seebs

I think you guys are talking past each other.

Are there differences in height between men and women? Yes.

Are there examples of a woman taller than most men, or a man shorter than most women? Yes.

The differences may exist, in the aggregate, but they make poor predictors of the qualities of individual members of either group.

bonduca

luvluv, reread my posts. And LadyShea and Bree are patiently awaiting your answers.

luvluv

To precisely which questions?

Bree:

"The differences may exist, in the aggregate, but they make poor predictors of the qualities of individual members of either group."

That's not true, they are good predictors, they just aren't one hundred percent accurate in every case. Are you saying there are no norms of human behavior such that no human being can be understood in the light of the consistent, historical behavior of other human beings?

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

bonduca

luvluv, I hope you will answer all of their previous questions, (including LadyShea) they have been very patient.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

I looked back and I believe I have answered everything I was asked.

And I'm reloading this page every minute or so, so it's no use editing out the biting sarcasm because I am seeing it anyway.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

bonduca

Naturally my only purpose in editing any posts I make is the fear that they may incur your disapproval. But let us stay on topic.

tronvillain

luvluv:

I see that having thrown out the "higher rate of illegitimate births" and had it smacked down, you haven't come back to the original point about Europe.

From page one twenty-seven of the June 2002 issue of Essence:
So what? This doesn't say that women shouldn't be promiscuous, or that they shouldn't be porn stars. First, since Allen says qualifies her statement with "soon" I suspect that it is supposed to be an addiction that builds over time. All the article says is that women have a tendency to invest emotionally in a sexual partner - it doesn't say that they have to. The most obvious solution to this if you want to sleep with a lot of people is to just associate the pleasure with sex rather than the individual or not have an orgasm. Since I suspect that only a small percentage of women in porn have an actual orgasm, the problem sort of goes away doesn't it?

Now, what are the problems with being promiscuous? Well, there is the risk of disease (which can be minimized), the risk the pregnancy (which can virtually be eliminated), the risk of emotional disruption (which can also be potentially eliminated if one distances sex from romance), and the risk of social disruption (which looks like gibberish to me). If people think they can handle those risks, good for them. I go in for long term monogamous relationships myself and am willing to forgoe sex for them, but I don't see too much wrong with promiscuity.

So, "women are more likely to be emotionally hurt through pornography than men." So what? That generalization about women doesn't mean that women in pornography actually are being hurt and I see little evidence that they are. As for the men, I doubt that they know they are exploiting emotionally distraught women, because they aren't exploiting emotionally distraught women.

That may be true, but it's simply not an argument against women being promiscous. Why should they care that their sex has an inclination towards monogamy and is more emotionally attached to the sex act than the opposite sex. Why?

luvluv

I abandoned the arguments about Europe because they were going to lead into an extended digression. Needless to say, there are other consequences of children outside of the context of marriage. According to the book I continually refer to, cohabitating couples have a higher rate of seperation than married couples. That is to say, live-in couples seperate much more often than married couples. Family instability, further, tracks with much social pathology including crime, real illegitimacy, and other factors. I didn't respond to the Europe text because I knew it would drag us into a denial of the findings of Fukiyama's book and it would be distracting. But at any rate, read the book. It explains the social consequences of liberated sexuality and it is not limited to "my parents are embarassed of me." Sexual promiscuity has real consequences to the society at large.

And is again worth noting, as Fukiyama did in his book, that illegitimacy and STD's are occuring at HIGHER RATES since the widespread use of birth control. In fact, the countries with the greatest access to birth control are the countries which experienced the greatest leaps in illegitimacy and STD's in the last 50 years. So the notion that the availiablity of condomns magically terminates the dangers of sex is a bit overblown. Fukiyama made the case that the primary effect of birth control was to make people MORE careless about sex.

"Why should they care that their sex has an inclination towards monogamy and is more emotionally attached to the sex act than the opposite sex. Why?"

Because, as I said, the adverse effects of promiscuity weigh more heavily on women than on men, and obviously, if they care about their emotions they might not want to be emotionally attached to someone that doesn't care about them.

And frankly, I am highly amused at you saying things like: "the risk of emotional disruption... can also be potentially eliminated if one distances sex from romance".

How, exactly, does one do that? Do you think people can totally disconnect, by an act of their will, their emotions?

You have already admitted that you have a selfish interest in believing that there is nothing wrong with porn because you enjoy it. As such, there is no sense in us arguing as if anything could be gained by it. That is one of the reasons why I initially did not respond to your previous posts. Whatever science says, you are going agree with whatever proposition allows you to continue your lifestyle. Am I wrong in assuming this? You have already said you would probably watch porn even if the women in them were being emotionally destroyed. Really, then, what is the use of continuing the conversation? You are apparently immune to any objection I would have on those grounds. Why are you trying to deny that some women in porn are not emotionally healthy? You seem to feel that it doesn't matter whether they are or not, as long as you are gratified.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

tronvillain

Yes. People do it all the time.

bonduca

I do not understand what you mean by "real illegitimacy." Is this legitimate illigitimacy? Could you clarify.

Actually, luvluv, there have been quite a few studies indicating many violent criminals were themselves physically abused as children. This appears to be more a matter of anger management in child rearing.

Dr. Lonnie Athens has done some interesting studies on the socialization process many of these individuals undergo in order to adapt violent behavior patterns.

Since time began, people have been both monogamous and promiscuous. This is new?

I would like to see the studies these conclusions are drawn from. STD's are spread through ignorance and lack of medical treatment (which is much more advanced in treatment of STD's than in our grandparent's day). Such individuals may well have careless attitudes about sex, but that is not the fault of birth control.


Not since birth control.

If all a woman wanted was some sex, she would prefer the man not be overly attached, but simply gallant and competent. I have told you repeatedly that orgasm does not equal imprinting. In fact, if the man's company is not pleasant, after orgasm his presence becomes undesirable.

If they are not interested in romance with a particular partner, but only friendly fun, there is no need to disconnect anything.

luvluv, my only objection to porn is that it is absurdly male-centered and seems to perpetuate the madonna/whore double standard, along with other absurd images of women. Your depiction of women as weepy characters who are clingy, whiny, and less sexual than men is, frankly, even more offensive to me.

"This is the way the world ends/not with a bang/but a whimper."

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>