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

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

Expand Messages
  • Julienne
    ... Ah ha! So science is based on personal support ? Of course, Edgar, one can be both physically unattractive but still be described as having a beautiful
    Message 1 of 283 , Jan 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:47 AM 1/1/2008 -0500, Edgar Owen wrote:
      Jeremy,

      You say 'Let us not pretend that ordinary people are beautiful'! Wow, I thought I was the one who was not PC here, but that takes the non-PC cake! Aren't you aware that the 'appropriate' thing to say is that everyone is beautiful down deep inside, that beauty is more than skin deep etc. etc. Your statement is tantamount to saying that 99% of women are not beautiful. I think that gaff just lost you Iris' and Julienne's support.

      Ah ha! So science is based on personal "support"? Of course,
      Edgar, one can be both physically unattractive but still be
      described as having a beautiful soul  or whatever. Where did
      you understand Jeremy as speaking about women, solely? I think
      you're projecting again.

      Sadly your 'definition' of beauty is as flawed as your definition of love. Perhaps you actually believe your pop culture indoctrination that anorexic sickly models, or freakish movie stars define female beauty?

      True beauty does come from within. In women it is when a woman freely embodies her natural biological femininity and glories in it.

      Oh, blah, blah, blah, blah. Since when did you become
      the arbiter on female beauty? We all know, having heard
      it from you interminably, that a female is in her prime
      for a man on the first day of menstruation - all aglow.
       

       Female beauty is not an image one puts on a shelf or stores as a jpg. It is a live, love filled female who glories in fulfilling her biological function with her man. The living healthy glow of this state far transcends any airbrushed cover girl image when it comes to defining beauty. Any woman who has not been ruined by a feminist upbringing can aspire to this true beauty.

      Got it. To Edgar a woman is beautiful when her raison d'etre
      is her man. Edgar swoons when a teenage girl brings him his
      slippers and recognizes she is nothing but a biological
      entity whose meaning derives from her relationship to a man.
      Edgar, you've never gotten over the biblical myth of Eve
      being made for Adam. Amazing how deep it seeps.

      As to a "feminist" upbringing - Iris and I, and, judging
      from their ages, were not given "feminist" upbringings -
      but rather had to fight, squirm, reason, muscle, our way
      beyond the masculinist upbringing which was all pervasive
      in our own childhoods - the same kind of existence you
      and Moxon would like to resurrect in all their misery
      for girls.

      How about it, Edgar? It's 2008 - how about a New Year's
      Resolution for you and your ilk - to take a fresh look
      at your prejudices and limiting perspectives? Let's all
      do that...

      Happy New Year! :)

      Julienne


      Edgar



      On Jan 1, 2008, at 4:46 AM, bowmanthebard wrote:

      Kathryn Coe wrote:

      > There was no animosity in my message below,
      > other than the use of the word animosity,

      I didn't think there was.

      > I was PRAISING men and their ability to love
      > beyond a sexual relationship that is either
      > exclusive or non-exclusive!

      I was aware of that, and I don't really "get" the way you seem to be
      treating this as an adversarial exchange.

      > As to your definition, a male or a female may
      > be exclusive in a sexual relationship and still
      > hurt or even kill the other person.

      Exactly, so we really must stop thinking of love as if it were first
      introduced to the world via the movie "Bambi". Love is the most
      dangerous condition.

      > Further, a person may be non-exclusive and make
      > t remendous sacrifices of other sorts for one of
      > the partners.

      Even the weaker word 'partner' hardly applies to people who are
      non-exclusive, unless you mean house-owning partners, or business
      partners, or something other than lovers. But in any case, sacrifices
      (etc.) are always "scarce" in the sense that the demand always exceeds
      the supply, so the less exclusive a "partnership" is, the fewer
      "sacrifices" can be made.

      > Exclusivity may be neither necessary nor sufficient
      > characteristic of love. I do believe we should try
      > to test our definitions once in a while.

      I think you are very much mistaken here, although it is an opinion I
      have often heard expressed by people who were young adults in the
      1960s. In my opinion, that generation's denial of human nature has
      done (and continues to do) untold damage to human life, especially in
      the West, which is really the only place where those spoiled brats
      were rich enough to indulge their loose and unloving sexual practices!

      If a sexual relationship is non-exclusive, then it is something less
      than love. This is surely clear from art. Inasmuch as all humans are
      liable to be unfaithful, love is perhaps more of an ideal, or an
      aspiration, or a subject of art than a condition tha t ordinary people
      can hope to attain. In that, it is like beauty. Let us not pretend
      that ordinary people are beautiful, because that lowers and alters the
      meaning of the word 'beauty'. Similarly, let us not pretend that
      hippie types who simply cannot keep their trousers on are lovers.

      Jeremy



      "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
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        EP.

        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
        tribalypredisposed@...

        --- 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
        thought.
        >
        > 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
        details?
        >
        > Robert
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.