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

Re: [evol-psych] Kinsey Institute -> Male and female 'capacity' to love

Expand Messages
  • Julienne
    ... How interesting. I didn t say that at all, but you manufactured it out of your own projections. ... How s that working for you, Edgar? How many women are
    Message 1 of 283 , Dec 31, 2007
      At 08:55 AM 12/29/2007 -0500, Edgar Owen wrote:
      >That's one (female) point of view in which females presumably have greater
      >capacity to 'love' because they are (supposedly) more monogamous.

      How interesting. I didn't say that at all, but you manufactured it out of your own projections.

      >But one could just as reasonably argue that it is actually men that have
      >much greater capacity to love because they are able to fall into and
      >maintain multiple love relationships with multiple females at the same
      >time whereas women can't. Seems to me that being able to love more people
      >simultaneously like men can is a much better quantifier of the true
      >ability and capacity to love than the supposed 'depth' of a single
      >relationship. (The female notion of such depth often being the degree to
      >which the male kowtows to the female's whims).

      How's that working for you, Edgar? How many women are you in love with at the moment? And how many are in love with you? How many you are in love with are in love with other men? (or women?)

      Might I guess - none?



      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      At 06:21 PM 12/31/2007 +0000, bowmanthebard wrote:

      Mark Flinn wrote:

      >> Is the issue 'exclusivity'? In regard to affiliation
      >> towards kin, clearly humans are capable of loving multiple
      >> offspring.

      > I was thinking of "erotic" love (i.e. love as mythologically guided by the god Eros, rather than something pornographic).

      >Personally, I think when people talk about "love" of their children,
      it's usually a bit of a public relations exercise. Of course we are
      all attached to our children, proud of them, prepared to make
      sacrifices for them, want what's best for them, can sometimes enjoy
      their company, and all that...

      Ouch! That's pretty pale. As Ashley Montague wrote, and I
      paraphrase, "Every child deserves to have at least one person
      who is totally crazy about her..." (or him...).

      > But even here, whether we call it "love" or something else, it extends as far as one's OWN children and NOT anyone else's children. > That's exclusivity, isn't it?

      I think that part of the issue here is that though
      we may be filled with a kind of universal love of
      humanity, to be constantly "in love" with all
      humanity would be exhausting...though I am sure that
      it is something some people certainly do feel.

      And with children - I find that children from very
      large families usually lose out because the parents
      simply don't have the emotional energy to give so
      many children the full amount of what each child needs -
      not to mention the physical energy or just plain time.
      So it is with adults - we need a great deal, and five
      minutes, or an hour, a week or so with the object of
      our erotic desire, or a beloved, is just not enough.
      People in such relationships are left pining - as are
      children in overcrowded families where their needs
      aren't met. This is what sibling rivalry is all about -
      the child worried that the parents might prefer the
      sibling(s), and that the one child might not be loved
      enough. I think this is probably restaged in adult
      relationships, where we want to know that some "one"
      will be there for us - body, heart, soul, biochemicals
      and all.:)

      > There are people who pretend to care about all children the same way.
      > They're called "bad parents".

      Angelina Jolie, who, abandoned by her father, is
      trying to make up for that now by adopting a few
      housefulls of children from all over the world,
      says she finds her birth daughter "boring", because
      she has her own biological parents, and is therefore more
      "privileged". That poor little girl is in for a rough
      time. Let's hope Brad Pitt is "totally crazy" about his
      little birth baby. Angeline is, in effect, psychologically
      abandoning her baby in a restaging of what her father did
      to her and her brother.


      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Jeremy wrote

      If you're just trying to wind up the feminists here, fine, but if
      you're making a serious point, have another think about it. Women are
      every bit as capable as men of maintaining multiple sexual
      relationships at the same time (they just don't boast about it). Men
      rarely regard such women as having a "greater capacity to love".

      Graeme: I would, though I might consider that the amount of Love I received inadequate to my self-serving needs.

      The operative word there is "needs". I think we vastly
      underrate the amount of love each human being needs,
      beginning as babies. Just as babies need loving handling
      and connection to thrive (as shown by deaths in orphanages
      where everything else was provided), maybe adult human
      beings need a great deal more love to thrive as adults.


      "Art washes away from the soul, the dust of everyday life." ~Picasso"

      Julienne's Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos.
      Radio: "You and the Cosmos" WHRWFM.org, 90.5 FM,
      Join us at EvolPsych@yahoogroups.com
    • Carmi Turchick
      Missed this one, have not been coming around here much recently. Kathryn, I think it is partly situational here. Certain female posters here are incredibly
      Message 283 of 283 , Apr 26, 2008
        Missed this one, have not been coming around here much recently.

        Kathryn, I think it is partly situational here. Certain female
        posters here are incredibly extreme in their views and do see the
        world as a vast male conspiracy against them because they are women.
        One frequent poster of the last few years had the view that her posts
        were always rejected before RKS took over because of sexism, when it
        fact they were rejected because she just knows nothing about
        evolutionary psychology, to the point that she still does not know it
        is not the same thing as general psychology.

        This same poster has accused me of being an extremist male
        chauvanist, which is quite far from the truth, and did so based on
        literally no supporting evidence.

        On the other side the list has become populated by several males who
        see the world as being all about opportunity for males to mate. These
        posters do generally fit parameters of sexism as seen by most others,
        despite their efforts to dress it up here in a veil of science and

        As for the experience I had here, mostly it was a positive one back
        when posts were more limited to those of an academic informed nature
        and not the current popular style. Some men did flirt with me but
        since one was a childhood idol of mine I let it go for a while, it
        was kinda fun...

        I never had a thought that I was otherwise being treated differently
        here due to the ideas others had about my gender. There were some who
        questioned whether those of us without academic credentials should
        participate, but the leader was run off when I sliced and diced his
        most recent published paper.

        In general I have participated less as I found other well informed
        people I respected leaving the list and that responses to my posts
        had become much less thoughtful and far more simplistic. As Chagnon
        noted, he was surprised a poster here had not heard of Trivers.
        Really, if you have not, how are you here and why do you think you
        know enough to have an opinion?

        I also am disapointed with both the list and EP as a field with the
        extreme focus on mating issues and with the lists obsession with IQ
        and race. These seem to me to be the least interesting and profitable
        topics for EP to look at. Properly applied, EP can revolutionize
        political science, anthropology, sociology, history, psychology,
        women's studies, peace studies...and find useful application for
        cultural studies, literature, etc, etc. Or we can have some more
        damned studies about how long people's fingers are and some more
        morphed faces and some more crappy posts here about IQ seeking to
        justify the posters feelings of superiority.

        I am sorry that posts which unfairly attacked you were allowed to be
        seen here. I think that it would be helpful if the standards were
        tightened on that kind of post.

        Carmi Turchick

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
        <stonjek@...> wrote:
        > Kathryn Coe
        > Some males on this list seem to enjoy trying to anger the females.
        I thought it was supposed to me the other way around--that females
        used that strategy -- incitement -- to test the strength, etc. of
        males. Interesting that both sexes do such things.
        > One hypothesis I would like to see tested is the response of some
        males on this list to a name that is clearly female, as opposed to
        the response to a similar message that is not obviously from a
        female. It seems to me that it is often assumed that any message we --
        the people with female names -- write is feminist dribble or
        ranting. The response to my (very few) messages often surprises me as
        I do not think of myself as a feminist and have been sickened at
        times by the hold they had (or once had) on universities and free
        > RKS:
        > Carmi Turchick's experience may be instructive here - many assumed
        that he was female (due to the ambiguous gender of the christian
        name) and he didn't let on for some time. He did once mention the
        attitude toward him by those who assumed he was female, but I can't
        lay my hands on it at this moment. Maybe he will fill us in on the
        > Robert
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.