bonduca

Tell it to a biology professor? Yes, he would certainly know more about the nature of women than women. And so would you, being one yourself.

I believe it was physicians (who are at least as educated as biology professors) who believed in the wildly careening uterus, also. Obviously impressive credentials are no guarantee of infallibility.

If we don't like the results of this line of reasoning, perhaps it is because they do not accurately reflect reality as we, as women have experienced it. Or should we be browbeaten into compliance with whatever stereotype is popular? That is certainly not a new story where women are concerned.

By all means, tell us, the women what it is like to be women. Tell us that our perceptions and experience are wrong, because your theories say so. Or tell us that we are abnormal in some way. As was done to our mothers, and our grandmothers before us.

But we will continue to exist as we are, until the lot of you come to your senses.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

I'm sure there are excpetions, Shea. But what is the general rule?

luvluv

bonduca, you are not women. You are a woman. And if clinical psychologists (many of whom I'm sure are women) have studied tens of thousands of women, they would have a better working theory about how women in the aggregate behave. Maybe you are an excpetion. But you are an exception.

Viti

luvluv....what do general rules have to do with anything. Do you make your decisions based on "the general rule"? Bonobos are our closest genetic relatives....their behavior is very pertinent, more so than other examples. Anyway, very few animals partner up for any length of time...they procreate and the male often heads out of dodge leaving the female to bear and raise the young.

Have you ever had a long term relationship luvluv? How about casual sex in your pre-Christian days? Just wondering

bonduca

This is just another set of stereotypes that do not accurately reflect reality, and calling any woman who challenges you an exception will not change that. As for your clinical psychologists, you have not cited any specific sources beyond your article in Essence magazine, and the invocation of vague spectres of biology professors. May I remind you that whatever their theories, they are far from infallible, or have you forgotten that uterus in need of tethering?

Bree

It clearly doesn't mean anything, luvluv, that you know nothing about me. You don't know anything about any of the people you're making generalisations about either - whether you're talking about LadyShea or nameless folk in various erotic films.

If you can make generalisations about them, then I wanna hear what you think about me, too. Don't worry, I'm man enough to handle it - I'm a lesbian, remember?!

seebs

My vague recollection is that I've seen the claim about "bonding hormones" elsewhere, not just in luvluv's imagination. I don't think they're nearly so complicated as to be able to distinguish between "reinforce your general sense of connectedness to other people" and "tie you to this particular person". I dunno; I've been pretty much hardwired for monogamy for a *LONG* time, long enough that I can remember before I was, but it seems weird and alien to me, like dreams or memories of childhood.

I tend to think that it's very easy for sex to become a bad or unhealthy thing, and that the simple "if it feels good, it's not bad" model is wrong. On the other hand, I think a lot of people overestimate the importance of specific models that tend to work well for most people, as opposed to the end result that you probably know what you can and can't handle.

This isn't to say some people aren't just plain wrong about what they want, or get, or need, out of sexual relationships. But... I figure the only way to tell is to watch someone over a period of time. Someone who is apparently happy and well-adjusted, I'm not gonna worry about who they screw. Someone who is clearly miserable, I might wonder if their sex life is being managed intelligently.

These days, I'm quite happy with the idea of a single stable and monogamous relationship. I'm not inclined to flings on the side, or anything similar... but if it works for you, don't let me stop you. It's none of my business.

Uhm. As to the porn question, I think porn in and of itself is not necessarily harmful, but that a lot of attitudes, both on the producer and consumer ends, *are* harmful. I see no good way to solve this, and I figure the stuff will be made, harmful or not, so the best thing would be if people could separate out the porn itself from the harmful attitudes, and go after the attitudes.

Also, porn can't be all bad, 'cuz BQQBIES! If that isn't an argument for a benevolent God, what is?

seebs

Well, I bet that your sick and twisted mind makes you want to do weird things like overfeed baby ballerinas to make them pudgy, or volunteer to "censor" (some like to call it moderate) discussions on Internet BBS's.

Gosh. Whatever shall we do. Gasp horrors.

Bree

You crack me up.

Pomp

A few drive-by points:

1) If we want to go the route of looking at our closest relatives, since luvluv brought it up, there's a general rule among primates that the relative size of the male's gonads, with respect to the rest of the male's body, is indicative of how promiscuous that species tends to be. Bonobos, as LadyShea has pointed out, engage in indiscriminate sex among members of the band. Accordingly, the males have very large gonads, relative to their body size. Gorrillas, on the other hand, are completely monogamous (or, rather, polygynous, with the dominant male having exclusive access to a number of females). Male gorillas have very small gonads in relation to their body size. Human males are located somewhere in the middle, indicating that, as anyone with a bit of common sense can already see, human beings are "naturally" neither completely monogamous nor indiscriminately promiscuous.

2) Again, since luvluv brought it up, the "ideal" female reproductive strategy is also a bit different than he has represented it. To ensure the most and the healthiest offspring, a female's best bet is not to simply find a supportive mate and start having babies but, rather, to find a supportive, caring mate who will help her care for her children, then find the most aggressive male on the block and get herself pregnant, then duping her mate into raising the children. The evolutionary history just doesn't support the idea of completely monogamous women, luv. Women, as well as men, are wired to desire sex, even if not with a committed partner.

3) There is evidence (in the form of at least one of her informants' publicly claiming that the stories the Samoans told Mead were fiction) that some of the material about sexuality in Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa may be unreliable. Here's a good <a href="http://courses.brown.edu/William_Beeman-AN0196_F01/sassigadd6.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a> of the controversy, in PDF format.