Quote:
Originally posted by OtterXO
First off, condescension is unnecessary and not appreciated. Maybe that was unintended, but it came across that way to me. Secondly, i'm not a psych expert so maybe my use of words was incorrect. I was using the word instinct to generalize the behavior of most men. I don't think that a pattern of behavior in humans and in animals quite qualifies as anyone fitting the world to their views. I think that ideally (if the world fit to my views) I would like men (actually one guy in particular) to always be at the same place in their life as I am....haha  I'm not saying it's a license for anyone to be an asshole, it just explains a few fundamental differences between men and women. I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with that type of thinking, but if natural human behavior is different then we all think it is then please, explain it to us...
|
No condescending nature intended, dude, sorry if it came off like that, my bad.
Anyway - I don't think you see this pattern in most animals, as they mate for life, and w/out the 'tryout' period you see in humans.
I totally agree with your 'asshole' comment, but when you say "fundamental nature" you make a lot of assumptions, most of which you're basing on things you see in your everyday life. OK, that's cool, but how do you know you're not extending what people think is 'appropriate' into what is really 'fundamental'?
How can you be sure you're not extending these centuries-old views that men can be sexually liberated, while women must be pure, into some sort of 'natural order' that may or may not exist? I'm just pointing out that there's no proof for this theory at all, it's just conjecture. Perhaps it is correct - but perhaps it is a really backwards-ass way of looking at gender roles.
I'm not sure either way, but while it may seem obvious to say "men are bred for multiple sexual partners" I think that, from science, it's not that simple at all, and it brings in biases that we're born with (almost as strongly as any instincts we've developed).
Quote:
Originally posted by cashmoney
We don't? Why then are little boys automatically attracted to/like little girls? Why does a boy ask a girl to be his girlfriend? Parents don't teach their 6 yr old that he is supposed to like little girls...it just happens. Parents surely don't teach their sons that they are supposed to stick the thing between their legs inside a girl. I understand where you are going with ur statement but don't you think it's pretty far-fetched to say we don't use instinct anymore? If someone is trying to kill you and you stop them, is that not instinctive? There are two kinds of animals in this world, predators and prey. Prey have eyes on the side of their head and predators have eyes on the front. We, as humans, are the ultimate predator on this planet. U think we don't still use instinct?
|
Why do some little boys ask little girls to be their girlfriend, and then later make out with other boys? Why do they use the word "girlfriend" by rote, when their comprehension of the term can't be anything better than tenuous?
Maybe it's because it is partially learned behavior . . . you see males coupling with females, like your mom and dad or the people on the TV, so you emulate it. That's my point - and sure I was overreaching a bit with the 'no instinct' part, surely we have primal instincts such as your 'fight or flight' example.
I think that the view of males as 'sexual predators' is something learned from societal views on males, shit that stems more from centuries-old customs such as dowries and being a virgin on her wedding night than from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Humans are not the ultimate predators, but rather the utlimate omnivores, able to eat almost anything and use the only overdeveloped part of our bodies, the brain, to adapt - our eyes look forward, sure, but more than half of our teeth are flat, a classic herbavore trait. Here, I think we're using this overdeveloped brain to fit science into how we see gender roles play out, and not the other way around.
Then again, I might be wrong too - I just don't want people to think that this stuff is absolute science, b/c it's not, it can really go either way.
In the end, both you and Otter have given really good advice: do you and do it well, and when the time comes that someone else is at that some point, you two can do the couple thing too. That's the important part, not the labels.