I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so. Having gone to a pretty non-sexist college, and when there finding myself hanging out in an even more egalitarian environment, I can attest that women are quite capable of aggressive sexuality. In the parties I hung out at, that even included some reverse 'girls gone wild' stuff like encouraging guys to flash or egging on straight men to kiss each other. And of course most did - to appear 'cool' and to impress that hot brunette over there - the same reasons women do it. Nor are women immune to saying, oh who cares about that lack of condoms when intoxicated on desire with a possible but not necessary extra assist from ethanol. And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
To sum up, I'm not at all convinced that an egalitarian society if and when it ever comes about, will be that much more responsible about sex.
I'd agree that's probably true as a general rule in the society we live in, but I'm also pretty certain it's socially constructed - i.e. society shapes men to be more sexually aggressive, and women to be less so.
that would make a very interesting discussion, i think.
i take your anthropological point, some cultures give more power to women, and they seem quite happy with the arrangement.
however the horny drunk mobs of ibiza, that come from england, are an example, like most porn, of womens' identity being subsumed to mens' fantasies.
not a pretty sight...
pre-feminist, if you will.
MarekNYC:
And like men, some women will even try to pressure men into sex.
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love, the pressure goes both ways.
why not?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i think men use love to get sex, women use sex to get love
I've always been dubious of this point of view, as it leans towards conservative views of the role of Men and Women. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
if they give each other what they want, that is.
of course nothing is absolutely true. exceptions abound, thank the fsm- ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
How many myths do we still unconsciously keep replicating because they are so ingrained in the way societal gender roles are viewed, despite the progress that has been made in liberating women from the most conservative of structures in some places?
We still fall foul of using one myth to argue back against another however hard we try to use actual evidence and stats as much as possible. Ad astra per aspera
the question that follows on from that is If men are Then who are they promiscuous with? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I find anthropological points of view interesting but I do also wonder how relevant they are in some cases. Maybe melo can offer his view on that.
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food. But we don't have those kind of constraints on our society now so how useful is it to try to say 'well men do this and women do that because of our basic primal instincts'?
Any individual's potential role in society has altered drastically over the 100 years let alone the last 1000. In seeking equality for all, I just don't find it helpful when myths about capabilities and desires of one group vs another get thrown about.
When I use stats to represent proportions eg women are still proportionally more likely to bear the burden of being the primary carer for children or disabled/elderly relatives. This is partly because womens still get paid less than men (proportionally) hence if a decision has to be made about who goes part time or leaves work, the one with the lower salary and prospects is going to have to take that on, again, more likely to be a woman. There's statistical evidence for that and it is useful to use when arguing around the need for change and for certain types of interventions to address inequality.
I don't find it useful to say things like, 'women prefer to be homemakers' because that is a myth even if some women do prefer to be. Ad astra per aspera
For example in the stone age in order to survive, women needed to be baby machines and men had to go off sowing their seed and hunting for food.
"Just-So Stories" Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed] For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed] Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection. Leda Cosmides noted in an interview: "Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?" In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes: "Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
Critics assert that many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses.[citation needed]
For example, kin selection predicts that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.[citation needed]
Defenders of evolutionary psychology suggest that the term "just so story" is a derogatory way of describing alternative hypotheses which need empirical evaluation. Furthermore there is no known scientific mechanism which can explain human behaviour besides natural selection.
Leda Cosmides noted in an interview:
"Those who have a professional knowledge of evolutionary biology know that it is not possible to cook up after the fact explanations of just any trait. There are important constraints on evolutionary explanation. More to the point, every decent evolutionary explanation has testable predictions about the design of the trait. For example, the hypothesis that pregnancy sickness is a byproduct of prenatal hormones predicts different patterns of food aversions than the hypothesis that it is an adaptation that evolved to protect the fetus from pathogens and plant toxins in food at the point in embryogenesis when the fetus is most vulnerable - during the first trimester. Evolutionary hypotheses - whether generated to discover a new trait or to explain one that is already known - carry predictions about the nature of that trait. The alternative - having no hypothesis about adaptive function - carries no predictions whatsoever. So which is the more constrained and sober scientific approach?"
In his review article Discovery and Confirmation in Evolutionary Psychology (in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychology) Edouard Machery concludes:
"Evolutionary psychology remains a very controversial approach in psychology, maybe because skeptics sometimes have little first-hand knowledge of this field, maybe because the research done by evolutionary psychologists is of uneven quality. However, there is little reason to endorse a principled skepticism toward evolutionary psychology: Although clearly fallible, the discovery heuristics and the strategies of confirmation used by evolutionary psychologists are on a firm grounding."
The norms of society in the UK will differ to other countries, societies and cultures elsewhere in the world. Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women? Ad astra per aspera
yup. but live that out and you'll end up in jail, pronto...
semi-snark ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Is there actually a common 'natural' state for all men and all women?
The philosophical non-starters we inherit from the likes of Rousseau... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
The closest I could try to articulate would be how would male and female roles fall into place were a small community/tribe to find themselves living together - no 'cultural' structures or rituals or roles currently established... My first thought there is that it would largely be determined by the environment they were living in and thus would vary. Ad astra per aspera
And none carried over from whatever communities these people come from... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Cue in Lord of the Flies. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
But on a very pessimistic days, I'd say LotF wouldn't be that far from the truth...
And as fictional as reality TV. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
must be the poverty...
i remember hearing that in europe in the middle ages, once a year the whole village would meet by night and bonk their hearts out in the dark with whomever.
mixing up the old gene pool... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i'm looking at the unravelled skeins around our feet.
on the bright side, i see a new global culture forming too, woven from the many threads that survive commodification.
pop over to sven's musical diary for evidence of that... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
yup that's our main contribution.... better KIT ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
then we traded it in for the truman show.
'madmen' is the new 'sopranos'. i was happy to see that obama relaxes to it on the campaign plane.
anyone want to learn through drama how the truman show took over western media culture in the sixties could do worse than check it out. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
lately not so much. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
i guess the chinese olympics...
<dux> ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Not that that would be too surprising... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
the virtue of other cultures is they're not ours, which of course can lead to romanticisation, of which i have been guilty, but no more, no more...
not since i found ET, lol! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Except in the case of social creatures (such as humans) in which the social is part of the natural. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
How much of how we behave, live, work and so on is defined by social norms and expectations and upbringing and how much is driven by say genetics or personality? It is an interesting debate to have because depending on whether you believe the 'natural' (whatever that is) or the 'social' is more influential then your view on how to tackle social problems will vary. Ad astra per aspera
And it is not whether - or, is the point. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
my new kitty says hi, btw! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Plus the page refresh takes ages.
I tend to duck out at that point. keep to the Fen Causeway
get a catmac! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
are the only debates that interest you reducible to binary terms?
funny, i find that's exactly what makes these types of discussion so fascinating, and they generate so many comments, too. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
So, yes, I don't find it interesting but not for the reasons you imagine. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
it is now clearer to me why you find it uninteresting.
perhaps because you don't anticipate any novel viewpoints to emerge here?
luckily it is interesting some of us... a hoary argument for sure, but it's the journey, not the arrival.
meaning we may never know, but the conversations it enables are revealing, because it's obviously something many great minds have bent to understand, and some here have reflected quite deeply thereupon, to judge by the interest and comments.
horses for courses... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
how can i refuse?
i love to study others' cultural mores, and am always curious as to how maybe our own have possibly some very fundamental assumptions wrong.
but if you want to try and live cross-culturally, there's a high price to pay. so groupthink is a big part of how we form our own opinions.
more info...more choice. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
doesn't prove a thing, natch... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Why does England have to export its horny drunk mobs? (I'm also thinking about the Praguestag nights, etc) A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
too much rain'll do that. i'm sure many of them would prefer not to go all the way to spain to feel ok about their 'animal spirits'!
where else than britain (and russia) do more people drink with oblivion as sole destination?
in spain they get to bonk before they fall over in a stupor, and don't have to face mum over breakfast the morning after. for the price of a ryan air ticket!
got to have some ecstatic moments before getting back to the office grind...
the perils of too much 'proper', i reckon. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Most of Southern Sweden exports its drunken mobs to Copenhagen for pretty much those reasons. As for why the mobs are horny as well as drunken, I think the horny is just along for the ride whenever drunken mobs get together...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Both do both. Men are just as much prey to the delusion that if only I can get her to sleep with me she'll want me on other levels as well. The social sexual stereotyping that I see on the other side is the belief that a single guy who has no moral problems with casual sex will always want it.
I think that's only partly true - i.e. what that is is also women playing the 'be popular' game, and just doing what it takes to get laid. The college crowd I was in was really not that sort of frat boy type one. And god knows getting straight guys to kiss each other really isn't part of a broader social stereotype of straight male fantasies. That was even more true fifteen years ago.
why not? just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
just because of the sexual behaviour that is the result of the unegailitarian setup we have now?
What I was specifically referring to is the way desire crowds out responsibility once people start fooling around. And I don't see women being less prone to that than men. You start out thinking, well, we can fool around and do all sorts of stuff that doesn't require condoms. A little while later...
The one absolute difference I've seen is in the use of violence and physical coercion to get sex. Women don't seem to do that. How much of that is to do with strength differences I don't know. That difference is also what keeps the more extreme examples of women pressuring guys into sex that I've known about from being rape or sexual assault.
On a semi related note, I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships, as opposed to simply selfishly into cheating. (The difference is honesty and a complete lack of sexual jealousy.)
or: if i can get her to sleep with me it means there's something she sees in me to love...
I've also known more women than men who are genuinely into serious open relationships
straight and/or gay?
great reply, marek, very nice... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
