Rules of attraction

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2009 02:16
VIEWED: 16216
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:19 PM

Confessions of a severe hetero: I admit it, to me, women are the cat's whiskers. The bone structure, small waist, wider hips, irrational thought patterns, etc. They fascinate me. Men are no mystery to me- I AM one. I gots all the man parts, there's nothing male that's ever out of my reach. I just don't understand homosexual attraction. I've had gay friends, but upon questioning, all I ever got was "I was born this way." Really answers my ruttin' question. I can site hundreds of reasons why females are cool, but they all revolve around the differences between men & women (okay, so one white guy told me he just looooves black guys, I guess that is A difference...).
I even kissed one of my male friends on the mouth at a party once, to freak some known homophobes in attendance, and in passing I observed that it held all the fascination of putting my lips on a refrigerator for me.
I'm all for gay rights & marriage, I just don't *get* the attraction.
Can anyone 'splain it to this poor dumb hetero?

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:35 PM

For gays, saying "I was born this way" and then being asked to explain it is akin to asking you to explain why you were born straight. You don't know WHY, you just know you were.

Every time someone tells me that gay people made a choice, I ask them when they chose to be straight. At what point did they look at a guy and a girl standing next to each other and say, "I want THAT one!"?

We are what we are, all of us.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:44 PM

I suspect this isn't something you're ever going to get. Just like a gay person might spend their life wondering what you could ever see in a person of the opposite sex.

I doubt it's the difference exactly that turns you on, it's the shapes, smells, sounds, textures and behaviors that just so happen to be entirely different from you. Otherwise you would be attracted to anything that is different from you, but you're not. You're attracted to adult female human beings. (I guess!) A lesbian would be attracted to to woman for similar reasons, simply because of shape, smell, sound, texture and behavior. Because to them and their brain and hormones, these particular things trigger the reaction of "Awesome!"

Same thing with gay men. They're attracted to certain things about men not because of one particular condition (like difference) but because of a combination of triggers that they are wired to adore.

Maybe that helps?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
At what point did they look at a guy and a girl standing next to each other and say, "I want THAT one!"?

At 11 when my hormones kicked in.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:59 PM

There's some psychological perspective that human beings demonstrate something like five different genders, according to a combination of actual physical characteristics and gender role behaviour.

Expanding on what Agent Rouka said, asking "why are women attracted to men" may also have some insight on why men might be attracted to men. Personally, I think defining heterosexual attraction from a embryological development perspective suggests a mechanism for at least homosexuality.

I have no idea how to explain bisexuality or gender neutrality from a biological standpoint, though. I'm sure the basis is there, but what it might be is obscure.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I doubt it's the difference exactly that turns you on, it's the shapes, smells, sounds, textures and behaviors that just so happen to be entirely different from you. Otherwise you would be attracted to anything that is different from you, but you're not.

That's an interesting point. Although I have gravitated towards non-white women predominately (I'm white myself), but yeah, I see what you're saying; I'm not attracted to dudes that are very different in appearance to me...

Quote:
You're attracted to adult female human beings. (I guess!)

Uhhh, yes.

Quote:
A lesbian would be attracted to to woman for similar reasons, simply because of shape, smell, sound, texture and behavior. Because to them and their brain and hormones, these particular things trigger the reaction of "Awesome!"

Funny story, I was with my girlfriend at her theatre class in college, and she was bending over to pick up a script as her lesbian friend walked over to me and said "What an ass...", and I looked at her, smiled & said, "Yeah..."

Quote:

Same thing with gay men. They're attracted to certain things about men not because of one particular condition (like difference) but because of a combination of triggers that they are wired to adore.

Maybe that helps?

Somewhat, yeah. Thanks.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There's some psychological perspective that human beings demonstrate something like five different genders,

Let's keep the discussion on THIS planet, okay B?

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:24 PM

...I'm on this planet...

Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgendered. LBGT. Add heterosexuals and there you go, 5.

Or is that six, splitting heterosexual into straight male and straight female? Or is bisexuality more like a combination of two existing gender roles than a new one?

And hell, those don't even describe ME.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I'm on this planet...

Sorry, it was an easy joke.

The laughing Chrisisall

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:30 PM

It's not a gender thing for me but a human thing. In general I find the human body to be a wondrous and exquisite creation. Soft skin, subtle smells, pink undertones, silky hair, etc. The attraction comes in the individual person. Do they have engaging eyes? Is their smile infectious? When they tell a joke or story do I just exist in the moment? Is their presence enough to make me dumb with awe? Do I find myself wanting to be around them for no other reason than because?

In celebrity terms: Scarlett Johannson has a beautiful female form but I find her utterly bland. Her eyes don't excite me. Her smile does not draw me. Gina Torres also has an incredible female form. Her eyes can heat up the room. Her smile makes me believe there is true beauty in the world. That's me. That's not not you.

*I use females in my example in hopes of relating better to the male perspective.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:36 PM

John Lennon sang it best:

"whatever gets you thru the night, is all right, it's all right,/
whatever gets you thru yer life, is all right, is all right."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:

*I use females in my example in hopes of relating better to the male perspective.

I could stand to hear some more...

Seriously, the difference to me is, I see Bruce Lee's butt and I think, whoah, I wanna have a butt like that; I see Salma Hayek's butt, and I think, whoah, I wanna TOUCH that butt. In both instances there is solid appreciation, but what separates the two reactions? Simple hormones? Societal norms?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Lesbian, Gay,

Aren't they the same thing, just gender specified for no apparent reason?

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:46 PM

It's okay, I'm not mad. The other orientations get a lot more attention, and have a lot more people. I should be used to it by now. And at least people don't think I'm evil, grotesque, or want to kill me. That'd be awful to have to experience that.

Anyway, that's probably well out of range of the scope of your thread. How about the nature versus nurture debate? That's an important factor in this topic.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seriously, the difference to me is, I see Bruce Lee's butt and I think, whoah, I wanna have a butt like that; I see Salma Hayek's butt, and I think, whoah, I wanna TOUCH that butt. In both instances there is solid appreciation, but what separates the two reactions? Simple hormones? Societal norms

That's a great way to think of it. I'd grab either! Though he is a little too firm and perfect for my taste. But I'd grab it just the same.

***edited to add: If he were alive. I'm not grabbing a zombie butt no matter who it is.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:50 PM

I think they're specified by physical characteristics because lesbianism is something different in a behavioural sense from gay.

Two gay guys don't ACT like two lesbians, both in the sense of the relationship and how they interface with the outside world.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Two gay guys don't ACT like two lesbians, both in the sense of the relationship and how they interface with the outside world.

Thanks, I suspected it was something like that, but you put words to it.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:

***edited to add: If he were alive. I'm not grabbing a zombie butt no matter who it is.

I hear once you go zombie, ya never go back!

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:33 PM

Yeah, but they only want you for your mind.

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I'm on this planet...

Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgendered. LBGT. Add heterosexuals and there you go, 5.

Or is that six, splitting heterosexual into straight male and straight female? Or is bisexuality more like a combination of two existing gender roles than a new one?

Wait, so you're saying that sexual orientation influences or is tied to gender roles, and that therefore each orientation category could be a different gender, as well? Because that doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, you missed a couple - asexual and intersex. Would that make 7 gender categories, then, in your view?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:22 PM

Yeah, I guess it would be. I think most of the people who decided on the 5-gender categories haven't ever heard of... Can I say nonsexual? I hate the term asexual for personal reasons.

I forgot about intersex, for some reason I kind of lumped them under bisexual and transgendered... But it is different.

Obviously there's nuances in each gender role, like whether a person acts more expressive ("feminine" though associating expressiveness with femininity is misleading) or instrumental ("masculine," again misleading). And some people are more demure at one time, and more forward at others, depending on the social situation and how they might be expected to act: all their different reactions could fit into VARIOUS gender roles.

But if you're going for the really broad stroke, the category system above just uses physical form and what they're attracted to so as to define, well, what the person in question is.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:24 PM

I think sexual attraction is a good deal more flexible than most people recognize. I'm sure certain tendencies are 'hardcoded', but so much of sexuality has to do with emotional associations. They're very deep emotional associations to be sure, but not entirely fixed. My own preferences have changed considerably over the years and I suspect I could enjoy sex with most any physical "configuration" if the emotional conditions were right.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

THATWEIRDGIRL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:48 PM

I know I could.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Also, you missed a couple - asexual and intersex. Would that make 7 gender categories, then, in your view?

I think of it as one category only: Who You Are Or Aren't Doing At The Moment.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I know I could.

I'll be in my bunk.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I know I could.

I'll be in my bunk.

... with Sargeant X...

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

... with Sargeant X...

I'm not his type.

The laughing Chrisisall

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah, I guess it would be. I think most of the people who decided on the 5-gender categories haven't ever heard of... Can I say nonsexual? I hate the term asexual for personal reasons.

I think they also forgot about transgendered people's orientations, because they treat transgendered as a category distinct from the rest, but there are trans lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, nonsexuals, pansexuals, whatever. In any event, a system that equates sexual orientation with gender roles, or posits 5 genders seems unnecessarily complicated and silly to me.

Anyway, back to the main topic - I'm with SergeantX; I think sexual orientation is pretty fluid. Of course, that could just be me generalizing my own inclinations onto others.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:03 PM

More complicated, maybe.

More honest, also maybe.

Gender has never meant JUST whether someone has girl parts or boy parts. There's a lot wrapped up in a gender and what it means, what society expects, and what they specifically are.

Sure, these are only labels. But imagine if we only had the he/she pronouns for people to choose from and describe themselves. That might work for the two-spirits in their culture, but it'd make things a bit more tough in mainstream American to figure out who's who. Being able to categorize orientation and gender role is important and necessary, especially how some of these groups get hated on so much. Who do you identify with, if you don't know who you are? Who'll help you if the mobs really make it hurt?

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:11 PM

Well, I'm not denying that. But, if we're going to get complicated, I think it's more useful to talk about gender performance, rather than all these different distinct categories that are tied to sexual orientation.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:17 PM

Hmm? Gender Performance? Not familiar with that.

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:35 PM

It's a concept set forward by Judith Butler, I believe, although I haven't read any of her works yet so this is what I've gleaned from others. I understand gender performance to be about how the ways in which we act, dress, talk, etc. that transmit femininity (traditional or otherwise), masculinity (again, traditional or otherwise), androgyny, etc. If I wear a dress one day and jeans and a baggy t-shirt the next, those are two different performances of my gender.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:38 PM

...Isn't that kind of what I was saying about nuances?

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:40 PM

Yeah, I guess. But I was arguing against the idea of having lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, hetero, etc. be their own gender categories. Sorry for the confusion.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
I think it's more useful to talk about gender performance

In Junior High School I was rather slender, in some peeps eyes almost girlishly so, and spoke quietly. One bully picked on me, calling me faggot & such, and attacked me on the street when we got off the bus, so I beat him kinda senseless (I had discovered Bruce Lee by then)- was I giving a poor gender performance?

The laughing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I even kissed one of my male friends on the mouth at a party once

Saw that comin'.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:59 PM

But aren't they? It's not JUST whether someone is acting "feminine" or "masculine" at a certain point in time, or what their chromosomes or outward appearance says they are, it's not JUST whether they like males or females or both or intersex folks or none.

It's all of those things, and all of those things make combinations that are different. I mean, you stopped me at seven, and personally, I agree that any more could easily get out of hand. But as it works IRL, people need the distinctions.

When a lesbian goes out looking for a date, it matters to her whether her date is (I'm sorry if these terms are offensive, they're what's on wikipedia) butch or femme. And it's something that stays consistent, that says something about her role in a potential relationship. That means to me that's part of her gender role.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Saw that comin'.

LOL, was wondern' which one of you guys would be first to make use of that.

The secure in hisself Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

I even kissed one of my male friends on the mouth at a party once

Saw that comin'.

So? I kissed one of my girl friends on the mouth once too, even slipped her tongue, just to weird her out. And laughed maniacally about it afterward, because her stunned reaction was priceless.

It doesn't mean anything.

It's not like Bugs Bunny is gay just because he likes to mess with Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam's heads.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Saw that comin'.

LOL, was wondern' which one of you guys would be first to make use of that.
l

Hey, it was a hangin' curve, just sittin' right there.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

It's not like Bugs Bunny is gay just because he likes to mess with Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam's heads.

Bugs was secure in his sexuality.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I kissed one of my girl friends on the mouth once too, even slipped her tongue

Bunk-time, once more...

The laughing Chrisisall

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But aren't they? It's not JUST whether someone is acting "feminine" or "masculine" at a certain point in time, or what their chromosomes or outward appearance says they are, it's not JUST whether they like males or females or both or intersex folks or none.

It's all of those things, and all of those things make combinations that are different. I mean, you stopped me at seven, and personally, I agree that any more could easily get out of hand. But as it works IRL, people need the distinctions.

When a lesbian goes out looking for a date, it matters to her whether her date is (I'm sorry if these terms are offensive, they're what's on wikipedia) butch or femme. And it's something that stays consistent, that says something about her role in a potential relationship. That means to me that's part of her gender role.

But does her lesbianism define her gender role? That's my problem. Partly it's that the terms are imprecise in my mind - lesbian, gay, bisexual, nonsexual, heterosexual, refer to sexual orientation. And, partly it's just that, again, I don't think breaking gender up into all these distinct, discrete categories is useful. Because even within them there's so much variation - lipstick lesbians vs. butch lesbians, macho gays vs. "feminine" gays (not a term I'd use normally, but I don't know of another term). Basically, sexual orientation =! gender.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:19 PM

Byte,

I was thinking just recently of how might we react to alien life, if we ever made contact ( I'm with the SETI crowd, that life is out there, but yet to be discovered )

Clearly, if we encounter alien life, by what ever means, it'll be of an intelligent variety. ( Save any solid evidence of microbes found on Mars )

How would we address our new found celestial neighbors ? Referring to them as 'it' would seem rude and impersonal. Our alien friends would be every bit as intelligent as ourselves, and likely 1000's of years more advanced ( civilized ? ). But what of their gender ? Would they have any ? 2? Might there be 3 genders ?

Stuff one thinks about after back to back nights of minimal sleep.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

So? I kissed one of my girl friends on the mouth once too, even slipped her tongue.

Did ya right a song about it ? Oh, that's been done already.

Curious ^ 5 !

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:39 PM

The reason I'm including the sexual orientation is because of the developmental mechanism that sexual orientation tied to gender combinations suggests.

See, in the simplest world, evolutionary sense, you have four genders. You have the straight males and females that propagate the species. You have the people born not male or female and/or both because of embryo development. And you have the people who take on the altruistic baby sitter role and don't have children of their own.

Add 10,000 years of human development, and some of those clearly defined wires start to get crossed. You get some males that have attraction settings like a straight female, and females with the straight male setting. You get single gender people who have the attraction settings of someone with two genders (maybe?). And on top of all that, you drop a big heaping of personality and personal reaction to social norms.

All of it originally genetically coded for in the species we differentiated from (not to mention the influences of the developmental hormone bath embryos are submerged in), but time gave it the opportunity to manifest.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:41 PM

AURaptor: I actually thought a little bit about that too. :)

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:49 PM

B, you make it sound so complicated.
How about: "That person's HOT, lemme see if I can get some."
Then: "That 'some' was nice, and this person's cool, lemme see if we can make it last."
?

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:59 PM

Uhh... Sure, whatever works for you.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:03 PM

Got it. Not so simple.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:08 PM

Absolutely fascinating discussion, this.

Disclaimer: imma Poly, case ya missed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

And due to a lack of empathy in my youth framed in combination with being the only child of three willing to invest the effort, wound up being taught BOTH traditional "boy" and "girl" skillsets - both of which I've refined and developed over the years, up to and including taking home ec back when it was way un-cool for a guy to do that.
(A perception that changed radically over the next 18 months when it was noted how much tail I was supposedly gettin, lol!)

Because of this, I find much amusement in traditional gender "roles" as it were, and understanding both ends has given me a lot of insight into folk who have varied sexual preferences as a result.

My ex and I used to have some good laughs at the fact that our relationship was a role reversed clone of the traditional 1950's working man and housewife with errands - so if you can have a male nurse, why not a male housewife then, ehe ?

Most folk are just too conditioned and invested in their own preferred gender role and chosen affiliations to feel comfortable stepping outside them in my experience - and society doesn't help matters with it's often incomprehensible suggested moralities which treat denial of human needs and impulses as something to be honored.

Ergo most folk never reach out from it enough to comprehend anything else in a meaningful type of way - and many that do and run afoul of pyschological trauma as a result wind up with oddball patterns here and there, or for their own reasons chose not to participate at all.

We have, within all of us, the capacity to love, and how we deploy it is based on our own internal choices and decisions, which are often not quite as hard and fast as even we think they are - witness the old geezers in Shindig falling all over Kaylee as a fellow gearhead despite her assuming what is generally considered to be a masculine role.

We like people who are like us, for the most part - but all the triggers which govern emotional and sexual attraction are so very poorly understood because our current society is so straighlaced that the idea of funding such studies runs into both outraged horror, and political manipulation by crazy religious zealots who think they can "cure" politically-incorrect gender biases, as if they were a disorder or something.

Much as I dislike certain factors of japanese culture, one thing they've a greater acceptance for is what they refer to as a "Class-S" relationship, young crushes, often as not same-sex, which is culturally regarded as humans being human and learning about relationships and how they work - although despite that small tolerance they're expected to grow out of it eventually, but that's just a minor cultural blind spot compared to ours.

One edge to aquiring empathy later in life is the ability to have an external viewpoint on this, especially since never accepting conventional societys morals or approved religions left it unclouded.

While what governs SEXUAL attraction is a bit of a mystery still, what governs attraction in the first place is a projected kind of vaguely narcisstic self-love of either what we are, or wish we could be, one reason folks in a relationship often refer to the other party as a "better half".

In it's healthiest form, we like people who are like us, because we like and accept ourselves - and the fact that we often do so in a fashion which subconsciously accepts internal desires we've never even admitted to ourselves, means you wind up with some oddball combinations which don't make sense to anyone else, and sometimes don't even make sense TO YOU!

But they work, and we can accept that.
Love is Love, after all, in no matter what form that it comes.

-Frem
(Try not to die of shock now.)

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

In it's healthiest form, we like people who are like us, because we like and accept ourselves

My "better half" is yin to my yang. We are both similar & different.
And she's hot.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:24 PM

Chrisisall: I didn't mean to sound dismissive. What I meant is that I can talk all the logic and biology I can think I can apply to this issue, but once it turns to feelings I can't really comment anymore. Don't have the necessary experience or perspective.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Don't have the necessary experience or perspective.

Wisdom begins in knowing that there is so much yet to know.

The knows he knows nothing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
imma Poly, case ya missed it.

I looked it up...
Polymerase: Any of various enzymes, such as DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, or reverse transcriptase, that catalyze the formation of polynucleotides of DNA or RNA using an existing strand of DNA or RNA as a template.*

* Incredibly vague Dark Angel reference

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:46 PM

...I'm nonsexual, knowing is pretty much off the table.

But, I understand the sentiment and what you're trying to do there.

KWICKO

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think sexual attraction is a good deal more flexible than most people recognize. I'm sure certain tendencies are 'hardcoded', but so much of sexuality has to do with emotional associations. They're very deep emotional associations to be sure, but not entirely fixed. My own preferences have changed considerably over the years and I suspect I could enjoy sex with most any physical "configuration" if the emotional conditions were right.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I think that's what I used to call a "trisexual" - as in, you'll try anything once. That's not meant as an insult or any kind of judgement, just as a semi-funny pun (and are there any other kinds of puns?)

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:27 PM

Here's a related question: How many here have had a young, attractive teacher in High School that they definitely would have gotten busy with had the opportunity presented itself?
*Sigh- my 11th grade sex-ed teacher, she was so fine*

The perv Chrisisall

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The reason I'm including the sexual orientation is because of the developmental mechanism that sexual orientation tied to gender combinations suggests.

[...]

Bytemite - I had a long response to your post written up, but I was being nit-picky and I don't know how productive it would have been. I find myself in general disagreement with it, but I don't know why exactly, so I thought about what gender categories I can think of, and I come up with this:

Masculine - One who identifies as a boy or man (distinct from male, which describes biology); of or relating to boys or men.

Feminine - One who identifies as a girl or woman (distinct from female, which describes biology); of or relating to girls or women.

Bigender - One who identifies as both a man and and woman, or as a boy and girl. (Distinct from intersex or transgender.)

Genderqueer – None of the above, but still gendered; could be existing on a feminine to masculine continuum, or one who does not fit into standard gender roles, or something else.

Null gender - Without gender of any sort.

Gender not equal to biological sex. Trans or intersex people who identify as women or men really are women or men, not some distinct category, and not "fake." Though technically their bodies may be male or female or whatever.

What about butch women? Are they feminine because they are women, or masculine females, or just queergendered? And are stereotypical, "flamboyant" gay men masculine, feminine males, or what?

Maybe all that is too simplistic; I don't know. Or maybe it doesn't really mean anything, as I didn't (re)define "girl," woman," etc, and the common definitions confuse the issue. I'm not sure the English language is suited for a precise discussion of gender, anyway, because we don't have different terms for feminine child and female child (that I know of) - they're both "girl." And I think generally in this society we're stuck on gender being tied to sex, and on having these two categories that oppose each other.

I don't know what my point is anymore. So I'll stop rambling now.

YINYANG

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Here's a related question: How many here have had a young, attractive teacher in High School that they definitely would have gotten busy with had the opportunity presented itself?

In another universe where we weren't teacher/student (and they were single)? Yes.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:57 PM

I feel your system is slightly too involved in defining traits that are masculine and traits that are feminine. That's sort of a pet peeve of mine: I believe there are no masculine traits or feminine traits, but merely social expectations. It is a source of frustration for me that there aren't ways to describe these traits beyond a gender association.

Your system is useful for addressing some basis of gender role behaviours, but in my opinion it also ignores a large aspect of social interaction by excluding sexual orientation and how that can change a person's behaviour situation to situation. I feel an important part of describing a person's gender role includes their role in the relationships they might seek out.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Here's a related question: How many here have had a young, attractive teacher in High School that they definitely would have gotten busy with had the opportunity presented itself?
*Sigh- my 11th grade sex-ed teacher, she was so fine*

The perv Chrisisall

My 11th grade English teacher, Miss Huckabee.

And you all wondered why I paid attention in English class...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I feel your system is slightly too involved in defining traits that are masculine and traits that are feminine. That's sort of a pet peeve of mine: I believe there are no masculine traits or feminine traits, but merely social expectations.

So, the whole dogs & hoes thing doesn't fly with you then? Fair to say.

Seriously, I believe firmly in those traits, seen them at play, and enjoy them on a daily basis.
As a "guy," I want to vanquish the bad guy & get the girl...IRL I got the girl- vanquishing the bad guy is yet to be fully accomplished, but voting for Obama is a small step in that direction.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Here's a related question: How many here have had a young, attractive teacher in High School that they definitely would have gotten busy with had the opportunity presented itself?

I *almost* DID make it with my remedial math teacher, but we decided conflict of interest would cause that to go ugly places in the end - we remained quite good friends for long after, and she was the one who introduced me to Alice Millers work just before she passed on.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 24, 2009 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
she passed on.

So sorry, man. I hate that peeps we love or respect have to go before we do.
Damn, I'm goin' all Connor McCloud here....

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:18 AM

Well, there can be only one...

GEEZER

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'm all for gay rights & marriage, I just don't *get* the attraction.
Can anyone 'splain it to this poor dumb hetero?

Everyone is a unique individual. You might as well ask why some folk like football (any type) and some like baseball. As long as what they do doesn't hurt anyone by their actions (that is, anyone who isn't hurt because everyone doesn't follow their "god" given rules), why care?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

YINYANG

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
I feel an important part of describing a person's gender role includes their role in the relationships they might seek out.

Ah, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then, because I don't think that aspect is particularly important. You seem to have done a lot more thinking on the topic than I have, though, so maybe there's something I'm missing. ::shrugs::

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:52 AM

Mostly I just think that people of alternative lifestyle need to be able to describe their orientation and behavioural patterns.

But I give you credit for trying to come up with something: technically the 7-gender thing isn't really my idea. And there are problems with it, in that gender performance isn't addressed well. But I understand why a lot of the community has embraced the labels in question, because those are very direct for finding people like them.

Which is important both for relationships and for establishing a supportive environment, because a lot of those orientations are treated with hostility by the mainstream.

Do you disagree with my hypothesis on how orientation and gender roles could have arisen simultaneously? I see that as separate from the system, although thinking about the system provided the framework for me to come up with it.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
imma Poly, case ya missed it.

I looked it up...
Polymerase: Any of various enzymes, such as DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase, or reverse transcriptase, that catalyze the formation of polynucleotides of DNA or RNA using an existing strand of DNA or RNA as a template.*

* Incredibly vague Dark Angel reference

The laughing Chrisisall

Not so much.
Backing up a bit, I don't totally follow the "differences" aspect. Seems many are attracted towards features or factors similar to the parent of opposite gender, unless that parent was bad.
Many parents think their children are very attractive. This is not merely bias or prejudice. Generations before them have selected as mate somebody who they find attractive, and the children bear those traits. I've seen huge families where all the grandchildren look like siblings because the elder offspring chose mates who look similar to each other, and their parents. Much of this is hereditary, and the non-heterosexual DNA is weeded out of the gene pool. Those who look to somebody as different than their background often are seen as "exotic" and therefore also attractive.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

Not so much.
Backing up a bit, I don't totally follow the "differences" aspect. Seems many are attracted towards features or factors similar to the parent of opposite gender, unless that parent was bad.
Many parents think their children are very attractive. This is not merely bias or prejudice. Generations before them have selected as mate somebody who they find attractive, and the children bear those traits. I've seen huge families where all the grandchildren look like siblings because the elder offspring chose mates who look similar to each other, and their parents. Much of this is hereditary, and the non-heterosexual DNA is weeded out of the gene pool. Those who look to somebody as different than their background often are seen as "exotic" and therefore also attractive.

Funny thing.. I once had a fairly intense flirtation going on with a coworker, tall guy, sandy blond.. anyway. At a party at his house, I met his mother. It was like looking at a mirror image of myself 30 years in the future. Tiny, curly brunette. Didn't see that coming, but it cost me a lot of energy not to burst into giggles.

Interestingly enough, though, he's married to a leggy blond now, who is much closer to his mother in terms of personality.

I figure long-term compatibility has a lot more to do with that sort of behavioral familiarity than anything else.

KWICKO

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:54 AM

Quote:
Much of this is hereditary, and the non-heterosexual DNA is weeded out of the gene pool.

Except that it isn't, or there wouldn't be gay people around.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:28 PM

There's clear sexual dimorphism within the human species, arising from clear and actual physical differences of the two physical genders. When dealing with natural systems you want to look at averages, since natural systems are analogue, and doing so shows clear masculine and feminine trends that are there, not just a trick of societal expectation. In that regard where do you think societal expectations of differences in gender may come from? Societal expectations often form from what has or does happen.

Men develop more muscle mass, making them stronger on average, they have less nerve endings in the skin making them feel less pain when injured. Men have more clotting factors in their blood, so recover from injuries faster, and more red blood cells aiding physical endurance. Women have more white blood cells and b lymphocytes, meaning they are less susceptible to disease and recover more quickly (in other words girls: yes we do get the flu worse than you). There's numerous physical differences between men and Women that are a matter of scientific fact, not just societal expectation.

Mentally Men and Women are different too. Ignoring that Men have much more testosterone, which results in more competitive and aggressive behaviour (as well as increased muscle and body hair growth), there's differences in Brain structure too. Men have more Grey matter, where as Women have more White. Grey matter is thought to be 'thinking' material, and White matter is thought to be connecting material. There's no real difference in general intelligence though, so the way Women's brains exhibit intelligence has to be different to men. The analogy I can think of would be Men do it through brute force processing power, while Women exhibit intelligence through having a lot of smaller processors that can work together, like a computer with a less powerful multi-core cpu, opposed to one with a big hefty single core unit. There are differences in Men and Women's specific mental attributes though, for instance Men excel at spacial acuity (seeing objects in 3D, and being able to mentally rotate them to 'see' them from other sides). Men have a more 'systematising' intelligence, seeing things in a technical systematic way, which means Men tend to make better mathematicians, scientists and Engineers (not that Women can't be, but you'll find more Men wanting to be and excelling in those fields), while Women tend to have a more Socialising intelligence. This does explain some societal expectations in regards to "male jobs" and "female jobs". Nursing requires getting to know and caring for patients needs, more than surgery that views the body as a system that needs fixing. I don't see that as inherently a problem, unless you start enforcing these expectations, and preventing those who buck their gender trends. Perhaps expectations are a bad thing, because by it's nature an expectation leads to enforcement, whether that enforcement is "hard" (laws against Female surgeons, or Male Nurses) or "Soft" ("don't be silly son, boys don't become nurses, they become Surgeons").

Women also are better at multi-tasking, while Men are much better at focusing on a single task and devoting all their energy to it. Humorously I remember a comedian called Joe Brand touch on this. She noted that when she cleaned the house, it took an hour or so, and ended with things being mostly clean (what she called "F*ck it, that'll do"). When she asked her husband to do so while she went to the shops, she came back to find he hadn't got past the front room and all the furniture was in the front garden, so he could vacuum the whole floor.

At any rate the differences in our Genders does indicate where social expectations have come from. But also we can see why our sexual dimorphism probably came about due to the difference in societal roles in early human society (i.e. tribal hunter gathering). Men were the hunters and fighters, they needed more physical strength and better endurance to pain and injuries inflicted by those pursuits. Mentally Men would need to plan attack stra

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't see that as inherently a problem, unless you start enforcing these expectations, and preventing those who buck their gender trends. Perhaps expectations are a bad thing, because by it's nature an expectation leads to enforcement, whether that enforcement is "hard" (laws against Female surgeons, or Male Nurses) or "Soft" ("don't be silly son, boys don't become nurses, they become Surgeons").

I agree with this.

It's all good and well, recognzing trends. But they really should mean diddly squat in real life, because each and every time you you face a human being you are dealing with an individual who may or may not fit any single one of the many features that one or the other gender may tend toward. You can't assume anything.

Plus, society has tended to take a trend and then run with it. Things like, women are better at dealing with small children... so men shouldn't. As if this hasn't deprived generations of men from properly bonding with their children.

But then, I'm of the frame of mind that mother nature doesn't care for our mental well-being or physical comfort, and even societies living close to our pre-historic roots are not perfectly balanced to our needs. Women are subjugated even in those societies, people are unhappy even in those societies.

So stepping away from nature is not necessarily a bad thing. We were not designed nor have we evolved to be happy but to survive and procreate. (And even that was a sloppy job.) But we want to and have a right to strive for happiness, so anything that historical trends or biological tendencies may tell us should never be considered rules for how people should live their lives.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I agree with this.

It's all good and well, recognzing trends. But they really should mean diddly squat in real life, because each and every time you you face a human being you are dealing with an individual who may or may not fit any single one of the many features that one or the other gender may tend toward. You can't assume anything.

What I was getting at is that the acceptance of trends is a different thing to the expectation of their fulfilment, and one can be bad, while the other is not.

Quote:

Plus, society has tended to take a trend and then run with it. Things like, women are better at dealing with small children... so men shouldn't. As if this hasn't deprived generations of men from properly bonding with their children.

Yep, but then again also enforcing the opposite, is just as bad if not worse.

Quote:

So stepping away from nature is not necessarily a bad thing. We were not designed nor have we evolved to be happy but to survive and procreate. (And even that was a sloppy job.) But we want to and have a right to strive for happiness, so anything that historical trends or biological tendencies may tell us should never be considered rules for how people should live their lives.

Depends what nature and how. If we declare and rigidly enforce equality, by demanding all professions are representative (i.e. in this case 50% of Surgeons must be Male, and 50% must be Female) that is not only as bad, but probably worse than the inequitable position of no Female Surgeons. Society has picked up equality and is now running with it, and is in danger of doing as much bad with it as it did with inequality.

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:14 PM

I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping.

The grey versus white matter part ignores that crucial fact. Perhaps it's not a natural difference men and women are born with, but men are ENCOURAGED to be thinkers more than women, just like men are encouraged more to do sports.

I see all the differences as the result of social training.

THATWEIRDGIRL

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:29 PM

I don't have 50 pairs of shoes. In fact, I pretty much wear the same pair every day for years until they fall apart. I have my own tool box. It's usually the better toolbox in the relationship. A s kid you would have called me a tomboy. Climbed trees and changed the oil. The majority of my friends are guys.

Does that make me a little male?

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:30 PM

I can't remember which societies they were (my memory is for shit) - but there were a number of them where men were considered the emotional sex and women the logical thinking one.

MOST 'human nature' arguments are suspect - because you can always find exceptions, even large-scale ones. For example, there were three thriving civilizations who didn't have war or religion. And if you can find exceptions, how can those things be due to some immutable inborn factor ?

My $0.02

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I find a lot of those irrefutable studies on the mental differences between men and women suspect, because they are worked on BY men, in a field dominated BY men because society tells women they shouldn't be interested in math and science, but celebrities, dating, and GOD FORBID, shopping.

The grey versus white matter part ignores that crucial fact. Perhaps it's not a natural difference men and women are born with, but men are ENCOURAGED to be thinkers more than women, just like men are encouraged more to do sports.

I see all the differences as the result of social training.

Ok, so the Science is bad because it was done by Men, and god knows men can't be objective, poor deluded simpletons they are. Hang the fact that the differences make sense from an evolutionary stand point, hang the fact the argument isn't "the science is bad because of this evidence" but because "men were doing it" (argument ad hominem). Hang the fact that the conclusions aren't that Men are better or more intelligent, but that Men and Women have different abilities, and different intelligences. It's the difference between saying black people have evolved to be better suited to living in hot environments, and white people have evolved to live in more cold and temperate environments, and saying white people are better than black people.

Or maybe the actions of the physiological differences between the races aren't real, and it's just white men again? Have you something more solid to refute these scientific studies than sexist statements? Are you a Woman? I think I remember you saying you were. How would you take it if I just said you only say that because you're a Woman? Accept it or not, but dismissing the Science on account of it being done by Men (or more appropriately the assumption that it must have been done by men) is at least as sexist as the obverse position.

As I understand it, most of the reputable studies went to great extents to ensure they ruled out societal training. I would ask how can societal training effect an innate ability such as spacial awareness? How does it explain that Girls exposed to male hormones during foetal development are better at spacial awareness than girls who weren't? They're both Female, so should be exposed to the same "social training", yet Girls who have been developmentally exposed to male hormones, can be expected to have a more male like brain, and indeed do better at tasks that males tend to excel at. How, exactly, does simple gender biased social training explain that?

You're free to see it as you wish, but do you have evidence for your position? And frankly, I find the dismissal of the argument because "it was made by Men", flatly insulting and more than a little sexist.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I don't have 50 pairs of shoes. In fact, I pretty much wear the same pair every day for years until they fall apart. I have my own tool box. It's usually the better toolbox in the relationship. A s kid you would have called me a tomboy. Climbed trees and changed the oil. The majority of my friends are guys.

Does that make me a little male?

As I eluded to in my previous post, Girls exposed to male hormones during development tend to act more like boys, and have mental skills more like males, and vice versa. Hormones play a part in Brain development, so if Girls exposed to Male hormones are better at Male brain tasks than Girls that haven't, this is an indication that it's brain gender, not "social training" responsible for the deviation in mental abilities.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What I was getting at is that the acceptance of trends is a different thing to the expectation of their fulfilment, and one can be bad, while the other is not.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. I don't deny that there are statistically provable trends, just that they are meaningless when dealing with actual individual people.

Quote:

Quote:

Plus, society has tended to take a trend and then run with it. Things like, women are better at dealing with small children... so men shouldn't. As if this hasn't deprived generations of men from properly bonding with their children.

Yep, but then again also enforcing the opposite, is just as bad if not worse.

Well, I'm not talking about forcing all men into child care and women away from it. I'm saying that a difference in statistical aptitude shouldn't prevent that both parents should be encouraged to do these things - because it benefits both parents. I think many of our gender roles are heaped with value judgments and aren't really based on capability or benefit, just tradition that long outlived its justification. In fact, were kept alive for the sake of tradition when it was harmful to one gender or society in general, i.e. political representation, parenting.

Quote:

Quote:

So stepping away from nature is not necessarily a bad thing. We were not designed nor have we evolved to be happy but to survive and procreate. (And even that was a sloppy job.) But we want to and have a right to strive for happiness, so anything that historical trends or biological tendencies may tell us should never be considered rules for how people should live their lives.

Depends what nature and how. If we declare and rigidly enforce equality, by demanding all professions are representative (i.e. in this case 50% of Surgeons must be Male, and 50% must be Female) that is not only as bad, but probably worse than the inequitable position of no Female Surgeons. Society has picked up equality and is now running with it, and is in danger of doing as much bad with it as it did with inequality.

Not to say I'm in defense of such quotas, but if you go by a standard of qualification, and enforce a quota with applicants who meet that standard, then there is no harm.

But I'm not in favor of quotas to enforce equal representation, unless there is a bias that prevents equal opportunity.

Anyway, I'm not just talking about jobs. I'm talking about using our ancestral roots as any kind of justification or recommendation for how we should live right now, with regard to gender roles or other things.

I only need to point to human child birth or our body's unfortunate combination of eating and breathing through the same orifce. Evolution doesn't aim for perfection, it a process that settles for the least imperfect status quo it can get away with.

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 3:58 PM

Citizen

There are a number of ways to look at this, here is one:

One is that ALL traits are randomly distributed between the sexes on the randomly sorted non-sex chromosomes (autosomes). There is no little demon (like Maxwell's) sitting there saying - OK, this is going to be a guy, you get the height chromosome, and the one for a long torso, and the one for free earlobes. Hence, one would expect a full range of characteristics and abilities to be distributed across both sexes.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

As I eluded to in my previous post, Girls exposed to male hormones during development tend to act more like boys, and have mental skills more like males, and vice versa. Hormones play a part in Brain development, so if Girls exposed to Male hormones are better at Male brain tasks than Girls that haven't, this is an indication that it's brain gender, not "social training" responsible for the deviation in mental abilities.

mental skills more like males
male brain tasks

That's sort of what I consider negative about lending too much attention of these trends. You associate these qualities or skills with men, thus appropriating them for one gender, creating an "abnormal" quality to woman with those preferences.

That's already social training right there.

There is a trend, not a rule. It's not a male mental skill. It's a human mental skill that's slightly more developed in males. It's not a male brain task, it's a human brain task that's slightly more developed in males.

Geometry and maths belong to girls, too. Communication belongs to boys, too. Language is kinda crucial in forming those harmfully limiting associations and expectations.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

There are a number of ways to look at this, here is one:

One is that ALL traits are randomly distributed between the sexes on the randomly sorted non-sex chromosomes (autosomes). There is no little demon (like Maxwell's) sitting there saying - OK, this is going to be a guy, you get the height chromosome, and the one for a long torso, and the one for free earlobes. Hence, one would expect a full range of characteristics and abilities to be distributed between the sexes.

I don't remember evoking little demons. And I fail to see how your statements of randomness in any way looks at the evidence, evidence that clearly shows that these attributes are anything but random. There is clear sexual Dimorphism in the Human animal, both physically and mentally. The fact that some Girls (those exposed to Male hormones as a Male child would be during development) lends credence to it being a gender distinction. It rubbishes the idea that it's societal training.

Your different way of looking at it, seems to be a way of ignoring the evidence. Yes if it's random, you'd expect a full range of abilities spread across the sexes, but since there are clear sexual dimorphic trends in the human species, that clearly indicates it isn't random, wouldn't it?

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:08 PM

"Geometry and maths belong to girls, too."

The things I excelled in in school. Call me a guy, I guess. Or maybe just a girl who also happens to have geometry and math skills.

Oh, and big feet. That's why I never got into the genetically-determined female shoe thing.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
That's already social training right there.

Arguably it's a way of spinning my words into something they're not. As the level of social training here, that's more like a short hand to get across my point, than a statement like "that's wrong because Men did it".

So:
Women can do spacial awareness, but Men tend to be much better at it. Where Women can do it as well as Men, its near exclusively where they have a more Male brain due to developmental factors. Therefore it's a more Male mental ability, and one the Male brain is more suited for, not because of social training, but because of brain gender dimorphism. I fail to see how noting that male and female brains are different due to sexual dimorphism, and that men and women tend to be better at different things due to that, is societal training. Any more than noting that Women have breasts that lactate, and so can breast feed infants, where as men don't and so can't, is societal training or sexism. It's a plain fact.

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:22 PM

"... its near exclusively where they have a more Male brain due to developmental factors ..."

Where is this 'male brain', anatomically speaking ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So:
Women can do spacial awareness, but Men tend to be much better at it. Where Women can do it as well as Men, its near exclusively where they have a more Male brain due to developmental factors. Therefore it's a more Male mental ability, and one the Male brain is more suited for, not because of social training, but because of brain gender dimorphism.

You misunderstand me.

I'm NOT saying that social training is distorting what is a biologically equal brain.

I'm saying that the DIFFERENCE in skills is - in the big picture - tiny, yet we focus on the difference only, to make the entire skill a "male" skill.

It sounds as if women have NO spatial awareness when you put it like that, it sounds as if women have no grasp of math, as if the difference isn't comparatively tiny, as if women couldn't understand the majority of what these subjects have to offer.

That is what I'm complaining about. It influences expectations WAY beyond where biological differences justify it and it's harmful and it is entirely social training.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Where is this 'male brain', anatomically speaking ?

In the cranium. Would this be another appeal to ridicule?

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:55 PM

"Would this be another appeal to ridicule?"

No. You seem to think there is 'male brain' and 'female brain'. I was wondering where they are - are there specific areas of the brain that are 'male' while others are 'female' ?

BTW - I'm not arguing that there aren't differences between the sexes. But in any characteristic you can imagine, each sex is on a continuum with lots of overlap between the two. And the differences you can point to - and are pointing to - may not be biological.

For example - medicine. For centuries it was held that women were unsuitable to be doctors. They were too delicate, to tender, to illogical, too emotional. And then - it was found to not be true. The same holds true for with engineers. Women were thought to not have the mathematical skills or spatial abilities to do engineering. But if you look at the (old) USSR 40% engineers were women (32% in Bulgaria). If you look at science in general, for centuries it was thought (in Britain) to be the purview of the royal and wealthy - and therefore mentally superior - class. Commoners were thought to be too near like beasts for finer thought. It was such a well-established assumption that the Royal Society was in an uproar when Humphrey Davy - a commoner - became its head 160 years after its founding.

What you consider natural, inborn differences do not appear to be so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
You misunderstand me.

I'm NOT saying that social training is distorting what is a biologically equal brain.

I'm saying that the DIFFERENCE in skills is - in the big picture - tiny, yet we focus on the difference only, to make the entire skill a "male" skill.

It sounds as if women have NO spatial awareness when you put it like that, it sounds as if women have no grasp of math, as if the difference isn't comparatively tiny, as if women couldn't understand the majority of what these subjects have to offer.

That is what I'm complaining about. It influences expectations WAY beyond where biological differences justify it and it's harmful and it is entirely social training.

But the differences aren't tiny. I'd say trying to portray them as tiny would be the obverse of what you're saying I'm doing, because saying their tiny implies they are 'irrelevant', when they aren't. The differences in mental and physical abilities have arisen because Men and Women performed different functions in early Human society, they arose to make Men better at the Hunting, and Women at the gathering. It doesn't imply that all Women will be worse at Hunting than all Men, or vice versa, it implies that there will be a certain trend, and that will mean more Men will be good hunters than Women. Not that no Women will be good hunters. Personally I thought I made that clear, by saying tend to, rather than more specific and broad terms like "will", when discussing what the end result of these differences mean. I've not tried to invoke the Ecological Fallacy, which says a tendency is true of the whole group, but I do feel that I've bee arguing against the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation, because the portrayal of the exceptions of the trend seems to be held up as proof that there is no trend.

My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons. Even that the differences in the way men and Women's minds tend to work means more Men will be suited to Surgery, and more Women suited to nursing. The end result is that, even without societal pressure, training or bias, nursing will be a profession that includes more Women, while Surgery will be one with more Men.

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:01 PM

"They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons."

Speaking as a person who was turned away from medical school because 'they had no facilities for women', I find that incredibly offensive.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:07 PM

Tiny doesn't mean irrelevant. It means that they are there and noticable, but they do not encompass the entirety of the ability.

I maintain that it is harmful social training to refer to certain skill-sets as male or female, because the amount of skill that one gender may statistically exceed the other is tiny compared to the aspects of the skills that both genders have equally.

To appropriate a skill-set for one gender only, because of that small difference, has greater impact than you think, and likely affects the actual motivation and opportunity of genders to enegage with the skill-set ascribed to the other gender, much more so than biological aptitude.

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:09 PM

And Citizen has yet to come up with a cogent response to my posts.

Way to go dooooood! BTW - is that a male thing you're doing ? Just, you know - wondering.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No. You seem to think there is 'male brain' and 'female brain'. I was wondering where they are - are there specific areas of the brain that are 'male' while others are 'female' ?

I got the idea that it might be when you earlier tried to devolve my argument regarding evolution and genetics down to "little demons" moving genetic traits around. Rather seems like an appeal to ridicule that, and then your subsequent statement "and where is this male brain" seems to lead into the old adage about where a man's brain actually is.

Maybe you should try reading what I write, I pretty clearly said that the differences in male and female brains were one of structure, nothing I said even alluded to there being specific "male and female" brain sectors. I can't begin to imagine where you'd get that idea.

Quote:

BTW - I'm not arguing that there aren't differences between the sexes. But in any characteristic you can imagine, each sex is on a continuum with lots of overlap between the two. And the differences you can point to - and are pointing to - may not be biological.

Except of course I've given arguments for how they ARE biological, how male hormones result in Women producing more male like mental abilities. This supports that there is a natural difference between the brain of Men and Women, because if there wasn't and it was all down to cultural conditioning, it wouldn't matter what developmental hormones were released, when clearly it does.

I've clearly noted that this is a trend, and like all natural systems and populations it is not homogeneous, but that doesn't refute the trend, nor make the trend sexist in any way.

Quote:

What you consider natural, inborn differences do not appear to be so.

In that case what you consider to be my argument, and the basis for what I consider "natural, inborn differences", appears to be completely wrong.

Bringing up some exceptions to other peoples biases, doesn't say anything about me or how I see things. You seem to be suggesting my flow of evidence is backwards to how it is, that I look at there being more female nurses than male proves that Women are more suited to being nurses than men.

No, I'm going from the evidence of the actual differences in Male and Female physiology, and then extrapolating to how those differences may and do manifest in society. There's a big difference between accepting that societal bias is true, and making logical judgements based on scientific studies.

What you consider to not be natural inborn differences, appears to be exactly that.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And Citizen has yet to come up with a cogent response to my posts.

Way to go dooooood! BTW - is that a male thing you're doing ? Just, you know - wondering.

Pot, meet black kettle.

So far your best response to me has been to tell me my argument is about little demons living in DNA. I'm sorry 'dude', but just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean you get to say they aren't 'cogent'. Is throwing a tempertantrum and insulting me because I took time to write a lengthy and cogent response to your attempts at ridiculing my argument, rather than arguing against it, a female thing, or just a you thing?

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:31 PM

Citizen: I don't think there's a such thing as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism" because both sexism and racism are ideological isms founded on account of an oppression of one group by another. All there is are women feminists who are complete bitches (who to be honest I think go way too far and I can't stand), and bitter minorities who've been hurt by society.

However, I'm willing to concede that my statements were slightly out of line... And poorly explained. I don't think that men can't be objective, in fact, socially there's a stereotype that women in general are less objective, and women act that way as a result.

I'm merely questioning THESE men in particular. Science tries its best to eliminate personal biases. But the field of psychology, where results are not always consistent and are sometimes contradictory, where the science is very young and not much is known or easy to substanciate, and where "normal" and "control" are arbitrary, sometimes results are not always HARD results. This allows a lot of interpretation in, interpretations which COULD be influenced by upbringing and social expectation, biases that the men may not be aware of.

I also see an inherent flaw in restricting these studies to sampling only one nationality... Or even TYPE of nationality, the first world nation, since I'm sure psychologists in Britain have done similar studies to the Harvard studies you've been quoting. But, unfortunately, psychology in third and second world nations isn't exactly an emerging field, and everyone there, male and female, are too busy surviving to come in and be tested for muscle mass or having their brains analyzed.

I don't expect that women in third world nations would approach their male counterparts, because even in third world nations society tends to be patriarchal. However, in the muscle and brains of those women, we might start to see more comparison to those of men of first world nations, on account of those women having to use them more. Perhaps somewhere in between?

And from that, I would expect a matriarchal society, like mythological Amazons, to have women with more muscle and grey matter than their male counterparts.

But this is conjecture. International studies have not been done, and we don't have Amazon cultures to study in the first place.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Speaking as a person who was turned away from medical school because 'they had no facilities for women', I find that incredibly offensive.

I can see that. When you're doing your damnedest to insult me, it would make sense that you'd need to cherry pick statements out of context in order to manufacture insult.

I did say that even if there was no societal pressure, indicating that that would be the case devoid of the factors we already have. I was speaking of trends too, not absolutes.

So far you've insulted me, made sexist comments directed at me, tried to ridicule, instead of argue against, my argument. I have no idea what possible legitimacy you see for that, but I'm fairly sure I've not done anything like that to you. If you want a fight, good for you, I'm sure AURaptor is about here somewhere, tell him the Republicans are to blame for something and have at it, because I'm not interested.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Tiny doesn't mean irrelevant. It means that they are there and noticable, but they do not encompass the entirety of the ability.

No, it suggests it, the same way my statements apparently suggest that Women have no spacial awareness

.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
To appropriate a skill-set for one gender only, because of that small difference, has greater impact than you think, and likely affects the actual motivation and opportunity of genders to enegage with the skill-set ascribed to the other gender, much more so than biological aptitude.

I don't think the differences are as small as you claim across the board. I'm not dismissing the role societal expectations play, I'm saying that the differences would remain without them.

RUE

Friday, April 24, 2009 5:42 PM

Citizen

I gave examples of whole societies who believe men and women are exactly opposite of what we believe them to be - and who would point to the men and women there to prove it. I gave examples of how men and women were thought to be SO different that women couldn't do medicine, or engineering - and then pointed out how, with the right opportunities, it was shown to not be true. I gave examples of how differences in intellectual abilites were thought to be inborn due to differences in class - an idea we find laughable today.

Women are more into color and fashion, into soft and shiny fabrics, into fancy shoes and long hair by genetic difference ?

Everywhere where these differences were supposedly inborn, they were shown to not be so.

We shape our children from the time they are born - boys get roughhoused-with, girls coddled. Boys get told they have to stop crying and be a 'little man', girls get comforted. Girls get talked-to more, boys get more things. Girls are rewarded for being compliant, boys are rewarded for being loud.

EVERYTHING you can point to, I can show differences in rearing from an early age ACCORDING TO SEX STEREOTYPES.

Since we are forbidden from doing experiments on children, I can only point to history's experiments - and they DO show that sex (and class) differences considered inborn are not so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE