Men, Women, and Monkeys (split)

[Geoff]

Yes, I think so too.

Then too that caveman beard must weight a lot all by itself!

You know what's worrying? My father has a beard (not quite as impressive as this one.. but still..) I look scarily like him with this photoshop avatar.

 

[heart]

Song for Geoff.

 

[pure_mercury]

I agree with this. I don't find gender based humor funny at all, and not even because I think it's 'harmful' or ideological. It just plain isn't funny.

I've written some comedy intended for TV or film, and I've read a lot of scripts. The amount of "Man, my wife sure does love to shop!" and "My husband is such an oaf; he always leaves the toilet seat up!" crap is staggering. It reminds of that Simpsons episode in which Marge laments the cancellation of the TV show Ethnic Mismatch Comedy #644. That is what a lot of writers know.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging these definitions of supposedly masculine and feminine behavior? What positive impact does it have on society?

 

[Ivy]

Does it have to have a positive impact on society?

What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging anything?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Does it have to have a positive impact on society?

If it doesn't, why hang onto it?

What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging anything?

Ermmm, reference serves a lot of purposes, and that's why I figure cataloging is sometimes useful.

My precise use of words in that case doesn't really matter, anyway. The more general point is: What good are these generalized definitions of male and female behavior?

 

[Haphazard]

When talking about "stereotypical" masculine or feminine traits: It is like the average man likely 60 percent masculine, 40 percent female. Average woman 60 percent female traits, 40 percent masculine. And then varations with individuals in all directions.

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*

Easy there, Happy(I think that should be your nickname ), we must handle this calmly now.

This does address what I was getting at, though. If we are all going to give the utlimate priority to individual qualities(and we damn well should) then what use is there to these perscribed generalizations?

 

[heart]

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*

Are some people here hanging around a lot of people named "Pat" and "Chris"?

 

[Haphazard]

Easy there, Happy(I think that should be your nickname ),

You would certainly not be the first to think that. Most people I know seem to have a taste for irony.

we must handle this calmly now.

This does address what I was getting at, though. If we are all going to give the utlimate priority to individual qualities(and we damn well should) then what use is there to these perscribed generalizations?

I think what people should do with them is learn something about statistics. When the average person hears "X tends to Y," they will think "X will always Y" despite not knowing the probability that X will Y, or anything about the sample used to draw the conclusion that "X tends to Y." They might not even be applying it to a correct context, depending on how they heard "X tends to Y."

Also, people don't understand conditional statements and their reverse. I really just think the whole world just needs a good lesson in mathematics, to at least learn where assumptions and statistics properly apply.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think what people should do with them is learn something about statistics. When the average person hears "X tends to Y," they will think "X will always Y" despite not knowing the probability that X will Y, or anything about the sample used to draw the conclusion that "X tends to Y." They might not even be applying it to a correct context, depending on how they heard "X tends to Y."

Also, people don't understand conditional statements and their reverse. I really just think the whole world just needs a good lesson in mathematics, to at least learn where assumptions and statistics properly apply.

Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?

 

[Haphazard]

Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?

No... should I have?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50% chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.

 

[Haphazard]

It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50% chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.

I need to read this book, even though it'll probably make me cry.

If there's one thing that makes me upset, it's people misusing math...

 

[Giggly]

Alright I'm going to shake this thread up. I'll state my opinion.

1. I do not believe that men and women have much of a difference in sex drive ONCE AND IF THEY ARE TRULY ATTRACTED TO THEIR MATE.

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

3. Men will not have sex with just any woman who offers it. They are not the "sex machines" that society and traditional machismo portrays them to be. They will turn a willing woman down easily if she does not live up to their preferences.

4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

5. Some women have sex with men they are not truly attracted to, for other reasons (I wouldn't).

There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

 

[Giggly]

Here's something else I saw written somewhere by a man:

-----------------------

Ten Emotional Needs of Women:

1. Protection of her most valuable asset: Her Reputation

2. She needs to experience a Range of Emotions

3. Cater to the Little Girl in Her

4. He must show Dominance, making all major decisions, including taking 100% responsibility for the sex in the relationship

5. Safe from fear of Abandonment

6. Trust him to be honest, even if it makes her mad

7. Her physical protection and safety

8. Can he handle her sexuality (whatever it may be) - don't let a fantasy go unfulfilled or she will satisfy it given the opportunity behind your back

9. Does he have sought after High Quality Sperm

10. Prove he is not a closet homosexual.


Not sure I agree with them all, and definitely not the exact wording, but many of them are true for most women.

 

[01011010]

<Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".

 

[Magic Poriferan]

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

ALL women? That's a 100% assertion. That's very unlikely. I personally find no rationale or evidence that supports this notion. I can find rationale and evidence to refute it. But right now I'm mainly going to focus on the fact that I have spoken with many women that do not seek aggressive partners. Even rather feminine heterosexuals. Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?

That, to me, would be an assumption, based far too much on faith and intuition. And it's dangerous, because of how much it ignores the commentary of the people being subjected to it. It's rather Freudian.

4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

Could you define the "natural order?"

There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

I'm not mad at you. I do disagree with you and think you are in error about this. I would like to handle it politely, though.

No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".

And here you go. She's an exhibit. She doesn't match your description. What am I supposed to make of that?

Kind of funny though... I'm rather fond of both of you. Hope this doesn't take an awkward direction.

 

[Giggly]

Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?

Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."

But what if they pursue their mates?
What if they pick introverted, passive guys for partners?
What if they always turn-down guys that pursue them?

In other words, if their actions match their words, why should I assume that they really want an aggressive partner?