I'm coming to the UK in October

General Chatter
81

[quote=“Snow Girl”]

[quote=“Chizzles”]I am not lumping you with women in general, but… well, psychological differences between males and females are no different than the biological differences.

Obviously, what drives lesbians is more similar to what drives males, and studies have shown that it is perhaps directly linked to which side of your brain is larger (that dictates whether you have a masculine or feminine driving force in life).[/quote]

But biological differences are not set in stone as far as personality and nature goes. Yes, humans do not get to choose what sex they are when they’re born, but they choose which “gender” to identify with throughout their lives.

As far as I am concerned, any and all “brain tests” I’ve taken place me right down the middle, generally. I am neither more male or more female according to the results. Most of my friends are male and I tend to get along with them better. Women annoy me with chatting about clothing, shoes, makeup, boys and the like. I like playing in the dirt with my Tonka toys.[/quote]

I think you perhaps misunderstood, I am talking about “Driving force” as in… your sexual motivation for life… what subconsciously makes your sexual orientation tick. Where your “ego” lies in your brain is not really directly tied to the physical size of the lobes themselves…

You don’t chose to be heterosexual, in the same way you don’t chose to be homosexual. Shit turns us on and consciously we can’t really explain why.

But a Heterosexual female’s biological instinct to look for a provider is the same as a heterosexual male’s instinct to inseminate females. Even if it’s not at the forefront of your imagination when you are actively looking for a partner (After all, how many men think “Whoa… those tits could give some really good milk to children?”) they are the motivations behind the sexual attraction taking place :stuck_out_tongue:

In the same way that, if wanting to softly caress teabags could get your pregnant a lot more women would be doing it. (There are those that do it anyway, though).

82

[quote=“Chizzles”]

But biological differences are not set in stone as far as personality and nature goes. Yes, humans do not get to choose what sex they are when they’re born, but they choose which “gender” to identify with throughout their lives.

As far as I am concerned, any and all “brain tests” I’ve taken place me right down the middle, generally. I am neither more male or more female according to the results. Most of my friends are male and I tend to get along with them better. Women annoy me with chatting about clothing, shoes, makeup, boys and the like. I like playing in the dirt with my Tonka toys.

I think you perhaps misunderstood, I am talking about “Driving force” as in… your sexual motivation for life… what subconsciously makes your sexual orientation tick. Where your “ego” lies in your brain is not really directly tied to the physical size of the lobes themselves…

You don’t chose to be heterosexual, in the same way you don’t chose to be homosexual. Shit turns us on and consciously we can’t really explain why.

But a Heterosexual female’s biological instinct to look for a provider is the same as a heterosexual male’s instinct to inseminate females. Even if it’s not at the forefront of your imagination when you are actively looking for a partner (After all, how many men think “Whoa… those tits could give some really good milk to children?”) they are the motivations behind the sexual attraction taking place :stuck_out_tongue:

In the same way that, if wanting to softly caress teabags could get your pregnant a lot more women would be doing it. (There are those that do it anyway, though).[/quote]

Well, by going into people’s psychological desires, you’re opening up a whole other can of worms.

If you want to talk genetics and biology, don’t forget about transvestites, transsexuals, transgenders, drag queens and drag kings.

You’re also leaving out pheromones. People subconsciously seek out mates with a certain pheromone make up and immune system different from their own because they want to ensure that their offspring will have a greater chance of survival. So, the big hunky provider guy may be pretty on the outside, but the skinny nerdy guy may have a stronger immune system.

Either way, you can’t simplify the human animal just by base instinctual behaviours. Although there are certain subconscious forces that impel human beings, the conscience and self imposed morality of our different societies still govern how we interact. The progress of time and culture has altered the basic instincts of man. Otherwise, we’d eat with our hands, grunting gutterally, covered in dust and dirt and cower in caves from the elements and hunt prey with primitive tools. (Just as any man or child discovered that was “raised in the wild.”)

83

Yeah and kids raised by animals change so much that they cannot change back into something remotely resembling “normal”, which goes to show how far conditioning can imprint on someone. If childhood conditioning can be that irreversable there, then where else can it have a lasting impact?

Of course you cannot simplify the human condition down into the realm of predictability, or can you when you remove the sugar coating? At least for the most fundamental things in life. What you can do, however, is narrow down what stabalizes society without forcing us to define existance through suffering. If people really want to live in a jungle, they are more than welcome to it. Unfortunately, we are now taking the survival of the fittest philosophy to the next most logical level.

Let’s use your neighbor, Mexico, as an example. There are hundreds of murders there every single day. Women are raped and murdered non stop daily. The people are disarmed by an army of armed forces seeking to keep their own individual interests ahead of all others. It’s every man for himself. Like it or not, that is unfetterred human nature at work where people are choosing to embrace it rather than rise above the depths to which they have sunk. That’s our model for the future without an “imposed” morality. Ghetto-ized, and infested with self-worship and violence and kids without parents.

The way I see it, women go through that phase where they follow their instincts (like men do) until they realise they’ve been slaves to it all along, then they stop falling head over heals in love with guys who beat them to a bloody pult all because their genes seek out that kind of strength to pass onto their offspring. In tribal warring societies those traits would simply be needed to ensure a greater chance of survival for their children, so women would bear the pain.

84

Well, over-looking faults is a common feature in almost every relationship in both sides.

It’s just amazing that some women AND MEN actually tolerate being beaten-up at all. Although I’d argue that “morality” is actually hardwired as much into our brains as the desire to kick the shit out of daddy long-legs. Since it didn’t just appear out of nowhere, obviously people got fed up with things being like Mexico. So they put down their sombreros, and their burritos, and thought “Let’s take things to the next level”.

Beating your own partnet up is not the best way to show off strength, even as an alpha male.
You generally would find that, even our closest cousins, chimps - do not behave in this manner…

Status is another thing, if you are ugly and weak and work at Wal-mart you will never get a girlfriend.
If you are ugly and weak and in a movie you are guaranteed 100% to get vadge thrown at you from every angle.

85

You two just went way over the cliff and missed my point completely. I’m tired of all the blanket statements that have nothing to do with the actual topic. I have nothing further to add. :anjou_sigh:

86

Well to be fair, to deny that humans are not slaves to the darker sides of their nature at least to some extent would be outright denial.

It has to be said. You cannot under-estimate how powerfully controlling instincts are. They go deep down to a primal level where there is no reasoning with it.

I can discuss the specifics with you down to the bio-chemical level if you want, but it doesn’t change the facts of recorded history.

Women treat me better if I treat them like dirt, generally. In-built submissiveness? A friend of mine is close friends with criminals and keeps an Uzi in his house. He doesn’t have any trouble getting laid. The violence just screams natural provider. Ok so Lithuania is a hell-hole where he lives, but the point still stands, perhaps even more starkly.

I’m gonna agree with Chizzles on this. Usually in this situation an alpha male type would come along to defend their female sex slaves before enslaving them to expectations of porn star movie fantasies. These are the guys who feel justified in spreading their seed and abandoning pregnant women all because it happens in nature while nature has many cases of mating for life, too. Foxs for example, are monogamous.

Remember, we create the world we live in. We dig our own graves. Now you can agree with it all as the world slowly spirals into hell if that is what you want. Stand for convenience or truth.

It’s a shame that adulthood turned out to be the schoolyard only with more formalities.

87

I can’t think of any particular place to start with this, or indeed any particular thing I’m responding to, but it’s already all over the map so I don’t think it matters much? :wink:

There’s been a lot of generalizations brought up, and as such they represent some generalized truths of course. But even after generalizing the tendency of females being attracted to aggression and domineering behavior, it’s still a lot more complicated than pure instinct. And in fact, while dominant male chimpanzees actually are often abusive of females (and other males), that seems as much the ‘bully’ instinct of being in power as anything strictly gender related. Maybe most people aren’t very aware of the bonobo example though, possibly because some of their most notable and peculiar behavior is… kinda freaky too. But they are the closest relative to chimpanzees, and as such genetically about the same difference from humans.

Bonobos are a lot less nervous than chimps, having had no real natural threats, and interestingly enough they have also developed a more matriarchal sociology. And with such an easy life they apparently keep things interesting by having sex, and even making games out of it. So… if you want to read much into that, it almost seems to reinforce both the common center between aggressive and sexual impulses - as in each can take precedence over the other - as well as the masculine vs feminine domain. And maybe the female of the species really is just an amoral vixen at heart… :anjou_happy:

The two species certainly make for an almost perfect contrast, but the main thing I’m taking from this here is that: even if you held to a purely instinctual model of motivation, instincts are still reactive to other factors. And clearly one instinct may be overridden by another accordingly.

That said…

I’m personally disdainful of any attempts to justify things by genetic or instinctive absolutes (or even memetic, obviously). I see a very complex web of motivations in play, with different levels of alienation and/or bonding patterns, and sociological reinforcements of often ultimately arbitrary nature that are meant to maintain certain orders yet have other chaotic side effects as well. Clearly people aren’t typically very conscious about what they really desire and why, and from the purely male perspective - and one often mistaken for being a nice guy - it can be immensely disgusting to hear the usual cliches from any girl about what they think they’re looking for in a boy.

But at this point it’s not so much about any differences between boys and girls, as it is about the parity - or lack thereof - of priorities between two people. Whatever purity there may be in the primal attraction to dominance (and it can go both ways, even to the abusive degree) it’s still only one part of a whole spectrum of impulses, and one person isn’t made of the exactly same mix of shades and hues as another. The standard overbearing tool that gets a lot of tail is essentially parallel to the vapid superficial hottie that’s usually also either a gold digger or an unstable and insecure closet basket case (not mutually exclusive). And it’s not like I’m immune to all aspects of that certain feminine attraction… but I’m also not strictly that shallow either.

My greatest abstract annoyance about it all, is just how much pretense is still maintained to overlay the ultimate shallowness of most romantic relationship. And more personally because it’s at times excruciatingly apparent how much people may be insulated from whatever IS there by very arbitrary notions of something that’s supposed to be there. There is no one right way to be happy with another person.

88

[quote=“Heretic Agnostic”]Maybe most people aren’t very aware of the bonobo example though, possibly because some of their most notable and peculiar behavior is… kinda freaky too. But they are the closest relative to chimpanzees, and as such genetically about the same difference from humans.

Bonobos are a lot less nervous than chimps, having had no real natural threats, and interestingly enough they have also developed a more matriarchal sociology. And with such an easy life they apparently keep things interesting by having sex, and even making games out of it.[/quote]

I recall watching a documentary about Bonobos, now that you mention it.

Comparing them to both Chimps and Humans although that is where my recollection of that experience ends… Other than they had a Chimp making herself a bowl of Ramen noodles… that stuck in my mind. Although it was probably more to do with my deep-rooted love for strands of pasta coated in delicious cancer causing powders more than the fact a Chimp was cooking them.

Wakakakakakakakakakakaka

89

[quote=“Chizzles”]

Wakakakakakakakakakakaka[/quote]

Especially isolated there, that might come across more… bitter than I intended? lol

Strictly speaking I’d have to acknowledge that yes, in stereotype terms I’ve mostly been kind of a loser with the ladies. I’d say it’s not for lack of trying except, in a way it probably is mostly for lack of trying. My brother is a pick up artist, and by that I mean it’s actually the closest thing he’s had to a profession for a few years. So even if much of it’s second hand, I’ve recently heard a wealth of anecdotal evidence about the most effective posturing to seduce the average girl. And one thing that’s very clear… you know the whole cliche about men looking for different things in a prospective wife vs lets say a mistress? That has an exact parallel in women.

So basically the appropriate response in a situation when ones’ girlfriend or wife or whatever asks something like “What do men see in stupid girls like that?” Would be to simply ask “What do women see in assholes like hunky tool of choice?”

Lowest common denominator is just that… the lowest. It’s completely absurd to try to deny any of it, that doesn’t mean it has to define anyone’s tastes either.

90

I MET SOLO WING DRAGON

we didn’t really have much of a plan, so we lazed around in the shopping centre on awkward chairs for a while, but it was good to meet him :anjou_love:

Sequel coming soon!

91

[quote=“Scott”]I MET SOLO WING DRAGON

we didn’t really have much of a plan, so we lazed around in the shopping centre on awkward chairs for a while, but it was good to meet him :anjou_love:

Sequel coming soon![/quote]

Yeah, those chairs weren’t exactly ergonomic! Anyway, it was great meeting you in person.

Plans? Who needs them. It’s more fun making stuff up as you go along. :wink: