developing - from where it can fall apart or turn into a deep connection, without it being
        necessarily "casual". I guess what I'm saying is that it depends on what kind of person one is -
        "casual" in the way one relates to others, or serious.

        How many people are really interested in drunken sex? - pretty much only the desperate
        or the cynical/disillusioned. 

        Julienne
        RKS:
        Studies done of college age people approached by an attractive individual of the opposite sex and offered casual sex returned more than 75% agreement among the males and zero percent among the females.  It is clear that you are projecting your own gender-specific bias onto males, which doesn't really make any sense to them.  Even a recluse like myself would not be morally opposed to a casual sexual encounter but I would not even contemplate a relationship of any kind ~ far too much time and too much money to possibly be worth it...

        Well, then, I guess you can tell that I would prefer one of the 25% of the men who didn't choose to
        treat a woman as a mere sex object to be used, than one of the 75%. But then, I would suggest that we
        would probably find that one of that 25% would have other qualities I would also prefer.

        I also don't see the decision to use a women this way to be moral at all, and I would then
        consider the total character of the man who would make such a choice.

        As to your comment that a relationship with a woman would be  "far too much time and too much money to
        possibly be worth it." - that's similarly a projection of your own gender, or at least of the 75%. It
        also confirms my own feeling,which I have mentioned to you,and tried to discuss with you before, that
        you don't understand or value women, Robert, which is why you so frequently shut down topics on women's
        issues like "rape", "clitoridectomy", etc., and why you have shown you don't fully understand the clitoris
        and women's  other "parts" and issues.

        Further, it may well have something to do with why you were unable to understand the reaction of
        so many women to Steven Moxon's misogyny. It may also have s great deal to do with why you are
        unable to get as many women to contribute here as you have told me you would like to. The
        heavy anti-woman bias, to this day, is very obvious to most women. Not all women - there are
        women as well who are anti-woman, falling into that cultural pool. One doesn't have to hate men
        to defend women against their attacks - but the gigantically enormous imbalance in this group
        on attacks and negative attitudes toward women is unavoidable.

        However,the "studies of college age people" which you mention, are just that - college age, when
        impulse control and far range thinking are not yet fully developed in the brain. That's an age when
        insurance companies, at least in the US, raise the costs of insurance for driving, etc., quite a
        bit for young males because they aren't very good yet at making all sorts of mature decisions.

        However, it's a pretty Saturnine attitude for a middle aged man to so completely feel relationships
        with a woman to be so empty for him and costly for him, so that those costs of time and money
        so outweigh any possible pleasure or value.

        It would be interesting for this test to be repeated with middle aged men.

        One other comment - I wonder if this study really represents the actuality for these college men.
        I wonder how much their desire to show off their masculinity/virility/macho nature might be
        involved in the answers of the 75%. .


        Julienne

        To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged. -Norman Mailer, author (1923-2007)




      • R A Fonda
        ... VERY true, at least in some cases. I think there is often jealousy involved as well, with many lesbian or simply asexual feminists being offended that some
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On 11/30/2012 9:35 AM, Brad wrote: when feminists complain about women being objectified, what they are really saying is “it is a terrible injustice that it is not me who is the object of universal desire.

          VERY true, at least in some cases.

          I think there is often jealousy involved as well, with many lesbian or simply asexual feminists being offended that some women like men and enjoy lovemaking with them: they consider it disloyalty..


          There was some really perceptive discussion of this in "Drawing Down the Moon".

          RAF
        • nini
          *shrug* have numbered asexual males among my friends, it is viewed the same way by them. pini ... *shrug* have numbered asexual males among my friends, it is
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            *shrug* have numbered asexual males among my friends, it is viewed the same way by them.

            'pini

            On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM, R A Fonda <rafonda@...> wrote:
             

            On 11/30/2012 9:35 AM, Brad wrote:
            when feminists complain about women being objectified, what they are really saying is “it is a terrible injustice that it is not me who is the object of universal desire.

            VERY true, at least in some cases.

            I think there is often jealousy involved as well, with many lesbian or simply asexual feminists being offended that some women like men and enjoy lovemaking with them: they consider it disloyalty..


            There was some really perceptive discussion of this in "Drawing Down the Moon".

            RAF


          • mankindms
            If you look at what Moxon said to the PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE and then look at how the press reported it, the demonization of Moxon is obvious. The same kind
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 5, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              If you look at what Moxon said to the PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE and then look at how the press reported it, the demonization of Moxon is obvious.

              The same kind of demonization is given to proponents of evolutionary psychology.


              From: Julienne
              > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:27 PM
              > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Difference
              Further, it may well have something to do with why you were unable to understand the reaction of
              > so many women to Steven Moxon's misogyny. It may also have s great deal to do with why you are
              > unable to get as many women to contribute here as you have told me you would like to. The
              > heavy anti-woman bias, to this day, is very obvious to most women.
            • clarence_sonny_williams
              We should strenuously object to scientific hypotheses for which the evidence is weak, but not demonize the person offering that hypothesis. After all, more
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 6, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                We should strenuously object to scientific hypotheses for which the
                evidence is weak, but not "demonize" the person offering that
                hypothesis. After all, more information might establish the ridiculed
                hypothesis. I think this characterizes Jensen's and others' work on
                "race and intelligence." They may be right, but the majority still
                regard it as dubious.

                Moxon, however, is in a different category...because he fabricates some
                (much?) of his scientific evidence. Moreover, when someone like myself
                reports that Moxon's words in summary of a particular research article
                are patently false (the research did NOT conclude as Moxon reported), it
                is Moxon who demonizes me. In fact, he sent me threatening emails for
                so exposing his lies.

                I think that puts Moxon in a special category, and he deserves to be
                demonized. He's not offering an hypothesis based upon scientific
                evidence, he's making up that scientific evidence in order to foster his
                misogynistic sociopolitical agenda of hate.

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "mankindms"
                <mankindms@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > If you look at what Moxon said to the PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE and then
                look at how the press reported it, the demonization of Moxon is
                obvious.
                >
                > The same kind of demonization is given to proponents of evolutionary
                psychology.
                >
                >
                > From: Julienne
                > > To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:27 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex
                Difference
                > Further, it may well have something to do with why you were unable to
                understand the reaction of
                > > so many women to Steven Moxon's misogyny. It may also have s great
                deal to do with why you are
                > > unable to get as many women to contribute here as you have told me
                you would like to. The
                > > heavy anti-woman bias, to this day, is very obvious to most women.
                >
              • R A Fonda
                ... Indeed, he IS in a different category than yourself, and this (disparaging him on a list where he can t reply) is the only way you would ever be able to
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 6, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 12/6/2012 8:00 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                  Moxon, however, is in a different category...

                  Indeed, he IS in a different category than yourself, and this (disparaging him on a list where he can't reply) is the only way you would ever be able to contend with a genuine intellectual such as Moxon. Then too, he might not bother to reply to you even if he were allowed to post here; as the old saying goes: "an eagle does not hawk at flies".

                  RAF
                • clarence_sonny_williams
                  As usual, RAF, when you don t like what someone says, you misrepresent what they ve said. Moxon is in that special category including people who have
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 7, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    As usual, RAF, when you don't like what someone says, you misrepresent
                    what they've said.

                    Moxon is in that "special category" including people who have
                    demonstrably fabricated scientific evidence and/or egregiously
                    misrepresented it. While Moxon was still a member of this group, I
                    purchased his book to read first hand the material to which I disagreed.
                    I caught him publishing a bald faced lie. I confronted him with a
                    specific piece of research he cited in his book, and asked him to
                    explain how the researcher's words that I quoted were just the opposite
                    of what Moxon cited in his book. He replied that his editor excised
                    what he intended to write and he had the original manuscript to prove
                    that...but he never provided this promised evidence! We went back and
                    forth a few times, and then he began threatening me in private emails.
                    As a result, Robert did what we should expect him to do: Moxon was
                    kicked off the group.

                    I have made no new charges against Moxon, so your comment that he cannot
                    defend himself is not germane. He did attempt to defend himself, and
                    failed miserably. I provided everyone with all the evidence, and nobody
                    presented contrary evidence. Therefore, the conclusion that Moxon
                    publishes lies was established.

                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, R A Fonda <rafonda@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > On 12/6/2012 8:00 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                    > > Moxon, however, is in a different category...
                    >
                    > Indeed, he IS in a different category than yourself, and this
                    > (disparaging him on a list where he can't reply) is the only way you
                    > would ever be able to contend with a genuine intellectual such as
                    Moxon.
                    > Then too, he might not bother to reply to you even if he were allowed
                    to
                    > post here; as the old saying goes: "an eagle does not hawk at flies".
                    >
                    > RAF
                    >
                  • james kohl
                    Excerpted from below, Clarence wrote: I provided everyone with all the evidence, and nobody presented contrary evidence. JK: Anyone who thinks that Williams
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 7, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Excerpted from below, Clarence wrote: "I provided everyone with all the evidence, and nobody presented contrary evidence."

                      JK: Anyone who thinks that Williams is capable of providing anyone with evidence of anything is mistaken. I have repeatedly provided evidence that refutes his ridiculous assertions, and he simply refuses to respond. I don't care what happened between him and Moxon; just that others see from what he still does to this day that it's more likely Williams is the problem, as he probably always will be.
                       
                      James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.



                      From: clarence_sonny_williams <clarencew@...>
                      To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Fri, December 7, 2012 7:09:02 PM
                      Subject: Re: [evol-psych] : Sexual Regret ~ Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences

                       

                      As usual, RAF, when you don't like what someone says, you misrepresent
                      what they've said.

                      Moxon is in that "special category" including people who have
                      demonstrably fabricated scientific evidence and/or egregiously
                      misrepresented it. While Moxon was still a member of this group, I
                      purchased his book to read first hand the material to which I disagreed.
                      I caught him publishing a bald faced lie. I confronted him with a
                      specific piece of research he cited in his book, and asked him to
                      explain how the researcher's words that I quoted were just the opposite
                      of what Moxon cited in his book. He replied that his editor excised
                      what he intended to write and he had the original manuscript to prove
                      that...but he never provided this promised evidence! We went back and
                      forth a few times, and then he began threatening me in private emails.
                      As a result, Robert did what we should expect him to do: Moxon was
                      kicked off the group.

                      I have made no new charges against Moxon, so your comment that he cannot
                      defend himself is not germane. He did attempt to defend himself, and
                      failed miserably. I provided everyone with all the evidence, and nobody
                      presented contrary evidence. Therefore, the conclusion that Moxon
                      publishes lies was established.

                      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, R A Fonda <rafonda@...>
                      wrote:

                      >
                      > On 12/6/2012 8:00 AM, clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
                      > > Moxon, however, is in a different category...
                      >
                      > Indeed, he IS in a different category than yourself, and this
                      > (disparaging him on a list where he can't reply) is the only way you
                      > would ever be able to contend with a genuine intellectual such as
                      Moxon.
                      > Then too, he might not bother to reply to you even if he were allowed
                      to
                      > post here; as the old saying goes: "an eagle does not hawk at flies".
                      >
                      > RAF
                      >

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.