Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

UGA's initial point about something being wrong didn't seem to be about her bogus rape claim. It seemed to be about her (alleged) willingness to participate.

Are women fragile flowers who absolutely never have control over their own minds and bodies? Can't men and women just be (prepare for gratuitous morality slap) careless whoresluts just for shits and giggles? (rhetoricals) She wanted to be the hole in the wall and they wanted to stick it.

Most of my comments about her were about her willingness to participate.

While in a social vacuum, women might be free to be careless whoresluts, we're not living in a social vacuum.

Assuming that there aren't biological forces that push most women toward monogamy (and I kind of think there are: I'll try to find a link), the social consequences of being a careless whoreslut if you are female are serious enough that most healthy women decide that it isn't worth it IF the thought even makes it to that level of conscious thought.

Women who don't see the risk or don't care about the risk are atypical, and, while I'm not sure which comes first, are likely to be socially and emotionally atypical too.

We can wonder if having no sexual mores would result in a flowering of sexual pleasure for women, but the women on the forefront of this moment might pay a pretty high social price.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

While in a social vacuum, women might be free to be careless whoresluts, we're not living in a social vacuum.

What does this sentence mean as it pertains to your posts in this thread?

Your posts in this thread aren't an analysis of the normative behaviors of men and women. They are attempting to attribute meaning where there may be none in this specific instance; and attempting to attribute blame where there may be none, beyond opinions of morality.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Assuming that there aren't biological forces that push most women toward monogamy (and I kind of think there are: I'll try to find a link)

Don't bother finding that link with that easily dismissed research. There has been little to no reliable research on the "nature" of monogamy in humans. It is most likely a combination of the social, cultural, and biological. Social scientists know that these things can be learned but there has been no concrete proof that these things are biological.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

the social consequences of being a careless whoreslut if you are female are serious enough that most healthy women decide that it isn't worth it IF the thought even makes it to that level of conscious thought.

Decide. Exactly.

Other women may decide differently. There is nothing inherently deviant about that nor ascriptive about the former decision.

[UGAalum94]

There are social consequence to sexual behavior.

If the consequences didn't exist, behavior and the long term happiness as a result of that behavior might be different.

I think you are wrong about the nature of monogamy, especially as it has allowed females to provide for their offspring. The study I was thinking of contrasted the different evolutionary benefits to males and females of monogamy vs. having multiple reproductive partners if you look at the evolutionary "goal" of getting your genetic material into the next generation. Females benefited from one long term partner providing material support to allowing offspring to reach reproductive age. Males benefited from getting the sperm out there to as many different females as they could.

How in the world could you imagine that there is no legitimate scientific knowledge in the area of mating habits and their benefits?

ETA: I wish I had quoted. It seems like I either misread or there was a pretty big change in the second section.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think you are wrong about the nature of monogamy, especially as it has allowed females to provide for their offspring. The study I was thinking of contrasted the different evolutionary benefits to males and females of monogamy vs. having multiple reproductive partners if you look at the evolutionary "goal" of getting your genetic material into the next generation. Females benefited from one long term partner providing material support to allowing offspring to reach reproductive age. Males benefited from getting the sperm out there to as many different females as they could.

How in the world could you imagine that there is no legitimate scientific knowledge in the area of mating habits and their benefits?

None of this translates to women being biologically inclined toward monogamy.

Everyone has read or heard about that ONE study. It has been used to support everything from patriarchy to male promiscuity to why women should stay in the home to why women should be paid less. The only thing it REALLY supports is that women are able to be impregnated and men are not.

And here's the spoon ("where's the spoon? aha!"): Women don't have to be monogamous to get pregnant and pregnant women don't have to be monogamous. Dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmmmn!!!!

[UGAalum94]

I think it probably points to a lot more than that.

What was your point, again?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

What was your point, again?

What was yours?

Oh yeah, you're the Gender Morality Police and you think that women are born with a monogamy gene.

Bleh.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What was yours?

Oh yeah, you're the Gender Morality Police and you think that women are born with a monogamy gene.

Bleh.

Nope. I don't think women are born with a monogamy gene. I think women may have a stronger biologically motivated interest in monogamy than men do. And I think this is social reinforced.

I don't think I limit my policing to just gender morality. You get to enjoy it on a variety of topics.