Feminism

[subbes]

One of the 'explanations,' in his apology: "I'm new to Twitter as of this month, and genuinely thought @ messages went to those individuals only."

What? Because a barrage of insulting messages questioning her value and accusing her of being mere decoration... would have been okay, if no-one else saw it? Jesus jackrabbit Christ.

[Sal Limones]

babies DO look like their father, they also just resemble their mother equally. (I never said that babies resemble their father more.)

Oh, sorry! By the way you phrased it I thought you meant that babies look more like their fathers. Okay, but I still don't think that a baby looks like both parents because it needs care from both parents; it looks that way because that's how genetics work, and this is true in all animal species regardless of how they care or don't care for their offspring. That this makes dads not freak out seems to me a tidy retroactive explanation, an issue of causality verus coincidence. As for what the mom says, isn't that true of all collaborative projects unless one of the team members is kind of a jerk?

Still what about adoption and marrying single moms and switched-at-birth babies? I don't think there's an inherent aversion to other people's babies, just to being cheated on and having one's trust betrayed, which is true for both genders in all monogamous situations, babies or not.

"Evolutionary pressures may have

MAYBE! A lot of assumptions about dinosaurs that made a lot of sense at the time have eventually been proven wrong. Like velociraptors: why were they covered in feathers?? They look ridiculous. They never would've been cast in Jurassic Park like that.

Mothers who were pickier about who they had a child with, would have had more chance of having their genes survive.

This is true, but it is also a rational decision and not something instinctive that can't be ignored. With the advent of 99% effective birth control for both sexes, this isn't as much of a problem anymore.

I guess I've done a poor job of explaining my position. I never meant to argue that women don't like sex for sex! (That's a pretty silly argument, if you ask me. Anyone who's had a girlfriend would surely attest to the opposite. Right?) The only argument I've made is that women desire security, too, whereas men don't. And yes, I think that's biological for all the arguments (both scientific and anecdotal) that I've mentioned.

If by security you mean physical safety then I'm totally with you on that! But I think that's more basic self-preservation than tending toward monogamy. In a perfectly safe environment, this is not necessarily the case. Like, for example, if you have a lot of sexy trustworthy friends with no STDs and no one involved ever gets jealous. This is not an entirely hypothetical situation, as I know someone who is in it.

Do you really believe that the gay man experience I mentioned (people lining up for blow jobs) is common in lesbian bars? No gay woman has EVER related a story to me like that, but I've heard plenty of similar ones from gay men.

I never said it was common, just that it isn't necessarily nonexistent, and that the opposite is not as common and depends on geographical location. For example, none of the gay bars here (I have gone to them) have a blowjob line. Neither do the lesbian ones, at least not before midnight when I leave like an old person who needs 8 hours of sleep. However, there ARE private, well-policed and well-regulated clubs where the famed lesbian clit-licking line does happen, as well as orgies, BDSM, and all kinds of things, with strangers of all genders. This is possible because of how well-policed the place is, and how respectful of consent all clubgoers are.

(I have not gone to this one but my roommate, one of my best friends, and an acquaintance have. All three are girls.)

To be honest, the same might well be true for men who complusively womanize, too, I don't know.

This is all entirely speculative but yeah, I agree with that. However, this is not to say that one can't be mentally healthy and have good self-esteem and still enjoy lots of sex with lots of different people that are good at sex! Also, if a new partner is amenable and willing to learn, Good Sex can be achieved in 2 or 3 encounters, which I think still counts as "casual sex", if not "one night stand". Being promiscuous or desirous of sex with many partners does not mean you have lots of one-night-stands with strangers, just that you have sex with many partners.

[ThunderPeel2001]

This is all entirely speculative but yeah, I agree with that. However, this is not to say that one can't be mentally healthy and have good self-esteem and still enjoy lots of sex with lots of different people that are good at sex! Also, if a new partner is amenable and willing to learn, Good Sex can be achieved in 2 or 3 encounters, which I think still counts as "casual sex", if not "one night stand". Being promiscuous or desirous of sex with many partners does not mean you have lots of one-night-stands with strangers, just that you have sex with many partners.

Absolutely, I totally agree.

Oh, sorry! By the way you phrased it I thought you meant that babies look more like their fathers. Okay, but I still don't think that a baby looks like both parents because it needs care from both parents; it looks that way because that's how genetics work, and this is true in all animal species regardless of how they care or don't care for their offspring. That this makes dads not freak out seems to me a tidy retroactive explanation, an issue of causality verus coincidence. As for what the mom says, isn't that true of all collaborative projects unless one of the team members is kind of a jerk?

Still what about adoption and marrying single moms and switched-at-birth babies? I don't think there's an inherent aversion to other people's babies, just to being cheated on and having one's trust betrayed, which is true for both genders in all monogamous situations, babies or not.

Ok, that's fine, but Scientific American, and scientists in general, disagree with you.

If by security you mean physical safety then I'm totally with you on that! But I think that's more basic self-preservation than tending toward monogamy. In a perfectly safe environment, this is not necessarily the case. Like, for example, if you have a lot of sexy trustworthy friends with no STDs and no one involved ever gets jealous. This is not an entirely hypothetical situation, as I know someone who is in it.

That situation involves a lot of trust, which is another way of saying security. I, of course, know women in that situation, too. That's a lot different than a guy sticking his dick through a stranger's letterbox and getting a blow job (oh the stories I've heard from my gay friends!).

I never said it was common, just that it isn't necessarily nonexistent, and that the opposite is not as common and depends on geographical location. For example, none of the gay bars here (I have gone to them) have a blowjob line. Neither do the lesbian ones, at least not before midnight when I leave like an old person who needs 8 hours of sleep. However, there ARE private, well-policed and well-regulated clubs where the famed lesbian clit-licking line does happen, as well as orgies, BDSM, and all kinds of things, with strangers of all genders. This is possible because of how well-policed the place is, and how respectful of consent all clubgoers are.

That's incredible! Really? There's actually a clit-licking line? I stand totally corrected. World view: Adjusted.

Of course there are swingers, doggers, and BSDM clubs that are frequented by both men and women, but that tends to be quite fringe. Another story from a gay friend: An exclusive sex party he went to at a mansion in LA. He said the things he saw were even too much for his open-mind. The evening culminated with one of the guests performing her particular kink in front of everyone: Sewing shut her own vagina.

Yikes.

There's always going to be fringe extremes, I think it's best to stay with more "typical" behaviour for conversations like this.

[Gwardinen]

That situation involves a lot of trust, which is another way of saying security. I, of course, know women in that situation, too. That's a lot different than a guy sticking his dick through a stranger's letterbox and getting a blow job (oh the stories I've heard from my gay friends!).

Just want to note that it would take a lot of trust for me to stick my dick through a letterbox.

[brkl]

TP, you can't really deduce natural (biologically determined) human sexual behaviour from how people behave because you can't ever take culture out of the equation. How we eat, sleep and copulate are all mediated by culture and thus can change if the culture is changed. It's not really possible to get at how we would act outside of culture, because any Homo Sapiens somehow outside of culture isn't (recognizably) human, only an ape that shares our DNA. I'm referring to the argument regarding gay/lesbian behaviour.

[Sal Limones]

Ok, that's fine, but Scientific American, and scientists in general, disagree with you.

Er? But it says "That both high and low degrees of paternal resemblance have ready explanations highlights one of the challenges in linking subtle human features to changes that played out over millions of years of evolution. "It's kind of hard to distinguish 'just-so' stories from things that are really a product of evolution," French says." Evolutionary psychology is mostly a whole bunch of speculation, and has come up with some really ridiculous stories, like "women like pink because in ancient times cavewomen picked berries." This is absurd for many reasons, among them the fact that not all berries are red, that not all red berries are edible, that a lot of women don't like pink, and that pink was considered a manly color until the 1940s. If an experiment is not reliably reproducible, then it is not science.

Also what brkl said.

I might not be understanding your argument? Is it that babies resemble their fathers and mothers specifically so the father will want to raise the baby? Because this does not account for how this is true across all species, even ones whose babies are raised only by the father, or only by the mother, or by a group of females, or not at all.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hey brkl, Sal.

Sal, put simply, Darwinism states that those who have a way of bringing up a baby will have their genes survive. The explanation for how a baby may NOT resemble the father for three days, but then resemble the father more after that, doesn't do anything to change the fact that a baby with two devoted parents is more likely to survive. And both explanations point to the same idea of woman having to be more choosy than men when it comes to sex. How?

Well, the article explains a baby not looking like its father as a backup plan so that a mother might still get support for their offspring. That infers that it's preferable for the mother to have the father around, rather than just hoping she can convince some dude to help out.

Secondly, a cavewoman who was more prudent when it came to picking her partner would be more likely to have her genes survive. I don't see how you can argue with that. Surely waiting until she felt their was a strong emotional bond with a guy who wasn't about to split would increase the chances of him sticking around. By him sticking around, her genes would be more likely to survive. If her genes survive then that's what becomes an inherited trait. Those who don't have support stand more chance of having their genes die out.

Darwinism states that we are merely vessels for our genes -- and our genes want to be immortal. That they want to survive. There's no biological explanation for why people would want to raise other people's kids. That's more to do with them being good people, or having really strong paternal or maternal instincts. Even if there were people who preferred to raise other people's kids over their own, their genes would quickly die out. Right?

One reproducible experiment which shows this is the fact that, generally speaking, a man's eyes don't dilate when they see babies the way a woman's do... Until they've had a child of their own. The connection they have with (what they believe) are their own genes, changes them in a way that is scientifically measurable. They show no emotional connection to other people's babies.

Also, the fact that other species don't have visually inheritable traits of the father is completely irrelevant. Humans are odd creatures because our babies are born completely helpless and ill equipped to deal with the world. This is one important reason why parenting is so important, especially in the early years.

[ThunderPeel2001]

TP, you can't really deduce natural (biologically determined) human sexual behaviour from how people behave because you can't ever take culture out of the equation. How we eat, sleep and copulate are all mediated by culture and thus can change if the culture is changed. It's not really possible to get at how we would act outside of culture, because any Homo Sapiens somehow outside of culture isn't (recognizably) human, only an ape that shares our DNA. I'm referring to the argument regarding gay/lesbian behaviour.

How we eat, sleep, and copulate are NOT mediated by culture, and CANNOT be changed by culture. How do I know? Because there's no human society on earth where humans are nocturnal. Or where they sleep for 30 minutes a day. Or where the predominant sexuality isn't hetero. Or where people don't eat around 2000 calories a day.

Also, you can determine natural biologically determined behaviour through logic. That's the whole crux of Darwinism. Behaviour that would lead to your genes dying out will not become the dominant behaviour.

[brkl]

That's not what I mean by mediation. Whenever we fulfill biological needs, we do it through cultural tools (including language which influences how we think). We grow up in culture and it pervades us -- we couldn't be us any other way. The earliest aspects of human culture literally predates Homo Sapiens, since stone tools are cultural artifacts. When I eat, I use utensils. Different cultures use different ones, and even I use hands there is some reason I give myself to step outside of the usual constraint. I sleep on a bed and I am near enough nocturnal because I work nights. Who I find attractive is partly formed by culture and if I get to the copulation stage, how we do it affected by culture. The point isn't that biology doesn't have any effect, but that biology and culture are intertwined in all human activity in a way that makes them impossible to tell apart. We are perfectly capable of acting in ways that do not make any sense from the point of view of natural selection.

And for your genes to survive, you need to do that through culture as well. However, you you act as a human being isn't just your genes, it's to a large degree whatever happened in your life to make you the way you are. There's also a cultural selection process that selects genes in a somewhat random manner.

Your argument reads like gay people are supposed to revert to some kind of natural state. However, even if gay people can step outside of mainstream culture's norms of what is acceptable sexuality, in practicing their sexuality they are still informed by their rejection of those norms and other tidbits of cultural influence. We cannot trace their behaviour to its long-forgotten biologic roots anymore than the heterosexual part of the population.

[Salka]

I thought sexuality was one of the most culturally influenced things in that way, no? Like, you know in Ancient Rome they were mixing it up mad style. I guess it depends on your definition of hetero, the modern idea of sexuality is very black and white and our culture definitely pushes it to be that way.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Your argument reads like gay people are supposed to revert to some kind of natural state.

I hope it's obvious that I'm actually suggesting that such people are already shunned by society, and so aren't likely to feel as pressurized by a society that has rejected them.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I thought sexuality was one of the most culturally influenced things in that way, no? Like, you know in Ancient Rome they were mixing it up mad style. I guess it depends on your definition of hetero, the modern idea of sexuality is very black and white and our culture definitely pushes it to be that way.

Yep, you're right. Back when "gay" was used to describe the act, not the person, there doesn't seem to have been the societal stigma. But I guess if there wasn't a lot of heterosexual activity going on, that culture would have died out.

Another random thought: I think everyone knows what parts of them feel pressure from society, and which parts of them are "really" them, no?

[Sal Limones]

No, I said that all other species do inherit traits from both parents as well, same as human babies, because that is how genes work in general - based on the dominant or recessive nature of each gene and not based on the sex of the person that gene came from. If all other species inherited sex-specific traits only, it might prove that humans are indeed unique in the way their genes are inherited. In any case, wanting to determine or study human behavior or biology based on the biology/behavior of other animals is a flawed pursuit, so I'm going to drop this line of thought.

We did not stop evolving at the Homo sapiens stage, and our reproductive concerns now are not the same ones that our earliest ancestors had.

How we eat, sleep, and copulate are NOT mediated by culture, and CANNOT be changed by culture. How do I know? Because there's no human society on earth where humans are nocturnal. Or where they sleep for 30 minutes a day. Or where the predominant sexuality isn't hetero. Or where people don't eat around 2000 calories a day.

What about vegans and vegetarians who switch their diets for moral reasons, or Tibetans, or countries where siestas are common, or people who live in places with six months of day and six months of night, or Ancient Greece, or the super gay Etoro people (who, like a certain Mormon, still have to ugh have sex with women), or San Francisco?

[ThunderPeel2001]

What about vegans and vegetarians who switch their diets for moral reasons, or Tibetans, or countries where siestas are common, or people who live in places with six months of day and six months of night, or Ancient Greece, or the super gay Etoro people (who, like a certain Mormon, still have to ugh have sex with women), or San Francisco?

Vegans and vegetarians still eat around 2000 calories a day.

Siestas are an agreed reaction to weather, not societal pressures. And those people still sleep roughly the same amount we all do.

People who live in places with six months of night are not nocturnal.

Are you saying that the young Etoro boys who are forced to ingest their elder's semen turn gay? Their beliefs stem from the idea that semen is their life force. They're not actually gay. A better point is the fact that, if they ARE all gay, and they only sleep with women because they have to, it still means they're a product of their genes, not their society.

What about San Francisco? Are you suggesting that people are turned gay by where they live? If so, could you turn gay people straight by moving them somewhere else?

Another example you missed would be a cannibalistic society.

Here's an interesting article on a possible reason why gay genes haven't died out, when Darwinism says they should have:

http://www.huffingto..._n_1590501.html

[Salka]

What is "actually gay"? Seriously.

[ThunderPeel2001]

What is "actually gay"? Seriously.

Someone who is naturally attracted to someone of the same sex. Seriously.

[James]

Vegetarians and vegans do consume about 2000 calories a day, but the manner in which they eat (i.e. the food they select) is informed by their principles, which are in turn coloured by societal influences. And that the Etoro boys engage in male-only sexual activity without necessarily being "actually gay" is the point: their sexual activity is due to a cultural belief, and therefore (at least partially) a product of the society they're in; similarly, all this blowjob queue stuff, and all other sexual activity, is subject to environmental forces. As brkl says, the societal and biological causes are not easily separable.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Ah, I see. We're talking at crossed purposes. I'm talking about using human behaviour to trace biological trends. Picking out rare exceptions doesn't do anything for this argument, especially those that are not passed by genes (such as choosing to not eat meat). Another example of humans resisting their genes is the use of contraception.

That doesn't change anything I've said, as far as I'm aware. (Although I'm really tired right now and probably shouldn't be posting. Sorry!)

[Salka]

Yes but you're forgetting that the guys invented the idea of sticking their dicks in boys mouths in the first place. And obviously take pleasure in doing so. Same as in olden days Rome, it's not like they weren't getting anything out of having sex with boys. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the common idea of sexuality these days is not in fact as black and white as it seems and that a lot of it IS actually culturally influenced, even in the things we reckon we have deep-seated preference for. And I think the phrase 'actually gay' is dodgy as all hell ¬¬

I'm pretty certain there are also vegan tribes of people around the world.

[James]

Ah, I see. We're talking at crossed purposes. I'm talking about using human behaviour to trace biological trends. Picking out rare exceptions doesn't do anything for this argument, especially those that are not passed by genes (such as choosing to not eat meat). Another example of humans resisting their genes is the use of contraception.

That doesn't change anything I've said, as far as I'm aware. (Although I'm really tired right now and probably shouldn't be posting. Sorry!)

I believe the point was that your references to activities in gay clubs is not necessarily indicative of any biological differences; social factors may be the cause.

[ThunderPeel2001]

But every given example of a "social factor" is an extreme or rare case, not seen in most countries, or in most people.

When there are trends which cross cultural and geographic boundaries, surely they indicate deeper truths about human behaviour?

Please explain what I'm missing here.

[brkl]

When there are trends across cultures, it's impossible to tell to what degree they are cultural or biological because culture has been there since the beginning. I thought the examples I used were pretty common.

[Nachimir]

Beards:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18497881

[ThunderPeel2001]

When there are trends across cultures, it's impossible to tell to what degree they are cultural or biological because culture has been there since the beginning.

You'll have to go into more detail, because I still don't get what you're saying. If there is a common human behaviour across cultures that are completely separate, why is it impossible to tell what degree they are cultural or biological? Are you suggesting that some cultural traits could be traced by to "Adam and Eve" (so to speak)?

Also, how is what you're saying not the same as suggesting that gay people are made gay by their culture?

[Sal Limones]

Colonialism.

If Ancient Greece had taken over everything we'd all be very different people.