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

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger turn-on for men'

Expand Messages
  • Steve Moxon
    This is completely false analysis. It is the norm in Western countries that women sexually signal through bare flesh, not any exception. [And there is no
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
      This is completely false analysis.
      It is the norm in Western countries that women sexually signal through bare flesh, not any exception.
      [And there is no situation where bearing flesh makes any practical sense (exposing skin directly to sunlight actually makes the body hotter).]
      This is not signalling to some men and not to others; it is to men generically.
      Women want men to approach them in order that they can evaluate them as potential mates -- whether or not this is articulated or realised consciously.
      This does not mean that women have a positive sexual interest in every man in the vicinity and in every man who approaches them.
      Women need to interact with men to evaluate them, because a man's status is not revealed in his mere appearance (albeit that height, build, symmetricality, and masculinity of fascial features all predispose to gaining status, and women certainly do take these into account).
      To a degree, men are expected to be cognisant of relative mate-value and not to approach women obviously 'out of their league', but when men get this wrong it is hardly a problem for women to deal with -- it's more of a problem for the man to extricate himself.
       
      Now, over and above a general fashion of baring flesh, some women take this further than others -- and evn this may not be conscious. This is 'meant' to be picked up on by men, and pick up on it they certainly do. Study in nightclubs by Colin Hendrie (of the University of Leeds, biological psychology department) shows that the degree of bared flesh is directly proportional to the number of approaches by males and the likelihood of a woman who has entered the nightclub on her own leaving as part of a couple. Women with notably more bare flesh than is usual even in nightclubs, receive many times as many approaches compared to what other women attract. [Colin presented at ISHE in July.]
       
      Pretence that behaviour is not the brazen sexuality that in fact it is, plays very well to the standard ploy of female coyness. So it is that college women, given in the academic scenario norms of parotting tired ideology, may well say that they endorse statements from an unrepresentative minority of clapped-out feminists to complain about supposed inappropriate male attention and the sexual irrelevancy of their dress. But these women privately, along with the vast majority of women, guffaw at such daftness, because they know instinctively full well what the game is, even though female flesh-baring is essentially non-conscious behaviour. And what people may say about their non-conscious behaviour is barely worth noting, obviously. As Roy remarked, colleges are notably sexually charged environments.
       
      Steve Moxon (author of The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society. Now in paperback. Details/extracts at http://www.imprint- academic/ moxon)
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:52 PM
      Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger turn-on for men'

      Very relevant.

      Regarding viewing context:
      To assume that men think, "I'm cold, so you are obviously looking for
      sex" seems like too big a leap.

      Males make an assessment and respond based on signals they believe
      women are making. If women are inappropriately nude-ish in wintry
      conditions (e.g., on the ski slopes), then men assign unusual sexual
      motive.

      In this case, sexual motivation is related to the women's consciously-
      chosen inappropriate/ inadequate clothing for the temperature and
      occasion.

      If the women are depicted in situations where their "flesh-baring" is
      appropriate, there is no unusual sexual signal.

      When I visit a co-ed college dorm in the winter, I am always
      surprised that so many young men and women wear gym shorts and tank
      tops. Since it is the norm for casual, indoor dressing, no sexual
      motive can be attributed to either sex. If I suggested it, they would
      be shocked and tell me that I have an old-fashioned, dirty mind
      (grin).

      Regards,
      F

      --- In evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Moxon"
      <stevemoxon3@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Not relevant.
      > The male subjects would have viewed images in the context of the
      seasonal conditions at the time of viewing. Indoor conditions do not
      vary throughout the year, and even if pics are taken outside, in the
      absence of snow on the ground -- which is a rare sight in most cities
      in winter -- then there are no "wintry situations" that can be
      depicted.
      >
      > Steve Moxon (author of The Woman Racket: The new science explaining
      how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society. Now in
      paperback. Details/extracts at http://www.imprint- academic/ moxon)
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Francine A. Burlingame
      > To: evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 4:18 PM
      > Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger
      turn-on for men'
      >
      >
      > The pictures didn't show women with bare flesh in "wintry"
      > situations/conditio ns.
      >
      > The pics were a constant. Only the season of viewing was varied.
      >
      > F
      >
      <Snip>

    • Francine A. Burlingame
      I wasn t clear in my post. I meant to point out that the observer (e.g., a young man looking at a photo, a person entering a coed dorm, etc.) learns to
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
        I wasn't clear in my post. I meant to point out that the observer
        (e.g., a young man looking at a photo, a person entering a coed dorm,
        etc.) learns to evaluate the actor's intentions by examining the
        context in which the action takes place.

        Young women can be very naive about the effect of their scanty outfits
        on young males....which leads to a lot of misunderstanding and chagrin
        on both sides.

        After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young men learn that a clear
        signal indicating a heightened interest in a sexual encounter can only
        be (somewhat) safely assumed if a young woman's brief clothing is
        significantly more brief than the norm for a given situation/context.

        Best Regards,

        Francine
      • Francine A. Burlingame
        ... FBurlingame: I suspect you are right... even though I have been assured (by the students) that it is not the case (grin). BTW: I was a pom-pom girl in
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
          "Roy Anderson" wrote:

          > I suspect you're a little off here. I can't think of a more sexually
          > charged environment than a college co-ed dorm. ;)

          FBurlingame:

          I suspect you are right... even though I have been assured (by the
          students) that it is not the case (grin).

          BTW: I was a pom-pom girl in college. I thought my outfit was "cute"
          and the kick-line was an athletic performance in agility and precision.

          Girls are clueless.
        • bowmanthebard
          ... If a woman is insensitive to her husband/boyfriend/parent s objection that her skirt is too short, I agree that no sexual message is intended -- she s
          Message 4 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
            Francine wrote:

            > Only when the short skirt is being worn by another woman
            > at whom their boyfriend/husband is staring (grin).
            >
            > When a woman's husband/boyfriend/parent objects to a
            > short skirt that the woman (herself) is wearing, she
            > points out that short skirts are cool and comfortable
            > - no sexual message is intended.

            If a woman is insensitive to her husband/boyfriend/parent's objection
            that her skirt is too short, I agree that no sexual message is
            intended -- she's trying to maximize irritation and anxiety!

            I find that waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle is
            "cool and comfortable". It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no
            sexual message is intended!

            Cheers -- Jeremy
          • Robert Karl Stonjek
            ... From: bowmanthebard To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:10 AM Subject: Re: [evol-psych]
            Message 5 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "bowmanthebard" <bowman@...>
              Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:10 AM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger turn-on for men'

              > Francine wrote:
              >
              > > Only when the
              short skirt is being worn by another woman
              > > at whom their
              boyfriend/husband is staring (grin).
              > >
              > > When a woman's
              husband/boyfriend/parent objects to a
              > > short skirt that the woman
              (herself) is wearing, she
              > > points out that short skirts are cool and
              comfortable
              > > - no sexual message is intended.
              >
              > If a
              woman is insensitive to her husband/boyfriend/parent's objection
              > that
              her skirt is too short, I agree that no sexual message is
              > intended --
              she's trying to maximize irritation and anxiety!
              >
              > I find that
              waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle is
              > "cool and
              comfortable". It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no
              > sexual message
              is intended!
              >
              > Cheers -- Jeremy
              >
              RKS:
              Even so, the cautious neighbours move their sheep to higher ground...
               
              Robert
            • Steve Moxon
              Yes, we have an insight into planet Jeremy. It appears that obsession on PJ is less with the oft-repeated delusion of intellectual kidnap by Friedrich Engles
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 1, 2008
                Yes, we have an insight into planet Jeremy.
                It appears that obsession on PJ is less with the oft-repeated delusion of intellectual kidnap by Friedrich Engles and more with what Dangles -- assuming that what Jeremy is "waving around ... in the Irish drizzle" indeed is merely flaccid.
                 
                Robert's quip reminds me of the famous record by The Macc Lads (a particularly aggressive but fun neo-punk band from Macclesfield here in the rural north of England): 'No Sheep 'Til Buxton'.
                 
                Steve Moxon
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:54 PM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger turn-on for men'

                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "bowmanthebard" <bowman@iolfree. ie>
                Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:10 AM
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women's bare flesh in winter 'a bigger turn-on for men'

                > Francine wrote:
                >
                > > Only when the short skirt is being worn by another woman
                > > at whom their boyfriend/husband is staring (grin).
                > >
                > > When a woman's husband/boyfriend/ parent objects to a
                > > short skirt that the woman (herself) is wearing, she
                > > points out that short skirts are cool and comfortable
                > > - no sexual message is intended.
                >
                > If a woman is insensitive to her husband/boyfriend/ parent's objection
                > that her skirt is too short, I agree that no sexual message is
                > intended -- she's trying to maximize irritation and anxiety!
                >
                > I find that waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle is
                > "cool and comfortable" . It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no
                > sexual message is intended!
                >
                > Cheers -- Jeremy
                >
                RKS:
                Even so, the cautious neighbours move their sheep to higher ground...
                 
                Robert

              • bowmanthebard
                ... After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young women learn too. The language of unusually short skirts, deep cleavages, etc. takes a while for both sexes
                Message 7 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                  Francine wrote:

                  > After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young men learn

                  After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young women learn too. The
                  "language" of unusually short skirts, deep cleavages, etc. takes a
                  while for both sexes to get the hang of.

                  All languages are like that. Even the language of saying "no". As
                  young adults learn slowly and sometimes painfully, "no" sometimes
                  means yes -- and "maybe" nearly always means yes.

                  Some years back, feminists adopted the slogan "no means no". They
                  seem to have dropped it in recent years -- wisely, as it was so naive
                  and over-simplistic that it set back their cause. It also gave the
                  impression that many women didn't have much of a grasp of how language
                  works, despite their much-vaunted linguistic abilities!

                  Jeremy Bowman
                • Edgar Owen
                  Francine and Jeremy, I think the both of you are missing the real dynamic here. The skimpiness of female attire is a most importantly a measure of female vs
                  Message 8 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                    Francine and Jeremy,

                    I think the both of you are missing the real dynamic here. The skimpiness of female attire is a most importantly a measure of female vs male societal power. In our western society nubile young girls can wear quite provocative attire flaunting their sexuality in public with no consequences because women have more power than men. In other words girls can sexually display and the men can't respond naturally which would be a rather intense courting or even a rape response if the promised sex was not delivered. This is because western laws empower women at the expense of men, relative to the historical and biological norm.

                    By contrast look at Islamic countries where the men hold the power. In those countries women must cover up to a much greater degree because they have far less power than men compared to the west. If a woman walked down the street in a miniskirt in Afghanistan everyone would take it as natural that she should be raped on the spot. That is because in those countries men hold the power in male-female interactions.

                    So again, the skimpiness and provocativeness of female attire is simply an expression of the relative power of females and males in interpersonal interactions.

                    As the slogan goes "Girls Rule!" at least in the west.

                    Edgar




                    On Oct 2, 2008, at 4:26 AM, bowmanthebard wrote:

                    Francine wrote:

                    > After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young men learn

                    After a few embarrassing misassumptions, young women learn too. The 
                    "language" of unusually short skirts, deep cleavages, etc. takes a 
                    while for both sexes to get the hang of.

                    All languages are like that. Even the language of saying "no". As 
                    young adults learn slowly and sometimes painfully, "no" sometimes 
                    means yes -- and "maybe" nearly always means yes.

                    Some years back, feminists adopted the slogan "no means no". They 
                    seem to have dropped it in recent years -- wisely, as it was so naive 
                    and over-simplistic that it set back their cause. It also gave the 
                    impression that many women didn't have much of a grasp of how language 
                    works, despite their much-vaunted linguistic abilities!

                    Jeremy Bowman


                  • Francine A. Burlingame
                    ... is cool and comfortable . It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no sexual message is intended! FBurlingame: It sounds like something I would do if I had
                    Message 9 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                      "bowmanthebard" wrote:
                      > I find that waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle
                      is "cool and comfortable". It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no
                      sexual message is intended!

                      FBurlingame:

                      It sounds like something I would do if I had the "bits and bobs" for
                      it. But, like short skirts, it could send the wrong message and it
                      irritates your "significant other". (grin)

                      "Keeping it cool" on a hot day is good for your sperm...in case you
                      have procreative sex on your mind later in the day.

                      It is a mystery to me why men wear tight jeans and leather pants when
                      protection against accidental injury isn't an issue. Going "commando"
                      in soft, loose pants seems the saner choice.
                    • Francine A. Burlingame
                      ... FBurlingame: I agree with much of what you say, but it is always safest to assume that No means no , even if it means that you lose some opportunities.
                      Message 10 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                        "bowmanthebard" wrote:
                        >
                        > All languages are like that. Even the language of saying "no". As
                        > young adults learn slowly and sometimes painfully, "no" sometimes
                        > means yes -- and "maybe" nearly always means yes.

                        FBurlingame:

                        I agree with much of what you say, but it is always safest to assume
                        that "No means no", even if it means that you lose some
                        opportunities. Life isn't a James Bond movie.

                        "Maybe" is classic flirtation. Hot and cold.

                        If "maybe" means "no", and the man backs off, he has made the correct
                        decision. In many date-rape cases, a non-assertive "maybe" was mis-
                        interpreted as a "yes".

                        If "maybe" does mean "yes", and the man backs off and acts
                        disinterested, the woman will (most probably) chase HIM! He is
                        suddenly more valuable because he has become less attainable.

                        Backing-off is a win-win for the guy. The real "players" know this
                        and use it to their advantage in seduction.
                      • Edgar Owen
                        Francine, You don t understand the sexual politics. It s OK for women and homosexuals to wear provocative or skimpy clothing because they have the sexual power
                        Message 11 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                          Francine,

                          You don't understand the sexual politics. It's OK for women and homosexuals to wear provocative or skimpy clothing because they have the sexual power in western society. Straight men would be arrested for dressing that way.

                          Girls Rule!

                          Edgar



                          On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Francine A. Burlingame wrote:

                          "bowmanthebard" wrote:
                          > I find that waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle 
                          is "cool and comfortable" . It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no 
                          sexual message is intended!

                          FBurlingame:

                          It sounds like something I would do if I had the "bits and bobs" for 
                          it. But, like short skirts, it could send the wrong message and it 
                          irritates your "significant other". (grin)

                          "Keeping it cool" on a hot day is good for your sperm...in case you 
                          have procreative sex on your mind later in the day. 

                          It is a mystery to me why men wear tight jeans and leather pants when 
                          protection against accidental injury isn't an issue. Going "commando" 
                          in soft, loose pants seems the saner choice.


                        • Julienne
                          You remind me of my friend s little 3 year old who kept taking off his pants - but he grew out of it. You re not talking about how you re dressing - you re
                          Message 12 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                            You remind me of my friend's little 3 year old who kept taking off his pants -
                            but he grew out of it.

                            You're not talking about how you're dressing - you're talking about not
                            dressing at all. Most men these days, unless on a nude beach, when hanging
                            loose,
                            are either a tad mentally challenged, or being aggressive. Women are likely to
                            clear out.

                            Julienne


                            At 08:03 PM 10/2/2008 -0400, Edgar Owen wrote:
                            >Francine,
                            >
                            >You don't understand the sexual politics. It's OK for women and
                            >homosexuals to wear provocative or skimpy clothing because they have the
                            >sexual power in western society. Straight men would be arrested for
                            >dressing that way.
                            >
                            >Girls Rule!
                            >
                            >Edgar
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Francine A. Burlingame wrote:
                            >
                            >>"bowmanthebard" wrote:
                            >> > I find that waving my unclothed manhood around in the Irish drizzle
                            >>is "cool and comfortable". It gives it a bit of a wash too -- but no
                            >>sexual message is intended!
                            >>
                            >>FBurlingame:
                            >>
                            >>It sounds like something I would do if I had the "bits and bobs" for
                            >>it. But, like short skirts, it could send the wrong message and it
                            >>irritates your "significant other". (grin)
                            >>
                            >>"Keeping it cool" on a hot day is good for your sperm...in case you
                            >>have procreative sex on your mind later in the day.
                            >>
                            >>It is a mystery to me why men wear tight jeans and leather pants when
                            >>protection against accidental injury isn't an issue. Going "commando"
                            >>in soft, loose pants seems the saner choice.
                            >
                            >
                            >Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
                            >conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
                            >
                            >Join us at Chaos-stars@yahoogroups.com
                            >Julienne's New Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos: The Financial Crisis
                            >and Mercury Retrograde
                            >Radio: "You and the Cosmos" Tuesdays, 4:30 pm EDST Live Stream WHRW.ORG
                          • Joao Sousa
                            Francine hit a very important topic which, strangely is little discussed in EP. It s really mysterious. It s not easy to reconcile with the paradigmatic views
                            Message 13 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                              Francine hit a very important topic which, strangely is little
                              discussed in EP. It's really mysterious. It's not easy to reconcile
                              with the paradigmatic views about mating game centered in "displays
                              of quality", "honest signals", etc. How can runaways be attractive?

                              At 16:38 02-10-2008, you wrote:

                              >"bowmanthebard" wrote:
                              > >
                              > > All languages are like that. Even the language of saying "no". As
                              > > young adults learn slowly and sometimes painfully, "no" sometimes
                              > > means yes -- and "maybe" nearly always means yes.
                              >
                              >FBurlingame:
                              >
                              >I agree with much of what you say, but it is always safest to assume
                              >that "No means no", even if it means that you lose some
                              >opportunities. Life isn't a James Bond movie.
                              >
                              >"Maybe" is classic flirtation. Hot and cold.
                              >
                              >If "maybe" means "no", and the man backs off, he has made the correct
                              >decision. In many date-rape cases, a non-assertive "maybe" was mis-
                              >interpreted as a "yes".
                              >
                              >If "maybe" does mean "yes", and the man backs off and acts
                              >disinterested, the woman will (most probably) chase HIM! He is
                              >suddenly more valuable because he has become less attainable.
                              >
                              >Backing-off is a win-win for the guy. The real "players" know this
                              >and use it to their advantage in seduction.
                            • bowmanthebard
                              ... What if he wants to have sex with the woman? What if he backs off on that particular occasion, hoping for less ambiguity on a later occasion, but she
                              Message 14 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                                Francine wrote:
                                > Backing-off is a win-win for the guy.

                                What if he wants to have sex with the woman? What if he backs off on
                                that particular occasion, hoping for less ambiguity on a later
                                occasion, but she tragically gets run over by a bus five minutes
                                later?

                                Carpe diem! Or as my father used to say (about everything in life, I
                                don't think he had sex in mind) "if in doubt, say yes!"

                                Jeremy Bowman
                              • bowmanthebard
                                ... I presume you re asking how does playing hard to get work? It s a bit like haggling over a price. In haggling, the object of the game is for the buyer
                                Message 15 of 30 , Oct 2, 2008
                                  Joao asks:

                                  > How can runaways be attractive?

                                  I presume you're asking how does "playing hard to get" work? It's a
                                  bit like "haggling" over a price. In haggling, the object of the game
                                  is for the buyer and seller to agree on a price. The seller can bring
                                  it up by appearing reluctant to sell, and the buyer can bring it down
                                  by appearing reluctant to buy.

                                  Jeremy Bowman
                                • Robert Karl Stonjek
                                  ... Jeremy Bowman ... RKS: Borat had this problem solved. In his folksy Kazakhstani way, upon seeing an attractive lady, he would say Very nice. How much?
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Oct 3, 2008
                                    > Francine wrote:
                                    > > Backing-off is a
                                    win-win for the guy.
                                    >
                                    Jeremy Bowman
                                    > What if he wants to have sex with the woman? What if he
                                    backs off on
                                    > that particular occasion, hoping for less ambiguity on a
                                    later
                                    > occasion, but she tragically gets run over by a bus five minutes
                                    > later?
                                    >
                                    RKS:
                                    Borat had this problem solved.  In his folksy Kazakhstani way,
                                    upon seeing an attractive lady, he would say "Very nice.  How much?"
                                     
                                    At least there was no ambiguity...A number of women preferred to get run over by a bus than 'date' Borat.
                                     
                                    Robert
                                  • Robert Karl Stonjek
                                    ... RKS: These days, males that play hard to get are simply assumed to be gay, unless the pursuer is gay in which case it is assumed that you are playing hard
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Oct 3, 2008
                                      > Joao asks:
                                      >
                                      > > How can runaways
                                      be attractive?
                                      > Jeremy Bowman
                                      > I presume you're asking how does
                                      "playing hard to get" work? It's a
                                      > bit like "haggling" over a price. In
                                      haggling, the object of the game
                                      > is for the buyer and seller to agree
                                      on a price. The seller can bring
                                      > it up by appearing reluctant to sell,
                                      and the buyer can bring it down
                                      > by appearing reluctant to buy.
                                      >
                                      RKS:
                                      These days, males that play hard to get are simply assumed to be gay, unless the pursuer is gay in which case it is assumed that you are playing hard to get.
                                       
                                      Don't women who had STDs play hard to get in order to protect potential male sexual partners?  Try this:
                                       
                                      "Before I waste eighty bucks on long stem roses, are you playing hard to get because:
                                      a) you have the clap and don't want to pass it on to me;
                                      b) you prefer women;
                                      c) you want to take the upper hand in any subsequent relationship;
                                      d) you don't date flashers."
                                       
                                      Get this handy little quote printed on a business sized card and hand it to the prospective female.  If she writes her phone number on the reverse side then all well and good - if she walks away then nobody gets hurt and annoying ambiguity does not persist - you can move straight on to the next prospective conquest.
                                       
                                      Robert
                                    • Francine A. Burlingame
                                      ... Burlingame s theory: It most probably stems from our fear of abandonment, an important survival tool that keeps children close to their parents and keeps
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Oct 3, 2008
                                        Joao Sousa wrote:
                                        >How can runaways be attractive?

                                        Burlingame's theory:

                                        It most probably stems from our fear of abandonment, an important
                                        survival tool that keeps children close to their parents and keeps
                                        tribe members from straying too far from group members.

                                        When someone who has been close to us suddenly draws away, we feel a
                                        very real visceral clutch. In romantic situations, this biological
                                        feeling may be misinterpreted, and we conclude that we must care about
                                        (or physically desire) the other person more than we thought.

                                        Regarding romantic/sexual manipulation:

                                        "If you don't, I know who will" is a classic ploy.
                                      • Julienne
                                        ... Well, I don t know - at least he wouldn t give a woman a lecture on agentic sex . or lower mate value - which would be more likely to drive a lot of
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Oct 4, 2008
                                          At 06:57 PM 10/3/2008 +1000, Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
                                          > Francine wrote:
                                          > > Backing-off is a win-win for the guy.
                                          >

                                          Jeremy Bowman
                                          > What if he wants to have sex with the woman? What if he backs off on
                                          > that particular occasion, hoping for less ambiguity on a later
                                          > occasion, but she tragically gets run over by a bus five minutes
                                          > later?
                                          >
                                          RKS:
                                          Borat had this problem solved.  In his folksy Kazakhstani way,

                                          upon seeing an attractive lady, he would say "Very nice.  How much?"
                                           
                                          At least there was no ambiguity...A number of women preferred to get run over by a bus than 'date' Borat.


                                          Well, I don't know - at least he wouldn't give a woman a lecture on "agentic sex".
                                          or "lower mate value" - which would be more likely to drive a lot of women under
                                          a bus. :))

                                          And then there's wild green monokini...amazing. :)

                                          Julienne


                                          Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.  -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

                                          Join us at Chaos-stars@yahoogroups.com
                                          Julienne's New Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos: We've Been Robbed! - And More to Come
                                          Radio: "You and the Cosmos" Tuesdays, 4:30 pm EDST Live Stream WHRW.ORG

                                        • Julienne
                                          ... Excellent point, Francine. If you want to keep someone, even if not continually, the thing to do is to come on like gangbusters, madly in love, etc., then
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Oct 4, 2008
                                            At 01:55 PM 10/3/2008 +0000, Francine A. Burlingame wrote:
                                            >Joao Sousa wrote:
                                            > >How can runaways be attractive?
                                            >
                                            >Burlingame's theory:
                                            >
                                            >It most probably stems from our fear of abandonment, an important
                                            >survival tool that keeps children close to their parents and keeps
                                            >tribe members from straying too far from group members.
                                            >
                                            >When someone who has been close to us suddenly draws away, we feel a
                                            >very real visceral clutch. In romantic situations, this biological
                                            >feeling may be misinterpreted, and we conclude that we must care about
                                            >(or physically desire) the other person more than we thought.
                                            >
                                            >Regarding romantic/sexual manipulation:
                                            >
                                            >"If you don't, I know who will" is a classic ploy.


                                            Excellent point, Francine.

                                            If you want to keep someone, even if not continually, the thing to do is
                                            to come on like gangbusters, madly in love, etc., then back away with one
                                            of those tried and true, "You're too good for me...", or "I need some space for
                                            a while", lines. Then, some months later, come back again, "Oh, I missed you,
                                            can't go on without you...", etc. The abandoned one will be extremely relieved
                                            and isn't so hard to woo back. But then you repeat it...and maybe repeat it
                                            again.
                                            In the meantime, between times, you continue on with others, with whom you may
                                            well be doing the same thing.

                                            Of course, this isn't very good for stability, and is quite cruel - but it's a
                                            ploy of the sociopath, or just the socially handicapped, who are afraid to do
                                            more than dip their toes into intimacy.

                                            If you find one of these in your life - run!

                                            If you are one of these - how sad for you.

                                            Julienne



                                            Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
                                            conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

                                            Join us at Chaos-stars@yahoogroups.com
                                            Julienne's New Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos: We've Been Robbed! -
                                            And More to Come
                                            Radio: "You and the Cosmos" Tuesdays, 4:30 pm EDST Live Stream WHRW.ORG
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.