Re: [evol-psych] Kinsey Institute -> Male and female 'capacity' to love
- At 08:55 AM 12/29/2007 -0500, Edgar Owen wrote:
>Julienne,How interesting. I didn't say that at all, but you manufactured it out of your own projections.
>That's one (female) point of view in which females presumably have greater
>capacity to 'love' because they are (supposedly) more monogamous.
>But one could just as reasonably argue that it is actually men that haveHow'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?)
>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).
Might I guess - none?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
At 06:21 PM 12/31/2007 +0000, bowmanthebard wrote:
Mark Flinn wrote:
>> Is the issue 'exclusivity'? In regard to affiliationit's usually a bit of a public relations exercise. Of course we are
>> towards kin, clearly humans are capable of loving multiple
> 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,
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
> There are people who pretend to care about all children the same way.Angelina Jolie, who, abandoned by her father, is
> They're called "bad parents".
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.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
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
- 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.
--- In email@example.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
>I thought it was supposed to me the other way around--that females
> Kathryn Coe
> Some males on this list seem to enjoy trying to anger the females.
used that strategy -- incitement -- to test the strength, etc. of
males. Interesting that both sexes do such things.
>males on this list to a name that is clearly female, as opposed to
> One hypothesis I would like to see tested is the response of some
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
>that he was female (due to the ambiguous gender of the christian
> Carmi Turchick's experience may be instructive here - many assumed
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