"Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her."

Oh, sweet poetry of Life!

"To say that [sexual harassment] is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."

Except, of course, in The Thomas Crown Affair.

Pardon me for tossing the logic on its head so that I can claim that having had only daughters means that I must be quite handsome! Yay me! (I also like to believe that eating ice cream causes shark attacks.)

Eating ice cream while waist-deep in shark-infested waters probably at least contributes to shark attacks!

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations.

Possibly more generally plausible as:

"...are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in frustrated competitive situations..."?

In my experience, when Mr Modern Flintstone reaches for beastlier tactics, this usually comes only after a smoother approach to gain an advantage has failed?

> none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did.

Flawed experiment design. I think we can all agree that, in matters of sex, what women want and what women say they want have only a casual correspondence. I'd like to know if any of the "approached" women later secretly went to bed with the approachers, still protesting that they didn't feel like a fuck.

I'll second that, Stu.

Also, we're pretty much expected to say no. Socialized into shame about sex. Give out the strangers phone number, and I'm sure some women would call. I wonder if more men or less would call than agree on the spot?

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations.

Jodi, he's talking about male competition in general -- what men do to other men. When women are in a competitive environment with men, they're subject to this repertoire same as other men are.

How can either of you comment on the experiment design of a study you haven't read? Or have you actually read it? It's Hatfield and Clark. look it up I have it at home and it may be online.

Women fear for their safety from strange men approaching them. Men do not. Furthermore, men have only benefits (in an evolutionary sense) from having as many sex acts as possible. Women have a high cost per sex act -- potential pregnancy -- and have adapted to look for investors, in the parental sense (even if they don't want kids in evolutionarily novel [ie, modern] times). It makes total sense.

Oh, and I have notes from the Ev. Psych preconference in Palm Springs a few years ago, when Elaine Hatfield spoke...just looked them up. Sorry they're a bit sketchy, but here:

Elaine Hatfield – thinks study should be updated – with these questions:

who’s doing the asking
who’s being asked
where does the hit take place
what is being asked

I think women are subject to those same things from other women too. There's no meaningful principle of gender distinction being offered there.

When Tressider prattles about Mr Modern Flintstone, beastlier tactics and gained advantages, my bullshit detector sounds loudly.

Women fight wars of words. Derogating competitors.

You mean like abuse, intimidation, and degradation?

"When Tressider prattles about Mr Modern Flintstone, beastlier tactics and gained advantages, my bullshit detector sounds loudly."

Doesn't a "gained advantage" have anything to do with "competition in general" then, Crid?

Aren't "abuse, intimidation, and degradation" all examples of beastlier competitive tactics?

(I say "beastlier" as a comparison with non-beastly tactics, i.e. those tactics that don't involve abusing, degrading or intimidating the competition.)

I think there's far more sense in suggesting that an individual stoops to these secondary tactics when the ones already available - skill, superior strength, training, aptitude, attraction - don't cut the mustard.

The thrust of the study seems to insist all mating tactics are based on hostility to the target.

Can't say I'm entirely convinced.

You make me nervous. Quit fidgeting over there.

"The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence."

Just saying (additionally) this bit reads exactly like the sort of boilerplate attached to countless 1920s/30s eugenics screeds.

I just read the excerpt , but Browne is a moron--- an effort at political correctnees is nothing more than male-bashing. Imagine a psychologist saying-- "Men should understand that all women are manipulative, devious bitches. They treat everyone, even women like that. So women aren't treating men differently when they act like manipulative, devious bitches-- because thats the way all women treat everyone." Damn sexist when you just turn the tables.

The "hostile environment " prong of sex discrimination-- the Supreme Court put this in the US Consititution to enact the ideology of feminism, without the consent of the American people. Feminist law professor and activist Catherine MacKinnon came up with the "hostile environment " idea to give women virtually total control of the workplace and claim virtually anything that offends female sensibilty is somehow "hostile to women" and , unbelievably, "unconstitutional" because it violates women's civil rights !
Thats laughable. There are all kind of harrassment remedies in state court for typical abuse. MacKinnon-- as a radical feminist-- wanted to broaden the term "sexual harrassment " beyond the easy- to- show-and -objective " sleep with me or you are fired or don't get the raise etc " to include virtually anything a man might do that a woman finds objectionable and can somehow claim is "sexual".

This procedure of broadening the definition of terms to met their anti-male agenda is all over the place-- "Domestic violence" includes virtually anything two people who disagree might do-- check the absurd definitions on any 'Battered Woman" web site. Running the family's finances could be DV. Slamming a door could be DV. Making mean faces could be DV. Hence feminists defind "DV" so broadly that they can claim it is rampant and a conscious conspiracy of evil men. The old definition of DV as involving some kind of injury means that DV is rare indeed. That fact gets out-- along with the fact that women are equal opportunity abusers-- and, no pork from the government and no trumpeting the inherent evils of men and patriarchy.
This is occuring with rape law. Feminists work to and have succeeded in broadening the legal definiton of rape by new definitons of "nonconsensual" and throwing out the old objective criteria ( like there must be an "outcry"). Why-- feminists think men are inherently rapists and just use different techniques to effect it( drugs ,alcohol, deception, romance, asking politely, etc). Hence , the "outcry" rule and some need for corroboration are jettisoned-- because they make it harder to convict the man-who-is always-guilty. Feminists think any man accussed of rape is guilty of it-- we just need to find ways to convict the obviously guilty man ( Wendy Murphy is a shrill proponent of this view) ( see also, virtually every female commentator's embrace of the Duke Rape hoaxster until the very end). One feminist said the goal of feminism was to shift the burden of proof in rape trials from the accuser to the accused ! Incredible-- he must prove he did not do it ! A total subversion of our criminal justice system to effect feminist ideology. They have done it with "self defense"-- the BWS is meant to allow women to kill sleeping men and get off, although the 'self defense" argument would be absurd.
Back to the point here-- What is this person talking about when he says men treat everyone in an abusive, intimidating, degrading fashion in the workplace, so they are not singling out women. WHo are these men and where do they work? People that behave like that get fired-- whatever their gender.What a grotesquely anti-male statement without any empirical foundation whatever.
He says that women "legitmately complain" about men's behavior but just don't understand that men act like obnoxious jerks all the time and to everyone. What total bullshit. Imagine publishing such a comment about women-- Gee guys, you have to understand, all women are manipulative bitches-- its their nature. Why they treat women the same way.. Imagine what protest that would engender. An evolutionary psychologist points out that women entering the workplace-- inevitably sexualize it, whether they try or not, and many want to to pursue a mate. Men always see an interaction with a woman as more sexual than the woman does becuase of their different sexual strategies. Also, many women find the workplace a nice place to pursue romance and this is true of men also. The problem is the conflict between women's and men's strategies ..

Courts have tried to make the "hostile environment" doctrine somewhat reasonble by adopting a "reasonable woman " standard, so every odd take on men's behavior is not illegal. Incredibly, girly pictures on the wall in auto garages is deemed to creat a "hositile environment'.
Black letter law is always menaingless. How do you define "hostile" ? Why are women protected against men's hostile behavior but men are not protected against theirs? Women cheering the Bobbitt verdict over TVs at work --- as was reported at the time-- isn't that sexual harrassment ? Is that actionable? Are insulting remarks about penis size harrassment? Is "Men are pigs" harrassment ? Is a woman saying "Joe is a loser" the same as a man saying "Jane is a dog"-- which one creates a hostile environment ? Men take women's abusive conduct and don't complain. The "hostile environment" prong of sexual harrassment" merely puts the tenets and goals of feminism in the US Constitution.

The "blonde bombshell" made for painful reading. I think they make reasonable statements here.. but some of the benefit for the choosing male seems pretty weak. Large breasts ? Is there really any general , actual-in-real-life preference here ? Is there empirical evidence that this plays a role in male mate choice ?-- . And --because men can discern age better because the bigger they are the quicker they sag with age? Thats is...kinda speculative. Maybe the overall figure being such a shape...

Evolutionary psychology can make people feel dehumanized because women 's mate value is based on youth and attractiveness and men's on power status,and resource acquisition. Most men don't have much power and most women are average in attractiveness. So these generalizations are more true at the extremes-- powerful men have many babes and beautiful women have a rich husband-- than at the mean. Both genders have to work with what they have. The skilled carpenter probably cannot marry the model, but the receptionist may find him a good catch. The plain seamstress probably can't marry the super-rich guy, but the cable salesman may think she would be a good wife.

The genuis curve is not totally accurate-- only some kinds of genius-- mathematical, scientific, artistic-- those that seem heavily based on spatial skills and "inspiration". Philosophers typically write their best stuff late in life-- the great Immanuel Kant wrote The Critique of Pure Reason when he was 59. Many novelists and some poets do the same. Anything that may depend on the accumulation of experience and wisdom does not follow that curve , almost be defintion. Not too many women were impressed with Melville or Nietzsche, or Van Gogh,etc at the time of their great work. Its the power and fame and status that go with that success that is the female attractant, not the creativity per se,as writing good books doesn't make a man attractive unless he gets the big bucks for them.. I thought that was a very weak section..

Evolutionary psychology uses evolutionary theory to produce very interesting hypotheses.

Many of these, on the face of it, seem to match human behavior as we know it (men being more interested in casual sex, for example). These results are often politically incorrect (although they fit nicely with "original sin" theology, if not the related moral teachings).

So far, however, no science is involved.

Science asks whether the hypotheses can be repeatably tested, and if so, what are the results. Not having the study in front of me (and being way to rusty in statistics), I can't say from reading this if the assertions are correct.

But I'll make a non-scientific bet some of them are close. And I guarantee that feminists won't accept that science no matter what is says (even if they have to go as far as the absurd feminist theories of scientific truth being based on perspective - of female physics, etc).

So far, however, no science is involved.

Here's the thing. Those of you pontificating against ev psych haven't, I'd bet, read a single study from start to finish. I've read many. As in all fields, some are solid, some are less than solid, but these studies are based in data and are peer reviewed, and subject to criticism and revision from others within the field. The faulty ones generally don't get published, and even the good ones are subject to revision when further information warrants it.

FYI, feminists are angriest with evolutionary psychologists, I'd say, and I suggest you click on the link to Kingsley Browne's name...his book, which he told me about at some length at the last evolutionary psych conference, sounds like it's going to make a wave or two.

I'm not interested in work based in mere speculation, and I know it's become popular to knock evolutionary psychology, but don't knock it in general. Read a study and tell us what's wrong with it specifically. Don't just spout off uninformed opinions.

> Those of you pontificating
> against ev psych haven't,
> I'd bet, read a single study
> from start to finish.

First of all, good wager. There's a good reason you'd win.

Secondly, don't be grandiose. None of us non-conference attending enthusiasts of human nature care enough about "ev psych" to "pontificate" against it. (Scientology does that too: every critic is a monster.)

Thirdly, this may break your humanities-hatin' heart, but most of the perceptive, thoughtful people on this planet don't sit around reading studies to figure out how reality works. They have other sources to review.

Fourthly, I read the last graph of this last one, where the guy talked about the importance of getting laid in about as many --and essentially the same-- words. Turns out I'd already heard about that. If these guys can't teach something meaningful, we shouldn't let their spiral binders disguise trivial rivulets of insight as Big Science Principles.

Scientology does that too, mostly by calling itself Scientology. (...Which is a clumsy name. I sometimes wonder if the reason those fuckers --self-selected for arrogance-- haven't taken over the world yet is that that have a tin ear for etymology. There are many clumsy examples from their tongue that don't come to mind because my sleepy stomach is full of holiday beef. But I can check into this and get back to you with cites if you want. Usual fee.)

Fifth, and this is the big one, if they're so fucking certain of their findings, why do they have to call themselves "evolutionary psychology"? By such nomenclature, Freudians seem much more eager to steal Karmic thunder from Darwinians than vice-versa. It's not just Tom Cruise who thinks psychology is a field with an overdue account. Quite obviously, if your heroes from the popular periodical could deliver the goods, they be welcomed by --and simply described as-- evolutionists.

THEY'D. "..they'd be welcomed..."

You can check for typos and check for typos, but....

Just curious--I haven't read the paper in question, but I'm a little stymied at the "blonds are more attractive" part of the title. Frankly, I've always loved blonde hair, and was always a bit disappointed that mine isn't. My boyfriend on the other hand, doesn't particularly like blonde hair, and is very much a fan of dark tresses. Hey, there are all sorts of X-rated sites devoted to brunettes, redheads, etc., so I'm just wondering what these guys found out about blonde hair that makes it so alluring to so many people's evolutionary id. Any insight/excerpts?

Kim, I haven't read the study, but I have had multiple hair colors across my life - blonde being one - and I can say with some authority that blonde tends to be striking in a way that other colors aren't with the exception of natural red hair. With many complexions, the right blonde color makes one look younger, opens up the color palette that one can wear. There are some exceptions - I've seen some people who look TERRIBLE as blondes - and there are certainly some people who prefer other looks. One thing to remember when reading these ev psych studies is that they describe tendencies and trends, not ironclad laws that perfectly describe every single last human out there who falls into their categories (IMHO). I know beautiful and/or powerful people who have had only daughters; I also know less beautiful and less powerful people who have had only sons. There are men out there who don't care a whit about the waist-hip ratio, or about blonde hair. People who don't fit into the "highly attractive" categories as per ev psych or just per regular observance marry and breed every day. This isn't to say that one shouldn't keep refining theories, but I know an awful lot of beta guys who will never be top earners who have devoted wives, but I still think there's something to the ev psych idea that women like powerful men with well-paying jobs, for example.

but I still think there's something to the ev psych idea that women like powerful men with well-paying jobs, for example.

Marion,
That perfectly describes many ev psych studies. And most of us would blink at the counter claim, say, that women naturally prefer to mate with wimpy bums and that the choice of powerful, wealthy men is simply due to environmental pressure!

But ev psych assumes our psychological make-up was "jerry-built in the Pleistocene era" and insists it is possible to discard fleeting cultural influences and thus study what really motivates behavior.

That I do not buy.

(Though I've sometimes yearned to be blonde!)

Basic human nature is, "Humans being the top predator of this rock got this way by being assholes."
and
"by having sex with other humans in between killing each other and finding food and shelter."
Males, females all basically "assholes".

> There are men out there who
> don't care a whit about the
> waist-hip ratio

All of the sudden I have sisters on the blog! Amy will just not listen when people say that. She'll say 'Studies have been published showing a global preference for W/H of [whatever], OK? That's the target, that's where the action is, that's what we're about. We have hard data now... The matter is closed!'

> That I do not buy.

Word!

> Read a study and tell us what's wrong with it specifically.

Being a disobedient old bastard, I refuse to slog through the whole thing. I'll just retort that, if your description is accurate, Hatfield and Clark aren't measuring what they think they're measuring. They're really measuring the gender difference in willingness to respond honestly to a polite request for a fuck.

Jody, m'dear, virtually none of the adult blonde women you see out there are natural. As in, oh, 97% (assuming you live in the U.S. and not in Scandinavia). If you want to be blonde, then hie thee to a hairdresser, go! (Don't try it at home unless your hair is almost blonde to begin with. Do-it-yourself lightening has much more potential for disaster than do-it-yourself darkening, because in the first scenario you actually have to remove several layers of colors not visible in your surface color. In other words, if you're Caucasian and you try to lighten your own hair, don't be surprised if the red layer typically buried in Caucasian hair comes out with an orangey vengeance.)

Seriously, coloring one's hair, for those who have never done it, is FUN when it works well. You can look dramatically different without having to do anything permanent. It's like Botox without the toxin or the needles. And summertime is the perfect time to go blonde, because hair tends to be lighter then, anyway.

Crid: On average, women like chick flicks far better than they like action movies. I know this to be true, and will be quite happy to pull out data if you try to convince me otherwise. That having been said, I am most definitely a woman (with a kickin' waist-hip ratio) and yet I loathe chick flicks. Give me a good shoot-'em-up flick, preferably with aliens, any day of the week. Does that mean that the theory of what women like at the movies is wrong? No - it means that a theory represents average trends, and that the whole idea of the bell curve holds true once again. (Sorry, I'm sure you know are this....I'm just not sure that you and Amy are really as far apart on this issue as you appear to be on the surface. On the other hand, you do so enjoy jousting with one another that perhaps I should be quiet...)

Marion, my favorite action film of all time is probably “Le Mans”, and it ess you see kay sucks, sucks out loud, sucks biblically... Except for the soundtrack (Frenchman Legrand). And the cars (German and Italian). And the race sequences.

The favorite films of recent years are Amelie and Eternal Sunshine, which are girly romantic comedies (directed by French guys!). But these films have as many special effects as an action movie. The effects are as novel, complicated and cleverly staged as anything in an action film of the last thirty years... And you're not expected to suspend your narrative response while the sequences play out, as you are in an action film. (“Okay, now Batman's going to have a fistfight on top of a skyscraper... Plot development will resume in seven minutes.”)

Nowadays at the movies it's still possible to be moved by the depiction of people in love, but not necessarily by people in danger. There was a scathing review of Almost Famous (author forgotten) a few years ago that offered a somewhat related observation: “This movie has to periodically threaten its lead character's lives to remind you to care about them.”

I'm a generation too old to care about Transformers or have any interest in the film, but this week Ebert offers a review that's very complementary to the character depictions that happen to the human cast before the robotic animation begins. He noted that the audience that had chuckled and cooed during the fleshy beginnings sat impassive and motionless during the effects-laden climax.

Most every disagreement here is trivial in the extreme. And there's no money in it, so we do this for fun. Blog commenting and internet chatter are all about tyrannical small differences. You're right, my issue with Amy's Ev Psych is a teapot tempest.

Humans are very proud of themselves, and like to believe our present authority is evidence of either supernatural mandate (We're so cool because God gave us this gig!) or a happenstance of objectively handsome refinement (We're the best that's ever been! Nothing else even comes close!) Both these lies cheat the fact of the matter, which is that our development is not directed to a particular end. Nature goes with what works, is all, and then only for as long as it does. One quarrel I have with Amy (and a number of close friends, who are similarly smug about whatever sociobiology they just read in the popular press) is that they don't make peace with this fundamental truth of evolution. There might not be a more humbling truth to know.

Examples don't come readily to mind this late at night, but I remember a Gould essay that talked about how there used to be a large number of horse-like creatures, with that same configuration of toes and limbs and necks and long heads and digestive tracts (or whatever the traits were). The last few dozen millenia have whittled it down to the current equus and a fistful of other critters. A glib author who should have known better (I think it Robert Jastrow) was crediting nature for its insight in selecting the modern pony as champion. Gould said this was “ass-backwards.” The real action in evolution is the 3-D bushiness of the branching that species will attempt, not in a ladderlike climb to loneliness.

To see this confusion brought to the matter of womanly shapes is poignantly offensive. It's more comforting, productive and sane to see the beauty in those around you that you'd not noticed before than to chase blindly and bloodlessly after some blue-ribboned champion, or to claw viciously for a ribbon of your own to wear. The queen of your high school prom wasn't queen of much.

Stepen Jay Gould was one of the biggest charlatans of all time. His book "The Mismeasure of Man " is a compedium of lies and misrepresentations that was ripped apart by experts in IQ and IQ testing.
He was an avowed Marxist who opposed Sociobiology because he did not like its political implications. Hw was a member of a group up at Harvard-- Sociobiology for the People or The Ssociobiology Study Group-- who personally attacked Harvard's own E O Wilson ( Sociobiology-- The New Synthesis, 1975) as a Nazi.
His vapid comments about evolutionary adaptations were spoon fed to a gullible press--- but he always got reamed by those in the discipline. He has been a laughing stock for over 30 years.
An anecdote. Gould and Eldridge came up with "Puntuated Equilibrium" to try to avoid an adaptational anlysis of evolution,ie, it occured by episodic sudden shifts, with no adapatational significance at all. In 1984, evolutionary biologists called their view-- "The theory of evolution by jerks"-- pun intended.

1.Evolutionary psychology is so named because it looks at adaptations that have specifically shaped the human mind and behavior. Before that it was within the field of Sociobiology in general, the biological basis of all behavior.
2.If you claim to be an" enthusiast of human nature" and don't know a great deal about EP you are about 35 years behind the times and know a whole lot that just aint so.
3. Research is the way we "find out how reality works". Ever since Bacon, scientific methodology has proven more reliable than "other sources"-- which often turn out to be illusory.

As far as the universality of women's preference for power, status and resources and men's for youth and beauty-- just consult "What Women Want-- What Men Want", Townsend, 1998. He details scores of studies where men almost always prefer the beautiful gal no matter what her status and women prefer the high status male even if he is plain , over the low status handsome guy.

The hip to waist ratio needs to be explained. Weight is not the central determinant -- its the .70 ratio that is. If you weigh 160, but have the .70 ratio, you are attractive to men. If you weigh 110 and have a .83 ratio , you are not viewed as attractive. Maybe that helps the gals feel better.

The real proof of the analysis-- which contradicts feminism-- is that the more status and power a woman has-- the fewer men she sees as potential mates-- because they must be at least as high status as her and preferably higher status.

Women are most powerful from 16-30 or so (" You might get lucky tonite"). As they age , they lose power over men ( women over 40 ,"they are so grateful") For men-- it is the reverse-- young men have little status and little power over women, but as they age,, they get more power typically, as they accumulate resources. Its absurd for a 25 year old man to date a 45 year old woman. But the reverse is the norm, if he has the big bucks.

.

Evolutionary psychology provides by far the most powerful analysis of human social behavior. Its a Trojan Horse-- with the coming of age of Sociobiology, the Enlightenment has come to an end ( Peter Reynolds).

> Stepen Jay Gould was one
> of the biggest charlatans
> of all time.

Wow. You kinda sounded like Halberstam for a minute there.

Without SJG, what would we make of this?:

http://www.kuvaton.com/kuvei/heippa_kaikille.jpg

(By the way, that's one reason I know all you Ev Psychists or whatever are so wrong... You're so eager. When non-specialists feel they've been given a pass on years or decades of study, it's time to check your credulity. To wit:

> with the coming of age
> of Sociobiology, the
> Enlightenment has come
> to an end.

Claims are not just made for the insights of today, but for the Understanding of Tommorow™!

Scientology does that too. Billion-year contracts for children of divorce who never learned to share at lunchtime... Blech.

Another!

http://urltea.com/xd7

I could do this all nite!

Very confusing. Eager?... So the criterion of truth is lethargy, not publishing research, ideas, theory ?... dilettantes often end up decades behind

Science always makes claims for today and tomorrow--

Never. Science is always ready for new information. Loyalty is for wussies.

Evolutionary psychology is so named because it looks at adaptations that have specifically shaped the human mind and behavior

Jededwards:

My preferred version:

Ev Psych is so named because the terms form an impressive-sounding snappy hybrid. It looks at assumed adaptations that may have shaped, to some extent, aspects of human thinking and behavior, often using data based on self-reporting, and frequently arriving at speculative conclusions which spookily complement that latest backlash group think.

On top of that, it really pisses feminists!

Crid, you're matchmaking for Lucy?

And Jody: But ev psych assumes our psychological make-up was "jerry-built in the Pleistocene era" and insists it is possible to discard fleeting cultural influences and thus study what really motivates behavior.

Dev Singh found that men in, I believe, 37 cultures, prefer women with a .7 WHR (Waist-To-Hip Ratio). And sorry, for the person above who suggests that some guy out there likes women shaped like guys...as the line goes, "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." There may be variations out there, but by and large, this is what MEN want.

Although the data shows pretty clearly what human behavior is, sure, maybe there's speculation as to why. In fact, Steve Gaulin has just made a breakthrough on Dev Singh's earlier work -- as to the why of the WHR preference. I'm waiting for him to send me a paper on it (he has to wait until it's online in the journal that's publishing it), but I heard him present on it at the last HBES conference in Williamsburg, VA, in June.

That's what science is about -- or supposed to be about -- seeking the truth, and discarding old ideas when they are proven incorrect. And that's the difference between science and religion, since religion is all about clinging to old ideas in the absence of any evidence they are correct.

P.S. Culture doesn't come out of a vaccuum. Look at how people around the globe, even in primitive, isolated cultures, have similarities in their behavior and customs. Biology directs behavior.

> Crid, you're matchmaking for Lucy?

Those are pandas. Note the "thumbs."

> I believe, 37 cultures,
> prefer women with a .7
> WHR (Waist-To-Hip Ratio).

There's she goes! It's a tic with this woman. It's lunacy, it's crackers, it's primitive, counterfeminist and determinist, and it would be funny if Amy weren't so reliable with it.

> Although the data shows pretty
> clearly what human behavior is

AAARRRGGHHHHH...........

> Biology directs behavior.

Slaveholders used to say that.

> My preferred version:

Word. Fuckin' excellent, spot on. Amy, send this kid an AGB windbreaker & sports visor.

> Biology directs behavior.

Slaveholders used to say that.

But races aren't very biologically different (save for a propensity for certain diseases -- Tay Sachs in Jews, sickle cell in blacks, etc).

So that's not a very good argument.

often using data based on self-reporting

If a particular study is poorly designed, by all means criticize it, and tell us why. I don't see you doing that.

"Dev Singh found that men in, I believe, 37 cultures, prefer women with a .7 WHR (Waist-To-Hip Ratio)."

Amy,
Not snarking - but seriously; didn't we establish months ago that some of Singh's "line of beauty" data were from girlie mag measurements?

I thought that was a major problem - that the ideal babes he measured had already been selected because they conformed to a cutie-pie cheesecake magazine ideal?

Since science seeks to uncover facts about the world, all claims made by science are objective claims to the best of our present ability. "Being open to new information " and "loyalty" are red herrings-- they have nothing to do with scientific claims being objective claims about reality.
EP "pisses off " feminists because feminism's empirical assumptions are sheer idiocy. You claim EP is a political ideology becasue you think it serves a "backlash" group. Backlash against what --" enlightened feminism"? Feminism is nonsense on virtually every level. It is an ideology of hate and empirically vacuous. Agreement with feminism is not the criterion of truth.

Crid is a scientific illiterate who smears views he/she either has not investigated or cannot comprehend -- Scientolgy associations and the slaveholder ad hominem. Hitler loved dogs-- does that mean loving dogs is evil?...
That behavior is overwhelmingly directed by biology is beyond dispute. Behavior genetics and EP/SB etc revealed that decades ago. The old nature/nurture dispute has been resolved overwhelmingly in favor of nature.

Hmm- data are "primitive , COUNTERFEMINIST and determinist"-- hopefully, data are within a deterministic, reductionist framework. Thats the goal of science. It looks like we smoked out another political ideologue who thinks contradicting feminism is an intolerable sin.
Thats the basis of the problem with EP-- it calls in to question cherished political ideologies-- liberalism, feminism etc, so you get these bizarre attacks on it.

Why do you think those women are in the cheesecake magazines ? Because the publisher wants to make money so he gives men what they want..Playboy centerfolds were used and Miss Americas etc..
Men do not typically like the waifish model look. A curvaceous babe 20 pounds above "normal" is sexier than runway models...

> to the best of our
> present ability.

Right, so whence the bit about "Science always makes claims for today and tomorrow--" ? Sociobio enthusiasts seem to be pursuing a faith, or some other need from the darkest interior... They're too eager to share it with others, or look down on those who don't subscribe.

> You claim EP is a political
> ideology becasue you think
> it serves a "backlash" group.

I said no such thing (despite your quote marks). I said, or should have said, that I think sociobiology is wrong enough about important things that smart people wait for a better class of genius to embrace it. Non-scientists are too grateful to it for the digestible morsels it offers, and assert that whole meals should be prepared from it (for "today and tomorrow"!). And then they offer a few garnishes of their own, which appeal to other, even less-muscular non-scientists, and things spiral down from there. It's phrenology for the 21st century. Yeah, sure, sometimes the shape of your head (or your waist-hip ratio) means something... But not as often as enthusiasts want us to believe.

> Feminism is nonsense on
> virtually every level.

You're fucked in the head.

> a scientific illiterate
> who smears views he/she
> either has not investigated
> or cannot comprehend --
> Scientolgy associations
> and the slaveholder ad
> hominem.

Can we take that one apart? A simple "illiterate" would have done the job, as would "can't" instead of "cannot." I think you're reaching, which is why you misspelled Scientology and put it in a sentence fragment.

> That behavior is overwhelmingly
> directed by biology is
> beyond dispute. Behavior
> genetics and EP/SB etc
> revealed that decades ago.
> The old nature/nurture
> dispute has been resolved
> overwhelmingly in favor of
> nature.

Quoted in whole because in twenty years of picking fights with people on computers, I've never seen three more gravely mistaken sentences slammed up against each other that way, their mutual friction unrelieved by correspondence to reality. J-man, "genetics" does not equal "biology." No sane scientist thinks DNA can supersede context. You are where you are, babe.

> another political ideologue
> who thinks contradicting
> feminism is an intolerable
> sin.

I think it's remarkable that Amy, whose freedom, independence and success are essentially come-to-life versions of the cartoonish fantasies that previous generations of women had about such things, would --in this one corner of life-- encourage women to feel much more challenged, constrained, and primitively oppressed than they actually are. Reread that sentence. Got it? Great.

This blog is hoppin' this weekend.

Eva Longoria got married today, you know. Just sayin'.

BTW, the piece that Amy cites here made it to #1 on Reddit.com on Saturday.

I wouldn't have been so pissy about this if I'd know the NYT was going to club him over the head the next morning anyway:

http://urltea.com/xmu

>> This doesn’t mean that specific behaviors are hard-wired. M.I.T. math majors aren’t born doing calculus, and people with Williams don’t enter life telling stories. As Allan Reiss put it: “It’s not just ‘genes make brain make behavior.’ You have environment and experience too.”

Feminism is nonsense-on-stilts.
You cannot argue the point so you proffer an insult.
Its the feminist in you that makes you think saying "your fucked" is a powerful intellectual response.
Feminism's empirical assumptions and assertions were eviscerated decades ago. Most scientists familiar with the biological bases of human behavior -- esp sex differensces-- never took feminism seriously. It was , has been , and is now, a source of hilarity... Matriarchies, androygny, rape as a historical conspiracy by all men in which rapists are sent out as foot-soldiers for the patriarchy with the purpose of keeping all women in a state of fear ( Brownmiller, Against Our Will, 1978, last two sentences of the preface). Brownmiller said rape did not occur in other animals-- it was unique to humans. Why ? Its a problem to state male mallard ducks are conspiring with each other throughout duck history to send duck rapists out to ensure all female ducks are intimidated... Its misnadry-- hatred of men. Brownmiller didn't let the facts get in the way of spreading The Big Lie, which is demonstrably from the deepest , dankest inner circles of Hell...-- Yeah, gals, your father , brother ,uncles and son are all at the weekly Rape Meeting tonight picking this week's rapist. That this hate movement has had an impact on our society is incredible. No educated person should be guilty of such a crude,vile, ignorant ideology of hate as feminism. Nothing the Nazis or the Klan/Jim Crow apparatchiks published can match feminism, unmatched in the annals of hate literature see-- "All men are rapists and thats all they are"- Marilyn French , The Women's Room-- this filth was made into a made-for -TV movie in the 80s.! Whats next-- Mrs. Mussolini's Neighborhood ?

Thats truly hilarious-- and dishonest-- to claim this article -- or the quote -- "clobbers" me over the head.

The article is about a chromosomal deletion-- a very small genetic defect-- and the "RESULTING cognitive deficits" that create the Williams Syndrome. This isn't SB or EP, though there are speculations in the article that are. This is molecular biology establishing that a small gene defect creates a entire phenotypic syndrome. The biological basis of behavior could not be more clearly supported.

Reiss is a neuroscientist-- not a geneticist. He is using the old straw-man argument that genes in isolation don't determine phenotype. No one has ever represented it does, hence the distinction between genotype and phenotype. This statement of the obvious is meant to imply that there is evidence of environmental basis for variance in the syndrome-- when no such empirical evidence is presented. Thus,its a meaningless statement in this context and this it is also a fashionable, PC reminder to comfort the liberal readers of the Times, who might get upset if biology is TOO important. "Why ---we always have to remember experience and environment -- even if they are irrelevant. Lord, save us from biology!"

You have environment and experience , too-- he says. You always have these. Its the relatvie proportion of variance accounted for by genes v experience that is the issue. The NYT reporter then tells us an anecdote about a behavior that "could be seen " as being based on learning. Problem is-- its an anecdote and no evidence for environmental impact is presented.

Whats really hilarious is your credulity-- The New York Times ! Is there a greater bastion for liberal ideology in the national media ? Now there's a source you can trust for objective reporting of scientific matters -- or any other matter implicating political ideology! Notice how the reporter goes off on a tangent to allege that genes don't "hard -wire" for specific behaviors-- which is exactly what the Williams Syndrome is about. The NYT doesn't like the word "hard-wire". Like a good liberal echo-chamber, they want to limit as much as possible the impact of the biological bases of behavior-- even in an article on the-- biological bases of behavior, where the deficits are attributable to a genetic defect.

Dishonesty and credulity-- when mixed with ignorance-- make a powerful cocktail for the demogogue.

"Brownmiller, Against Our Will, 1978..."

Jededwards,

Maybe time to bring your references into the new century?

Maybe time to bring your references into the new century?

The problem is, people still quote (and believe) Brownmiller, who was wrong about much.

Rape is a crime of sex, not a crime of violence. -- Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, authors of the excellent book, "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262700832?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0262700832

I wrote about their book here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2003/08/amy_sneaks_into.html

The Evolutionary Basis For Rape Using scientific methodology and reason, Thornhill and Palmer show (in well-documented detail) that there's an evolutionary basis for rape; that rape is a sexual act -- most likely an evolutionary adaptation that originated as a way for men to spread their genes.

Thus, although rape can be violent, this doesn't mean a man's motivation to rape is violence. Thornhill and Palmer note that "rapists rarely engage in gratuitous violence, defined as expending energy beyond what is required to subdue or control the victim and inflicting injuries that reduce the victim's chance of surviving to become pregnant or that heighten the risk of eventual injury to the rapist from enraged relatives of the victim (all ultimate costs of rape)."

Thornhill and Palmer explain that there's a difference between "instrumental force, (the force actually needed to complete the rape, and possibly to influence the victim not to resist, not to call for help, and/or not to report the rape) and excessive force (which might be a motivating end in itself). Only excessive force is a possible indication of violent motivation. Use of forceful tactics to reach a desired experience does not imply that the tactics are goals in themselves (unless...one is willing to argue that a man's giving money to a prostitute in exchange for sex is evidence that the man's behavior is motivated by a desire to give away money). Here again the crucial distinction between goals and tactics is blurred when rape is referred to as an act of violence."

Thornhill and Palmer understand what they're up against -- years of ingrained feminist propaganda that "the patriarchy," violent TV shows, and nasty old American culture are to blame. "Debates about what causes rape have been evaluated not on the basis of logic and evidence," they observe, "But on the basis of how the different positions might influence people to behave." What the propaganda purveyers don't understand is key: It's the actual truth about why some men rape that will have the greatest influence on whether or not they do, and on whether or not women can avoid being raped (and feeling stigmatized if they are).

Amy,
A serious question from a longtime fan (which I am).

Re: the following quote:
Thornhill and Palmer note that "rapists rarely engage in gratuitous violence, defined as expending energy beyond what is required to subdue or control the victim and inflicting injuries that reduce the victim's chance of surviving to become pregnant or that heighten the risk of eventual injury to the rapist from enraged relatives of the victim (all ultimate costs of rape)."

I understand the seed-spreading motivation of the act of rape as an evolutionary imperative.

I understand the evolutionary "sense" in not killing/excessively maiming the woman you have raped - because that way, you don't improve your chances of reproducing.

But I have trouble with the assumption that the rapist is biologically motivated not to inflict excessive harm on the victim - in case it is the excessive harm bit that provokes her relatives to furiously freak out and come after him.

Aren't the authors slyly infusing the act of rape with a highly culturally determined aspect?

It's as though they are trying to "normalize" the act of rape by insisting it has some biologically victim-friendly aspects?

I suppose my problem is that I regard rape as essentially outlier sexual behavior.

Not just a nasty version of an act we all love.

> Feminism is nonsense-on-
> stilts. You cannot argue
> the point

I wouldn't bother. The blessings of feminism have enriched every corner of our society in too many ways to enumerate. Why bother to argue it? If you can't see the excellence that's come to your life by having half the human race brought into the arena, then your perspective deserves no rescue.

> a powerful intellectual
> response.

Honey, it's a blog, not a dissertation defense.

> Most scientists familiar
> with the biological bases
> of human behavior -- esp
> sex differensces-- never
> took feminism seriously.

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff? They sure took it seriously on the campus where I grew up. There's something about seeing your department chairman in a skirt that gives you religion. (Besides, you meant basis, not bases. It's important to be powerfully intellectual!)

> [A whole bunch of stuff about
> Brownmiller, in which deeply-
> seated resentments are expressed
> with sudden, onrushing bitterness]

The others can have this, if they think your argument needs resistance. I think it collapses nicely on its own.

> The biological basis of
> behavior

You keep confusing this point: Biology is a confluence of genetics and environment. Gould used to say: To ask which of nature or nurture is more influential is like asking whether it's the length or breadth of a rectangle that determines its area. Both are variables.

> The New York Times ! Is
> there a greater bastion
> for liberal ideology in
> the national media ?

Not that I know of, but then we have to read everything carefully anyway, don't we? I'm as snotty to the NYT as anyone here, but I was pleased to see your batshit ramblings shot down by a popular source. That newspaper was landing on the stoops of its East coast readership at the precise hour I was snarling at you, as if to prove my pique was unnecessary.

> biological bases of
> behavior

You're reading it backwards. Also, you misspelled basis again.

The worst thing about the article is that it gave no particular weight to Williams people's musicality, which can be profound... It might almost be worth thirty years and thirty IQ points. It's been said that Williams people might be the source of elves in literature; They're small, playful, engaging and have pointy chins, with their gift for music depicted by pointed ears. There was a broader article about it in Scientific American in 1997... If you're ever in the library with nothing to do.

> Dishonesty and credulity--
> when mixed with ignorance--
> make a powerful cocktail
> for the demogogue.

Illiteracy and hurt feelings --when mixed in an hour of social transition-- make a comical outfit for a buffoon.

OK, that was mean. But dude, we get the feeling that some vaguely-lesbian, free-spirited, Ms Magazine-reading undergrad broke your heart in 1977 and you never got over it. Not everyone who disagrees with you on a blog is a "demogogue". You're being grandiose.

> Aren't the authors slyly
> infusing the act of rape
> with a highly culturally
> determined aspect?

Rephrase that. I get lost in the smoke whenever someone like you (a woman!) talks about things being "culurally determined."

> It's as though they are
> trying to "normalize"
> the act of rape by
> insisting it has some
> biologically victim-
> friendly aspects?

"Biologically" is the most misused word in this thread! Listen, the children of rape tend to be alive, a condition they almost always regard as "friendly". People who are alive give every effort to defend their beating hearts, no matter how they got here.

A few years ago Amy was complaining that the Cossacks had savagely raped her ancestors. She needed to be reminded that her ancestors probably did some of the raping too... It's like that for all of us.

> I regard rape as essentially
> outlier sexual behavior.

It is, and we should continue to think of it and treat it that way, but...

> Not just a nasty version
> of an act we all love.

...Paglia correctly notes that things we might now describe as rape were once the deepest expressions of love.

Your fair response to my somewhat up-my-own-bum comment is well taken, Crid.

(How dare you fold your cards like that! How dare you!)

I seriously don't know what you were getting at with the "culturally determined aspect". Rape is as natural as can be. That's bad. Our disapproval of it is synthetic. But that deson't make it less good!... Like, whatever, man!

Don't answer if you can't be bothered, Crid - but

"Our disapproval of it is synthetic" -

means what exactly?

(i.e. do you mean "counterfeit"? Or a sliding cultural judgement - as Paglia might have it?).

I suppose I'm asking for a less densely-packed synonym...

Rape is natural. In ancient cultures without controls and modern ones with broken fundaments, it happens all the time.

Resistance to it is, in your word, "cultural."
It's artificial. It's hand-crafted by men from far-flung, hard-won perspectives. It's intolerant, coercive, manipulative, trendy, bureaucratic, bourgeois and completely unnatural. Hell yes it's "sliding"... Resistance to rape is slippery as all fuck, and it's taken tens of thousands of years to dial it into the place where it works for us as well as it does, and it'll take a terrific amount of effort to keep it there.

Worth it, though. Don'cha think?

Worth it, indeed.

Tho' I have to ask Crid. Did the guys in the free-from-synthetic-disapproval times - and I'm assuming for the sake of argument, you might agree that non-forced sex happened too - have to lie about NOT being rapists?

"Our disapproval of it is synthetic. But that dseon't make it less good!"-- from the guy/gal who thinks comments about spelling and grammer are real zingers ! Have you recently sustained a severe cerebral trauma or ,as always, are you just spouting incoherent nonsense. Reading your posts is painful-- there are so full of irrational epithets substituting- as- argument, ignorance, ad hominems, and other logical errors/fallacies that no one wants to take the time to refute each nonsensical sentence.
You brandish your ignorance like the stump of an amputated limb, flailing about haplessly.

1. I love your "response" to my claims about feminism. You don't address them . Typically, you beg the question by asserting its blessings and enriching effects in "too many ways to enumerate". Try arguing the point. You'll get decimated. As always, your responses are non-responsive.

2. ' Your fucked" is the answer of someone who has nothing of any value to offer to the discussion. A blog is still the occasion for intelligent discussion-- comments like that don't add to the process. But thats your enemy-- intelligent discussion.

3. I got this "stuff" from working in the area since 1980 on different campuses and as a PhD candidate in Behavior Genetics/ Biological Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota, after many years of research in the area of individual and group differences. I said "scientists". The plural of basis is bases-- this smarmy attempt to point out grammatical errors reflects your general impotence in discussing the issues. You never adress any issue in a rationally responsive way.

4. Another ad hominem about my references to Brownmiller's work. You, as always cannot argue the point, you just make a personal attack. Exactly how do my arguments collapse-- since they are unchallenged. Try debating ideas for a change.

5. Behavior genetics is the discipline that shows the relative contribution of genes and environment to variance in behavior. Gould is a charlatan-- an avowed Marxist who allowed his politics to subvert his scientific credibility. I have stated this before and presented examples. You apparently don't know this becasue you have no knowledge of the field and look for "experts" who are fellow travellers. His statement that we cannot determine the relative contribution of genes and experience denies the existence of behavior genetics.

6. " Shot down my batshit ramblings"-- are you stuck in the oral stage ? Nothing in that article even remotely "shot" me down. You make no response nor even reference my reply-- because-- as usual-- you have no response. " batshit ramblings"-- ad hominems are your forte, the sign of a very weak mind indeed.

7. "Bases" is the plural of "basis'-- Both are proper, but when you want to refer to multiple sources of biological influence-- "bases" is preferred. You would not know that having apparently relied on the NYT and never actually read the empirical literature.

8. "Reading it backwards" ? Only a fraud and/or a fool could read it the way you claim--eg, one who is deliberately misrepresenting the article or too ignorant to understand it or both.

9. General Intelligence- "g' or IQ --has nothing to do with "Musicality", so it is hard to see how ability in the latter affects the former.

10. You conclude with another ad hominem-- "I think in such a way" not because I am empirically incorrect or making errors in reasoning-- but becasue of some alleged unfortuante experience in my personal life. An ad hominem. " Hurt feelings'- ?... Illiteracy ?

11. Then the ultimate irony-- a person who embodies empty, sanctimonious, narcissitic posturing accuses me of being "grandiose" ! I don't call all people who disagee with me demagogues-- just you, for reasons I reference over and over again.

You have nothing to say.Your replies are purely verbal masturbation, with no rational content whatever. You are a waste of time.

Why can't you learn from "experience" ?

I cannot resist --" Rape is natural"-- is a contradiction of everything you have said!-- do you mean "genetic" ? What happened to experience and environment ?.. Opposition to rape is "cultural" ? Whay happened to biology ? I thought we could not disentangle the two.
You have no trouble doing just that when it serves your ideology.

Would you like to cite any sources or provide any reasons for these absurd statements.

What we have here is a person contradicting himself when his ideology compels it-- the era of "social transition" , the golden age of feminism/ liberalism etc,-- why its the tonic for the mean ole "natural" state of raping at will without any societal opposition of any kind. Why male relatives did nothing when a female relative was violated-- ever-- until now, when The Way was introduced.. Its the dawning of the NEW AGE that is the source of societal opposition to rape !
Talk about crude biological/ environmental etiological categories. But when they serve your ideology, just contradict yourself.
Thats it-- comments to rational folks only

Hilarity reigns ! Jody actually opines - for the sake of argument only !-- that SOME intercourse was not rape in the mean ole "natural times" of the Great Mystic Crid...
ie, all sex may well have been rape in those benighted days. Those evil MEN !!

I thought all sex was by way of Prostitution then-- thats the "natural" way for women to approach sex. It will take a lot of strictly "cultural" work for the New Age Mystics to stop women from using sex to exploit men...

Ahh well-- sexual access to a woman has always been a commodity bought and sold on the marketplace ( D.Symons , The Evolution of Human Sexuality, 1980). Proper enlightened environmental trainig will soon stop women from sexual abuse of men as we enter the New Age under the watchful tutelage of the Great Seer and Mystic, Crid.

Synthetic-- a new usage here coined ! Notify Websters !

Jed,
I was accepting Crid's premise (or trying to) for the purpose of figuring out when "outlier" sexual behavior becomes the norm - or vice versa...

I think it's fascinating the way these things flip around.

I wasn't saying all sex WAS rape, or might have been..that's not my position.

> Have you recently sustained
> a severe cerebral trauma...

Dood, I'm Amy's most loyal bitter-bachelor commenter, and I'll squabble over anything. But anyone who seriously contends that "Feminism is nonsense on virtually every level" is passing the ball far over my head. Brownmiller and all of these things have given you more personal anger than they could possibly, possibly have earned. But hat's off, buddy! You're confident you've presented a convincing case. I'm happy to let you be judged by it, and would no more fight over this than over the essential roundness of the Earth... What's the point? Chalk this up as a rhetorical victory, wear it proudly, and be sure and spell my name right when you boast about it. Best of luck with the PhD.

(For the record, people should only be pestered about spelling when they offer themselves as the shimmering center of human intellect. The worst speller here is a guy/gal named Lujlp or something. But he never claims that we who disagree with him are stupider than he is... He says we're wrong. He never uses flowery words and he's never misunderstood. So, like, wutevar.)

> you might agree that non-
> forced sex happened too -

Sure... I bet that in every century of the last two hundred on each continent, there've been unions you'd have found acceptable.

> have to lie about
> NOT being rapists?

My point is that there was a time when it was worth lying about. The odor of shame and masculine failure presently affixed to rape is new.

Imagine returning to Washington's day, or maybe a generation or two earlier. (The Colonies work well as an example, but you could pull this almost anywhere in the New World. [Except Haiti. Go figure.])

You'd approach some successful farmer somewhere, some community leader come to town to visit the cobbler. You'd get all up in his face, with one fist on your hip and the other wagging an index finger at his chin, and you'd say "So! You own slaves, right?!??!"

The burgher would shake his chin briskly a few times while tracking you with his eyes, just to make sure there wasn't some misunderstanding, and then he'd reply in the musical patois of his day: "Fuckin' Aye, little sister! Lancaster is my lead boy on the North Forty, directing teams lead by Pug and Benjamin. The South Slope is tended by Richard, Nero, Lucky, Bernard and Lefty, with Abraham, Darry and their girl Katrina minding the household...

"Why do you inquire? You in the market?"

Jody, you're a really girly-girl. Just about every time you comment on something Amy writes about gender, you imply that the reason men do bad things is that society's policies (written by meaner, even more evil men) set them in motion, so the poor little fellows robotically rape and pillage because society told them that's how it works. (I think women often believe this because without the Masculine Throb to propel them, their own character and impulses really have been dialed in by external social forces.)

I think the bad energy is naturally there. Well-tuned civilization keeps a lid on human nature.

Maybe a couple of nail heads have been struck there, Crid!

But, hang on - why is prostitution such an ancient, entrenched profession, then?

If you can get sex when you want from a woman with your rough, natural, bad, beastly ways, why ever bother going to someone who will actually pretend to like it rather than otherwise?

Or are you going to say that prostitutes only materialised when society started getting snotty about bad, natural, non-consensual sex?

Don't prostitutes "prove" that there is a basic (throbbing, if you like) male desire for sex-by-consent?

I'm not sure my bottom line is exactly "girly".
It's more a stubborn belief that the apparent sexual consent of the other party may be more hard wired in men than you give credit for.

As for the mimsy shouting at slave holders sketch. Loved it!

The odor of shame and masculine failure presently affixed to rape is new.

This assumption is probably precisely where we disagree, Crid - should have seen it before.

(I also wouldn't equate "shame" and "masculine failure" when we're talking rape. One doesn't have to include the other.)

> why is prostitution such
> an ancient, entrenched
> profession

Why wouldn't it be?

> If you can get sex
> when you want

Amy's right; rape is about sex; but it's not just about sex. That's like asking why why badass criminals don't skip out on the check every time they go to Taco Bell... It's only worth the trouble in the drive thru.

> male desire for sex-
> by-consent?

We love you because you're shameless, Tressider.

Prager used to talk about this. He'd say the demon in masculine nature lives at the intersection of sexuality and aggression (which seems right on point today -- see "Chimichanga thievery", above). For feminine types, he called it the presumption that her feelings, or those of her loved ones, are of paramount importance. That last bit sounds clumsier than it is in practice.

In the 1990's when I heard him say it, I was editing hundreds or thousands of TV shows with dimbulb actresses saying top-of-head things meant to appeal to audience by their simplistic, sincere insight. Two examples from the burgeoning file: Once at some AIDS fundraiser in Los Angeles, something moving happened to Sharon Stone (who knows what it was). From the podium at the dais, she announced through her tears of evening-gown fulfillment that "Everyone in this room is feeling the same thing!" as though it were the finest moment of her year.

These showbiz moments weren't always so public. Robin Wright (the actress, not the political reporter) got carjacked in Malibu several years ago, and my network got an audiotape of her 911 call to play on the news. It was comical. Having seen a dozen junket interview tapes of her over the years, I didn't think of her as a woman of notable sincerity. But in that hour, she was deeply into her groove! As she described her assailants to the operator, she said (close paraphrase): "The short one, he was in charge, and he just didn't care, you could tell all he wanted was the money, that was all he talked about. But the other one, he didn't say anything. But you could tell! He was scared! You could see he was frightened!" We could tell that the dispatcher was dumbfounded. All he wanted was something to work with... Physical description, car plates, last known direction, anything. The ebb and flow of their emotional lives was less important to him. "Uh Ma'am, which way were they headed last time you saw them?"

For men, sex is a drive on its own. There are other drives as well (including getting along with others generally and being nice to women), and most men are pleasantly integrated creatures who try to line more than one up at a time. But it's like swinging on a bases-loaded triple, a forehand smash to the backcourt, and a two hundred yard drive down the fairway all at once. Sometimes you just want to get that one fucking ball to land right there.

> apparent sexual consent
> of the other party may
> be more hard wired in men

Are we going to talk about date rape now? When women fuck they think of all sorts blended interests and purposes and outcomes and events from here and there and now and then. Men think about tail. You can pretend men are actually women if you want to, but no tears if you then go back to the BMOC's frat house after a few highballs and don't like what happens, OK?

> I also wouldn't equate
> "shame" and "masculine
> failure"

I wouldn't either. Hell, I didn't. But we should probably pile on as many of these things as we responsibly can. This one isn't going away any time soon.

"Men think about tail"

To be fair to me, Crid, that's NOT what Thornhill & Palmer (Amy quoted 'em in the bit above about blokes intuitively laying off the excess violence in the course of rape, specifically in case the woman's relatives beat them up) were saying.

T & P seemed to be insisting guys ARE capable of sneaky thinking (to the collateral benefit of the woman) even in the midst of the tail-grabbing act itself.

So the drive for tail IS tempered - at least according to them - at its most basic level by other considerations.

At the heart of all this - speaking personally, Crid - is my irritation, my knee jerk cradle peevishness at modern chaps sort of congratulating themselves the whole effing time for the huge effort it takes for their gender to act civilised.

It is immensely flattering to your sex to see yourselves with a big stick of dynamite permanently in your pants - which is inevitably linked by cooing, macho-adorin' Paglia to all your other gorgeous creative/empire building/rule-breakin' goddam juices.

It gives me hives.

(But your comments have been fantastic - and thanks for your patience on this one. Seriously!)

> Thornhill & Palmer

Never hoid of 'em. My quibble is with you.

> T & P seemed to be insisting
> guys ARE capable of sneaky
> thinking (to the collateral
> benefit of the woman)

Capable, sure. Especially when they're encouraged.

> tempered... at its most
> basic level

How do you figure? A lifetime of constrained, channeled and "tempered" impulse is almost by definition not basic.

> my knee jerk cradle
> peevishness at modern

Right right... Girly girls can't concede that other people are having a different experience of the world than they are. It fractures the whole middle-class cosmology. Mostly, it sours the childlike pleasure one takes in saying "Well, how do you think it feels when..." It doesn't feel like you think it does. Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries...

Also, watch out for that "modern" stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. Men are the same; culture is better now.

> immensely flattering to
> your sex to see yourselves
> with a big stick of dynamite
> permanently in your pants

Is there a whinning about exclusion at the core of this? Jody, men and women just aren't having the same time of it in this world. Now, I'm a feminist guy, eager to convince people that each sex is half the problem and half the solution. Women are whole human beings whose needs and inclinations deserve representation throughout modern life... I fully acknowledge that a decent woman in today's rockin' scene can have a stick of dynamite at her crotch, too. But it will never be her own, and Angel, that makes a big difference.

Well, I don't think I suffer from penis envy, Crid.

But maybe you must suppose that I must.

"all your other gorgeous creative/empire building/rule-breakin' goddam juices" was the tipoff... Girlfriend got energy!

1 Please look up the logical error 'ad hominem"- -- it is attacking the person and believing that scores points.
2. 'Personal anger"-- see #1. It is irrelevant if I am angry or not. Why would I be angry when I talk/write about what I have read and learned over the years. Thats all I do. I don't have a real job.
3. Projection-- I never offered my self as any "shimmering center of intellect"-- nor did I say people who disagreed with me were "stupider" than me. I pointed out they were "wrong" and why.

Folks can always read up on a subject-- there are many books on sex differences ( Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously is OK) and on EP for the intelligent layman. Several are on Amazon used for very little ( avoid EP textbooks for 90 bucks). You don't have to plow through the originals to get the gist of it.
There are some books on Misandry --two volumes by profs Nathanson and McGill from 2001 and 2006, very , very late in the day, as this stuff was obvious back in 1975... Several books attack Feminism-- Michael Levin's Feminism and Freedom and N. Davidson's book The Failure of Feminism-- but both are 15 years old or so...

Not too many men bother with feminism-- its not a serious subject intellectually. Its so laughably absurd that people want to do something productive with their time and not spend it reading "feminism". Thats how all this crap got into our culture-- no one wanted to spend the time to answer it, it was so cartoonishly silly, so it went unanswered. The folks in the softer sciences and the humaniities knew they risked their jobs if the criticized feminism, so they were silent publicly, too.

A great book -- The Rantings Of A Single White Male by Thomas Ellis.
The Myth of the Monstrous Male is great becasue a liberal NE prof wrote it back in 1982 and it is hilariously devastating. He quotes all the hate feminist spew and with the wit and verbal ability only an English prof can generate , just reduces feminism to rubble.

Christina Hoff Sommers is just as sexist as the feminists-- they only differ on how to raise boys to serve the interests of women, because the two see women's interests differently..

But the best argument against feminism is to actually read what they write. Its pure hate-- the mindless rantings of disturbed and deluded women. Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex, anything by Robin Morgan, Catherine MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin-- or quotes from Gloria Steinem. Naomi Wolf and Faludi are alwasy good for laughs with their paranoid hatred of men and calculated deceit, lying all the time to promulgate their ideology.. Wolf's claim that 150,000 women die of anorexia a year in America --it is generally 50-125-- is a good example.. or the Super Bowl being a day of wife-beating, etc etc