CAL'S NOT KIDDEN
click on photo
Marsha,
Oh duh. Gawd am I impaired today or what.
Okay, let's ALL go to the beach!!!!
2029. glendajean - 8/16/2000 4:59:18 PM
Lord, call 911. That could be dangerous. Aren't your temps above 100?
2030. marshame - 8/16/2000 4:59:52 PM
christin
It's probably all those democrats in LA clogging things up.
2031. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2000 5:01:22 PM
Indy -- Message # 1951
Banning urinals? Never heard about it. When we are not very refined we call them pissoirs, by the way.
2032. marshame - 8/16/2000 5:01:48 PM
Judith
Last year my AC died the day before the sale of my house closed. It took two days for them to deliver the new part and install it. I suffered one night. I spent the second night in a hotel. Honey, it just ain't worth it to be that miserable!!
2033. PelleNilsson - 8/16/2000 5:12:28 PM
Just a note on circumscision before bed.
My wife worked for four years at a maternity hospital in Jordan. There, the male babies were circumscised moer or less at birth. She says that apparently very little pain or discomfort was involved.
2034. marshame - 8/16/2000 5:13:23 PM
"circumscision before bed"
??? I'd suggest warm milk, instead!
2035. JudithAtHome - 8/16/2000 5:14:16 PM
Well, it's only 85° in the house and I think we can hold out if we go into the garden room...there's a panel unit in there (AC and heat, for the plants) which can keep us cool enough this evening.
It makes me angry, tho, that this unit which is only 7 years old is such a pain...it quit like this a month ago and "healed" itself while I was waiting for the repairman to show.
I'm off to the shower...
2036. marshame - 8/16/2000 5:20:05 PM
If it's only 7 years old, your warranty may still be good! But warning, conputers do not like hot and sticky environments. At least the humidity is low right now...
2037. janjon - 8/16/2000 5:25:57 PM
Somehow, I suspect W is to blame.
Actually, how about this - if pollution hadn't gotten so much worse in Texas over the past six years, the corrosive effects it causes on ACs wouldn't have occurred and, ergo, your unit might be just humming along.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Boo, W, boo.
2038. Jenerator - 8/16/2000 5:30:33 PM
Please tell me you're kidding.
2039. janjon - 8/16/2000 5:35:50 PM
Jen - Although I find W to be a big joke, I never never joke about him.
Just joking, of course.
2040. CalGal - 8/16/2000 5:37:14 PM
Christin,
The stats wouldn't show a lot of it. On abuse, you wouldn't want to look at convictions, but investigations. MBP and SIDS fakes wouldn't be caught much of the time.
Women get a free ride on a lot of things because a) no one is looking and b) their victims are their own children in many cases.
Oh, and I forgot to mention--DV is a huge problem in the lesbian community. As is psychostalking of exlovers. Well, the last isn't huge, but it's much greater than that of straight female stalkers, apparently.
If you figure that all this sort of deviancy has to first and foremost be about control--if the nutjob can't assume that she'll be able to control her victims (or at least have a fighting chance) then she'll choose a smaller victim--then it makes sense that women would most likely create their own victims. Or, in the case of lesbians, violent assaults or battering would be more common because the nutjob is picking on someone her own size.
This is why you see a gender component to violent crime against women--when in fact, it's just that the nutjob men pick women in these cases because they are easier for them control (physically). It's also why rapists, as they get older, move to younger girls and/or older women.
So it's not a "thing" against their gender. It's rather that the gender is easier to control, so that's how their "thing" develops.
Nutjobs (a highly technical term encapsulating rapists, batterers, stalkers, and serial killers) are only a relatively small percentage of all violent crime. When you get to normal crime on crime, as Indy points out, men are more likely the victims.
On the up side, women are becoming more and more violent. Husband battering is up, as is the violent crime found in younger women. This suggests that women are becoming empowered and their deviancies are taking on a more powerful target--a triumph of feminism.
2041. JudithAtHome - 8/16/2000 7:30:35 PM
All is well...the AC finally healed itself ONCE more but I'm having the guy out to check it anyhow. That little panel job in my garden room kept it cool enough in that end of the house so that I didn't get too uncomfortable.
But janjon....I like your theory very much!!
2042. marshame - 8/17/2000 2:24:53 PM
it's me, Jenerator.
JanJon,
Just so as ya know, the big stats done on the pollution level in Texas were taken in Houston by the big oil refineries. Houston produces/refines most of the oil in America, so naturally the air is more polluted!
The most polluted cities in America I've ever been to in my life were Los Angeles (the air was so thick and orange I couldn't even see the highway signs), New York (it smelled like sewage and when I showered, I left a dirt ring every time!) and I hate to say it, San Diego. I always worry about stepping in raw sewage at the beach and whether or not I'll be able to stay outdoors without inhaling too much radiation.
2043. JudithAtHome - 8/17/2000 2:29:11 PM
Jen:
I asked the other day if you and your mom could see either Dallas or Ft Worth from about 20 miles out either direction? The lowered emmission standards on cars IS a contributing factor simply because there are so many more cars polluting...yes, the area has grown by leaps and bounds but that is exactly why we need stricter emmissions controls.
2044. marshame - 8/17/2000 2:42:37 PM
Actually, I can see downtown right now. Also, I agree about emissions standards, however, I don't blame George W. for the pollution here.
2045. Fraaankster - 8/17/2000 4:14:42 PM
and I hate to say it, San Diego. I always worry about stepping in raw sewage at the beach and whether or not I'll be able to stay outdoors without inhaling too much radiation.
Watch it there! This was, and still is to some extent, a great city. If our lovely Republican mayor and city council would get their priorities straightened out instead of using scarce city funds on funding unnecessary baseball parks, we probably wouldn't have sewage problems.
2046. janjon - 8/17/2000 4:21:38 PM
Jenerator - it has either been a long time since you've been in New York City or you frequented some unusual areas. The City is really quite pleasant in most ways, certainly in terms of its air quality. Much cleaner these days than, say, ten years ago (and, yes, I think Giuliani gets a lot of the credit for having done something right with respect to the Sanitation Department.) The streets are cleaner (and somewhat better in terms of potholes), the sidewalks are kept cleaner (in large part because of the various private neighborhood groups or local business district groups), garbage is picked up regularly and it is neatly packaged in dark heavy plastic bags (I think garbage cans have been barred, at least in much of Manhattan).
Relatively speaking, we live in a paradise!!!
2047. joezan - 8/17/2000 10:50:20 PM
...but Newark - now there's a stinky-assed city!
2048. theDiva - 8/18/2000 9:33:33 AM
HEY! That there's my birthplace youse are tawkin about.
2049. marjoribanks - 8/18/2000 12:59:02 PM
Newark ain't bad at all. The Ironbound is great, the local baseball team features Jose Canseco's twin brother, and there is a very nice venue for the performing arts.
2050. janjon - 8/18/2000 1:04:02 PM
What is the Ironbound?
2051. marjoribanks - 8/18/2000 1:07:09 PM
The Ironbound is the Portuguese district. Great food, great fish shops, very Portuguese-Brazilian. We're enjoying it very much on our regular trips there.
2052. marjoribanks - 8/18/2000 1:08:35 PM
The restaurant 'Brazilia' produces as good a rodizo as any place in the USA.
2053. janjon - 8/18/2000 1:44:48 PM
Sounds terrific.
I had forgotten that you are on that side of the river.
Sorry.
I'll leave now.
(I just made it back to Valhalla the beginning of the month. Now if it ever stops raining I hope to get out and enjoy this place again!)
2054. theDiva - 8/18/2000 4:06:33 PM
Ironbound is GREAT. As is North Newark with its huge, gorgeous pre-WWI mansions and the most beautiful park in the world, Branch Brook Park, which features as many cherry blossom trees as the Tidal Basin AND a greater variety thereof.
2055. theDiva - 8/18/2000 4:07:26 PM
Dammit, I wish I could remember the name of the Spanish restaurant where my mom and Ed had their wedding dinner. One of the best meals I ever et.
2056. Jenerator - 8/18/2000 4:19:27 PM
The Newark airport is the best too.
Ha!;-)
2057. theDiva - 8/18/2000 4:45:59 PM
the airport sucks. All airports suck.
2058. Fraaankster - 8/18/2000 4:53:49 PM
Deev,
I've always wanted to do a layover for a couple of hours at Denver's new "state of the art" airport, just to see if they had removed all the kinks that airports are notorious for ?
By the way, thanks for the e-mail I just read from you.
2059. Fraaankster - 8/18/2000 4:54:41 PM
How do airports tie into love or lust ? There has to be a connection.
2060. theDiva - 8/18/2000 4:55:17 PM
Frank
All that coming and going.....
2061. Fraaankster - 8/18/2000 4:56:34 PM
Deev,
LOL !!! Yeah, okay, I'll buy.
2062. jonesatlaw - 8/20/2000 6:18:40 AM
Women who are victims of chronic abuse are different psychologically from unabused women. There is debate over whether this pre-dates the abuse or is caused by it. I would cast my vote for the former theory.
I agree that at the heart of most DV is the issue of insecurity and control. I think that gender is a secondary issue. Abusers tend to use the same aggressive and controlling behavior in their other realtionships. Show me a guy who gets into fisticuffs with his neighbors or co-workers and kicks his dog, and I'll show you someone who beats his wife and/or kids. A person exposed to DV as a child is more likely to become either an abuser or the victim of abuse as an adult. Often we focus on treatment for the abuser, and neglect responsibility on the part of the victim. I think that oftentimes the victim is as much a cause of the violence as the abuser. THis is not the same as saying the abuse is the fault of the victim. THey don't make a conscious decison to open themselves up to abuse, but their behaviors do predispose them to victimhood. If we succede in getting the victim away from the abuser, they'll simply find another one, unless we get them the emotional tools to protect themselves in the future.
2063. DocBrown - 8/21/2000 10:14:18 AM
Jones, while I doubt that your scenario is true in 100% of all cases, it is probably good for quite a few.
If the victims see themselves as victims, I would expect them to make some move to change the situation. For abuse to be ongoing and steady, the victims must have some extraordinary reasons for allowing the situation to continue. I would guess that personal emotional difficulties are the most common, followed by strong religious convictions, financial entanglements, unusual children, etc..
2064. ChristinO - 8/21/2000 5:00:39 PM
Ever play the "victim" game? It's a twisted little exercise that one of our wacko college acting teachers pulled out one day.
You take a group of people and you all just wander around the room---not allowed to talk---and eventually through telepathy or body language or divine guidance or whatever a "victim" will be selected. The group will turn and identify who the whipping boy or scapegoat is. It's not at all a pleasant exercise and I have no idea what practical application it has to the craft of acting, but it's an interesting phenomenon to watch.
Anyway, think about the kids that got picked on in school. Sure there were the ones who were obviously different----kids with glasses, or fat kids, or kids who smelled funny or dressed weird----but there were kids with glasses and weight problems or bad skin or braces who didn't get picked on either. In fact there were plenty of these kids in the ranks of vitimizers just as there were "normal" kids on the receiving end of the abuse.
They find the kid who somehow doesn't make the connections with others, or the kid who won't stand up for himself or who expects to be mistreated and then he's officially "It" nearly forever. How do they decide? How do they know? I think they smell it on you somehow.
Some kids can escape it by changing classes or switching schools, but I imagine that most folks who experience that kind of peer abuse always experience it to a certain extent or at least never get past the expectation of it.
2065. CalGal - 8/21/2000 5:32:56 PM
Jones,
Women who are victims of chronic abuse are different psychologically from unabused women. There is debate over whether this pre-dates the abuse or is caused by it. I would cast my vote for the former theory.
Totally agree, 100%. The people who want to say that the psychology is caused by the abuse are, generally, those with a "feminist" agenda. I get angry when I think of this, but all I can figure is that they feel that they will receive more support if they promote the notion that "normal" women can get "trapped" in an abusive relationship.
The other thing that drives me bonkers about the current dogma on battering is that it totally absolves the woman, and completely ignores the fact that she is every bit as responsible for their children being in a violent situation as the husband is.
Doc,
I don't believe any studies have shown any correlation between religion, responsibilities, children, or anything else. Victims may use these as an excuse for not leaving, just as their batterers use the excuse that the dinner wasn't ready.
2066. Indiana Jones - 8/21/2000 10:06:12 PM
Flying Solo
"Let's face it. You don't just want a man in your life," says author Bank, 39. "You only want a great man in your life."
2067. CalGal - 8/21/2000 10:37:48 PM
Indy,
Interesting article. I'd missed that piece. Thanks.
2068. Fraaankster - 8/21/2000 11:38:34 PM
The article ends with the following quote:
"It would be great if I found a relationship that allowed me to be as I am and added something to that... But I'm not going to do anything to attract a person that means changing. I've worked long and hard to be myself."
Hey, it works both ways doesn't it ? ;-)
Cognitive Dissonance at its best ? Only one life, and what to do, what to do ?
Great link, Indy.
2069. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 9:12:37 AM
CalGal said:
I don't believe any studies have shown any correlation between religion, responsibilities, children, or anything else. Victims may use these as an excuse for not leaving . . .
That is my point, sort of. Consider that these things may be more than just an excuse. For example, a woman with strong religious convictions may remain in an abusive relationship because she believes that God wants her to stay. Entire cultures are based on this (assuming some cross-cultural latitude on the definition of "abuse").
2070. rubberducky - 8/22/2000 9:16:03 AM
haha
"But I'm not going to do anything to attract a person that means changing. I've worked long and hard to be myself."
and this is why people remain alone. it's the same mentality that never absorbs blame -never admitting culpability.
maybe it's best that those kind of people are alone. maybe it'll keep them from reproducing.
2071. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 9:17:38 AM
The magazine article says:
More confident, more self-sufficient, and more choosy than ever, women no longer see marriage as a matter of survival and acceptance. They feel free to start and end relationships at will--more like, say, men.
I think this is the most significant theme in the article. If women are to be equal to men, they need to see themselves in a role that is not so dependent on men. Women need to objectify men, in much the same way that men objectify women.
2072. rubberducky - 8/22/2000 9:38:32 AM
Gee, Doc, isn't part of the problem that men do objectify women to the point that it causes problems?
so your solution is "what's good for the goose ...?"
2073. theDiva - 8/22/2000 9:40:05 AM
Ducks
Doc is being contrary.
2074. rubberducky - 8/22/2000 9:42:56 AM
ah
whoops. i must need more coffee.
2075. theDiva - 8/22/2000 9:43:35 AM
that's always a good thing.
2076. CalGal - 8/22/2000 10:22:29 AM
Actually, it's kind of silly to say that the "problem" is that men objectify women. It's just something they do, and the wackos do it to a dangerous extent.
Part of the problem is that women who are successful are still women, and unless they are also good at objectifying (and many are), they won't be particularly interested in buying cute little boytoys. Even if they were, there aren't enough cute little boytoys who would want to marry older women to go around--unlike the number of cute little bimbos on the lookout for a husband of that certain age and credit history.
That is my point, sort of. Consider that these things may be more than just an excuse.
No, what I am saying is that they are an excuse. Consider that people who stay in an abusive relationship are more than a tad screwy, and that whatever they say about why they stay, the reason they stay is because they are a tad screwy.
2077. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 10:25:16 AM
Coffee is a blessing, especially this morning.
Rubberducky, what problems do you believe are caused by men objectifying women?
2078. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 10:28:27 AM
Screwy is in the eye of the beholder, CalGal. In many Muslim societies women put up with treatment that we Westerners would certainly consider abuse. Are all of these women "screwy?"
2079. CalGal - 8/22/2000 10:39:05 AM
Doc,
Actually, yes. You could argue that in a world where women are absolutely forbidden to have freedom, a good percentage of them adapt to this intolerance by becoming screwy. However, keep in mind that even in Muslim countries, most men aren't batterers. And I imagine that even within the confines of the Muslim communities, they have a way of distinguishing batterers from normal lordly I'm the king of this mansion behavior--and probably protecting their women from this.
But you are missing the point--namely, that we're talking about this country, where such constraints don't exist. And in this country, women--or men--who tolerate such behavior and stay in it, often endangering their children, are psychologically not altogether well.
2080. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 11:03:40 AM
CalGal, have you ever seen the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai?
In an early scene, Colonel Nicholson (played by the late Alec Guiness) allows himself to undergo torture, which he could have avoided, because he believes in his honor as a British soldier.
Do you believe that Colonel Nicholson was "screwy" for accepting torture for the sake of his convictions?
2081. CalGal - 8/22/2000 11:17:42 AM
Doc,
Oh, absolutely, Colonel Nicholson was screwy.
But--and I'll try again--you are missing the point.
Woman stays with man who regularly beats her to a pulp. Why do you stay, she is asked. Because God says divorce is bad.
Ah, says Doc. She stays because religious beliefs impel her to.
No, says me. She stays because her needs are met by the relationship as it exists. If she didn't believe in God at all, she'd still stay.
So before we get any further, do you understand this point? There is rarely any reason to believe the reasons people give for doing something that damages them. Generally, people who live in damaging relationships do so because the relationship meets their needs.
And this is proven out by the fact that many devoutly religious women don't tolerate abuse for a second, and don't lose their religion either. Likewise, I can point you to any number of feminists who tolerate abuse.
2082. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 11:39:29 AM
Oh CalGal, I understood your point. I simply believe it is a gross generalization that is unfair to women. I agree that some, maybe even most, women who stay in abusive relationships have strange and unhealthy needs met by that relationship.
But you go so far as to say that all women who continue to be physically abused fall into this category. You claim that every woman who says she stays because of religious (or other) convictions is both mentally ill and a hypocrite. Not one of them is simultaneously sane and devout.
This is consistent with your claim that Colonel Nicholson was screwy. Apparently you believe that anyone who holds convictions about anything other than their own comfort needs psychotherapy.
2083. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 11:42:35 AM
Here is CalGal's statement which I believe to be a gross generalization:
Consider that people who stay in an abusive relationship are more than a tad screwy, and that whatever they say about why they stay, the reason they stay is because they are a tad screwy.
2084. CalGal - 8/22/2000 11:54:52 AM
Doc,
But you go so far as to say that all women who continue to be physically abused fall into this category.
Well, of course. Not only that, this isn't all that unusual a claim I'm making. Depending on which theory you subscribe to--and the individual, or psychological, theory of DV is well-respected.
It's also pretty basic stuff, if you think about it. There is no correlation between feminism and intolerance of DV--and when you consider the likelihood of selection bias, that's pretty powerful stuff. There is no correlation between strength of religious views and tolerance of DV--for example, many extremely devout women wouldn't tolerate it for a second, and other women who "use" the excuse of religion aren't nearly as devout.
Incidentally, in talking about correlations, I should mention that all studies have been extremely inconclusive--but that alone means that there isn't any obvious correlation.
Apparently you believe that anyone who holds convictions about anything other than their own comfort needs psychotherapy.
That's absurd. What I am saying is that people pretend--to themselves, most of all--that they are acting out of conviction when they aren't. They use the excuse of convictions to give them a reason for not acting--when faced with societal disapproval.
And Colonel Nicholson was screwy for a number of reasons. But yes, I think you could argue that he hid his screwiness behind the "conviction" of devotion to duty. That wasn't the main issue, though.
2085. CalGal - 8/22/2000 12:01:25 PM
Doc,
It isn't a gross generalization. Sorry. As Jones points out earlier, there is no doubt that people who stay in abusive relationships are psychologically different (aka screwy).
There are different theories to explain DV, and the debate exists as to whether the "screwiness" predates the abuse. But the theory that I subscribe to says that yes, indeed, it predates the abuse--and the theory is well-regarded. God knows it explains more than the feminist agenda-driven dogma masquerading as theory.
There isn't enough work done on profiling women who tolerate abuse--due again in part to feminist groupthink getting cranky at their ideas being challenged. DV is so thoroughly ensconced as a 'feminist' issue that they given the authority to drive the debate. Too bad, really.
2086. theDiva - 8/22/2000 12:05:07 PM
2087. CalGal - 8/22/2000 12:25:43 PM
Deev,
I am finding Summers increasingly annoying these days, even though I often agree with her. She doesn't seem so much supportive of boys as anti-feminist. I sympathize with her antis, of course.
But her basic point--minus all the rhetoric--is wellfounded.
2088. theDiva - 8/22/2000 12:30:01 PM
There I am, reading the newspaper over breakfast, when that article jumps out at me, and I think 'Cal has to read this.'
And yeah, she really don't like the feminist establishment.
2089. rubberducky - 8/22/2000 1:15:31 PM
Re: Message # 2077, DocBrown.
Rubberducky, what problems do you believe are caused by men objectifying women?
well, not really sure. it's an interesting question. i think that, by and large, women (and other "minorities") will never reach a status of equality with White Heterosexual Males until those very same WHMs allow such an equality to take place. i don't think the WHMs will allow it as long as it's "safe" or common to objectify women based solely on a characteristic such as gender.
as a gay male, i see this every day. i do not look at women the same way and, thus, notice the differences in the way women are treated by me than they are by WHMs. to me, women are just other people - no more & certainly no less. as such, i have no compulsion, other than my usual Southernly charms, to hold the door open for them. likewise, i feel no compulsion to "watch my language" around women. these are (and there are numerous examples - i chose but some of the most recent in my experiences) things that all but the slimmest percentage (for good or ill) of WHMs can do. it is, after all, a dirty little gay secret that you can tell with a decent degree of success the sexual orientation of a guy by the way he treats women. if he notices, for example, anything other than her job performance or general mannerisms, then chances are he's straight.
you should watch your own behaviors. i'm sure, even without knowing it, you treat women differently than you treat men. thus, i feel you are objectifying women to a degree. it's human nature, i understand this. still, "equality" will never be achieved until this is no loner the norm and, indeed, maybe true equality is unachievable.
2090. Jenerator - 8/22/2000 1:16:33 PM
Cal,
I agree with Doc Brown that your comment (screwy) was a gross generalization. I have done some work with battered women, I even helped out at an anonymous shelter in Waco, Texas. The women weren't screwy. If anything, the trait they all shared was an enormously low self-esteem. When you categorize the women as though they're all weird aka screwy, it's a subtle form of blaming the victim, imo.
2091. CalGal - 8/22/2000 1:28:19 PM
There is a difference between blame and responsibility, and there is a difference between responsibility for the abuse and responsibility for the reaction to it.
The batterer is responsible for the abuse. The victim is responsible for whether (s)he tolerates it.
2092. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 1:35:19 PM
Alright, CalGal, forget Colonel Nicholson. Is every captured soldier who refuses to give secrets when he/she is tortured "screwy?"
I believe this is important to your thesis. I think it is possible for a person to put up with physical torment in the name of the same "legitimate" convictions that a "normal" person holds. I am willing to extend this to married women. In fact, I would be so bold as to claim that in the entire history of the human race, there has been at least one rational woman who stayed in an abusive relationship because of her belief in God, marriage, children, or something else.
There isn't enough work done on profiling women who tolerate abuse .. .
I agree with you on this part. However, it has nothing to do with your belief that all women who tolerate abuse fall into the same category. In fact, the two are contradictory. If you already know that all women who tolerate abuse are the same, then the profiling must already be done.
2093. Jenerator - 8/22/2000 1:36:19 PM
It's not that simple, it never is.
2094. CalGal - 8/22/2000 1:36:25 PM
Incidentally, I said that there is more than one profile for battered folks. I can think of three, off the top of my head.
2095. CalGal - 8/22/2000 1:38:51 PM
Is every captured soldier who refuses to give secrets when he/she is tortured "screwy?"
Not at all. But they are also very aware that they are in a horrible situation that is not of their choosing. Which makes them a lousy analogy for battering victims.
However, it has nothing to do with your belief that all women who tolerate abuse fall into the same category.
I've said several times that they don't fall into the same category. But they are not "normal"; they have some sort of psychological dysfunction. There are different ways to be dysfunctional; that is where the variance is.
2096. Jenerator - 8/22/2000 1:41:39 PM
Cal,
None of that should be broadly painted as screwy.
2097. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 1:46:27 PM
rubberducky said:
i'm sure, even without knowing it, you treat women differently than you treat men. thus, i feel you are objectifying women to a degree. it's human nature, i understand this. still, "equality" will never be achieved until this is no loner the norm and, indeed, maybe true equality is unachievable.
I absolutely agree that I sometimes objectify women. While I make efforts to resist it, especially around women I care about, the behavior can never be completely eliminated. This begins with hormonal 14 year old boys, who have instant, uncontrollable erotic thoughts about every woman they see. Every single female body fills them with lust. It is impossible for the boys to get to know every woman they see on an emotional level, so objectification is unavoidable.
However, I do believe that true equality is achievable. The birth control pill was a first step in allowing women to experience recreational sex. When the day comes that women objectify men just as often as men objectify women, true equality might be achieved.
2098. CalGal - 8/22/2000 1:51:29 PM
Jen,
Oh, please. Of course it is.
Look. Start with my first post on the topic, in which I said that the important thing to remember is that the notion that any "normal" woman can end up in an abusive relationship is a total non-starter. It is a fantasy perpetrated by gender feminism.
Now, there are degrees and degrees of dysfunction. But it is simply wrong to assume that the women who end up in battering relationships are just fine, except their spouse hits them. The distortion it takes to stay in a relationship like that is mindboggling.
2099. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 1:52:23 PM
CalGal, why are the Narcissists who get pleasure out of the attention and the buildup, classified as "sick, sick puppies" ? If they truely enjoy it, why condemn them for indulging?
Sounds exactly the same as homophobic rhetoric to me. I don't mean that as an accusation; I assume that I have simply misunderstood you.
2100. CalGal - 8/22/2000 1:59:37 PM
Doc,
Narcissism--in the shrink sense of the word (although I'm not an expert, I just read too much)--is a fairly serious disorder. I'm not talking about people who are just vain.
An example:
A woman whose husband had hit her for all their marriage, was tolerant of the violence but really didn't like it--she just liked the presents at the end. But when their daughter got old enough, the husband turned his violent behavior on her, and just pampered the wife. The daughter ran away. The mother, when asked about it, said, "I was just so happy that someone else was finally getting his bad side. I really don't see why she's upset; after all, I tolerated it for years."
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. MBP moms are like this, too.
2101. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 2:07:59 PM
Diva,
In the article to which you provided a link, I think there is a serious omission. I teach college. Our student body does have more women than men, wnd the women have a greater chance of graduating.
However, in my whole career I have only had two female students.
The explanation is that I teach engineering. I think I could count the female engineering students on my fingers. In every other department, from Liberal Arts to Elementary Education to Nursing, women outnumber men. Engineers are in higher demand than all of those other fields.
I agree with the article insofar as it debunks the myth that female high school (and college) students are underserved. Women have excellent opportunities to go into technical fields, they simply choose to ignore them.
2102. theDiva - 8/22/2000 2:15:36 PM
I've heard this before, Doc. And this situation is, I suspect, the reason for the '74 cents to the dollar' statistic which is often trotted out in discussions of male and female earning power. I do believe that there will be an increase in girls in these classes and professions as the years go on, and more girls become computer and technology literate. In all Gracie's years in school, I've never noticed that teachers discourage girls from pursuing interests in math and science, quite the contrary. So we'll see.
2103. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 2:17:19 PM
CalGal, unless all Narcissists always have an innocent child who eventually receives (but dislikes) the abuse, your example is a straw man.
Remove the child from the picture. If the women would remain in the relationship permanently because she likes the attention and gifts, then I see no problem.
The human brain is a goal-seeking machine. We exist to achieve our goals; it is our sole purpose. Some of us have goals that are considerably different from others. It is normal to make sacrifices and endure hardships to get what we want. Who are you to say what price someone else should pay to get what they desire out of life?
2104. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 2:25:39 PM
Actually, Diva, I think the '74 cents to a dollar' statistic is a serious situation, since it is based on equal work. While women are still making gains in many corporations, the U.S. overall still does not give equal pay for equal work.
Companies really are trying to improve this. I know plenty of companies who would love to hire a competent female engineer, even where no official quotas exist.
I, too, have not seen teachers discourage girls from math and science. Yet the new semester started yesterday, and most of the classrooms I see have 100% male students. The flood of women into engineering has not started yet.
Any comment on the following statement by me?
When the day comes that women objectify men just as often as men objectify women, true equality might be achieved.
2105. theDiva - 8/22/2000 2:41:17 PM
In a word - yuck. People oughta treat and respect one another as individuals.
2106. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 2:59:32 PM
Hey gang, I might have to take back my sentence above The flood of women into engineering has not started yet.
I just got the attendance list for the class I start teaching this Saturday. It has 17 men and 3 women. This will be by far the most female-biased class I have seen.
The floodgates are for from open, but perhaps this trickle is a sign that a flood really is starting. Wishful thinking?
2107. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 3:01:51 PM
Diva, so you would be unwilling to try objectifying men?
You never know . . . you might like it.
2108. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:03:13 PM
If the women would remain in the relationship permanently because she likes the attention and gifts, then I see no problem.
Well, in the same sense that if a guy comes up and puts a gun to your head, steals your wallet and you then have an orgasm because that's what gets you off, there isn't a problem.
The dialog on DV assumes that it is a problem. If we want to state that some people are perfectly happy in their battering relationships and therefore don't require services, support, or shelters--and that we shouldn't arrest their batterers, then we should open up the debate to that possibility.
2109. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:04:05 PM
The 74 cents on the dollar is not for equal work, I believe. It is all men and all women--which is a pretty silly comparison.
And I am also pretty sure that the percentage of women in engineering actually dropped--in other words, it used to be higher.
2110. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:05:37 PM
Oh, and Doc--the main reason that DV should be a dialog is because of hte children. Both parents are responsible for the abuse of a child, and it is not in dispute that it is harmful for a child to live with parents who are in a battering relationship. (as opposed to a chaotic relationship in which violence happens as a matter between equals--jury is still out on that one.)
2111. theDiva - 8/22/2000 3:07:38 PM
the 74 cent figure doesn't control for disparities between male and female dominated fields, fields which traditionally pay less because the jobs in them don't generate income for the employers, and for the years women lose earning power from being out of the workforce at home with their kids.
2112. rubberducky - 8/22/2000 3:10:44 PM
Re: Message # 2108, CalGal.
The dialog on DV assumes that it is a problem. If we want to state that some people are perfectly happy in their battering relationships and therefore don't require services, support, or shelters--and that we shouldn't arrest their batterers, then we should open up the debate to that possibility.
interesting. couldn't it be argued that, like other crimes, more than the individuals are affected and, thus, must be stopped and/or prosecuted for that reason regardless of what the participants in DV think?
2113. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:10:46 PM
Right. So it's not equal.
In some fields, women are up to 90%, and that's not completley like to like, even. We're getting there.
2114. theDiva - 8/22/2000 3:12:57 PM
#2107, Doc
I used to. It was gross and degrading, so I stopped.
2115. theDiva - 8/22/2000 3:18:21 PM
This is where there's a clear advantage to salary scales such as are employed by government and the schools. If you do Job X, you start at salary A, unless your qualifications clearly and demonstrably exceed minimum, in which case you start at salary B. You are given annual raises based on a merit evaluation system which has a maximum and a minimum. You may never get rich this way, but at least you know that what you are earning, you have gotten on your own merits.
2116. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:26:26 PM
couldn't it be argued that, like other crimes, more than the individuals are affected and, thus, must be stopped and/or prosecuted for that reason regardless of what the participants in DV think?
Oh, sure. That's what I would argue. But this conversation with Doc has been a wayward child, you know. He is arguing with me that not all women who are in battering relationships are "screwy" (to use a technical term). He then said that I was lumping them all in the same category. I said no, and gave examples. He took one example and said, well, where's the harm in this?
Well, that's a big change in conversation. We were starting with the premise that DV is generally bad, now he seems to be saying that it's only bad if one person doesn't like it. I don't know where it came from, but my answer was (if you haven't figured it out by now) sarcastic. Still, it is an important point for distinction, which is why I told him he should open up a dialog on it if he wants to make a case.
2117. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:27:59 PM
Diva,
That's actually what most companies use--or did, until the current crunch came along.
But there is still plenty of room for variety. Guys might take more risks, take on more exciting projects. They might shift jobs more often.
And then there's always the debate over how one determines whether someone does a good job, or an exceptional one.
2118. theDiva - 8/22/2000 3:31:45 PM
In our system, no matter how long you've worked for the County, you must apply for another position if you are interested. You then have to go through the same process as anyone off the street - submit to a panel interview, be rated according to a numeric scale, etc.
As far as the merit evaluations are concerned, there are a number of areas on which the employee is rated, and given numeric ratings within the area. Each rating must be supported by comments by the supervisor, particularly when the rating is a 1 (poor) or 5 (outstanding). The score is then added up, averaged, and the raise given accordingly. The evaluation has to pass through the dept director, H.R., and the dept director's supervisor or the County Exec. Lots of paperwork to be sure, but they are adamant about covering their asses, er, um, I mean, fairness.
2119. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:35:38 PM
Deev,
Well, I don't know about the government but in corporations you can only have so many people that have a particular rating. Ditto promotions. And of course, the percentage that someone gets depends on where their salary is already, so if you miss a promotion one year and get a High rating at your old salary, which means a lower percentage raise, and then the next year you get promoted but only get an Average rating (pause for deep breath).
I'll take late paychecks over that bullshit anyday.
2120. theDiva - 8/22/2000 3:39:07 PM
Egads, that sucks. No, there's no limit on that. But you gotta be pretty damned good to be granted a promotion, unless within your job class they are automatic pending X number of good or better merit evaluations.
2121. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 3:43:25 PM
CalGal:
If we want to state that some people are perfectly happy in their battering relationships and therefore don't require services, support, or shelters--and that we shouldn't arrest their batterers, then we should open up the debate to that possibility.
Fine. I also think the debate should include people who are unhappy with their relationships, but stay with them due to various convictions. I believe that such people do have a problem and need need help, support, and shelters.
Resolving a situation where the woman's states socially acceptable convictions as reasons for staying in the relationship (reguardless of her sincerity) could be very complex. How do you convince a woman that she is "screwy" and needs to change, when The Bible tells her that her devotion to her husband is normal?
This is even more difficult if she lives in a culture that takes such (religious or traditional) beliefs very seriously. If the society around her demands that she have unconditional devotion to her husband, then unconditional devotion is normal.
2122. CalGal - 8/22/2000 3:46:08 PM
How do you convince a woman that she is "screwy" and needs to change, when The Bible tells her that her devotion to her husband is normal?
You don't. It is my personal belief that battering relationships ought to be considered the desired outcome for both people. If either the batterer or the victim wants to leave, they should be given support.
And if they have children, they can have them taken away from them and put in a foster home.
Unless, of course, they want to split up.
2123. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 3:58:03 PM
CalGal, I was just about to agree with all of your points about DV, except for the "all people who remain in abusive relationships are more than a bit screwy" concept. I especially agree that dialog is important, and that children suffer the most.
Then you said this:
It is my personal belief that battering relationships ought to be considered the desired outcome for both people. If either the batterer or the victim wants to leave, they should be given support.
And if they have children, they can have them taken away from them and put in a foster home.
Can you at least consider that an intervention to change the behavior of the batterer is appropriate here? Surely there are some cases when it is alright to put most of the blame on the man, and focus remedies on him.
2124. CalGal - 8/22/2000 4:06:28 PM
Doc,
There really isn't any cure for batterers. The recividism rate is extraordinarily high. They are basically broken people--and they will never do well with a partner who is basically content with a batterer. I hope someday there will be a better prognosis for them, but it won't happen on the feminists' watch, that's for sure.
Now, let's be clear that I'm not talking about a situation where husband and wife get into a fight, wife hits him, he hits her. I'm talking battering, cycle of violence, broken person who can't cope with any threat to his sense of self, is obsessively jealous and controlling, and so on. Intervention ain't gonna cut it.
But the batterer is only responsible for the battering. Both parents are responsible for the abusive environment. The battering victim has the ability to leave. As long as s(he) stays, then the responsibility for the abusived environment is shared.
We spend too much time encouraging, cajoling, and trying to sweetalk the "victims" into leaving. I'd prefer it if we just said, "Look. You and your spouse are endangering your children's wellbeing. You can split up and raise the kids separately, or you can lose your kids. Take your pick."
It would completely change the dynamic. It would also help kids understand how totally inappropriate their parents' behavior is.
2125. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 4:31:46 PM
CG,
Message # 2079
And I imagine that even within the confines of the Muslim communities, they have a way of distinguishing batterers from normal lordly I'm the king of this mansion behavior--and probably protecting their women from this.
That all depends on the community. Not all Islamic countries are the same particularly those with strong non-religious cultural traditions. In Afghanistan where it’s okay for complete strangers to stone a woman to death for being inappropriately dressed I seriously doubt that there's much hue and cry over wife battering.
These women most resemboe your third example of victim profiles. They don’t know any different life so they have no frame of reference. However within their society they certainly aren’t sick or abnormal. They have learned exactly what they were supposed to learn: Namely that they are chattel whose only value is in keeping the hearth and breeding sons for their husbands. Your argument here would seem to suggest that any society that doesn’t conform to the modern Westernized ideal is psychologically unstable.
2126. DocBrown - 8/22/2000 4:31:53 PM
There really isn't any cure for batterers.
What!!?? Why do you say that?
DV is way outside my field, but problem solving is not. The problem may be difficult, but there is no reason to categorize it as unsolvable until you can present a good theory as to why it is unsolvable, then evidence to prove the theory. Do you have such a theory?
Perhaps the only solution is prevention. Maybe we could give all ten year old boys electroshock . . . kind of like A Clockwork Orange, to make them behave themselves. But throwing up our hands and saying "there is no solution" is surely not the best we can do.
Remember, a few years ago there were no treatments for depression.
2127. CalGal - 8/22/2000 4:44:30 PM
Christin,
I generally agree that Muslim women would fall into category three. The difference being, however, that Western women do have other options available, and can only ignore them through quite a bit of distortion.
Doc,
Feel free to read up on batterers. It is a sad tale.
2128. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 4:52:15 PM
CG,
How do we threaten women without children into leaving their abusive husbands?
2129. CalGal - 8/22/2000 4:57:44 PM
Societally speaking, I'm not sure we care. The key issue is to change the dynamic of expectations. Right now, women know that society will try to cajole them into leaving, sweet talk them, cmon, honey, you can do it!
Change the dynamic to hey, it's your job to get out. You need help, it's there. But you're on your own until you decide that's what you want.
2130. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 5:20:41 PM
"Societally speaking, I'm not sure we care"
Why not? We certainly care if some man gets beaten up in an alley. Why don't we care if a someone gets beaten up at home? Because he's screwy? Are we not concerned with protecting the mentally challenged from abuse?
"The key issue is to change the dynamic of expectations. Right now, women know that society will try to cajole them into leaving, sweet talk them, cmon, honey, you can do it! "
Oh really? Why do you assume that all women know what you know? I mean, if they're screwy then how can they be expected to know anything at all? Do we just abandon them until they miraculously become not-screwy?
It sounds to me like you're saying "We're not going to help you stand up until you stand up by yourself." That doesn't make any sense at all when the root of the problem is that the victim is unable to stand up. If she could stand up for herself she wouldn't need our help in the first place.
2131. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 5:25:53 PM
“There isn't enough work done on profiling women who tolerate abuse--due again in part to feminist groupthink getting cranky at their ideas being challenged. DV is so thoroughly ensconced as a 'feminist' issue that they given the authority to drive the debate. Too bad, really”
I know you like to bash the gender feminists, but for all their faults, it's not like there was some great movement to halt DV that the feminists took control of. Before they stood up and started squawking about it nobody gave a rat's ass about domestic abuse and very little was done about child abuse. That's why it's a 'feminist' issue: Because, until very recently, they were the only ones who cared.
2132. CalGal - 8/22/2000 5:27:06 PM
We certainly care if some man gets beaten up in an alley.
We do if he reports it or if someone else reports it. And obviously, that will still happen in the case of violence between couples. So I'm not advocating a change from current behavior in that regard.
Now, if you want to treat all family violence as equivalent to stranger violence, then you can continue from there. But that's opening a can of worms.
?I mean, if they're screwy then how can they be expected to know anything at all? Do we just abandon them until they miraculously become not-screwy?
Pretty much. You seem shocked. We do this in any number of situations. That's our response to addicts, for example. And to people who live with depression or other mental disorders--which is pretty much what I consider is the problem of those who tolerate battering.
I wish we could do more to help the batterers, but that seems to be out for the moment.
2133. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 5:29:02 PM
CG,
Sorry the quotation in 2131 is from your Message # 2085
2134. CalGal - 8/22/2000 5:31:53 PM
Child abuse isn't much in the domain of feminism--unless the perps are male. Given that most child abuse is caused by women, that's kind of a wash.
As for DV, feminists took it on because it resonated with righteous reasons to tear down the patriarchy. They flat out refuse to deal with the notion that it might not have anything (or very little) to do with gender, and always have. They've offered nothing but useless statistics and lies--and in general have done their best to stop meaningful discussions on the matter.
So frankly, I think we would have been better off noticing it without their help.
2135. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 5:38:19 PM
Of course I'm apalled. I believe that when you live in a society you have an obligation to look out for your fellow man if not out of a sense of altruism at least out of the recognition that it's to the betterment of that society. If you want to choose the alternate societal model and kill the weak and infirm to better the gene pool then that's certainly a valid choice although not one I would agree on.
"We do this in any number of situations. That's our response to addicts, for example. And to people who live with depression or other mental disorders"
No, actually we have laws regarding the care and treatment of the mentally ill and developmentally challenged. It's why we make inspections of hospitals and close down the ones where we find that they're sexually and physically abusing the patients. We also step in when the neighbors notice that abuse is occuring involving an elderly or infirm victim.
2136. ChristinO - 8/22/2000 5:41:34 PM
"So frankly, I think we would have been better off noticing it without their help"
That's totally beside the point since nobody else did notice or care enough to do anything about it. Without the radical feminist movement there wouldn't be any middle ground for you to scoff at them from. Equity feminists wouldn't exist if not for the antics of the radical fringe. That's just the nature of societal change. Moderates don't start movements they just refine policy.
2137. DaveM - 8/22/2000 7:31:48 PM
ChristinO -
Cal -
Child abuse isn't much in the domain of feminism--unless the perps male. Given that most child abuse is caused by women, that's kind of a wash.
Your critique of "gender feminism" (ie: all feminism you disagree with) looks more and more uninformed when you make comments like this. You don't think feminists are interested in why women abuse their children?
Now, if you want to treat all family violence as equivalent to stranger violence, then you can continue from there. But that's opening a can of worms.
The differential treatment of strangers and acquaintances in rape cases, for instance, is not based on society's lack of concern for victims of acquaintance rape. The harsher treatment of stranger rape reflects cognitive dissonance ("stranger rape can happen to anyone -acquaintance rape can only happen to people who put themselves in bad situations"), residual racism, and mysogynistic victim blaming ("she knew what was coming").
2138. DaveM - 8/22/2000 7:33:34 PM
Christin -
I meant to leave some words of encouragement about this conversation. Cal really seems to believe in the "tough love" approach, to put it generously.
2139. CalGal - 8/22/2000 8:15:14 PM
I believe that when you live in a society you have an obligation to look out for your fellow man if not out of a sense of altruism at least out of the recognition that it's to the betterment of that society.
Well, that's fine. But the fact is that right now, there are all sorts of problems that don't stop you from functioning in the "real world", but are definitely a mental disorder--or a physiological one. I mentioned addiction and depression as two examples.
All I'm pointing out is that tolerance for battering and refusal to leave the relationship is probably best viewed in that light. So the issue is to ensure that their problems don't damage anyone else. Given that the problems suffered by children whose parents are in a battering relationship are pretty severe, I think it certainly seems in order to remove the kids.
As far as feminism and DV, I actually do give them credit for bringing the issue forward. But given how much damage they've done since, in distorting issues, it's hard to believe that things would be much worse.
2140. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 10:30:10 AM
I said:
DV is way outside my field, but problem solving is not.
CalGal responded:
Feel free to read up on batterers. It is a sad tale.
My own crusades about free will and personal responsibility are enough, thank you. You stick to your favorite subject and I'll stick to mine.
2141. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 10:33:59 AM
I said:
Diva, so you would be unwilling to try objectifying men?
The Diva responded:
I used to. It was gross and degrading, so I stopped.
Care to elaborate? What did you find gross about it? Naturally it was degrading. Why did you decide that degrading men was a bad thing?
2142. theDiva - 8/23/2000 10:40:22 AM
By using men as sex objects, I degraded myself. It was an empty and worthless pursuit which ultimately made me feel quite lousy and occasionally caused me to hurt some very nice men. Yuck.
2143. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 10:47:19 AM
So, Diva, the final resoluton of the situation was what bothered you, correct?
Of course, sincere romantic relationships often end sadly, too.
Am I correct in stating that the reason you felt lousy you knew how the relationship would end before it even started? Had you believed there was a chance of achieving a non-empty relationship at some point, the sad ending would have bothered you less?
2144. theDiva - 8/23/2000 10:51:07 AM
No, no, and no.
These things always seemed like a good idea at the time. I even enjoyed myself! It was post-demise that I eventually reflected and reached the conclusion that maybe these things were simply too destructive to continue pursuing.
2145. theDiva - 8/23/2000 10:56:00 AM
besides. I'm married now. I can't (and don't want to) be indulging in such shenanigans.
2146. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 11:02:15 AM
I am also married, Diva. Quite happily.
However, that does not stop me from discussing my youthful experiences of objectifying women.
I am confused by this: It was post-demise that I eventually reflected and reached the conclusion that maybe these things were simply too destructive to continue pursuing.
What things? In what way were you objectifying men?
How could you have prevented yourself from having empty relationships, and restricted yourself to fulfilling relationships?
2147. theDiva - 8/23/2000 11:05:58 AM
"What things? In what way were you objectifying men?"
Relationships based solely on sexual attraction.
"How could you have prevented yourself from having empty relationships, and restricted yourself to fulfilling relationships?"
Here's the thing. I didn't want to until I realized how awful it was. Then I stopped, and didn't pursue any relationship unless it was based on shared interests and mutual respect. And just in the nick of time, too.
2148. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 11:11:14 AM
You really have my attention, Diva, but the critical piece is missing from this puzzle.
When did you stop? How did you "realize how awful it was?"
2149. CalGal - 8/23/2000 11:14:41 AM
My own crusades about free will and personal responsibility are enough, thank you.
????
I'm not sure what that has to do with it. You were just implying that batterers can be fixed. I do hope they can be one day, but at this point in time it is hardly controversial to admit that the prognosis is extremely poor. That has nothing to do with whether or not they are personally responsible.
2150. theDiva - 8/23/2000 11:17:09 AM
Doc
If you don't mind, I really don't want to talk about this anymore. Sorry.
2151. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 11:46:53 AM
No problem, Diva. Please allow me a moment to ramble about my own objectification experience.
Almost every man you will every meet has some experience objectifying women. It starts at puberty, when the sight of a woman's body automatically activates strong sexual urges.
The response is like salivating when you smell a delicious food. Your salivary glands do not care how the food feels about your desire to eat it. In the same way, the young man's body will become aroused and sexual thoughts will take place, no matter what. Often when there is no woman in sight the young man's imagination will create an image of one (or more) to trigger arousal. These women, real or imagined, are objects.
Yet even a fourteen year old boy is capable of forming fulfilling relationships. If he is exposed to only a few women he can take the time to get to know all of them, and he will not have much experience objectifying real women.
I would guess that the brain of a typical teenaged male spends about 100 hours per week building object / arousal patterns in this way. These patterns stay with us.
I am much more mature now, and my body does not force me into instant arousal every time I see a woman. Yet my brain still has those objectification patterns, and sometimes when I look at a woman I still see a sex object. Whether I care about her or don't even know her, my brain may quickly fantasize about having sex with her body. The reaction is a lot like the one I had last night when I saw a Lotus Esprit and briefly fantasized about driving it, and possessing it.
At my age the reflex does not feel like puberty hormones. It feels more like an old habit.
Can any women here relate to what I am describing at all?
2152. DocBrown - 8/23/2000 1:45:04 PM
Apparently not.
CalGal, when I said "My own crusades about free will and personal responsibility are enough, thank you," I only meant that this subject is more important to you than it is to me. I am interested in discussing DV, but at this time I am not about to seek out reading materials on batters, which is what you suggested I do.
Provide a link to an article and I will read it. But if I am going to take the time to do heavy research on my own initiative, I will surely do it on a one of my own pet subjects.
2153. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 3:32:55 PM
CG,
I'm not disputing that children should be removed from a home where battering of any member of the household occurs. I don't recall that anyone here has seriously disputed this, but that wasn't the focus of the discussion.
There are plenty of childless women who get battered and the initial question was whether victims are born or made. You claim they are born that way and yet you promote removing children from battering households so apparently you also believe that they can be made.
Maybe my reading skills are just not up to snuff today, but it seems that you are actively hostile toward women in battering relationships----far more so than toward those who beat them. You lament that there is no help for the perpetrators of abuse but deride efforts to help those who suffer the beatings as some kind of mollycoddling. Or rather, only if they have children, because I get the impression that if a woman doesn't have children then you aren't concerned that she's being abused.
2154. CalGal - 8/23/2000 3:45:44 PM
You claim they are born that way and yet you promote removing children from battering households so apparently you also believe that they can be made.
Where did I say they were born that way? I can't find anything I've said that suggests that, but maybe I missed it.
Maybe my reading skills are just not up to snuff today, but it seems that you are actively hostile toward women in battering relationships----far more so than toward those who beat them.
I don't know if it's your reading skills, but you do seem to be inferring a great deal more than is actually there. Given that I myself spent most of my twenties getting smacked around--and given that you know that--I can only assume you are implying some hypocritical connection between my history and your translation of my position. If so, you are incorrect. To the extent that my opinion is formed by my experience, the two are entirely consistent.
It is not that I am hostile towards battered people--male or female. It is that I firmly believe the focus of the dialog needs to be changed so that society understands the degree to which their efforts to assist battered people are hampered--and often stymied completely--by the active resistance of the victims themselves. It is their distortion and their psychological dysfunction that prevents us from assisting. If every battered person picked up and left after the first punch, if every one of them actively filed and pressed charges against batterers, we wouldn't have any DV problem.
But they don't--and it is their inaction that is at the root of the issue from a societal standpoint, not the batterers themselves. Until we recognize that, and until we start addressing the issue from that perspective, I doubt we'll ever really start solving it. Which is why we really haven't made much of a dent in DV, despite years of increased attention.
2155. Jenerator - 8/23/2000 3:51:03 PM
CalGal,
I diagree with your points. Initially, you said that battered women are screwy. To me, that is a subtle form of blaming the victim for the abuse they receive. Who knows, maybe that means they deserve their predicament, too.(?)
Furthermore, you said that women in shelters usually fit the "classic" profile:
""Classic" profile--Lenore Walker's profile. Low self-esteem, they were daddy's little girl while growing up, husband makes them feel safe and "cared for", they like the jealousy at first, just not the reaction. They enjoy being possessed. Apparently, most women fall in this group.
Maybe this is true, but it certainly wasn't my experience in the shelter I worked with. In fact, I can't think of any women who have met your three profile examples.
"That being said, there's no way that a woman who lives with someone who hits her because she's afraid to leave is "normal". I also think the "low self-esteem" bit is overused. Yes, they have low self-esteem, but it ain't nearly as low as the batterers.
I'm not following you here, are you suggesting that women who are afraid to leave batterers are not normal and that "normal" women would not be afraid of batterers?
One woman who shared with me her story told me that the abuse didn't start until after the marriage. Basically, he had conned his way into her life by being the perfect boyfriend and fiance, only to start terrorizing her after she had their children. She grew up in a loving and "normal" family in middle-class America. When he first hit her, she was stunned, angered and terribly sad. It progressed from there.
Cont.
2156. Jenerator - 8/23/2000 3:51:31 PM
She had gained weight from pregnancies, and didn't like her appearance. She wasn't working, therefore not bringing in any income and not interacting with other adults and before she knew it, she was completely dependent on him for approval and economic survival. She was embarrassed about her situation and deeply depressed over the failure of her marriage. The first time she mentioned divorcing her husband, he beat her and threatened her with legal action. (custody of the children, etc.) He started intimidating her with a gun. Long story short, she fled to a shelter, changed her identity and is trying to restart her life. Her mom was in a nursing home, and she had no other immediate family.
She was married to this creep for over ten years. She had several injuries over the years.
Clearly, these men who perpetrate these crimes against women manipulate the women into feeling and believing that they're completely dependent on them. They perpetuate chronic low self-esteem in their women to keep them in the relationships. It's not a concept that is over used.
What I'm surprised with is that you seem angry or put off with these women for being in abusive relationships. I'm not saying that they should stay in them, but I do understand how it's difficult to get out of them and I know that a tremendous amount of psychological change and abuse takes place in them. What you and I see as normal and healthy, they do not. It's similar to dealing with people who are suicidal. Suicidal people are so depressed and narrow visioned with their problem that they cannot see long-term the way we can. But the solution is not to blame them, it's better to empathize with them, and help them by helping them understand that there are better alternatives.
2157. CalGal - 8/23/2000 3:53:18 PM
You lament that there is no help for the perpetrators of abuse but deride efforts to help those who suffer the beatings as some kind of mollycoddling.
I lament that they can't be helped (more accurately, that the prognosis is extremely poor), not that there aren't efforts to help them. That's entirely different. And I deride the efforts to help those who suffer not because they shouldn't be helped, but because the efforts are focusing on the wrong thing. Battered people should be told, regularly, that they are distorting reality--not about the violence in their lives, but about the fact that their willingness to continue living with the person is all they need to do to participate. If they don't wish to leave the person involved, then society can't do anything to help them--except remove their children.
Or rather, only if they have children, because I get the impression that if a woman doesn't have children then you aren't concerned that she's being abused.
From a societal perspective, I am no more concerned about a person who is being abused than I am a person who is an alcoholic. Namely, I am concerned, but I don't think we (society, government, legal system) ought to waste time and effort intervening unless they are asking for help--and just as help for the addict means quit drinking, help for the abused person means leave the relationship.
Their children are a different matter, and I believe intervention is entirely appropriate. And frankly, there is a huge amount of resistance to the idea of removing children from two parents in a battering relationship. It's viewed as "punishing the mother"--despite the fact that she is equally as guilty of allowing the children to live in an abusive environment.
2158. Jenerator - 8/23/2000 3:56:45 PM
And I know what you're going to say, you're going to say that she should have left after the first time he hit her. Of course you can say that, you weren't in the relationship. I'm sure she believed him when he said that he was sorry for it and that it was an accident. She did want the marriage to work out and she thought that by trying to work past the problems, it could have.
And I'm sure you know some women who have been with abusive husbands, so you know that it's not that easy to just pack it up and leave right away.
2159. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 3:57:36 PM
DocBrown,
I think most--if not all---women have experienced that kind of objectification of men. It's a biological stimulus/response that really can't be controlled at a certain level. How far one takes it is another matter.
I absolutely notice attractive men. I live in Los Angeles so there are ample opportunities to stagger and drool over the abundance of rippling flesh paraded in this town. If I see an attractive man often I'll mention it to a girlfriend if we happen to be walking along a public sidewalk, but it's extremely unlikely that I would whistle at him or heckle him and there's not a chance in hell that I'd grab his ass or physically accost him.....unless he asked me to!
I don't think that this kind of objectification is necessarily bad. In and of itself it's pretty harmless and not something we humans are ever likely to overcome. It's how we're wired: to notice potential breeding opportunities. The harm comes when we act solely on these rather shallow perceptions. There are any number of folks out there I find physically attractive enough to bump uglies with, but if that's all we base our choices on then we're devaluing both their and our own humanity.
My girlfriends and I joke about men we'd sleep with but don't want to have coffee with later---IOW "He's sexy/hot but not personally interesting." We don't usually make our choice of partners based on this however. Why would you want to be physically intimate with someone you didn't like? It's kind of creepy and you later wonder if maybe they didn't like you either.
We've been told that this is harder to do for women than for men----that men can and do regularly engage in sex with women they don't like or desire in any other respect except physical attractiveness, but I often wonder just how true this is. I imagine it's much more common among teens and twenty somethings than more mature men, but what do I know? I'm just a chick. ;-)
2160. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:05:37 PM
Initially, you said that battered women are screwy.
Actually, Jones originally said that they were psychologically different from non-battered people, and I agreed. "Screwy" was an acknowledged shorthand, non-derogatory.
Basically, he had conned his way into her life by being the perfect boyfriend and fiance
"Perfect". Ask her what she meant by this. I'll bet she meant he was extremely--even overly--attentive. I'll bet she meant that he was always upset if any guy ever even looked at her, he loved her so much. I bet she was flattered by all that attention and jealousy. After all, someone like that must love her, right?
And "normal" loving family. I've never said it wasn't "normal", but many women who are battered are in fact daddy's girls. Ask them, next time, about their relationship with their father. It's not a given, but it is common.
When he first hit her, she was stunned, angered and terribly sad.
Actually, I'll bet the control started a lot earlier. And don't you think there's something odd about someone who didn't pack up and leave when she is hit?
Of course, most "normal" women have left long before that. A form of selection bias.
I know that a tremendous amount of psychological change and abuse takes place in them. What you and I see as normal and healthy, they do not.
Well, yes. It is usually called distortion, which I've mentioned several times. And, as Jones said, the ferocious debate is over whether or not the distortion starts before they are abused or after. The "feminist" model says after. The "individual" model says before. I agree with that one. But the fact that they are not psychologically normal is not up for debate--and since you've already concurred, why are you taking me to task for saying they are "screwy"? Is it too non-PC?
2161. Jenerator - 8/23/2000 4:05:47 PM
ReMessage # 2157
I'd like to see more aid given to shelters. Some of the places these women have to flee to are quite horrible. Inner-city Planned Parenthoods look better than most of these shelters.
2162. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:06:47 PM
Clearly, these men who perpetrate these crimes against women manipulate the women into feeling and believing that they're completely dependent on them. They perpetuate chronic low self-esteem in their women to keep them in the relationships. It's not a concept that is over used.
No, they don't. The men need women who want to feel completely dependent on them. They do their damnedest to encourage it because it makes them feel safer and more in control. But "normal" women have checked out long before they are completely dependent, or even anywhere near it. They don't go near these guys. The women who end up with them are those that respond to that need for control, because it makes them feel safe.
2163. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:09:47 PM
BTW, I should say again that we are arguing interpretations here. Both Christin and Jen are basically proposing solutions and approaches based on the "feminist" model of DV. I support the "individual" or "psychological" model.
The roots of DV are hotly debated, and honest debate is quite often stymied because of the political implications--particularly for feminism.
2164. Jenerator - 8/23/2000 4:15:07 PM
CalGal,
Basically, I think that you see battered women as deserving of their abuse if they choose to stay in their relationships. On one level this is true, but on another it's not. I do not see these women as screwy, spoiled brats, stuck in narcissistic relationships. Instead, I see them as women who have allowed their spouse to damage their self-esteems to the point that they cannot differentiate between healthy and unhealthy treatment. Most of these women truly are terrified of their husbands, and that's why they don't press charges or pursue legal alternatives. I think that normal women can fall into abusive relationships, and I also think that women who were troubled before the relationships can find themselves in abusive relationships. I could care less what any feminist says (I usually disagree with most of them anyway), my concern is that these women are not blamed for the abuse, they need help out of the relationships, not ridicule.
Again, think about people who are suicidal and how blinded they are by their problems. The same psychological distortion of reality...
2165. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:20:08 PM
I do not see these women as screwy, spoiled brats, stuck in narcissistic relationships.
Not all of them are. It's just one profile. But in general, you wouldn't find them in shelters anyway.
I think that normal women can fall into abusive relationships,
I realize you think that. But so long as you realize that there is fundamentally no basis for believing that, and that it is an issue that is often debated, fine. What you need to accept is that my view--that people in abusive relationships had some level of dysfunction that made them comfortable with this sort of relationship (and the violence is only a part of it)--is entirely legit as well. It's not something I made up, and it is eminently reasonable to suggest it, and it's not anything about "blaming" the women.
Again, think about people who are suicidal and how blinded they are by their problems
You are also assuming here that "normal" people consider suicide. Think again.
2166. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:22:03 PM
And I hit post too soon on that last one. There is more than one profile for a suicide, and while "normal" people might suddenly be overwhelmed with grief and kill themselves, the type that Jen is referring to--the ones that seem perfectly okay, but up and kill themselves--are not. It doesn't mean that they are bad, but it is simply incorrect to think that anyone can arrive at this state. It is also incorrect to think that these people can always be "helped".
2167. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 4:28:06 PM
CG,
Thank you! That clears up a lot of things for me. I don't think you've ever explained your view quite that way. In particular I mean this passage:
"I firmly believe the focus of the dialog needs to be changed so that society understands the degree to which their efforts to assist battered people are hampered--and often stymied completely--by the active resistance of the victims themselves. It is their distortion and their psychological dysfunction that prevents us from assisting."
I'm kind of having an "Oh duh" moment because I thought that WAS standard operating procedure-----making people aware that DV victims stay because they are psychologically trapped NOT because they physically cannot get away. I don't remember a time when I believed or was taught otherwise so my confusion with all of this is because I thought the distinction you insist needs to be made already WAS being made so I kept trying to figure out what else you could mean.
I didn't think you were "displacing" or being hypocritical although now that I look at it I suppose someone who didn't know you might jump to that conclusion, but only because your previous posts weren't as clear as this last.
On the intervention front I don't have a firm opinion. I really don't believe that we should force ourselves into people's lives and insist that they get help. At the same time I think we should make every effort to make help readily available to anyone who needs it whether that's for drug and alcohol addiction or DV or insanity.
2168. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 4:53:22 PM
CG,
I don't think I have any idea what you mean when you say the "feminist" view of DV. Could you explain what it is that you're talking about?
2169. CalGal - 8/23/2000 4:54:14 PM
At the same time I think we should make every effort to make help readily available to anyone who needs it whether that's for drug and alcohol addiction or DV or insanity.
Absolutely.
I am saying that the current dialog on the subject is often almost...co-dependent in nature, when dealing with the woman. "She can't leave, because she's scared." "She doesn't have any money, she wants to keep her family together."
For one thing, I think we need to realize that many, many women are in battering relationships where their lives aren't in danger, and where they have money. That is the norm, not the nightmare situations that constitute a small minority (a not insignificant one). Ditto the ex husband stalkers. Yes, they exist. But we don't have stalkers handled in our society, even when they aren't husbands. So it's unrealistic to assume that we will be able to solve these problems--and besides, when people say, "She can't leave because her life is in danger if she does", are they nuts? She can't leave, so she will stay and sleep with and have sex with and cook and clean for a guy who might kill her if she stays? I can see her thinking that. But to have it be advanced by DV advocates as reasonable explanation is just nonsense.
So I would like to see the expectations for these women changed a lot sooner than they are. Many women who end up in the disaster situations have a lot more freedom earlier on--but they don't use it. Why? Because the comfort of the relationship is more than the pain of the occasional battering. In fact, they like (or at least respond to) a lot of the really wacko batterer behavior, in many cases. They just don't want to get hit. So until they are actively in danger, they're actually pretty happy--gosh, life would be better if he didn't hit me, but overall things are going well!
2170. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 5:00:44 PM
Jen,
How many times would you let a guy "lose control" and hit you before you left? "Normal" people don't beat others to get what they want. "Normal" people don't recognize beatings as an acceptable means of expression.
This is the point that CG is trying to make. Not every or even most women would put up with a man who slapped them around----not even once or twice. It takes a particular mind-set TO BEGIN WITH to justify and excuse that kind of treatment.
The other thing CG mentioned is that the violence is not the beginning of the abuse it's just another step along the line. A good girlfriend of mine met this wonderful guy that we ALL thought was a lot of fun. He was charming and attentive and seemed to adore her. As their relationship progressed we saw less and less of her. I met her for coffee one day and she asked me for some advice. It seems that he felt threatened by the fact that she owned a vibrator and wanted her to get rid of it. She wondered if I thought that was reasonable. Not knowing much else about the whole situation I told her maybe he was just concerned that he didn't satisfy her sexually. I told her to put it away until he felt more secure.
Well, she ended up getting rid of it entirely. And then she threw out a bunch of clothes that he had convinced her didn't flatter her----they were too provocative or revealing or something. And then she found out that he wasn't passing phone messages to her from friends and family. When she confronted him about it the argument got extremely heated and he slapped her. Just once.
She packed her bags and moved out that very night. She also went into counseling at our urging because once we'd gotten the whole story it was pretty apparent that the signs were there all along that he'd eventually beat on her.
cont.
2171. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 5:03:07 PM
cont.
Looking back over other relationships she'd had she could see the pattern of controling men she'd been involved with. In the past she'd always gotten fed up and left before things escalated to violence, but it was just as disturbing to realize that she'd been totally surrendering herself to these men in so many other ways.
How many women do you know who once they have a boyfriend don't hang out with their female friends anymore? How about women who radically change their style of dress to fit their partner's likes? These aren't guarantees of future abuse by any means, but they can be warning signals that the woman's perceptions are skewed.
2172. CalGal - 8/23/2000 5:03:11 PM
That's the part that I think needs to change, and it can only be changed by setting expectations and approach differently. There is a big difference between blaming battering victims and understanding how significant a role their distortion plays in their relationship--along with how early it starts.
And two ways to make things a lot less comfortable for them is to make them understand that as long as they are with the batterer, they can't have their children (or their status is at risk), and that the only way they can be helped is if they leave their batterer.
Thanks for the clarication about your questions. I was surprised that you would hint at something like that, it seemed odd. Now I see why you were confused.
2173. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 5:11:07 PM
CG,
I've never heard of a DV advocate telling women that they're in more danger from leaving than from staying in an abusive relationship. Likewise I've never seen them say women should stay because the fear of leaving is too great.
I have little experience with stalking certainly nothing that became dangerous to me, but perhaps that's because of my actions in the beginning. As soon as I found out about it I confronted the stalker---my boss---and threatened to expose him. Of course this was a 60 year old man that I felt confident I could take in a fight so I wasn't at all intimidated by him. That tends to be my response to extreme weirdos, though---confrontation. I think it actually saved my life one night.
2174. CalGal - 8/23/2000 5:19:48 PM
Batterer Programs--this is an National Institute of Justice report on treatment for batterers. It's not really relevant to the discussion because it is only talking about criminal justice, but at the beginning of the report it talks about the different approaches. This only discusses it in terms of the batterer, but I think you'll be able to extrapolate. The quotes are from "The causes of domestic violence":
Feminist approaches. Batterer intervention programs were started in the 1970s when feminists and others brought public attention to the problem of domestic violence and grass- roots services began to be established in response. The feminist perspective has influenced most batterer intervention programs. Central to the perspective is a gender analysis of power,[16] which holds that domestic violence mirrors the patriarchal organization of society. In this view, violence is one means of maintaining male power in the family. Feminist programs, which attempt to raise consciousness about society's sex-role conditioning and how it constrains men's behavior, present a model of egalitarian relationships based on trust instead of fear.
Psychotherapeutic approaches. These perspectives, which focus on the
individual, hold that personality disorders or early traumatic life experiences predispose some people to violence.[19] Being physically abusive is seen as symptomatic of an underlying emotional problem, which may be traced to parental abuse, rejection, and failure to meet a child's dependence needs.
This sounds touchy-feelie, but it takes a pretty severe sort of treatment to create a batterer.
The link mentions the "family systems" model, which I didn't bring up because no one is touting it here. I personally think that the family systems model is relevant when you have two brawling people, no fear, and no control aspects.
2175. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 5:32:45 PM
Obviously the psychotherapeutic model makes more sense, but I don't think we can throw the feminist model out completely since as you've pointed out yourself there is correlation between gender equity and abuse---i.e. as women have become more equal in society they have increased in number as perpetrators of abuse.
2176. CalGal - 8/23/2000 5:38:20 PM
Christin,
Yeah, but that actually supports the psychological model, not the feminist one. In the feminist model, empowered women means no more abuse. The fact that this hasn't happened just means that they have much farther to go.
Of course, the feminist proponents hem and haw angrily about lesbian DV, which is a beeeeg problem. They have decided that it has an entirely different cause--despite the fact that it does profile identically. As do female batterers of men, male batterers of men, and so on.
I certainly do believe that gender plays a part in the way our dysfunctions take root.
Oh, and that's an excellent description of what I meant by battering victims not being "normal". I'm glad your friend checked out sooner, rather than later!
2177. ChristinO - 8/23/2000 6:10:13 PM
I'm not sure I was very clear in that last post. The part of the feminist model that I think is valid is that the disenfranchisement of women makes them more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator. The cause of abuse is not gender-based but the way in which it manifests is gender influenced.
Re: My friend -Yes, we're all glad she got out when she did and also that she was able to accept our advice and deal with her own issues which were causing her to end up in these relationships.
2178. CalGal - 8/23/2000 6:28:22 PM
Well, it's important to distinguish the "feminist model" from "feminism". I think that feminism is still an important step in the process--I will view it as a good thing when women are beating up their husbands instead of their kids (at least as often).
But the feminist model doesn't allow for women batterers at all.
2179. Cellar Door - 8/24/2000 12:23:30 AM
GAYS RULE!
2180. DocBrown - 8/24/2000 11:01:43 AM
ChristinO said:
That tends to be my response to extreme weirdos, though---confrontation. I think it actually saved my life one night.
I believe that ChristinO shows two responses that are typical for men, but unusual for women.
First she makes a quick judgement "this guy is a wierdo" and sticks to her judgement with confidence. My experience is that most women take some time before they pigeonhole people, and even then they are somewhat open to changing that opinion. Men jump to instant conclusions and stubbornly refuse to change their minds.
Next, ChristinO confronts those men who fit into the wierdo classification. My experience is that this is exactly what most men would do, while most women would use a defensive, avoidance strategy.
Of course these are tremendous generalizations, but I think they have some validity. Does anyone agree with these male/female generalizations?
If so, then I wonder if the two are related.
Introspectively, I think it would be easier to confront a person that I had classified with a negative stereotype. If I have it in my mind that "He is an obnoxious jerk" or "She is a dangerous lunatic" I could confront that person immediately.
However, if my only thought was "He is behaving in a way that I don't like, but he seems to know what he is doing" it might be a long time before I made a confrontation.
2181. CalGal - 8/24/2000 11:14:37 AM
Oh, I agree. The reason that wacko guys can become stalkers is because women allow that sort of possibility by their reaction.
But if they didn't become stalkers, they'd just get weird in some other way. Women wackos do that whole erotomania thing, which is just another form of stalking. It's just all in their head.
Also, I think this is another area where lesbians are more like men--I seem to hear a lot more about stalkings where lesbian ex-lovers have gone nuts. This again suggests that women aren't nicer than men--it's just that their nuttiness takes different forms because they can't be as sure as physical domination of their targets as men can.
2182. DocBrown - 8/24/2000 11:23:13 AM
CalGal, you seem to believe that if women were more confrontational with "weirdos" and "wackos" there would be less stalking. Might there also be less DV?
Would you further agree that if women were quicker to pigeonhole people with negative stereotypes, and more confident in holding those stereotypes, it would be easier for them to have such confrontations?
2183. CalGal - 8/24/2000 11:29:59 AM
Doc,
I don't know if there would be less DV, since the problem with DV isn't that women are afraid of confrontation but that they are comforted by the extreme protectiveness of the abuser, like the gifts after the hitting, and so on.
And I am saying that the fact that so many women tend to be polite and nonconfrontational probably has something to do with the fact that men's wackiness can take that form. So there might be less stalking, but the wackiness would still be there and just take some other outlet.
And I don't think the negative stereotyping and confidence has a great deal to do with it. I do think fear of confrontation plays into it, though. As well as the fact that too many women have been given the notion that they are physically at risk with any man.
2184. DocBrown - 8/24/2000 11:53:39 AM
CalGal, I'd like to solicit your opinion, since you seem somewhat knowledgeable about the mental processes of abused women. Others feel free to respond, too.
I think that men, especially battering men, tend to put simplified labels on people, especially women. For example: she is weak, she makes lots of mistakes, she needs me. I believe that this comes from the male habit of objectifying women.
Suppose a DV victim was to pigeonhole her battering husband into a simple stereotype. What might that stereotype be?
He is mean? He is strong?
Or would she be unlikely to pigeonhole her batterer at all?
2185. CalGal - 8/24/2000 12:11:35 PM
I don't know if pigeonholing is the right word. Battering men don't necessarily simplify people--and a lot of them are extremely bright. It is rather that battering people (men or women) have no tolerance for any threat to their sense of self. They generally need to know that someone "loves" them in order to feel safe, and their definition of "love" is extremely simple and uncomplicated--anything that they define as threatening (and the definition gets more and more constraining, because they can never really feel safe) is a sign that their love interest doesn't return their love.
I am talking the standard batterer here--some people think that hitting a loved one once makes you a batterer.
A DV victim has, many times, an equally simple definition of an acceptable love interest--he makes me feel safe. That sense of safety is more important than all the other issues: an obsessive need to control everything she does, the violence (which as Christin points out doesn't always start right at the beginning), the insane and usually unwarranted jealousy, the rigid expectations, and so on.
On the issue of stalking, I think your notion of pigeonholing still isn't quite right, but I think that it's on the right track. Men who are wacky in this way undoubtedly become stalkers because of the general assumptions about women. If those assumptions were to change over time, men would probably find some other way to relieve their needs.
But I think in the area of DV, gender assumptions have never been the whole story, and never the root cause. That's would explain why there is so much DV in the lesbian community, and why otherwise badass feminists can tolerate an abusive spouse without seeing a contradiction.
2186. DocBrown - 8/24/2000 12:30:34 PM
Wait a sec, CalGal. Pigeonholing people is not a sign of stupidity. It is merely a sign of objectification. Of course very bright men do it, since everyone does it to some degree. I am only postulating that most men do more pigeonholing than most women, and then I am wondering if the discrepency is related to DV.
I believe I already have a cursory understanding of your theories of the overall motivations of batterers (control) and victims (some form of security). What I am trying to understand now are the roles of various mental mechanisms. Objectification happens to be the mental mechanism that is most on my mind this week.
2187. CalGal - 8/24/2000 12:53:12 PM
I disagree that more men pigeonhole than women. I also don't think that objectification and pigeonholing are synonomous.
2188. DocBrown - 8/24/2000 1:56:23 PM
I never said that more men pigeonhole than women. I actually said that everyone does it, then proposed that perhaps people who do it quickly and with conviction are acting "like men" and people who do it slowly and leave room for reconsideration are acting "like women."
I also did not say that pigeonholing and objectification were synonomous. I merely said that the former could be a sign that the latter is taking place.
These lines of thought can be directly compatible with the issues of lesbian DV. Perhaps hetero DV and lesbian DV spring from the same sources, and these sources exist to some degree in both genders. If so, I am sure that those sources are many and various. Perhaps the habit of objectification is one of those sources.
2189. ChristinO - 8/24/2000 6:31:26 PM
Doc,
It's not so much a matter of pidgeonholing as it is trusting one's instincts rather than second-guessing them. This is something that I make a conscious effort to do because in the past I had a very bad habit of making excuses for people I didn't like because it wasn't "polite" or "fair" or "kind" not to like them.
Consequently I kept a lot of really not very nice people in my life who behaved not very nicely just as I instinctively knew they would when I first encountered them before I forced myself to get over my "kneejerk judgementalism" and welcome them into my world.
In this respect I think you have a point. Women ARE socialized to "make nice" and "smooth the way" much more so than men. Because of this and the mistaken notion that women somehow are or should be "nicer", "sweeter" or "kinder" than men they are more likely to supress their first instincts if they happen to be unfavorable. It's also one of the reasons women tend to be less confrontational.
2190. CalGal - 8/24/2000 6:35:43 PM
ALong those lines--I was watching CNN while at the gym this morning, and they were asking people how they felt about the Survivor winner.
One woman said, indignantly, "Kelly should have won. She didn't get a single vote against her, in all that time."
In other words, she was the nicest.
That is just SO not the point.
2191. CalGal - 8/24/2000 6:38:54 PM
And can anyone tell I saw Friends last night--the one where everyone is mocking Chandler's speech patterns?
I can't believe I just did that.
2192. DocBrown - 8/25/2000 9:00:59 AM
That comment, though I'm sure it was witty, went over my head. I don't watch Friends. To me, Chandler is the name of a major automobile manufacturer in Cleveland that stopped production in 1926.
Women ARE socialized to "make nice" and "smooth the way" much more so than men.
Sure. If you are going to treat people nicely you had best not think of them as objects. Some of this difference is probably due to socialization, but I honestly believe that some of it comes from the "testosterone poisioning" of teenaged boys. My mother worked very hard to teach me to treat people nicely, but still I developed some objectification habits in my teen years.
2193. DocBrown - 8/25/2000 9:18:38 AM
The Friends comment was meant for CalGal. The quotation in the message above, like this one, came from ChristinO :
We've been told that this is harder to do for women than for men----that men can and do regularly engage in sex with women they don't like or desire in any other respect except physical attractiveness, but I often wonder just how true this is. I imagine it's much more common among teens and twenty somethings than more mature men . . .
I believe that this is right on the money. No matter how a human is socialized, he or she can always be drawn by physical attractiveness. In the absence of a couter force (good marriage, religious belief, etc.) there is really nothing to stop a man from giving in to these temptations.
Actually, there is an internal counter force, but it seems to be stronger in women than it is in men. That force is related to a concern for others as people rather than objects.
I believe that the stronger your concern for other as individuals, the more vulnerable you will be. If you have the ability to objectify the people around you, you will be much less vulnerable. Several of the Mote women have expressed their ability to do this when necessary, and I applaud them.
2194. ChristinO - 8/25/2000 3:09:19 PM
Doc,
You're leaning toward the idea that women are somehow inherently nicer than men and I don't think that's the issue at all. We are physically more vulnerable---not only to assault but also to STDs and the dreaded Baby Virus (that's pregnancy, btw)----and that makes us more cautious but not necessarily nicer.
If women were inherently "nicer" we wouldn't have the vast relaxation of sexual mores that we've seen in recent years. Sex in the City would've died on the negotiations table.
There's still a lingering attitude of "Nice girls don't", but a woman is no longer considered a slut if she has premarital sex. It has nothing to do with being "nice" it has only to do with what is socially accepted behavior.
2195. DocBrown - 8/25/2000 4:30:38 PM
ChristinO, I did not mean to imply that at all. I was trying to discuss characteristics and behaviors that are much more specific than "niceness." I also do not believe that objectification deserves a negative connotation.
What society thinks will be important in determining a woman's actions, certainly. But internal motivations also play a part.
Some mechanisms in the brain make males much less selective of their sex partners than females. This is true across the animal kingdom, and has a favorable effect on evolution. What are these mechanisms?
Perhaps objectification is one of them. I do not know for certain.
But I do know that there is no point in simply lumping them together and calling them "niceness." That is not specific enough to draw useful conclusions, so I will avoid doing it.
Men and women might understand each other much better if we knew exactly what these mechanisms are and how they work.
2196. rubberducky - 8/25/2000 4:45:36 PM
Some mechanisms in the brain make males much less selective of their sex partners than females.
Pish. the "mechanism" is between the legs and has nothing to do with the brain.
2197. ChristinO - 8/25/2000 5:21:41 PM
Doc,
Oh, okay, I misunderstood you. (imagine that!)
This is ground we've covered before to a great degree. One of the most popular theories currently is that because females can reproduce only once a year while males can reproduce as many times as they can get one off it affects how they choose sex partners.
It certainly makes sense that if one has a virtually unlimited capacity for passing on one's genes the optimum mating strategy is to sow as much seed as possible. Alternately if one has a severely limited capacity for passing on one's genes the optimum strategy is to be very very choosy about the choice of sex partners.
2198. Jenerator - 8/25/2000 5:43:09 PM
All this talk about domestic violence makes me want to have Ace fix me a pot pie.
2199. DocBrown - 8/26/2000 1:33:27 PM
This is ground we've covered before to a great degree. One of the most popular theories currently is that because females can reproduce only once a year while males can reproduce as many times as they can get one off it affects how they choose sex partners.
We have covered that ground before, and obviously this makes perfect sense to me. It makes sense to most people. But the reason for men and women to have different reproductive strategies is not the topic right now. The critical question is: how do those strategies manifest themselves?
Suppose (hypothetically) I am seduced by an attractive bimbo who I will never marry. Do you believe that I am thinking to myself "Hot dog! Another chance to pass on my genes!"
Of course not. I am really thinking something like "Oh boy, I sure would love to get a piece of that yummy lollipop!" I think of her as an object.
Now suppose a creepy weirdo starts hitting on you. You confront him and frighten him away. Are you thinking: "I can only reproduce once per year, so I must avoid being impregnated by this person." ?
I doubt it. I would guess that you are thinking something like: "This is an umpleasant person. He makes me uncomfortable. Unless I get away from him I will become more uncomfortable." Feel free to express it better.
2200. DocBrown - 8/26/2000 1:33:39 PM
Some women do not avoid weirdos. Some are even attracted to them. If we want to explore why these women are attracted to weirdos, we can look at it in two ways.
The first is to think about cause and effect. Why does she like weirdos? What made her that way? This is the way we have been looking at it so far.
The second way we have not discussed. How is she attracted to weirdos? That is, what is going through her mind when she is attracted to a weirdo? What thoughts and feelings does she experience?
I doubt she is consciously thinking "I have unresolved issues with my father, so I will date lots of creepy scumbags!" or "I am desperate for the love of a man who will never love me back!"
But if not that, then what? What is she thinking?
2201. CalGal - 8/26/2000 5:48:52 PM
What Happened to the Women's Web?
2202. PelleNilsson - 8/26/2000 6:15:51 PM
Aren't some men attracted to 'weirdos'? To make tnis into an exclusively female problem smacks of bias.
2203. sincerity454 - 8/26/2000 6:30:19 PM
Define "weirdo", and how does it follow that because a woman loves a "weirdo", that "weirdo" won't love her back? Weirdos feel love, too. ;)
2204. Indiana Jones - 8/26/2000 10:14:24 PM
Hey, Doc: You've been a pretty regular contributor to this thread...
How'd you feel about hosting it?
2205. DocBrown - 8/29/2000 9:43:26 AM
Indy, you don't want to host anymore? Why not?
2206. DocBrown - 8/29/2000 10:25:21 AM
PelleNilsson is right. Some men do like creepy "weirdo" women.
I am sure there are many reasons for this, but the only one with which I can identify is the same one that attracts men to bimbos. If the sex is plentiful, then the attraction will be strong.
Sincerity is right. We need a better term than weirdo. How about "frightening or scary man/woman?" I believe that when ChristinO introduced the term weirdo in 2173, she meant people who instill uneasiness by their appearance and mannerisms without actually assaulting you.
If I understood reasons for men to be attracted to scary women other then plentiful sex, I would probably not need to ask the question "What is a woman thinking when she is attracted to a scary man?"
2207. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2000 11:26:51 AM
Doc: I'm fine with hosting, but I like to see regulars "get a stake in the community." Sooner or later, old hands burn out and if "new talent" hasn't been developed, the place will wither.
2208. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2000 11:27:47 AM
Doc: Of course you may have been around longer than I, and if so, mea culpa.
2209. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2000 1:18:28 PM
Improper dinner conversation
There's always been a notion of excessive female sexuality. In fact, the Greek term was "uterine fury." Women were generally thought to be as lusty as men up until the middle of the 18th century. Then comes the notion that women's sexuality is less than men's, a belief solidified by the middle class. Then nymphomania takes on much greater power.
2210. theDiva - 8/29/2000 1:19:35 PM
Uterine fury! I LOVE it!
2211. theDiva - 8/29/2000 1:19:50 PM
I think I may have to change my handle.
2212. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2000 1:44:26 PM
Hahaha!
2213. ChristinO - 8/29/2000 3:31:09 PM
Doc,
I think we need to specify some things. Are we discussing how people choose temporary partners or long term mates? There can be some significant differences. Also we do need a better term than "weirdo" since everyone is going to differ a bit in that definition.
Weirdo has a spectrum of definitions from geek to psychopath and all flavors in between so it isn't very specific.
Both men and women can be attracted to abusive partners and it really has very little to do with sex or physical attractiveness. Don't you know or haven't you met men who become obsessed with domineering often abusive women from whom they get little or no sex? Are these women always bombshells? Not in my experience. I've known plenty of guys who get hooked up with bitchy, demanding ugly chicks. It's not about sex it's about power and who wields it in the way that scratches your own personal psychical itches.
As cliched as it sounds we still don't have any better explanation than that people who choose abusive partners are still trying to work out unresolved issues with their opposite sex parent. Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it isn't valid. Women who had emotionally unavailable fathers may choose emotionally unavailable partners always seeking to win that affection that was denied to them as children. Men with emotionally unavailable mothers often choose women who will treat them the same way because it's what they know. It is comforting even though it's a miserable existence.
2214. DocBrown - 8/29/2000 3:54:45 PM
ChristinO, you said:
Are we discussing how people choose temporary partners or long term mates?
We can discuss whatever you like. I am interested in discussing the attraction to temporary partners as well as long term mates. I am also interested in what repells us from certain perople as tempory partners and long term mates. All of these issues include abusive relationships.
As cliched as it sounds we still don't have any better explanation than that people who choose abusive partners are still trying to work out unresolved issues with their opposite sex parent.
I agree completely. Still, that is an answer I could think of myself. Perhaps the unanswered questions that intrigue me might only be answered by someone who has experienced an abusive relationship, or a psychologist. Please do not infer that I expect you or anyone here to necessarily know the answers.
Women who had emotionally unavailable fathers may choose emotionally unavailable partners always seeking to win that affection that was denied to them as children.
What does it feel like to yearn for that affection? When a woman chooses that type of relationship, what conscious thoughts are going through her mind?
Men with emotionally unavailable mothers often choose women who will treat them the same way because it's what they know. It is comforting even though it's a miserable existence.
What does that comfort feel like? I would like to know. Maybe it is worth the misery.
I wonder if there is a good book out there that I could read to get inside the head of someone like this. It could be fiction or non-fiction.
2215. DocBrown - 8/29/2000 3:56:57 PM
Indy, I think I came to The Fray about five years ago. I have always used the same handle, and I have hosted before. Do you remember the "Liberal Arts Education" thread?
2216. Indiana Jones - 8/29/2000 4:13:36 PM
Doc: You're a dinosaur compared with me, a post-Fraygrant. I thought you were an oldie from some of the comments others have made, but I didn't know that old.
2217. ChristinO - 8/29/2000 5:59:43 PM
Doc,
"What conscious thoughts are going through her mind"
"Wow! This man excites me. I really like him. I want him to like me back. What can I do to get him to return my affection?" --IOW the same as with any healthy attraction.
The problem is that he is NEVER going to return her affections which is why she picked him in the first place. If he returned her affections he wouldn't have fit the spec. It's a no-win situation from the beginning. Eventually the "hope" dies and the woman either wises up or moves on to the next man who fits the specifications so that she can continue the pattern.
It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to recognize the underlying reasons behind why we're attracted to the people we're attracted to. Some people never figure it out and often even those who DO figure it out don't manage to step out of the cycle.
As for finding comfort in abusive relationships the only explanation I have is that humans have a tendency to choose the devil they know. Change makes people feel vulnerable and insecure. Sure, you may be miserable but at least you know what to expect and have a system of how to respond.
2218. sincerity454 - 8/29/2000 9:44:00 PM
You guys are grossly oversimplifying the dynamics in an abusive relationship.
First of all, the abuser usually chooses the abusee, not the other way around. As a former battered wife, I can tell you that it is impossible for most normal people to understand how these guys operate. They just sorta take over your life. I didn't like him or want anything to do with him at first, and I certainly didn't enjoy the abuse. He just gradually took over my life in stages - I was young and naive and oversheltered, so I didn't really understand what was going on, and he was relentless in his pursuit. He was an expert manipulator, and he managed, over a period of time, to convince me that he loved me and that I was his potential savior - that he was just a misunderstood unfortunate who needed the love of a good woman. I believed that lie for awhile, and I don't think it had a damn thing to do with my father.
2219. CalGal - 8/29/2000 9:56:02 PM
Well, actually, I'm a former battered wife, too. Not that I think experience counts for much, but if we're gonna do quals, then have at it.
Your description pretty much ties into what both Christin and I were talking about, actually.
2220. CalGal - 8/29/2000 9:59:05 PM
But in any event, I'm not sure that battered people are qualified to self-report about the whys and wherefores. And I include myself in that assessment. To the extent that I understand it (and I'm a different profile from most), my history agrees with the theory I espouse. But it's not the other way around.
2221. joezan - 8/29/2000 10:33:10 PM
Sincerity:
Victims of DV are just as relentless in their pursuit of someone to batter them as the batterer is in pursuit of a victim.
The only difference is that the victim has no idea that that is what she is looking for.
2222. CalGal - 8/29/2000 10:38:51 PM
Joe,
Qualified agreement. I think instead that DV victims are driven by needs that makes them tolerate the battering. Batterers are odd in a number of ways, and would send any normal person running and screaming.
2223. CalGal - 8/29/2000 10:39:09 PM
....long before the batterer started hitting, I mean.
2224. joezan - 8/29/2000 10:41:49 PM
Yep.
2225. DocBrown - 8/30/2000 10:17:37 AM
ChristinO said:
"Wow! This man excites me. I really like him . .. " [SNIP]
The problem is that he is NEVER going to return her affections which is why she picked him in the first place. If he returned her affections he wouldn't have fit the spec. It's a no-win situation from the beginning.
So the woman finds the man exciting, yet the very attribute that excites her also dooms her to misery in the relationship?
Let me throw out a hypothetical thought experiment. Everyone is free to respond. Imagine building a world in which all of the men will be given electroshock or other brainwashing. When we wake up tomorrow, it will be impossible for any man to commit DV. The women remain exactly as they are today.
In your opinion, what would life be like for the women who currently suffer under DV?
Would they be even more miserable than they are, since they could not find the abuse they need?
Or would they quickly learn to deal with a non-abusive relationship, and discover that they are happier?
Middle ground is allowed.
2226. ChristinO - 8/30/2000 2:59:17 PM
Doc,
It's impossible to say. It isn't an either/or kind of thing really. For every individual it's going to vary depending on what one needs or values more.
For instance: I quit smoking about nearly a year ago. I'm gratified by my improved lung capacity, the lessening of health risks and the lifting of social stigmatization. On the other hand I'm extremely resentful of the fact that I had to quit because I really REALLY enjoyed smoking. Am I miserable as a non-smoker? Well, actually to a certain extent I am. I still wish I could smoke. It makes me angry that I can't. On the other hand I feel physically better by not smoking. It's a trade off. I may ALWAYS wish I could smoke (gawd I hope not), but it was more important to me to take steps toward improving my health.
Other people who quit have different reactions. I know people who quit who are fanatical about how much they loathed smoking, how superior they are now having quit and on and on and on. I wonder sometimes if isn't not a case of protesting too much, but I've only got their word to go on. So some people quit smoking and don't miss it, actually have resentment toward the years when they did smoke and hostitlity for the industry that "sucked them in" and "turned them into addicts".
So, to answer your question, all people who cease to be physically abused would receive a benefit and therefore a decrease in misery, but if that abuse was satisfying another need that they had their misery might increase in that department.
It's not enough to stop just the battery. You have to address the psychology of those who expect or endorse battery as well. It's a symbiotic relationship.
2227. sincerity454 - 8/30/2000 8:49:43 PM
joezan -
I just love it when people make simplistic statements like that - a battered woman is battered because she wants it - not only does she want it, she pursues it. Right. That's exactly why I risked life and limb, literally, to get rid of my batterer. I was stalked and terrorized for years after leaving him instead of returning to him because I wanted to be beaten -you're exactly right. That's also why I have shown every man I've been involved with since the door if he so much as speaks to me too harshly the door - because I love the abuse.
Whatever.
2228. marshame - 8/30/2000 9:38:08 PM
Back to Doc Brown's subject of what repels us...
When I was about 30, I had this mental check list for the ideal man. Being fairly fresh from a divorce, I knew what I did NOT want in a man, so I tried to think of what really mattered to me. He would have at least as much education as me, make more money than me, share the same values, be athletic, be kind to children and animals, etc. etc. etc.
Lo and behold, I meet this guy who fits the bill perfectly. BUT......
............ he opened his eyes a little too wide sometimes. And he wore his belt about an inch too low. And when he laughed, he would go "heh heh heh". All that, plus his name was (are you ready) Bim. Actually, Bim was the awful knickname for an even awfuller name like Buford or Buckwheat or something. Anyhow, even thogh he "fit the bill" and he was generous and kind and liked my daughter, etc. etc. etc. I simply could not force myself to fall for him.
2229. sincerity454 - 8/30/2000 10:02:06 PM
marshame -
Ha! I'm just picturing this guy going, "Hey, baybuh, mah name is Buckwheat - "Bim" for short - heh,heh,heh!"
2230. joezan - 8/31/2000 7:08:34 AM
Sincerity:
...I just love it when people make simplistic statements like that - a battered woman is battered because she wants it...
You missed my point. Which is not really my point at all, but a universally recognized fact - victims of spousal abuse are usually drawn to the type of person who would batter them and, consequently, many times end up in a series of battering relationships. (Ironically, this is what causes many of them to believe that "it must be my fault".
Of course they don't want to be battered. But for whatever reason - low self esteem, etc. -they are drawn to partners who are very controlling. And such people tend toward violence when they see no other way of controlling a situation.
...and welcome to The Mote, btw.
2231. DocBrown - 8/31/2000 12:39:06 PM
sincerity, it sounds like your problem man was both a batterer and a stalker. Is this common?
As far as I know, stalking and battering are seperate behaviors. Are they related?
(I realize that both are unhealthy habots. The question is, is it common for stalkers to be batterers, and vice versa?)
I also wonder if this is a tangent that will limit interest in the thread. I have always assumed that DV was very rare. My conversations about DV were like my conversations about being struck by lightning. Was I wrong? Can anyone supply statistics about the frequency and prevalence of DV?
2232. ChristinO - 8/31/2000 2:56:38 PM
Doc,
Stalking and battery are most definitely related. Both have to do with control.
And yes DV is much more common than being truck by lightning. I'll see what I can find statistic wise.
2233. CalGal - 8/31/2000 3:17:22 PM
There is a subgroup of batterers that become stalkers. Not all of them do, by any means.
The problem with almost all DV stats is that they mix and match.
True DV is probably about 2% of the stats used.
2234. ChristinO - 8/31/2000 3:20:15 PM
How do you define true DV as opposed to something else?
2235. CalGal - 8/31/2000 3:24:12 PM
Well, true battering then. Not all DV is battering, if you like. But if you're going to use them as synonymous, then you can't count a one-time incident in which the wife ended up in the hospital and the husband ended up in jail to be DV.
2236. ChristinO - 8/31/2000 3:28:06 PM
Okay, that makes sense to me. I just wasn't sure how you were defining it.
2237. CalGal - 8/31/2000 3:32:10 PM
For example, the fact that umpty ump women end up in the hospital because an SO hit them. All the DV and other feminist organizations spout this constantly.
That proves nothing one way or the other. Much violence is one-time--either a true overreaction or the woman up and left right after. On the other hand, plenty of battering victims never get anywhere near a hospital until they're dead. Others are never in danger of their life, but they are certainly battered. And so on.
The stats generally cited are usually useless. But I have Dutton's book at home, and I think he talked about a study that at least weaned the hospital number down to repeat offenders.
2238. Fraaankster - 8/31/2000 3:35:37 PM
Hey!
Guys!
(When are you finally leaving for lunch, Frank, he asks ? )
I just wanted to share something that happened to moi the other day. I've been nursing a sore throat for a week or so, and I inadvertently fell asleep one night with a menthol cough drop firmly in cheek. The next morning (yesterday), I awoke to find the left side of my lower left cheek swollen -- as if I had been in a fight sans the bruise.
Why do I bring it up ? Well, if any of you are having second thoughts about an upcoming date, then what better way to ease out of it without hurting anyone ? You can simply say that you didn't deem it worth mentioning when you first met and agreed to the date. Telling her that no doctor has been able to put their finger on it as to what causes it, particularly when it affects your nose, will certainly be the clincher and key to your freedom once more.
The only downside to all this is having to walk around with a swollen face all day.
Of course, you can make this swollen trick work for you also, by claiming that this condition affects other members of your body, particularly when you are aroused in some way.;-)
Okay, that's it.I have so much to do today !
(The first part is true, by the way)
2239. DocBrown - 8/31/2000 3:56:03 PM
CalGal, while you are statistic hunting, this discussion might benefit from some data about abuse. I presume, of course, that it is possible to abuse someone without battering them. I would imagine that children are most often the victim of non-battering abuse, but I am not sure.
Going a step further, I bet that physical, non-battering abuse is a subject unto itself. This might include forced manual labor, pornography, or other abuses beyond my imagination. Another type pf non-battering abuse would be psychological in nature.
I wonder how the mix shakes out?
2240. DocBrown - 8/31/2000 3:57:48 PM
Look like my fingers were faster than my brain . . . both CalGal and ChristinO said they would dig up statistics.
2241. CalGal - 8/31/2000 4:01:17 PM
I presume, of course, that it is possible to abuse someone without battering them.
Regular physical abuse inflicted in a one-sided fashion on an equal who tolerates it is a fairly accurate definition of "battering".
I would imagine that children are most often the victim of non-battering abuse, but I am not sure.
Very true. Part of the problem here is that we have a very wide tolerance of "abuse" that we call "discipline". So it's difficult to assess the levels of all but the most severe child abuse.
However, severe child abuse isn't usually called battering, because it isn't peer to peer.
Psychological abuse, aka emotional abuse, comes hand in hand with most (but not all) physical or sexual abuse. It can also be dished out all on its own, without any accompanying physical or sexual abuse. Some psychological abuse can be incredibly severe.
2242. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 9:27:53 PM
joezan -
Thanks for the welcome and glad to be here.
Which is not really my point at all, but a universally recognized fact - victims of spousal abuse are usually drawn to the type of person who would batter them and, consequently, many times end up in a series of battering relationships.
This may be true of SOME battered women, but it certainly isn't true of all of them, nor is it a "universally recognized fact".
Ironically, this is what causes many of them to believe that "it must be my fault".
It's more complicated than that. The low self-esteem is really enforced by the relationship itself. There's a so-called "batterer syndrome" that is based on a study of battering males, and there is definitely a pattern to the way these guys operate. They do everything in their power to make their mates feel powerless and in fact to BE powerless. They not only beat them, they psychologically brainwash them over a period of time with a constant barrage of verbal abuse. There are lots of other factors that researchers have found to be common, such as the way batterers attempt to isolate their victims socially and physically - they will do anything to increase their control over them. Whether it's causing problems with the victim's family and friends or disabling their vehicle so the the victim can't get away, they'll do it. There's an overwhelming sense of helplessness that the victim goes through because of the constant fear and emotional trauma which can be virtually disabling.
2243. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 9:43:53 PM
Doc -
First of all, what do you guys mean by "DV"? I feel like an idiot asking, but blamed if I can figure it out.
Also, this is certainly not my favorite topic, so anytime you guys want to change the subject, cool with me.
As for your question, batterers often become stalkers when their wife or girlfriend attempts to leave the relationship. It's extremely common.
Damn my rotten memory, there is a guy who was with the FBI for years and years, I believe his last name is Douglas, and he is one of the men who created the method used for profiling serial killers. He has written quite a few books because he worked on some of the most famous serial murders of all times -anyway, one of his most recent books is on stalking, and it is excellent. You would know that I have the thing boxed in the attic - I believe it's called Stalked.
to be continued...
2244. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 9:44:08 PM
According to the statistics he cites, the vast majority of stalking cases involve ex-husbands and boyfriends. This is one of the primary yet least often recognized reasons women stay with men like that, but it doesn't make much sense to someone who hasn't been through it. But take it to the bank, honey, I knew in my heart that no matter how bad things got while I was with the guy, they would get much, much worse if I tried to get rid of him. The fear involved in that is a really powerful factor. And guess what - I was right. He made my life and the lives of everyone in my family hell on earth for years. He hunted me down, threatened my life repeatedly, kidnapped my kids - I moved over and over again and finally ended up relocating out of state before I finally lost him. Even then he continued to send threatening letters to me through my parents. Thank God my parents lived half-way across the country and I didn't have to worry about him getting to them. I was a social worker for years and I talked to countless battered women whose families lived in the same towns, and they couldn't even go visit them without endangering their lives. I spoke with one woman whose elderly father was attacked and nearly beaten to death by her ex. These men are absolute animals, make no mistake about it. Most people are lucky enough to go through their entire lives without ever encountering these monsters, so they just don't get what these women are up against. And in my case, like I said, from the instant he met me, he was like a lamprey. When I spurned his advances, it just made him that much more determined to bring me down - he admitted that to me years and years later.
2245. Indiana Jones - 8/31/2000 9:44:16 PM
Re-virgination
"These women are horrified and have told us they can be killed," said Dr. David Matlock of New York's Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation Center, a clinic that offers the procedure. It costs $2,000, and restores the appearance of the vagina so that neither the groom nor the examining gynecologist can tell the difference.
2246. CalGal - 8/31/2000 9:49:31 PM
DV stands for domestic violence.
I know about the studies on how batterers operate, but the studies presume two things: 1) that the batterer chooses to be this way and 2) that the woman is utterly normal and just falls into their clutches.
Both of these are faulty assumptions, IMO.
2247. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 10:01:42 PM
Cal-gal -
The studies I read didn't seem to make any presumption that the women who are involved in these relationships are completely normal. Are you implying that the batterers can't help themselves when you say "the studies imply the batterers want to be this way?"
2248. CalGal - 8/31/2000 10:05:07 PM
Oh, yes. I think batterers are basically broken people. And not particularly fixable, either. Although I think we could do more than we're doing.
That's why I think societal awareness should focus on the battering victim--who has problems that make the batterer seem attractive, but is eminently reachable and fixable. But we tend to excuse them, rather than expect them to accept responsibility. Not for the battering, but for staying.
2249. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 10:13:14 PM
Well, lots of women don't have a hell of a lot of options, Cal-gal. They can't go home because of reasons I cited above, they have little or no job skills and are financially dependent on their spouses, and God knows society doesn't provide them with a heck of a lot of resources. They can pretty much go on welfare or go back - combine that with a man who wont' leave them alone anyway and makes their lives more hellish when they're away from him than when they're with him, and you've got pretty compelling reasons not to blame the victim because she stays with him.
I lived in a battered women's shelter for a month and let me tell you, those women didn't have a single blessed thing going for them. None of them had any job skills or experience or education - not one of them. I was the only woman in the house with a college education and work experience, and even then, getting back on my feet was hell on earth. I was lucky - I had parents with the means and desire to help me and my kids, and even with my advantages, things were indescribably rough for us.
It really makes me ill to hear people blame the women in battering situations for staying, and to hear people come up with such easy explanations for the woman's involvement that always, remarkably enough, tend to exculpate the batterer.
2250. CalGal - 8/31/2000 10:25:57 PM
Sincerity, any woman who stays in a dangerous situation rather than save her own life is distorting reality in a big way. In this country, anyway.
Besides, if it were only about money, then it would only be poor women who didn't leave. Not true. Although more battering is reported in lower incomes (and there are a couple possible reasons for that), it does cut across all income levels. Rich women and poor women profile identically.
And before you retort that the batterer has cut off their funding, stop and think: what "normal" woman would allow that to happen? What normal woman would allow someone to cut off their access to everyone?
Finally, while it is dramatic to talk about the extreme cases, the fact is that many women tolerate far less severe violence that is not life threaatening and their batterer wouldn't kill them and they aren't broke--but they stay anyway.
It's not about excusing the batterers.
2251. sincerity454 - 8/31/2000 10:38:07 PM
Well, when you say things like this -
Oh, yes. I think batterers are basically broken people.
and
That's why I think societal awareness should focus on the battering victim--who has problems that make the batterer seem attractive, but is eminently reachable and fixable.
Well, these statements certainly come across as sympathetic toward the batterer.
You can't assume that all battered women have "allowed" their husbands to cut off their funding or whatever else they've done to them - I don't think most women expect their husbands to take the drastic measures they take to keep them under their thumbs until it has actually happened.
I'm not saying that women who get involved in these relationships don't have any problems, but to say that they seek that type of relationship out or stay because they enjoy it or want it is really misinformed and a grossly unfair way to view it. To say the women in these relationships make the batterer "look attractive", as you just did, is just downright baffling, especially coming from a woman.
2252. joezan - 9/1/2000 7:10:53 AM
Sincerity:
I think you're engaging in some selective reading -both in the studies you've been citing and in some of the posts you're replying to here. If that helps you to better deal with what you've been through, fine.
But it doesn't change the facts.
Because every study I've ever seen on DV cites the tendencies I mentioned earlier as darn near universal. In fact, they are trite - givens in any discussion of DV I've seen or been involved in.
2253. DocBrown - 9/1/2000 9:24:12 AM
So, Sincerity, do you have a theory of where batterers originate?
Does a batterer start out as a perfectly normal Prince Charming, kind to children and puppies, every mother's dream son-in-law, then as soon as he gets married he mutates into a monster for no reason?
This hole in your reasoning confuses me. I remember being 22 years old. My circle of friends was a bunch of nerdy Prince Charmings who wouldn't hurt a fly, got lots of encouragement from prospective inlaws, yet we seldom got dates. It appeared to me that the whole world was a sea of nice men, but the 19-22 year old women were not the least bit interested in us. Today we are all married, and not one of us has turned into a monster.
From my perspective, the problem is that women go through a phase when they are not attracted to nice guys.
2254. sincerity454 - 9/1/2000 7:17:53 PM
Tell you what - I can see you guys are experts on this issue, so what's the point in discussing it with you any longer? You've obviously got me "beaten" (har), what with the holes in my reasoning and your universal truths, which I suppose must be as irrefutable as the law of gravity, so I'll just bow out of the discussion at this point and you carry on. I prefer to talk about more pleasant subjects.
2255. stostosto - 9/1/2000 7:34:03 PM
sincerity
I, for one, don't get that "focus on the victim" line. And I can't understand how your personal experience can be so easily dismissed. Without having given this much thought, let alone studied it, it seems to me a man can appear nice and civil for a long time in a relationship, then snap at some point down the road. He is then liable to be sorry afterwards, hate himself for it, beg for forgiveness, sincerely promise never, never, ever to do it again --- and be given a second chance.
I wouldn't think a woman who entered such a relationship necessarily had it coming, or sought it out in some unconscious way. She'd just be fooled, pure and simple. That is, she would be a victim - with no qualifications. You know, as in "bad luck".
There may be patterns such as those that have been laid out here in a lot of cases, but that doesn't rule out the existence of a lot of other and very different cases.
2256. CalGal - 9/3/2000 10:04:33 AM
Sincerity,
I didn't think that I dismissed you, and I'm not sure what got you upset.
It is not excusing batterers to say that they are fundamentally broken people. You need to start with that. I think you should look at the two quotes of mine again and ask yourself where there is any attempt to excuse their behavior.
I'm not sure what my being a woman has to do with it. In the first place, if you are implying that my sympathies can only be with women, female batterers are increasing in the population--it's not like only men can be batterers. (see earlier posts as to why I think this is actually a good thing.) In the second place, the goal is to minimize the amount of DV victims in society. If the answer is to change societal perceptions to ensure that the victims understand their part in it and move out sooner, then isn't it better and more pro-women to espouse that theory?
Of course, then we have "in the third place", which is that I see no reason to form my opinions based on my gender.
I hope you come back to the discussion. But for starters, it does help to realize that the interpretation of DV you support is just that: an interpretation. There are a number of ones out there, and it isn't heresy to suggest another.
2257. CalGal - 9/3/2000 10:09:42 AM
Sto,
Come now. We dismiss "personal experience" all the time. We just call it anecdotal experience when we do so.
But if we are to assume that personal experience is relevant, then remember that I have that experience, too. This demonstrates that not all personal experience leads one to the same conclusion, so at that point what value does personal experience have as a tie-breaker? I've always believed that personal experience can be used to illustrate, but not to prove. Although personal experience is different from expertise.
There may be patterns such as those that have been laid out here in a lot of cases, but that doesn't rule out the existence of a lot of other and very different cases.
Well, you can either assume that every single case of DV is unique and different--in which case, what is the point of trying to come up with a societal response at all?
Or you can realize--as most DV experts do--that the patterns of DV are extremely identifiable, and the profiles are limited to three, maybe four. Where the difference starts is in how these patterns and profiles are interpreted.
2258. CalGal - 9/3/2000 10:25:14 AM
Sincerity,
To say the women in these relationships make the batterer "look attractive", as you just did, is just downright baffling, especially coming from a woman.
No, no. You misunderstand. (I just saw this). The victims in these relationships have issues that cause the batterers to look attractive to them. But notwithstanding these issues, they are far more reachable than the batterer.
2259. CalGal - 9/3/2000 10:26:24 AM
Sto,
I wouldn't think a woman who entered such a relationship necessarily had it coming, or sought it out in some unconscious way.
There is a big difference between "had it coming" and "sought it out". There is also a big difference between saying that she "sought it out" and realizing that the very attributes of a batterer that drew her in are things that would cause any normal person to run screaming. Not the hitting--the obsessive jealousy, the over-attentiveness, the preoccupation with their social life, the need to wrap up every moment of the victim's time, and so on.
When a "normal" woman is faced with a guy who is flipping out over the fact that she had lunch with another man in a work setting, she says, "Get the fuck out of here". But a victim is horrified that she has made her man upset, and vows not to fuss him again. She'll try and try to make him understand that there was nothing sexual in the lunch, but after a while, given his upset and her feelings of responsibility for it, she'll stop having lunch with men. Then, of course, he'll get worried about her lunches with women. Is it really a woman? How does he know for sure? And what is she talking about in those lunches? She's bitching about him, isn't she? And the friend--she's telling her how much better things will be if she leaves him, and then she can go fuck the guy that she used to have lunch with!.
And finally, wearily, tired of the fussing, she stops having lunch with her female friends, too. Or figures out how to lie about it--knowing that if she gets caught lying (about having lunch with a friend, no less) that the shit will pour on again. Of course, then he'll have a reason for doubting her word, so from then on he can accuse her of having lunch with men with impunity. After all, she's lied before, hasn't she?
All of this can happen for many years before the hitting starts.
2260. CalGal - 9/3/2000 10:27:32 AM
Now, the "feminist" interpretation of DV assumes that the scenario described here can be experienced by any normal woman. A normal woman, after all, is conditioned to please her man. But you know what? That's bullshit. "Normal" women have left long before, realizing that there is something distinctly screwy about this guy. The ones who are left have some inner need that is reassured by some attribute of the batterer that has nothing to do with hitting.
2261. PsychProf - 9/3/2000 12:34:29 PM
Cal and 454 ...the debate here is a classic "dispositional" vs "situational" explanation of behavior...i.e., "inner need" vs "social(economic/societal) control"...both causal determinants are probably predictive some of the time, but which is more useful as a rubric? Certainly worthy of discussion...I wonder how one's political foundations influence the selection of causal factor...I see good points on both sides, but the battered women I have worked with have been mostly economically deprived cases of nowhere to run...but this is select, since the agency of referral was for such individuals. No CEOs here(for my experience)...in any case, my first approach to such a problem would be to recommend immediate solution, not therapy.
2262. CalGal - 9/3/2000 1:21:32 PM
PP,
This "dispositional" vs. "situational" issue comes up a lot, doesn't it? It's also a key component of the gun control debate.
As for a woman (or man) who is in a battering relationship--I completely agree that the immediate solution (ie., getting out) is the correct approach. But then, that is my point. In battering relationships, that is the only solution. What I was addresssing--or trying to--is the societal perception of battering and how our reactions can shape the context in which battering victims make decisions.
2263. stostosto - 9/4/2000 12:02:08 PM
Cal,
thanks for your answers, I understand your position much better now.
What surprised me was that joezan could confidently state things like:
"Victims of DV are just as relentless in their pursuit of someone to batter them as the batterer is in pursuit of a victim.
The only difference is that the victim has no idea that that is what she is looking for."
In the face of a woman who obviously doesn't think she has been "relentless in [her] pursuit of someone to batter [her]..", yet in fact has been battered.
I don't know. I must have a Prince Valiant complex or something.
2264. CalGal - 9/4/2000 12:15:02 PM
Well, I disagree with Joe a bit in that I don't think a batterer goes around saying "Must find someone to hit" any more than a battering victim goes around saying "Must find someone to hit me".
But they both want a relationship that will make them feel emotionally safe, I think.
2265. CalGal - 9/4/2000 12:15:50 PM
In the face of a woman who obviously doesn't think she has been "relentless in [her] pursuit of someone to batter [her]..", yet in fact has been battered.
Yes, but--with all due respect to Sincerity--her self-reporting isn't necessarily accurate.
2266. arkymalarky - 9/4/2000 12:24:13 PM
I think the stalking element changes how an individual woman might deal with battery. I've never been battered or stalked, so I can't speak from experience, thank goodness.
2267. stostosto - 9/4/2000 12:29:02 PM
Well, I am not going to question people's self-reporting. I can't speculate on their motives for saying what they say. If they misrepresent themselves, well, that's their choice. I respond to what I see at face value, perhaps naïvely. Perhaps you and joezan and PP have sufficient psychological insight and experience to see through smoke screens on this issue, I wouldn't exclude that possibility at all. But I certainly haven't and sincerity sounds, well, sincere to me.
2268. CalGal - 9/4/2000 12:30:52 PM
Good heavens. Of course she is sincere.
But if you asked a batterer why he or she hit his spouse and the answer was, "Because dinner was late"--do you believe that?
2269. CalGal - 9/4/2000 12:35:18 PM
Arky, there is stalking and there is unimaginable possessiveness and jealousy. All batterers display the latter. But most of them, once their partner leaves, don't disintegrate into stalkers. Some of them do. They usually weren't stalking before that point. (again, I'm speaking generally).
BTW, a lot of spouses that aren't batterers display a rather alarming tendency towards stalking when their partner starts talking of divorce.
2270. PsychProf - 9/4/2000 2:08:35 PM
Sto...you will note that I refrained from stating my opine on the "pychological insight" continuum...my experience, other than degree and practice, does not qualify me as an expert. Consensus among colleagues that I respect differs, although most agree that interpretations emphasizing psychological dynamics are not parsimonious and relatively useless in the short term. ANY intense emotional relationship probably contains elements of personal and interactive dysfunction...God forbid any of us have our psyches scratched with vigor.
2271. CalGal - 9/4/2000 2:13:07 PM
ANY intense emotional relationship probably contains elements of personal and interactive dysfunction.
Well, that's certainly a given. That has nothing to do with this particular issue, though.
Besides, the "psychological" theory of DV has nothing to do with "emphasizing psychological dynamics". That's a different theory altogether--and not usually applied to battering relationships, but rather chaotic and battling relationships.
2272. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 12:51:56 PM
I believe that I am the one responsible for frightening sincerity away from this thread. For that I apologize.
I would still be interested in comments about my conclusion, which might be vulnerable to criticism for a number of things:
From my perspective, the problem is that women go through a phase when they are not attracted to nice guys.
As I said before, I am less interested in the underlying cause of battery than I am the conscious thought processes of batterers and victims.
2273. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:15:56 PM
For Doc...
THE EVOLUTION
OF DESIRE
DAVID
BUSS
What do women want?
Resources and commitment.
1. Economic capacity (Richer
women like even richer men.)
2. Social status (That’s why all those
senators are always featured in lurid
headlines.)
3. Age (Actually, on average women
only want a man about 3 years older.)
4. Ambition and Industriousness
5. Dependability and Stability
6. Intelligence
7. Compatibility (This does not seem to
directly indicate either resources or
commitment. Rather, this suggests the
potential for both parties to successfully
sustain the relationship.)
8. Size and strength (Yes, women like
tall men.)
9. Good health
10. Love—Love is the most valued
characteristic in a partner for both
women and men.
11. Kindness (A code word for
commitment.)
12. Sincerity (Another code word for
commitment.)
2274. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 1:18:55 PM
It seems to me that the main breakdown here is that Joezan was making a pretty widely accepted GENERAL statement about DV and Sincerity objected because it didn't reflect her SPECIFIC situation.
Joezan never insisted that every single victim of DV (which would include Sincerity) behaves a particular way, merely that there is a recognizable pattern in a vast number of situations. Sincerity somehow took that to mean that Joezan was negating her personal experience.
2275. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 1:21:49 PM
Doc,
I'm not familiar with the phenomenon you presented. Are you sure it's not just your own experience?
Is this something that anyone else has noticed?
2276. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:26:18 PM
CO...any topic/post which relies entirely on personal experience runs the risk you described. In other words, she/he took it personally. I tried to address this(w/o success), but it seems he/she has not returned.
2277. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 1:30:00 PM
PP,
Does that mean we're all alone in here? ;->
2278. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:30:51 PM
CO...this seems to be "common knowledge" among guys...
2279. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:31:53 PM
cp...what should we do...
2280. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 1:40:17 PM
Really, is it something that you've noticed yourself?
I mean, I've met plenty of men who lament that they can't get dates because women don't like "nice men" ---which they claim to be, but generally guys who make a point of saying so really aren't nice men nor are they interested in actual dating. What they really want is for hot women to go home with them from bars and disappear before dawn.
2281. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 1:46:02 PM
I mean, most of the really nice guys that I know that want to be dating or in relationships ARE dating or in relationships.
2282. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:49:36 PM
I dunno...seems like a lot of nice lonely people around.
2283. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 1:54:03 PM
PsychProf, I believe that the list you provided covers women of all ages and social positions. My guess, and it is nothing more than that, is that many women get into abusive relationships at a young age when the best standing they might have achieved is "Somebody's Daughter." I would be interested in understanding the conscious thoughts of women in approximately the 17-22 age bracket when seeking male companionship.
Based on several of the stories told in this thread, battering and stalking relationships can start when a woman is not seeking a husband.
ChristinO, the phenomenon I was describing is this: many women roughly in the 17-22 age range are most attracted to men who are exciting. They are less attracted to men who watch Star Trek, play chess, and write computer programs just for the fun of it.
Are you really claiming that you are not familiar with that?
2284. PsychProf - 9/5/2000 1:58:31 PM
Doc...ok, now I understand what you are getting at. Seems that Cal's thesis on DV might bear some weight here.
2285. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 2:00:08 PM
PP,
Yes, there are, but there are any number of reasons for this and they almost always lie with the individual rather than with the dating pool. Unless one is seriously afflicted (and often even then) if one can make friends one can generally get a date if desired.
2286. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 2:07:20 PM
Doc,
Okay, I can see that, but it has less to do with whether guys are "nice" or "exciting" as opposed to whether guys are still reading comic books and playing D&D and giggling about "boobies".
It's a maturity thing rather than a niceness quotient.
2287. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 2:25:02 PM
Wow, ChristinO, what stereotype has ensnared you here?
Maturity in the way you are describing is an issue for all human males. Of all the college fraternities portrayed in the movies Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds, which would you consider most mature?
I believe there is little distinction between the comic book readers who giggle about boobies and "mature" men who howl at the moon about boobies. Women are able to see a differece that I cannot.
2288. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 2:40:06 PM
Doc,
I was actually being a bit tongue in cheek since I know plenty of grown men who still read graphic novels, love roll playing games and engage in the occasional giggle over boobies. They just happen to be a bit more self-assured now than they were at 17.
Maybe the faster maturation for girls has something to do with our smaller window of years for optimum fertility, I dunno, but a guy who's been out in the world a little bit makes a better candidate for partnership than the boy who spent all of last year popping your bra strap in math class.
2289. Uzmakk - 9/5/2000 3:42:52 PM
(musical notes)Once a great man's heart was captured by a lovely chest.
He told himself it was her mind he loved, but he was blind like all the rest.....(musical notes)
2290. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 3:43:14 PM
ChristinO may be onto something. I think male self-assurance is a major issue here. Women in the critical age bracket do prefer men who are self-assured, although they think they are being attracted to maturity. Perhaps they do not realize that, in men, maturity has nothing to do with self-assurance.
I might classify self-assured young men into two categories: 1) those who truely strive toward self-assurance and have achieved it to some degree. 2) those who pretend to be self-assured but have not achieved it at all. If these classifications are valid, then I expect that most batterers and stalkers fall into the latter group.
I wish there were a device that fit into a purse and could detect bogus self-assurance. If there were, a lot of batters and stalkers might die on the vine.
[personal note]
When I was 17-22 I would not have fit into either of those groups, and neither would my friends. Though none of us read comics or popped bra straps, we did play D&D and write computer programs just for fun. None of us cared about self-assurance and we never lifted a finger to cultivate it. Who wanted to waste time worrying about self-assurance when we had Half-Elf Magic Users, Klingon Battlecruisers, and QuickBasic compilers to amuse us? Still, all of us wished that a woman would love us.
As I said before, all of us are happily married now. Not a batterer in the bunch. Eventually we all found self-assurance even without looking for it. Most of us achieved self-assurance when we got to age 25 or so, when the women around us started looking for the qualitites that PsychProf listed in 2273. It's amazing how much self-assurance you can find inside yourself when someone loves you.
2291. CalGal - 9/5/2000 4:00:35 PM
If these classifications are valid, then I expect that most batterers and stalkers fall into the latter group.
A lot of truth to that, I think. But it's not as simple as just a slightly weakwilled guy.
Have you ever read anything about object relations? I just did a quick search and found a link that ties it in with DV.
2292. DocBrown - 9/5/2000 4:51:12 PM
An interesting link, CalGal. I shall try to comment tomorrow.
Do you know of more information about object relations theory?
2293. CalGal - 9/5/2000 4:53:18 PM
I've got some books at home on it, but I couldn't find one relatively informative link. I'll keep looking, or maybe dig up some of the books at home.
2294. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 5:37:02 PM
Doc,
I split this up a bit strangely but I think it makes sense:
Women in the critical age bracket do prefer men who are self-assured, although they think they are being attracted to maturity. Perhaps they do not realize that, in men, maturity has nothing to do with self-assurance.
Maturity and self-assurance don't have a causal relationship, but it is more common to find self-assurance among the more mature. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here but your argument seems to imply that men are just normal and women whack out for about five years and later wise up to realize that these normal guys are what they really want----as if the guys don't change but the women do.
Most of us achieved self-assurance when we got to age 25 or so, when the women around us started looking for the qualitites that PsychProf listed in 2273.
This statement seems to support what I've been saying---that men actually grow up just like women grow up, only at a different rate. Men and women change places on the developmental scale a couple of times during the formative years.
Again, perhaps I'm just misreading you but what happens to the guys five years older than you and your buddies that your women used to hang out with? Do they just drop of the face of the planet? What about their female peers who undoubtedly treated them the same as yours treated you? By the time these guys were 25 weren't their women settling down and getting right with the nice guys as well?
I mean, it seems as though you believe there is some breeding pool of dangerous men who exist solely to steal the women away from nice guys until the women wise up in a couple of years. Doesn't that sound a little bit far-fetched?
Question: How many men do you know married to women more than three years older than them? How many men do you know married to women more than three years younger than them?
2295. ChristinO - 9/5/2000 5:37:50 PM
Doc,
This was in the same post but seemed a bit of a different issue:
1) those who truly strive toward self-assurance and have achieved it to some degree. 2) those who pretend to be self-assured but have not achieved it at all. If these classifications are valid, then I expect that most batterers and stalkers fall into the latter group.
I'd agree with you that batterers and stalkers likely fall into the second group, but I don't know if the radar would help much. Firstly because self-assurance isn't the only or maybe even the main quality that draws in the potential victim and secondly because even if there were radar to let one know that the trait is a facade it doesn't guarantee that the candidate will ever be a stalker or batterer. Thirdly even if it was a near guarantee there would still be those who believed that their love could "save" the batterer.
2296. CalGal - 9/6/2000 9:14:44 AM
Gloria got married!
2297. DocBrown - 9/6/2000 9:58:04 AM
ChristinO said:
Maturity and self-assurance don't have a causal relationship, but it is more common to find self-assurance among the more mature. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here but your argument seems to imply that men are just normal and women whack out for about five years and later wise up . . .
Gosh, this is not what I meant at all. First, my point about maturity is that in those high school years almost no males have it. The self-assured males ride motorcycles too fast, howl at the moon about big boobies, and get into fights. The non-assured males play D&D (I really played more tactical games than role playing games), read science fiction, write computer programs, and wish they had girlfriends.
Take it from an insider: both groups are full of immature specimens. I'd go so far as to claim that both groups mature at about the same rate. The difference is that many people, especially women, confuse self-assurence with maturity.
Second, I suppose that young women do "whack out" for a few years, but then young men whack out even more. I will never understand how otherwise intelligent and polite young men can find themselves picking fights with each other. If you have ever seen twenty-something males in a bar brawl, you will note that they usually involve the most self-assured specimens. Are they really the most mature?
2298. DocBrown - 9/6/2000 9:58:27 AM
Question: How many men do you know married to women more than three years older than them? . . .
I presume you asked these rhetorically, since I have not disputed that women in this age group exhibit more mature behavior than their male peers.
I think I see the problem. You believe that I am saying that before we came along our wives-to-be were all dating men older than we were. That is not the case at all. Generally, they dated the self-assured men who were the same age as my friends and I. Unfortunatley, now I am pushing this anecdote a bit farther than I had intended.
2299. PsychProf - 9/6/2000 11:06:30 AM
CAL'S NOT KIDDEN
click on photo
2300. DocBrown - 9/6/2000 11:12:59 AM
CalGal, I found some information on Object Relations Theory at The Object Relations Home Page.
I find the theory compelling. It begins with the observation that humans fit relationships together in patterns, then proceeds to show how we repeat those relationships, for better or worse.
Of course our brains do work this way to some degree. The Internet has made it obvious to me that we tend to structure our thoughts in repeated patterns. If you read a lot of posts by Doc Brown, you will see many repeated patterns. You will see words I favor for certain jobs, and words I consistently misspell. *g*
I downloaded and read the paper presented on that website, which includes a therapy session. One subtlty that I noticed was that Object Relations Theory does not blame people for seeking "comfortable" patterns . . . indeed, it does not mention comfort at all. It appears that, in the absense of other motivating forces, humans will seek to repeat patterns, no matter how comfortable or uncomfortable.
2301. DocBrown - 9/6/2000 11:58:42 AM
Well I'll be doggone.
Sounds like a boring ceremony. Miss Manners says that when your marriage is conducted by a Cherokee "spiritual person" at sunrise, you generally don't provide an open bar.
2302. theDiva - 9/6/2000 12:02:43 PM
My Gawd, she done embraced the shackles she once decried.
hahahahahahahahahaha
2303. ChristinO - 9/6/2000 2:25:12 PM
Doc,
I think maybe I don't have any idea at all what you're talking about.
You want to know why girls like boys on motorcycles rather than boys in the Chess club? For the same reasons boys like cheerleaders rather than the girls in the chess club.
2304. Uzmakk - 9/6/2000 5:11:39 PM
The moon rises,
Uzmakk howls,
Boooooooooooooooooooobies.
2305. ChristinO - 9/6/2000 5:49:57 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
2306. DocBrown - 9/7/2000 9:40:38 AM
ChristinO, is seems that you understand exactly what I am "talking" about.
I understand the reasons that women are attracted to these men. What I do not understand are the sensations and thoughts of the experience. What is a young woman thinking and feeling when she falls for a motorcycle rider?
At that age, both men and women find themselves attracted to people who are not necessarily "good for them." I felt it in myself until I was about 23 or 24, when I learned to resist those impulses.
Until that age, men are mostly attracted to bodies, personalities are a smaller consideration. Women are attracted to personalities from the getgo, even during that irresistable impulse period. What does that feel like?
2307. Uzmakk - 9/7/2000 12:50:52 PM
ta ta ta daaaaaaa. Uzmakk to the rescue.
the boys i mean are not refined
by eecummings
The boys i mean are not refined
They go with girls who buck and bite
They do not give a fuck for luck
They hump them thirteen times a night
One hangs a hat upon her tit
One carves a cross on her behind
They do not give a shit for wit
The boys i mean are unrefined
They come with girls who bite and buck
Who cannot read and cannot write
Who laugh like they would fall apart
And masturbate with dynamite
They boys i mean are not refined
They cannot chat of that and this
They do not give a fart for art
They kill like you would take a piss
They speak whatever's on their mind
They do whatever's in their pants
The boys i mean are not refined
They shake the mountains when they dance
2308. ChristinO - 9/7/2000 1:38:06 PM
Uzmakk,
Great selection!
Doc,
Highschool is pretty much the pinnacle of adolescent rebellion against parental authority wouldn't you say? I mean, you're still living at home and following parents' rules but you've got all these itches and urges and you just KNOW you're enough of an adult to go it alone. Kids that age mostly just want to run wild because adulthood means nothing more to them than freedom from authority. They've felt stiffled for a few years now and so they overreact and go nuts. They calm down in a couple years once they start realizing that adulthood means increased responsibility and not having anyone else to bail you out when you make a stupid move.
Why do girls like motorcylce boys? Because they're sexy and wild and it gives our parents palipitations when we hop on the back of their bikes. What's not to know about this stuff?
2309. DocBrown - 9/7/2000 3:16:47 PM
So ChristinO, this is what a young woman is thinking?
"I feel an urge to piss off my parents. Satisfying that urge would feel oh so good. If I find a long-haired motorcycle moon-howler to fuck me that will give them palpitations and make me happy."
Perhaps, but I think there must be more to it than that.
2310. DocBrown - 9/7/2000 3:20:24 PM
Why do girls like motorcylce boys? Because they're sexy and wild and it gives our parents palipitations when we hop on the back of their bikes. What's not to know about this stuff?
Once again, I am not asking why girls behave that way. I am asking someone to explain what it feels like. What is the young lady thinking? Is she really thinking about her parents? Is she thinking about a more complex romanticism?
Perhaps what I really need is a chapter out of a good romantic novel, if such a book exists. My experience reading such material is mighty limited. Perhaps I need to read Gone With the Wind or something by Jane Austin?
A typical teenaged boy thinks of a voluptuous female as an object. This might be a real sign of immaturity.
The question is, does a teenaged girl think of a biker boy as an object, or as a person? Because a girl matures more quickly it is possible that she thinks of him as a person, while he still thinks of her as an object. I do not know enough to answer that question at this time. However, I think the answer might help me to understand the mental processes of batterers and their victims.
2311. ChristinO - 9/7/2000 5:41:10 PM
Doc,
As I explained before all she's actively thinking is "Man that boy is exciting! I wanna spend time with him! I want him to notice me and pay attention to me." Sometimes there is an active thought to rebel against parental authority by deliberately seeking relationships with people your parents disapprove of, but generally it isn't so calculated.
What does it feel like? That's kind of a strange question to me. What does it feel like to be attracted to a woman? I don't know why the feeling of being attracted to someone should change depending on the object of one's affection. Does it feel differently to be attracted to a short man than to a tall man? Blonde v brunette? You've only got two parts here: the physical attraction which is pretty much the same biologically for everyone and the psychological which is what we're thinking when we pursue our attractions.
Or maybe I don't know what you're asking.
As for romantic novels it would depend on what you read and what you expected to get from it. You'd learn more by reading several rather than trying to find one to use as a sort of manual. Even more interesting would be visiting some of the discussion boards where romance genre readers hang out to discuss the medium. What they like and dislike about it, changes they want to see and what they think different aspects of the genre mean.
The question is, does a teenaged girl think of a biker boy as an object, or as a person?
A little of both. He's not a physcial object in the way a pin-up girl is it's more that he represents an attractive idea. His lifestyle and attitude are the selling points rather than his glutes. While lifestyle and attitude are certainly more part of one's actual personality than whether or not one has a nice pair of....eyes, I think the focus on such a specific type requires objectification.
2312. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 9:34:51 AM
Thank you very much, ChristinO. This is enlightening to me.
What does it feel like? That's kind of a strange question to me. What does it feel like to be attracted to a woman? I don't know why the feeling of being attracted to someone should change depending on the object of one's affection.
It would take a bit of time to write a good answer, though I have partially addressed this before. I may may not have enough time this morning, but I will give it a quick shot. When I was in high school the Franciscans taught me that the lust felt by teenaged girls and boys is about the same. Today I am confident that this is not the case at all.
2313. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 9:35:23 AM
There is a period when the shape of a woman's body causes instant arousal in a boy. The sight of smooth skin can also do it. Contrary to popular myth, even an overweight girl can produce this arousal with strategically exposed skin that is young and smooth.
As I said before, the feeling is similar to the mouth watering anticipation anyone might associate with the aroma of a steak on a charcoal grill. You crave the taste first, and unless you make a conscious effort you don't care how the steak feels about your desire.
That sexual arousal is pleasant and frustrating at the same time. The boy urgently wants, craves, needs, sexual relief. He wants to touch that female body with his hands, with his mouth . . . and with his unit. He wants to feel that smooth young skin and those soft, curvy girl parts. If he has started having wet dreams then he may crave the feeling of penetrating her, and the feeling of ejaculating inside her.
No human will ever experience a stronger desire than his craving to enjoy those goodies.
If the girl is interested in a relationship with him, the boy will probably be delighted to get to know her. Even if he never gets to touch her he will enjoy the arousal, and eventually he might start to love her as a person. But he does not need to know anything about her personality to be lustfully drawn to her body. Even if no intimate relationship forms he will continue to experience the arousal, pleasure, frustration and fantasies about her body and every other female body he sees.
You seem to agree that the attraction a young woman feels toward a young man is much more tuned to his personality, much less to his body.
2314. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 9:36:03 AM
Even more interesting would be visiting some of the discussion boards where romance genre readers hang out to discuss the medium.
Can anyone recommend such a board?
2315. theDiva - 9/8/2000 10:09:05 AM
"When I was in high school the Franciscans taught me that the lust felt by teenaged girls and boys is about the same. Today I am confident that this is not the case at all. "
You're right. Now what you've described in your previous post....that kind of thing hits a woman in her thirties.
2316. theDiva - 9/8/2000 10:09:22 AM
duh. in 2313, I mean.
2317. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 10:45:00 AM
Yes, Diva. I would still guess that a woman in her thirties does not objectify men as thoroughly as a boy in his teens objectifies women, though I am not certain.
I expect that even women in their thirties tend to be much better at selecting good relationships that any teenager, male or female. If this is true, this might be because of the teenaged habit they developed of thinking of men as people.
Maybe. I don't really know. I wish I had a better understanding of what women feel at both ages.
2318. christipeters - 9/8/2000 1:07:53 PM
Doc -
"Once again, I am not asking why girls behave that way. I am asking someone to explain what it feels like. What is the young lady thinking?"
What is the young lady thinking!?!
In the case of a teenager, mostly she isn't.
Thinking, that is.
IMO, of course.
2319. theDiva - 9/8/2000 1:13:41 PM
hey Christi!
Doc
I suppose in terms of relationships, you are correct. I was speaking more in terms of ease of arousal and the nature of desire. When I was in my early 30s I began weight training at a coed gym. I was stunned, absolutely shocked, at the physical and mental reactions I had to the sight of all those buff young men. I had never experienced in my entire life that strong and instantaneous arousal to visual stimuli. What you describe above isn't far off what I felt. It was horribly embarassing in some cases.
2320. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 1:38:35 PM
Diva, then you can imagine how embarrassing it can be for a young man. But that is off topic.
Christi, if you cannot describe what a young woman thinks, then perhaps you can describe what she feels?
If it is too personal, then write in the third person. Fictionalize as needed. This is shaping up to be suitable for the Stories Thread.
2321. theDiva - 9/8/2000 1:40:54 PM
Doc
Must be excruciating.
2322. christipeters - 9/8/2000 1:53:55 PM
Doc - sorry, I can't help you. Due to the circumstances of my childhood, I was pretty much totally cut-off from any feelings whatsoever by the time I was a teen. I didn't learn to recognise that I had feelings until my mid-30s or so. Perhaps someone else can help you, but I'm the wrong one to ask. I was speaking from my observations of teenagers rather than from memory. It seems to me that normal teens feel a lot, but I don't think they think a lot (outside the classroom that is).
2323. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 2:07:41 PM
Yeah, Diva. We men suffer so for the propogaton of our species.
2324. theDiva - 9/8/2000 2:10:05 PM
no, seriously. I had always been thrilled that there was nothing on me over which I had no control, and which could betray what I was thinking. I mean, how embarassing is that?
And then...the leotards came....and all that CHANGED.
2325. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 2:14:28 PM
I was boy crazy as a teen and I felt intense lust toward boys. I looked somewhat older than my years and my parents foolishly let me date guys that were too old for me. I learned a lot....
2326. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 4:05:54 PM
Judith, care to elaborate? I'm not soliciting for pornography here, just trying to understand the mind of a lusty teenaged girl.
2327. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 4:23:12 PM
It's been a long time...I just recall thinking of little else but boys. You have to remember that I was a teenager in the late 50s and "nice" girls were the norm. Unfortunately, I was a nice one; I used to bemoan that fact after I reached my 20s and realized I had passed up so many opportunities experiment.
We would park and drive ourselves mad with frustration doing nothing more than kissing. I'm amazed that more girls didn't give in...of course, this was pre-pill and those who did give in usually left school slightly heavier....having that as an example kept most of us pure. Also, to become pregnant before marriage was just about the worst fate that could befall a teenage girl in those days. We all talked incessantly about boys and sex and alledged methods of birth control...those of us who had brains quickly figured out that the birth control advice wasn't worth beans and we were too scared to go very far.
As a very sexually frustrated young lady, I was constantly exploding in anger at my mother...I was what was know as "high strung". Later in life, I resented the fact no one (mother, doctor, etc.) ever explained to me that my hormones were running wild and causing me to be crazed like that. You'd think parents would do that...remembering how brutal it was for themselves when they were young...
I recently watched a rerun of a movie that all us sex-crazed little hellions adored at that time: Splendor In The Grass , a little overdone and histrionic these days but an excellent take on it, nonetheless.
2328. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 4:39:15 PM
So Judith, do you believe that you might have behaved differently if The Pill were available in the 50s?
I presume the answer is yes. If I am wrong, please correct.
The question is: were the impulses that caused your raging frustration all triggered by lust, or was there a forbidden fruit component to it?
2329. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 4:43:07 PM
I think it was both.
And yes, if I had had the guarantee of the pill, I would've cut quite a swathe through the school.
2330. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 4:45:48 PM
What an image.
2331. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 4:46:12 PM
Doc,
It's merely a matter of degree but the feelings are the same. Males get more of it in highschool and females get more of it in their 30's. My four best girlfriends and I are all within a year or two on either side of 30. If the men around us knew what we were thinking and the way we talk about them when they're not listening they'd likely be amazed.
I was driving with my bandmate the other day and nearly wrecked the car because we were literally drooling over a shirtless young hunk on a bike. Were we concerned about whether he was nice to old ladies and kind to animals? Hell no! We would have quite cheerfully plucked him off that bike and tossed him in the trunk to enjoy at our leisure if we thought we could get away with it. (I'm only partly joking here)
Diva,
I never felt so lucky in my life not to have a penis to give me away.
Judith,
You are a woman after my own heart.
2332. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 4:46:55 PM
I'll look for Splendor in the Grass. Can you recommend any books that might help put the female experience into perspective?
2333. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 4:51:23 PM
Doc,
There's a romance novel review and discussion site here
The At the Back Fence button lead to articles the site editors have published on different topics affecting the genre. I don't think you can access any of the actual forum discussions, but the articles themselves will give you a bit of an idea. It's a huge site to wade through, but you might find some topics of interest.
2334. DocBrown - 9/8/2000 4:55:59 PM
Thanks, ChristinO. Over the weekend I shall ponder the question, "Who put the O in ChristinO?"
. . . or something like that.
It is nice to know that women share something like the experience males have as teenagers. But I am still not sure that males ever experience anything like the attraction to bad boys that females feel as teenagers. I honestly do not believe that men ever go through a period when they find any part of a woman's personality to be automatically compelling.
Sure, a man can fall in love with a woman because of her great personality, but that is probably not the same feeling that a teenaged girl has when she thinks about bad boys.
I doubt that the male midlife crisis is a good comparison. Or do teenaged girls feel about biker boys the same way that midlife men feel about Corvettes?
2335. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 4:59:01 PM
ChristinO:
In my previous marriage, I was deemed in need of psychotherapy because I wanted to leave my suburban home and run away to Haight-Ashbury to live the life of a hippie, with all the attendant free love and dope I could find. I was in therapy for years because my exe thought I was psycho.
2336. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 5:01:54 PM
Doc:
I was ALWAYS attracted to the bad boys. They had more of an air of danger about them...maybe in my constricted little universe, I felt they would be more likely to lose control and cause me to, also. Besides, it irked my parents no end!
2337. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 5:09:53 PM
Doc,
The comparison I was thinking of is that men get attracted to sleazy women. Not just because they put out either. Plenty of non-sleazy women put out, but aparently there is something amazingly compelling about those trailer park girls.
Judith,
That's why he's the ex!
2338. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 5:12:17 PM
Lord, Judith! Now I definitely have to get back to Texas soon so we can have a good long chat!
2339. JudithAtHome - 9/8/2000 5:27:31 PM
Hey, one of the guest rooms is always available!
2340. Raskolnikov - 9/8/2000 5:33:34 PM
"The comparison I was thinking of is that men get attracted to sleazy
women. Not just because they put out either. "
I disagree. It is indeed because they put out. Other women certainly put out as well, but the guys are just playing the odds.
2341. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 6:27:34 PM
Rask,
Yes, it's because they put out, but it isn't ONLY because they put out. There's an attraction to the idea of trashy women just as there is to the idea of biker-boys that doesn't rely on the actuality of whether one gets more or dirtier sex.
2342. ChristinO - 9/8/2000 6:34:05 PM
It just occurred to me that even if you could get as much and as varied sex from June Cleaver as from Traci Lords you (rhetorical you) would probably rather have Traci because she doesn't remind you of your mother. Much like motorcycle boys don't remind girls of their fathers.....unless your dad is a Hell's Angel.
2343. DocBrown - 9/9/2000 8:05:00 AM
Interesting point about dads and Hell's Angels.
I disagree about trashy women. The only two advantages such a woman might have in attracting a man would be a great body or loose morals. Her being trashy would hardly be a factor at all. Men give such personal traits very little consideration, especially men in their late teens and early twenties.
2344. ChristinO - 9/9/2000 5:27:43 PM
Then explain for me the appeal of Debra Winger. ;->
2345. arkymalarky - 9/9/2000 6:19:02 PM
My husband for one would find that answer easy--there is none.
2346. bloodnfire - 9/9/2000 6:30:06 PM
She has lovely eyes, a candid expression which is very sexy imho, and is a great actress. I thought she was excellent in 'An Officer and a Gentleman'.
2347. bloodnfire - 9/9/2000 11:01:40 PM
Sincerity454. Your Message # 2249. I believe you are relatively new to The Mote, am I right ? Please don't let any other Motie's reply make you feel you're not welcome here. I for one would be most interested to know how your life has developed since your awful experience in the Battered Womens' Shelter.
I've had some experience with shelters, and have tried to help a batterer and his wife be healed of his violence. Please don't stop posting.
2348. Indiana Jones - 9/11/2000 9:09:52 PM
Debra Winger used to have a turn-on voice, but I've seen her in enough bleah roles to no longer really find her attractive (Terms of Endearment and C.S. Lewis's wife in Shadowlands).
All-time sexy voice: Elizabeth Ashley.
2349. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 8:50:51 AM
I like Debra Winger. She's from my neighborhood in Cleveland, just a few blocks from my house.
She does nothing for me physically, but I like her.
2350. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 11:56:30 AM
Ditto on the sexy voice thing re: Elizabeth Ashley. If I thought I could have that voice by smoking 2 packs a day, I'd start inhaling those Virgina Slims again...
Okay, Doc....did you ever lust after Angie Dickinson?
2351. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 12:13:06 PM
Um, no Judith. I think I got Angie D's TV show cancelled when I answered a telephone survey about Police Woman one day in 1974. I was ten years old. The show disappeared the following week.
Had I been about six years older I might have lusted after her, since 16 year old males are capable of lusting after any woman. I hit that point about 1980, and I don't remember seeing Angie D. doing anything then.
I thought Ally Sheedy was a babe, even though she is not typically considered hot.
2352. JudithAtHome - 9/12/2000 12:17:10 PM
Thanks so much for getting that show canceled...I am forever in your debt. (Didn't mean to imply you were a doddering older guy; it's a bit disconcerting to find you're only 2 years older than my son, however!)
I was always mystified by the way men were slobbering all over Angie; she looked in need of a bath to me.
2353. DocBrown - 9/12/2000 12:31:10 PM
Don't be disconcerted. Judith, feel free to assume that I'm any age you like. Just think of me as a time traveller.
Pardon me while I go observe the launch of Sputnik . . . I'll be right back . . .
2354. janjon - 9/12/2000 5:21:21 PM
Right on re Angie. Bunch of hype.
But...someone questions Debra Winger's appeal? Be gone. Sexxxy voice, great eyes, nice face. Very appealing, in her prime.
2355. ChristinO - 9/12/2000 11:52:52 PM
janjon,
It isn't that I think there's nothing appealing about her it's that I most often hear here referred to as most men's favorite white trash fantasy. She's not beautiful or classy and she's not wholesome enough to play the girl next door although her features are more suited to that. However, she's not your standard sex-kitten either. She IS her character from Urban Cowboy. (not in reality, in reality I have no idea what the woman is like, but her on-screen persona is perfectly represented in UC.)
2356. ChristinO - 9/12/2000 11:55:15 PM
uh, the significance of all this Debra Winger stuff is that I said that there is something appealing about trashy women that really doesn't have anything to do with sexual acrobatics and loose morals.
Doc says men only like trashy women because they have hot bodies and put out. I think there's more to it than that----- a more that could be roughly equated with a female affection for "bad boys".
2357. ChristinO - 9/12/2000 11:55:46 PM
In yet more other words (yes, eventually i'll shut up):
Everybody likes to slum it sometimes.
2358. mgleason - 9/13/2000 12:02:40 AM
Hey, Christin!
Bad boys never did much for me (being related to a few will do that), but 'angry young men' were usually swoon-worthy - all that yummy intellectual angst, y'know.
2359. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:15:40 AM
The allure of trashy women -- insofar as you can say that they all have a common appeal -- is that they'll debase themselves. If you don't believe me, go to a strip club some time and watch the faces of the guys waggling the dollar bills. I think it's pretty simple, if disturbing.
If guys actually fall in love with a trashy chick it's for some reason other than the fact that they act like gutter whores to everyone (as opposed to a woman who'll act like a gutter whore just for their man, which is something completely different.) I think it's not at all akin to the 'bad boy' trip that so many women end up on. It's much simpler, too. Trashy women possess the virtue of convenience and they don't expect real emotional support.
2360. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:17:01 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean about angry young men. Every time I look in the mirror I fall head over heels in love with myself and have to talk myself out of shooting a President to attract my own attention.
2361. angel-five - 9/13/2000 12:35:56 AM
Really, though, I never got the appeal of trashy women, and am just going on what I know from my friends that have dated dancers and cokeheads. I think being trashy is a maladaptive strategy, 'cos I've never met a trashy woman who seemed happy.
Maybe I'm not using the same def of 'trashy' as Ms. No, though. My last gf --a political consultant with a predilection for MDMA -- might fit the bill, and she definitely had initial appeal that wasn't based on convenience. And I think if I'd wagged a dollar bill at her she might have tried to stab me.
2362. stostosto - 9/13/2000 5:53:29 AM
Ok, everyone *thinks* they know what the opposite sex wants, but what do they REALLY want? Defend your gender here!
The thread blurb is needlessly intruding. I don't think I know shit about the opposite sex. I see them as a kind of black box. It's totally unknowable what goes on inside them. But, by observation, you can learn some rules of thumb as to which kind of input produces what kind of output. But pretending to understand can never be more than that.
2363. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 9:30:02 AM
not only that sto, but it is kinda...
heterosexual centric, no?
2364. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 9:35:07 AM
Gender wars: trysts or jousts?
is better - spoke too soon, again, i see
2365. DocBrown - 9/13/2000 2:07:02 PM
Rubberducky, the heterosexualcentricity of the thread blurb could provide an interesting perspective. Do we all have a better understanding of how to please people of our own gender?
There might be something to this, but I am not sure.
Perhaps a woman has a more difficult time discerning a man's physical pleasures, but I suspect she may have an advantage in understanding his emotional needs. Human males, even those who care about each other like fathers, sons, and brothers, are sometimes awful at meeting each others emotional needs.
I wonder if anyone the gay community has encountered any problem like this?
OTOH, it is possible that women have an advantage in satisfying each other both physically and emotionally.
Any comments?
2366. rubberducky - 9/13/2000 2:15:40 PM
i'm not sure of the question, Doc
in my experience, gay men are pretty good at satisfying the physical needs of other gay men (owners of the equipment make for better operators), but are not any better at meeting the emotional needs of their partners than are non-gay men. men are men, after all, regardless of whom they sleep with and, as such, aren't terribly adept at being emotional beings.
does that answer the question?
2367. Raskolnikov - 9/13/2000 3:00:00 PM
"Doc says men only like trashy women because they have hot bodies
and put out. I think there's more to it than that----- a more that could
be roughly equated with a female affection for "bad boys"."
Well, you might be asking the wrong crowd. Any attraction I have ever had for trashy women has to do with the fact that they looked like they were easy. It wasn't danger. It wasn't rebelliousness. I just wanted to do them. (I dated two "trashy women". One in spite of the fact that she was trashy. She was an intellectual trying to break out, and she eventually went on to get a phD in child psychology. With the other, I was drunk and on the rebound, and she was easy.)
But trashy women *do* often get into long term relationships, so there evidently some guys out there who are interested in them for more than sex. But I think they all drive Harleys.
2368. DocBrown - 9/13/2000 4:33:01 PM
Yes, Rubberducky, you have answered the question well. Perhaps even gay men will be best off if their is a woman playing some role in their lives. Men, no matter how well intentioned, can be emotional clutzs.
I do not mean to put forth a stereotype that all women are caring, sensitive mommy-types. Perhaps society gives little girls some extra training at sympathy, empathy, and other emotional tools. Perhaps it is a genetic/hormonal issue. And perhaps the effect is much less pronounced than I am assuming. But whatever the cause, women seem to offer a slight edge over men as friends/lovers/companions.
Any lesbians out there care to comment?
2369. DocBrown - 9/13/2000 4:37:13 PM
Rask said:
But trashy women *do* often get into long term relationships, so there evidently some guys out there who are interested in them. . .
I don't think men give trashiness much weight. While it might be a slight turnoff, if I found a woman to be very attractive, funny, affectionate, etc., I could overlook trashiness. I once dated a trashy girl (we were both teenagers). I was not in it for the sex, but for the ego boost. She was crazy about me, and I liked that.
2370. Toenails - 9/13/2000 5:25:26 PM
You got it, Doc. Whatever your sex, or your sexual preference, what turns everybody on is an unambiguous demonstration of interest, on the part of the Other, in The Single Most Important Person on Earth.
You--of course. Or, in my case, Me.
2371. joezan - 9/14/2000 12:31:30 AM
To a leg man, Angie Dickenson, trashy or not, is the pinnacle.
Her, and Juliet Prouse.
2372. Fraaankster - 9/14/2000 3:30:11 AM
Joezan,
I've meant to comment on this when you posted it originally, but what would you need with a Ford F-650 ? Keeeee-rist, that thing can pull a house. Heck, a loaded F-250 could do that....You must be one heavy duty camper, huh ?
Trashy women fill fantasy voids. It's almost as if they allow a guy the creative license to do just about anything with them that one's conscience most likely wouldn't permit with a so-called good girl, along with the added bonus of not having a guy having to lament about the experience later.;-)
It's been my experience, albeit a very limited one -- except for one great year in college -- that the trashy ones aren't really that creative or offer anything new. It's kinda like ordering a hamburger at Spagos. It might be embellished or adorned better than one from Burger King, but in the end, one comes away disappointed that it's still a hamburger.
It was those parocial school products that have left me surprised and my head spinning -- um, figuratively speaking, of course.
Best legs ? Hmmmmmm, I saw an A&E "Biography" on Julie Newmar the other night, and wh-o-o-o-o-a-a-a-h-h -- Yu-u-u-u-u-m-m-y !!!
I've never seen Dickenson's legs above the knee, so I can't say.
... When I was about 20 or 21 there was this Playboy model named Victoria Cooke(?) whose legs and figure would drive me nuts. Whatever became of her I wonder ?
Sensual voice ? Demi Moore maybe ? A young Cybil Sheppard's twang always did for me also. Who am I missing ?
2373. Fraaankster - 9/14/2000 3:39:04 AM
Ack!
I don't know if it's as sensual as it is beautiful, but Grace Kelley's voice did it for me as a kid also. What movie was that where she ..?
2374. joezan - 9/14/2000 8:14:20 AM
Fraaank:
I was kidding about wanting that F-650 - can you imagine having to replace 10 friggin' tires? I just replaced 4, and that set me back a bundle.
Julie Newmar...hmmmn....I don't think I've ever seen her legs when they weren't encased in that black rubber Catwoman suit. But I think she was also a dancer, as were Dickenson and Prouse, so you're probably right.
They don't make legs like those anymore.
2375. Raskolnikov - 9/14/2000 10:08:48 AM
Angie Dickenson in Rio Bravo is one of the hottest things walking.
Best legs: Cyd Charisse.
2376. theDiva - 9/14/2000 11:43:32 AM
"When I was about 20 or 21 there was this Playboy model named Victoria Cooke(?) whose legs and figure would drive me nuts. Whatever became of her I wonder ? "
Last I heard, she was slinging hash at a truckstop on I270.
2377. glendajean - 9/14/2000 11:51:29 AM
re: Trashy Women (as opposed to Trashy Men)?
re: men & women or men & men
A man on man relationship, over time, has the possiblity of some sense of understanding, but I've never felt gay men have better insight to their partner than straight men do to their female partners.
From my own personal experience, I find it easy to have good relationships with straight women, and enjoy an openness with them that I assume is based on lack of sexual tension and perhaps some heightened sensitivity.
OTH, I've never had a problem with good relationships with straight men. Our conversations aren't usually about either sports or sex.
Back in the 80s, during the height of AIDS devastation in the gay community, I had a roommate that said a coversation was officially gay if the topics covered included beautiful men, AIDS and Broadway musicals.
2378. Fraaankster - 9/14/2000 12:17:11 PM
Deev,
LOL! Really ?!
You mean she's not signing autographs at the Grand Opening of some liquor store somewhere, or bidding for a cameo in some low budget B rated flick ? ;-)
I really wonder what happened in her case because it seems that Playboy has mysteriously forgotten she has ever existed, despite the fact that many suscribers felt that she was da bomb. Playboy never revisits her in any of their Where are they now ? segments or Playboy News. She had it all I tell ya! I wish I could find a picture of her somewhere to link.:(
______________________
Joe,
Um, they weren't by chance Firestone tires, were they ? ;-)
Julie Newmar...hmmmn....I don't think I've ever seen her legs when they weren't encased in that black rubber Catwoman suit. But I think she was also a dancer, as were Dickenson and Prouse, so you're probably right.
Go rent Lil' Abner, circa 1956 and take a good look at the young woman who pops out of that tiny woodshed during some "dance" number. Newmar was also a gymnist in her youth. Need I sell her more ?
Yes, all those you have mentioned have great legs, but are those legs accompanied with dancer's feet ? Yech !
2379. theDiva - 9/14/2000 12:18:28 PM
Frankie
Haven't a clue, honey, I'm just messin with you.
2380. CalGal - 9/14/2000 12:19:08 PM
I've often thought that if I were a lesbian, I'd be suicidal. Not because of the shame, but because I just purely don't understand women. Men generally make much more sense to me--speaking as a whole, obviously--and I've always been glad that I was lucky enough to be attracted to the gender that I was more in tune with.
Of course, relationships are a bitch no matter what the gender.
2381. Fraaankster - 9/14/2000 12:21:26 PM
Deev,
I know you were, and I think that's par for the course with most of them. That is, if they haven't found some sugar daddy to take care of them yet.
Hash, or has browns ?
2382. theDiva - 9/14/2000 12:22:04 PM
or has-beens?
2383. DocBrown - 9/14/2000 1:19:15 PM
CalGal, so maybe NOBODY understands women.
It might be true. Deep down, men want very simple things.
2384. CalGal - 9/14/2000 1:30:52 PM
No, I disagree. I think most women understand women to the same extent that men understand each other. It's an overstatement to say that they are all alike, of course.
2385. seadate - 9/14/2000 1:46:36 PM
Men certainly want simple things -
LEGS!
2386. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 1:49:32 PM
Seadate
where you been? Long time no see.
2387. ChristinO - 9/14/2000 2:22:34 PM
seadate!
It's good to see you!!
2388. seadate - 9/14/2000 3:25:00 PM
Bubb, ChristinO
Good to see you too.
Actually, about the last time we talked, I was working in a family business that I was a partner in. I hated it - I went to Key West for a few days, came back, got a lecture on teamwork from my boss (cousin) so
I Quit!
2389. seadate - 9/14/2000 3:28:46 PM
Then I had an 18 month adventure. Since I was (and still am) wifeless and kidless, this wasn't that difficult.
2390. bubbaette - 9/14/2000 3:32:06 PM
Cool! Did you sail the 7 seas?
2391. seadate - 9/14/2000 3:55:18 PM
Figuratively
2392. marshame - 9/14/2000 4:20:28 PM
SeeDate
I think Shimmy Marm has been looking for you. She'll be real pleased to hear you're still wifeless.
2393. seadate - 9/14/2000 4:36:55 PM
marsh
LOL
2394. ChristinO - 9/14/2000 4:41:32 PM
seadate,
Sorry the business venture didn't work out but good for you for chucking it and taking off to play!
2395. seadate - 9/14/2000 4:50:36 PM
Thanks Christin
So did you ever join the family bidness?
2396. ChristinO - 9/14/2000 4:55:30 PM
Fortunately I ran screaming before I'd even packed a bag.
If you've got time meet me in the Cafe where we can chat and not be off topic.
2397. arkymalarky - 9/14/2000 7:36:12 PM
"No, I disagree. I think most women understand women to the same extent that men understand each other. It's an overstatement to say that they are all alike, of course."
I don't at all beyond a certain point, though I like them as colleagues. As administrators I tend not to like them nearly as well, not so much from anything they do as from my own perceptions, I think. They just seem too officious and uptight compared to men in the same position (who of course greatly outnumber them, which is probably a big reason for my perceptions).
As far as friends go, with the exception of here, all my rl friends are male and Bob's old friends (long story, but we share a lot of friends that "belonged" to both of us before we became a couple) except about two. I feel very uncomfortable and insecure about women friends--that they're noticing how I dress or wear my hair or how I smell, etc--and I rarely socialize with them in any but the most informal settings, even my closest friends. On the patio or camping or at a bonfire, etc, I'm comfortable--"do lunch," go shopping, etc, I feel like a fish out of water. Again, that's due to my own perceptions and insecurities, I'm sure, but I feel a lot more comfortable around men. Which is not to say I feel comfortable in more formal settings with them, I guess just feel more comfortable with being my natural informal self.
You know, it's hard to self-analyze in the process of posting.
2398. arkymalarky - 9/14/2000 7:38:11 PM
PS--I know like and understand are not the same thing, and I wouldn't say I dislike women. I would say I don't understand a lot of them and are uncomfortable around most of them as a result.
2399. mgleason - 9/14/2000 7:53:01 PM
Interesting take, Arky.
I attended an all-girl high school, so I'm always comfortable with women, but there are a lot of 'girly' things for which I never did have a knack. As a result, my women friends tend to indulge me and treat me like a kid, which is OK, since I have never been an Adult with a capital 'A.'
This might also have something to do with the fact that my mom died when I was in my early twenties. I feel great peace around motherly-types.
2400. ChristinO - 9/15/2000 1:31:24 PM
I socialize pretty equally with both genders. Of my closest friends most of them are female, but I have several close male friends as well.
In grade school and junior high I had mostly girl friends, but once I got to highschool.....well, after the all-girl highschool...I branched out genderwise.
I'm sitting here trying to figure the differences between hanging out with the girls and hanging out with the guys. I'll have to get back to you on that.
2401. seadate - 9/15/2000 2:07:47 PM
Seadate prefers females because:
1) He is convinced that the gender is indeed blessed (or cursed) with intuition.
2) They crack him up.
3) They make great bodyguards (they protect seadate from himself by keeping "unsuitable" members of the gender away from him).
4) Any he's been married to don't come around.
2402. arkymalarky - 9/15/2000 6:57:05 PM
Bob loves women as friends. For a long time, with about three exceptions, his very best friends were women. They don't stay in contact with him any more, which is a shame, but Bob hasn't done his share to keep the friendships going, either. I don't know how much marriage (ours and theirs) has to do with it, maybe nothing, but that's when the friendships cooled. It happens that all of them live far away now, too.
2403. arkymalarky - 9/15/2000 7:06:40 PM
MG,
I'm sorry your mother passed in your young adulthood. It's nice that you feel the way you do about women friends in general, and especially the motherly types.
The more I thought about it last night after I posted, the more I think that with me maybe it's not just women, but people. The men I know I've known very well and for a long time.
BTW, none of that applies to work, where I'm very comfortable interacting with people, once I get comfortable with change and new surroundings (usually after a couple of years--not really kidding). But there my role and theirs are clear and I don't second-guess whether what I said or did was ok, whether I should invite someone out or reciprocate an invitation and how and when, whether my invitation was turned down because someone was truly busy cleaning the bathrooms or because they'd rather clean the bathrooms than socialize with me or I offended them last time we visited and they'd as soon they never had to talk to me again....anyway, you get the picture. I think maybe my basic problem is that I'm etiquettely challenged.
2404. CalGal - 9/15/2000 7:21:52 PM
I think you and I have talked about this before, Arky.
I don't understand women at all, and as a gender, I must say I don't much like them. By which I mean if you took a representative sample of all women, surveyed them on a variety of subjects and collected the results and presented them , I wouldn't think much of the opinions of most of that group. I would find them largely unfair, very illogical, completely biased in ways that bothered me no end, and representing judgment and sensibility that I find alien and pretty much unworkable.
Phew.
As individuals, I think that a lot of them are fine. Including, of course, the many fine chicks we have here.
I also do not like what happens when a large bunch of women get together. The social dynamics are cruel, the power plays are obvious, and the castigation for not participating in group think is severe. I suffered for it mightily when I was growing up, so it's a sore subject with me--and it's probably why I'm not the slightest bit dispassionate about it.
2405. CalGal - 9/15/2000 7:26:07 PM
This last has come up for me again because I've been hanging out at TableTalk, in the Mothers Who Think thread. (how's that for a condescending title?) Good lord. When I first looked in, it came off to me as kaffeeklatsch central. Primarily women, with a few guys in there who were "good" dads, roosters preening for the hens' cooing praise.
But on closer look, and after I (usually unintentionally) wreaked utter havoc on a few threads, I came away realizing:
2406. CalGal - 9/15/2000 7:26:29 PM
2407. arkymalarky - 9/15/2000 8:05:39 PM
"I also do not like what happens when a large bunch of women get together. The social dynamics are cruel, the power plays are obvious, and the castigation for not participating in group think is severe. I suffered for it mightily when I was growing up, so it's a sore subject with me--and it's probably why I'm not the slightest bit dispassionate about it."
Amen. And you can see the beginnings of it in girls around the 8th or 9th grades, and they will especially direct it at a young female teacher, I discovered early in my career. Actually, most seem to outgrow it enough to at least be bearable by their jr or sr years, but I agree about the group mentality thing. I hung around outcasts doing things outcast rebel-types do, until my parents did some major intervention when I was about 14. That's when I just became the lone outcast weirdo in a small town. It was partly my own fault for not either accepting that I was a different type and should expect and accept the consequences of it, or making more of an effort to assimilate and interact with other girls. I wasn't very friendly myself in those days, so could hardly expect people to flock to me with affection.
Actually, I agree with a lot of what you say. Men can be hateful to eachother, but it's usually much more direct and as a result more resolvable, even if they resolve not to have anything to do with eachother any more.
I've never been in the MWT thread. I only have about three or four TT subscriptions and most of them are dead ones that FFF's (former fray folk) formed in our transition period. I love the Housekeeping thread that Judith posts in some, though. Very nice people and great advice for someone like me who doesn't know a Dustbuster from a dustbunny.
2408. mgleason - 9/15/2000 10:13:04 PM
Thanks, Arky.
Life in all-girl land will expose you to the best and worst. I was able move in and out of cliques because I was involved in a lot of activities - acting, singing, the school newspaper, helping out with the sports teams, volunteer work, etc. - and also able to hang out with Groucho types who wouldn't be members of any club that would have them.
P.S. I can't imagine anyone turning down an invitation from you even if she lives to clean the loo.
2409. Greystoke - 9/15/2000 10:34:35 PM
In my opinion, heterosexual men cannot be friends with women in the same way that they can be friends with other men. The obvious reason is that the men would like to have sex with their women friends, if given a chance.
I used to think that maybe it was just me (very secretly) wanting to have sex with all my female friends. But, over time, I have polled my male friends, and its universal.
The ladies can test my theory by trying to seduce their male friends. Y'all will be surprised at how quickly and eagerly they respond.
I garrONtee it.
2410. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:15:09 PM
How much of that did you steal from Billy Crystal?
Why is it that people use sex as the reason that men and women can't be friends? I've had sex with a good number of my male friends, and it didn't change anything.
I've found occasionally that men are prone to "downgrading" me from friend to girlfriend (and believe me, it is a big step down), but usually if I kick them hard they cut it out. But even that only happens rarely.
2411. angel-five - 9/15/2000 11:18:50 PM
In my experience, he's mostly right. But I'm shameless in that regard and I find absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of 'friendship with benefits' between two people who are unattached and find each other appealing, so long as everyone's on the same page. Of course, it's kinda hard to like someone enough to be their friend, and find them attractive enough to want to sleep with them, and have a sustainable, shallow sexual relationship and keep it on that level. That's a minefield. In the good cases, it gets taken to the obvious next level; in the bad cases, only one person wants to do so.
But, yeah, Grey's mostly right.
I think the reasons are a little more complex than 'all men are hounds', too. A lot of the mystery and excitement is gone when you start seeing someone you've been friends with a long time, but there's something else there instead that can be as amazing and a lot longer lasting.
Of course, Grey might just be talking about wanting to pork your friends, and none of this deeper stuff or reasoning or the desire for a relationship -- just being sexually attracted to them and having a little part of your head urging you to ignore the long-term consequences, a voice which you do or do not listen to depending on how bright you happen to be at the moment. And he's mostly right about that, too, of course. IME guys are wired to be like that and the only thing that suppresses it is to be in love with someone special.
I do have female friends that I don't think sexually about in any way, but it's a strange thing. One day you'll be with them just doing whatever it is you do, and then all of a sudden the thought will pop into your head, 'cos of something they did or said or some movement they made or whatever else we can't figure out that triggers it. And you'll never ever see that person in quite the same light again.
2412. angel-five - 9/15/2000 11:24:26 PM
Of course, sometimes you run into the situation where someone's just interested in boffing someone else, and it gets mistaken for friendship by the someone else. And sometimes the other person just isn't interesting enough to be that intimate with over time and it's just a sexual release thing. Once again, if both people are on the same page -- at least about the 'not getting intimate' thing -- it works ok.
2413. Greystoke - 9/15/2000 11:32:33 PM
angel-fire
Yes, those situations exist. However, in my experience and conversations, heterosexual men almost always want to have sex with their female friends.
My perception is that the women think they are just friends. The males are content to be friends, but would jump at the chance for sex.
Of course my perception could be totally wrong. Maybe all the women want to have sex with their male friends, too. But if that's the case, then why don't all male/female friendships result in sex?
2414. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:34:40 PM
Grey,
Again, so what if they have sex? Are you saying that the only reason the guy is "pretending" to be friendly is because he wants sex?
2415. Greystoke - 9/15/2000 11:36:52 PM
CalGal
"I've had sex with a good number of my male friends, and it didn't change anything."
Wow. I just don't understand how that could be the case. You don't fuck your friends. You fuck your lovers.
2416. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:40:33 PM
Grey,
"Lovers"? Weird concept. There are friends, and there are the very few guys that I trip over and stumble into a relationship with, despite all my best efforts. Usually the guys that I end up having any sort of extra-friendship relationship with were friends first. And they are always friends after.
2417. angel-five - 9/15/2000 11:40:37 PM
Well, the fact that in every relationship I've been in, the woman I'm with always watches my female friends VERY carefully and is apt to get VERY jealous over the fact that I enjoy their company, suggests to me that women aren't entirely blind to the phenomenon as you describe it. Of course, as all men know, one of the best ways to get these women to finally start hitting on you is to get a girlfriend in the first place.
2418. Greystoke - 9/15/2000 11:40:50 PM
CalGal
"Are you saying that the only reason the guy is "pretending" to be friendly is because he wants sex?"
Not exactly. I am saying that the guy is realtively content to be friends, but he really wants to have sex.
And one distinction I should have made but didn't is friends who are both married versus friends who are both single. Perhaps two single people can have sex and still be just friends. I don't think that is true for two married people.
2419. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:41:25 PM
Oops--hit post accidentally.
Then there are guys that I'm friends with that I also may or may not have sex with, depending on any number of factors.
2420. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:42:55 PM
I am saying that the guy is realtively content to be friends, but he really wants to have sex.
Naw. For one thing, any guy who is a friend of mine who wanted to have sex would just ask.
And I had male friends when I was married--somer married, some single. Likewise, I have a lot of married guy friends now.
2421. angel-five - 9/15/2000 11:50:05 PM
Nah. Something always, always changes when two friends sleep together. There's a few hundred million years of evolution at work. No one -- and I do mean no one -- goes and accidently fucks one of their good friends and nothing's different for either one of them in the morning. To be honest, the thought's sort of repulsive to me that it'd be otherwise.
2422. CalGal - 9/15/2000 11:52:11 PM
Well, I'm sure you can handle an occasional twinge of nausea. If not, just turn your thoughts away from it.
But sure. It's eminently possible. It's not even terribly rare, although it's certainly not the norm.
2423. angel-five - 9/15/2000 11:54:16 PM
CalGal -- To be clear, are you saying that absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada, has changed in the way you think about someone once you've slept with them? And nothing, zip, zero, nada, changes in the way they act toward you?
2424. CalGal - 9/16/2000 12:03:46 AM
As I said above:
I've found occasionally that men are prone to "downgrading" me from friend to girlfriend (and believe me, it is a big step down), but usually if I kick them hard they cut it out. But even that only happens rarely.
In other words, every so often they'll get stupid. But not in the sense that I think you both mean--one gets serious, one doesn't. Or one was scratching an itch, the other wasn't. I'd say the worst case scenario is that he'll worry that I'm going to start having designs on him. And even that's only happened once or twice--with guys that I'm still friends with now. When it happens, I ask incredulously if they have me confused with some bimbo they dated the other night, and this has always put a stop to it.
Now, as I said, every so often I end up in a relationship with a guy who is a friend, but that's different. In that case the change was conscious and agreed to. When the relationship aspect ended, we went back to being friends--usually right away.
2425. angel-five - 9/16/2000 12:11:03 AM
So every once in a while there's actually a connection, or the guy is moved enough that he's interested in having a more meaningful relationship -- but most times a friend will go to bed with you, get up the next day and be utterly unchanged and unmoved by what happened? And the same for you? Absolutely everything is the same?
2426. CalGal - 9/16/2000 12:13:35 AM
We already have a meaningful relationship. We're friends.
2427. CalGal - 9/16/2000 12:17:15 AM
I mean, I'm not sure how else to answer you--I don't view friendship with men as some sort of second-class arrangement. I value them a lot, and they value me.
So sex isn't some step up in the relationship. It's just something else we may or may not do.
The thing that determines whether a friendship becomes a "relationship" (for lack of a better word) isn't sex. It's some other aspect--passion, intensity, whatever.
2428. angel-five - 9/16/2000 12:41:26 AM
So, no.
Ok.
2429. mgleason - 9/16/2000 12:42:16 AM
The kind of heightened friendship between men and women that the French call an amitié amoureuse is difficult to sustain once sexual relations enter the picture unless both parties are very clear about honoring boundaries. After the sexual interlude ends (by mutual consent), the friendship, if strong enough to begin with, may even deepen because of the shared intimacy.
2430. Greystoke - 9/16/2000 12:48:42 AM
CalGal
"The thing that determines whether a friendship becomes a "relationship" (for lack of a better word) isn't sex. It's some other aspect--passion, intensity, whatever."
Apparently your "friendships" with men are very unusual. (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing.)
In my experience, sex defines the relationship between men and women. If they are having sex, its a relationship beyond friendship. Else, they are "just friends."
However, my point still is that, in most cases (you being the exception), men cannot be friends with women in the same way they are friends with men because of sex or the unfulfilled desire for sex.
2431. mgleason - 9/16/2000 1:04:10 AM
Of course there's always the Sartrian Other to explain the dynamics of inescapable objectification within relationships, as expressed in sexual desire.
2432. CalGal - 9/16/2000 1:11:29 AM
MGleason,
That is a fairly accurate description.
Grey,
I would say instead that men and women who view the other gender primarily as relationship fodder are incapable of being true friends. They define themselves primarily by their marital state, and they define the other in the same way. The opposite sex, to such people, have no other function than to be the other half of their couple or to affirm their sexual attractiveness once they've formed a couple.
I find it a rather limited world view, but I agree that it's the norm. I'm not as unique as you think--but then, given your rather limited ability to form friendships with women, you've probably never had the opportunity to find this out. (g)
2433. CalGal - 9/16/2000 1:12:19 AM
MG--I was referring to 2429. I don't know from Sartre.
2434. mgleason - 9/16/2000 1:17:18 AM
You should, CalGal, seriously. Sartre can be as full of it as anyone, but his insights into the dynamics of relationships (of any kind) are marvelous.
2435. CalGal - 9/16/2000 1:18:26 AM
Angel,
I don't know if "no" is the right answer to your question. Your question seemed to come from an entirely different frame of reference.
2436. CalGal - 9/16/2000 1:20:12 AM
the dynamics of inescapable objectification
It's escapable, but the tendency to try it on is certainly a foregone conclusion. This is a bit of what I was talking about when I said that I occasionally get downgraded to a girlfriend.
2437. joezan - 9/16/2000 1:22:32 AM
However, my point still is that, in most cases (you being the
exception), men cannot be friends with women in the same way they are friends with men because of sex or the unfulfilled desire for sex.
I thought it was because we can't fart in their presense.
2438. arkymalarky - 9/16/2000 1:36:42 AM
Hmm. I think men may have passing thoughts about that, but it doesn't affect anything if they're merely passing and never acted on. They do that with strangers on the street. Bob has had several long-term, purely platonic relationships with women. One was his roommate, back in the days before Three's Company was popular, in a small AR town, and the landlord made him move out. He's also had several relationships that later became good platonic friendships. He and I were good friends for two years before we began seeing eachother, but there was strong mutual attraction from the beginning that couldn't be acted on due to unavoidable circumstances involving a best friend and an engagement ring. Messy story.
MG,
Message # 2408
What a sweet PS! I don't invite people to go out nearly enough, and consequently don't go much myself (except now with my daughter being so busy it seems we're always going), but my friends have a standing invitation to visit any time, and I never mind them dropping in. In fact, that's how we do things around here. People drive by, they see the car or us sitting on the porch or whatever and pull up in the yard. Once we've identified them as not Jehovah's Witnesses (and when we're in the mood, even that doesn't matter), we often go greet them before they can get to the door. That's when I'm most comfortable with people.
2439. angel-five - 9/16/2000 2:07:12 AM
No, it is the correct answer, and yes -- as always -- we are occupying different frames of reference.
You claim that you can have sex with a friend without it changing anything at all in your relationship, and that indeed this is the norm for you and your partners -- that you or your other aren't moved to anything different, don't feel or perceive anything different, just because you went to bed with each other. That it's just more of the same as far as how you see each other. You might as well have just played Boggle or gone for a walk in the rain as far as the ways you think of each other and act toward each other are concerned.
That seems extremely hard to credit, to me anyway and apparently to Grey as well. But that's neither here nor there -- after all, I'm quite a bit younger than you are and casual sex has never really had a sufficient sustained allure for me that I've ever chosen it as a lifestyle.
To me what you describe might as well be mutual masturbation -- if it's indeed the case for you and it's what works for you, all well and good, but to me it seems pretty vacant as a way of life. More, it almost seems like something you'd have to work pretty hard at maintaining, given the extent to which we're all hard-wired for pair-bonding with sex as the catalyst. To me, the intense emotional trip and opening up that sex can ignite is at least as much of a reason to have it as the simple physical release which it brings. Sometimes the trip can take you some place that, on balance at the end of the day, you'd rather not have gone, but there are risks to anything worthwhile.
2440. angel-five - 9/16/2000 2:16:05 AM
Hence my statements.
You say that sex isn't a step up in the relationship. To me, that's sophistry. No, you don't have to be fucking someone to be intimate with them, no, just because you put you fuck someone doesn't in and of itself suddenly catapult the two of you into some exalted Elysian paradisical state where you wander around peeling each other grapes, finishing each others' sentences and generally living in a warm white halo of connubial bliss. I'm sure almost everyone's had what's called 'meaningless sex' at least once in their lives.
But there's a certain kind of intimacy that can only come from sex, and we even have the name for it -- sexual pair-bonding. It's a neural thing, not holy, not mystical, not some primitive and adolescent misunderstanding of the effect of sex on the body which often accompanies sex between lovers, but the actual effect itself. And to me it's amazing. Deliberately choosing to shut yourself off from it seems kinda boring and pointless to me, like going to the Louvre to read the daily paper.
I'd post more but you'd undoubtedly read anything else I have to say as an indictment. And that's not the point of this.
2441. angel-five - 9/16/2000 2:18:37 AM
I thought it was because we can't fart in their presense.
I know of a relationship that ended for three months because the girl farted on the guy's water bed. Oh, sure, there were other tensions, but that kicked it off. (shake head)
2442. CalGal - 9/16/2000 2:20:18 AM
You might as well have just played Boggle or gone for a walk in the rain as far as the ways you think of each other and act toward each other are concerned.
Well, this alone demonstrates that you don't grok. That you could read what I said and come up with this suggests either a serious effort to misconstrue or an utter inability to grasp concepts outside your own experience. Take your pick.
To me what you describe might as well be mutual masturbation -- if it's indeed the case for you and it's what works for you, all well and good, but to me it seems pretty vacant as a way of life.
hahahahahaha.
You know, one thing that most people understand about me is that I'm about as intense as it gets. Empty acts hold no interest for me.
To me, the intense emotional trip and opening up that sex can ignite is at least as much of a reason to have it as the simple physical release which it brings.
Of course. Who said there was no emotions involved?
Grownups can usually manage to discuss differing methods of forming emotional connections without turning a pleasant exchange into a pissing match. No reason you shouldn't at least start practicing this sort of behavior.
2443. CalGal - 9/16/2000 2:21:00 AM
I'd post more but you'd undoubtedly read anything else I have to say as an indictment.
Now. Did anyone else think this was a hoot, coming at the end of that treatise? Or was it just me?
2444. arkymalarky - 9/16/2000 2:23:50 AM
What do you mean for three months? You mean she went back with him after that? Are you trying to tell me the jerk didn't fart in his own water bed? For some reason that just really gripes me.
2445. angel-five - 9/16/2000 2:29:50 AM
Well, this alone demonstrates that you don't grok. That
you could read what I said and come up with this
suggests either a serious effort to misconstrue or an utter
inability to grasp concepts outside your own experience.
Take your pick.
First you claim that the way you act and feel toward each other doesn't change at all just because you went to bed. Either you're telling me that going for a walk or playing Boggle actually has more of an effect on the relationship than having sex, or else you're not making any sense, because it certainly can't have less of an effect than zero. So, please tell me given what you said, what I didn't 'grok' from it.
Of course. Who said there was no emotions involved?
Well, um, you did.
As for the rest -- Go on, take it as an indictment. It's just profoundly different from the way I go about things. You said you weren't sure I got it, so I explained what I said and why.
2446. angel-five - 9/16/2000 2:31:19 AM
Arky:
He slept with another girl the night his wie was having his firstborn, too. Gripe away, the guy was a dick and the girl -- a friend -- was/is one of those women who seems congenitally incapable of realizing that they're dating an asshole.
2447. angel-five - 9/16/2000 3:10:00 AM
CalGal:
Enlighten me. I'm trying to reach a synthesis of what you've said. How is it that on the one hand sex for you isn't empty or meaningless, that the awakened and unleashed emotions and opening up to each other is important to you as is the intensity of the whole deal, but on the other hand having sex with a friend the first time, in the majority of cases for you, doesn't change the way you and your friend think, act, or feel about each other in the slightest? You've been quite insistent on both points, and they are really contradictory to the observing eye.
Unless, of course, the two of you have a sort of compact that you aren't going to let anything change between the two of you just because of sex -- but that in and of itself is a change in the relationship and moreover it speaks of the fact that the feelings are there in the first place, else the notion of the compact would never come up. And so there's your change.
You see, that's the whole point of what I've been saying -- not an indictment of you, 'cos as I've said repeatedly it was hard to really credit that what you were saying was your true and total stance on the matter, just an indictment of your statement that sex between friends changes nothing at all in the relationship, zero, zip, nada. And you've as much as said that it does change something, once I followed up the statement with you and got you to answer the questions. That admission is all I wanted.
And it's good that you said it, because I really do think you'd have to be sort of psychotic to sleep with a good friend for the first time, to go throught that emotional release and sharing and entanglement, and not change anything at all the teensiest little bit about how you thought of them in your mind. That's all.
2448. CalGal - 9/16/2000 4:30:00 AM
Angel,
Ah, yes. You're trying to show me that I don't really mean what I say. You don't understand it, therefore you know better.
Right.
Happily, I am under no obligation to enlighten you. Do restrain yourself from further references to this conversation in future discussions--whether with me or some poor unknowing poster. By your own admission you don't understand what I've said, so to restate what you've decided I've said would be dishonest.
2449. angel-five - 9/16/2000 4:33:23 AM
Yup. If you're claiming that you're not moved but you are moved, you're pretty much refining the art of being indecipherable. Still, I think you gave your answer.
2450. Uzmakk - 9/16/2000 6:42:32 PM
Here's another chap who doesn't grok CalGal. (Uzmakk raises his hand timidly in the air.)
You know, I think I must lack self-awareness. I find talking about "relationships" about as difficult as taking that philosophy test some of us took a while ago. On about 75% of those questions I said, hell, I'd have to think about that and I just don't have the time.
2451. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 11:25:40 AM
While I cannot defend CalGal's position from personal experience, I do believe that what she is describing might be possible.
While Angel is correct in saying that we have evolved with a penchant for sexual pair-bonding, this is not a personal necessity. For thousands of years various religious orders have proven that it is possible to live without sex. The survival of unmarried and divorced people proves that it is possible to live without a lifelong sex partner.
So maybe the pair bonding that goes with sex is actually a package with lots of distinct goodies inside. Perhaps it is possible to partake in some of the goodies without getting the whole package. In the right cultural atmosphere, California for example, maybe the right two people can experience a great friendship that occasionally includes casual or non-casual sex.
2452. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 2:13:48 PM
There seems to be an unquestioned special weight given to sex here. Presumably one can have many different powerful, even profound experiences with one's friends. Afterwards you might know more about the other person or appreciate them in some new way (or think less of them). But unless that profound experience was sexual most people aren't going to say "so afterwards was the relationship totally different? Did you find everything changed? Oh, come now, you must have..." No one would insist that you can never be friends "in the same way" again after a hike through the Grand Canyon. Obviously it happens to be the case that many people reserve sex for Relationships only, but it doesn't seem mind boggling to me that others wouldn't. It also doesn't seem to follow that those others must be Ice People. Maybe the problem people are having is that if you ARE great friends, and the sex is physically and emotionally powerful, well then why not be a couple? I know I can think of a few reasons, myself.
2453. PsychProf - 9/18/2000 2:48:30 PM
Jamie...welcome to the Mote.
2454. CalGal - 9/18/2000 2:49:51 PM
Jamie and Doc,
Gosh. I was so discombobulated by angel-five's interpretation that my response was nothing more than "That will be enough from you, young man." But even had I been able to articulate my experience, I would have started from a position that took certain things for granted--and I wouldn't have ever been able to spell them out as clearly as you both did. Thanks for the posts.
Jamie, are you new? Hiya.
2455. PsychProf - 9/18/2000 2:54:17 PM
Cal...is your voice low over here...haha...remember Seinfeld's "low talker" episode?
2456. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 2:54:23 PM
Thanks. Calgal invited a bunch of us over from Mother's Who Think. I like the format here, and the fact that every single damn post isn't prefaced with "in my opinion, not to offend anyone, bearing in mind that I could be wrong..."
2457. CalGal - 9/18/2000 2:58:29 PM
Jamie,
hahahahahaha! Of course, if someone actually does state an opinion that isn't quite the thing, duck.
I thought I recognized your moniker, but there are a lot of Jens and Jennifers and Jessicas and I'm only now starting to get all the J names straight.
If you want to see how we started, there's some stuff in the Anniversary thread (check the butterscotch bar links on the right). Discussion on education in the Slow Thread, and mindless palaver going on in The Mote Cafe.
One thing--it's not like TT in which you have to read every post before you participate.
2458. theDiva - 9/18/2000 2:59:15 PM
in my opinion, not to offend anyone, bearing in mind that I could be wrong..., I would like to say....
Hi, Jamie, welcome!
2459. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 2:59:51 PM
Whoops, a little crossposted. What I meant was- Hi Calgal, Hi Psychprof. Yes, I'm new. Thanks for the welcome.
2460. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:01:03 PM
Hello, Jamie. I enjoyed your post.
Doc's post regarding California's je ne sais quoi made me smile because it reminds me of a good friend's saying about appellate decisions originating there: They set only in-state precedents; the rest of the country's still mulling over the fallout from FDR's first term in office.
2461. CalGal - 9/18/2000 3:01:38 PM
PP--and for the record, my voice isn't particularly low at all.
2462. theDiva - 9/18/2000 3:02:23 PM
Cal, for some reason I think you sound like Helen Hunt on 'Mad About You'.
2463. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:05:27 PM
Prof will have to say whom I sound like, but salespeople occasionally ask for my mother when I answer the phone. It's not like I have some squeaky little voice, though. (I sing alto, Diva.)
2464. CalGal - 9/18/2000 3:05:28 PM
You know, that's not at all a bad likeness. The voice goes all over the place, for sure.
2465. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 3:05:31 PM
Good thing she doesn't sound like Helen's brother Mike.
Welcome Jamie.
2466. PsychProf - 9/18/2000 3:06:18 PM
"Sex doesn't matter. It's just like sneezing. Nothing personal. Like a dog. Relationships are not changed by sex. "
Check if this was said by a
Man
Woman
after the first sexual bout.
2467. PsychProf - 9/18/2000 3:08:57 PM
Maria sounds like Merlot and brie...
2468. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:14:23 PM
You should have been in my German class, Prof; I was the only one with a French accent. Go figure.
2469. seadate - 9/18/2000 3:18:14 PM
PP -
It was definitely the woman. The man passed out.
2470. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:19:55 PM
Oops, I forgot to answer the question.
That was Simone de Beauvoir after some extremely unappealing Sartrian sex.
2471. PsychProf - 9/18/2000 3:20:40 PM
He's gonna be suprised when he comes to.
2472. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 3:25:43 PM
m-glee-son
De accent in you I heard it yes?
2473. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:27:09 PM
Oui, M. Lab.
2474. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 3:33:51 PM
mg
It does stand, de "M", pour Monsieur? Miserables?
2475. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:41:14 PM
Bien sûr! C'est 'Monsieur.'
2476. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 3:47:37 PM
I'm not sure I understand what CG's talking about. I don't disbelieve her I just don't have any frame of reference for it. I've never had sex with a friend where it didn't change anything at all, but I've certainly had sex with friends where we did not proceed to have a more "coupled" relationship nor freak out and back up to being passing strangers.
2477. theDiva - 9/18/2000 3:49:16 PM
both times I had sex with a male friend, I ended up married to the guy.
2478. mgleason - 9/18/2000 3:53:05 PM
Careful, Diva. You're beginning to sound like Liz Taylor.
Although you could end up with a bunch of diamonds for your trouble...
2479. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 3:55:36 PM
mg
Haha
Diva
Will you have marriage with me?
*ducking*
2480. rubberducky - 9/18/2000 3:57:29 PM
i've had sex with people that ended up being friends - not really sex with people who were friends at the time.
i've never had sex with friends that ended the friendship, though, so i can relate with what CG is saying somewhat.
however, once i put someone into the "friend" category, then sex is off-limits to me (well, except for ChrisO - grrrrr). why bog down a friendship with sex? sex you can get any ole where. friendship (and i mean true friendship) is a rare, rare thing.
2481. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 4:00:08 PM
Jamie made a great point about the effect of various profound experiences. Some classic examples to consider would be war buddies, co-workers, and classmates.
When people take a difficult class together they may be changed by the experience. Undergoing the same change at the same time can form a bond. I have felt this a number of times. At the end of a very difficult class, I often feel a special relationship with some of my classmates. Sometimes I lose touch with them, but I will always remember them.
Years ago my wife, Porsche, once worked for a very difficult employer. To this day she stays in touch with her former co-workers, even though all of them have moved on to other jobs. Based on their stories, I think that company was like a war zone.
Maybe sex is like war. It may change a friendship, even destroy it, but not every time.
2482. theDiva - 9/18/2000 4:02:38 PM
LabWab
You are incorrigible.
Maria
well, I got something better from the first one...got me some GRACIE!
2483. CalGal - 9/18/2000 4:06:15 PM
Christin,
Grey said that men and women couldn't be friends because the guy is always thinking about sex.
I said so what? So what if the guy is always thinking about sex? (or the woman is, for that matter). So what if they do have sex? What difference does that make--why is the assumption that men and women having sex always screws up a friendship?
A5 wrongly inferred that to mean that this sex is meaningless. I just read through my posts and no where did I say that. I said that the friendship is always there and isn't affected by whether or not we have sex. His charming post about "twinge of nausea" probably started the confusion, since I thought his spin on things was absurd and insulting, so I told him to go ahead and be nauseated. He clearly took this as grounds to continue with his inference, and built on it from there. It was a revolting little scenario, and one I didn't feel like responding to.
I think Jamie's post about experiences with friends sums it up. If I have sex with someone it isn't ever meaningless. On the other hand, I don't necessarily consider it significantly more meaningful than a lot of other close experiences I've had with friends--whether it be a great conversation, a time I've helped them through something (or vice versa), or just a wonderful experience we shared (which may have been the sex, of course.)
2484. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:08:14 PM
Doc
sex...
like a war? Perhaps there are cases where it is more like a neutron-bomb. Nothing physical is destroyed but all the life has been removed.
I know people who wish to only have sex with their friend....
...'s wife.
2485. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 4:09:35 PM
Question for everyone, especially doubters like Angel Five:
Do you suppose that it is possible to build a society like that depicted in a run-of-the-mill pornographic movie?
I presume here that everyone has seen such a movie. I don't mean anything kinky, just lots of cheap sex.
This would be a society where it is normal for men and women to meet each other for the first time, then within three minutes rip off their clothes, have sex, then get up and walk down the street until they find another sex partner. Is it possible?
What stops us from living like this? Is it only a fear of STD's, or does that sexual pair-bonding stand in the way? Or something else?
2486. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 4:13:28 PM
Does this not describe "bathhouse" culture pre-AIDS in many cities?
2487. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:16:32 PM
Diva
I blame Christin for that...
2488. rubberducky - 9/18/2000 4:16:35 PM
heh
pre nothing
"bathhouse" culture is still there if you know where to look. not that i've been to one, mind you, but know people who have as last as last month.
2489. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:16:54 PM
I think there are a few hundred million years of sexual evolution standing in the way.
Not that I wouldn't be willing to be proven wrong (of course it would require lots of first-hand evidence, skeptic that I am).
2490. CalGal - 9/18/2000 4:18:33 PM
Um.
Just to be clear, I don't rip off men's clothes three minutes after I meet him.
I wait til we get to the hotel room.
There is such a thing as propriety, you know.
(that, btw, is a joke)
I would ask a different question, since I think that the meaningless sex will bring up all sorts of judgmental comments.
What happens in a world where people are naturally polygamous? I don't mean like the Mormoms, but a world in which people have sexual relationships with more than one person as a matter of course. They don't acquire property as couples, although a man and a woman are still responsible for any children they have together--just without formal cohabitation. (figure it works like a JPC divorce from birth).
2491. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 4:18:36 PM
I don't know, Jamie. Can someone fill us in about the pre-AIDS bath house culture?
If it is true, then I cite it as proof that it is possible to have sex with your friends, a potentially profound experience, and remain friends.
2492. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:19:32 PM
"Does this not describe "bathhouse" culture pre-AIDS in many cities?"
To an extent, yes, but that is just men. I have little doubt that many (most) men would love a society like the one Doc imagines (or at least would love to vacation there). But there is a hell of a lot of evolutionary pressure for the female of a species to act as a gate-keeper.
2493. rubberducky - 9/18/2000 4:20:41 PM
those damn "Mormoms" are always fucking whomever they can get in a horizontal position
2494. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:22:45 PM
rubby
Should I be jealous too?
2495. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:29:33 PM
Two problems I have with the scenario:
1) Most women aren't bi-sexual enough to live a porno.
2) If there's no kinky sex then I'm out.
2496. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:31:48 PM
Seriously, I think if humans were wired for that kind of existence we'd be living it. There are certainly plenty of people who could enjoy such a lifestyle, but the majority of people would not.
Sure, some of this is societal and religious conditioning, but ultimately most people don't want to share their chosen mate with others.
2497. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 4:32:33 PM
My god, say it 'aint so. If there's one thing the movies have taught me, it's that all women are a raised eyebrow away from a lesbian experience. (Well, that and that billionaire businessmen routinely assassinate senators to get some marginal piece of legislation passed.)
2498. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:32:54 PM
CO
I'll take what's behind scenario #2.
2499. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 4:35:57 PM
Well, it is only in the last century that the really severe repercussions of sex have become scientifically manageable with a degree of reliability. The culture will take some time to adjust. But I do agree that it's not a scenario that most people will ultimately find appealing. Hell, I get resentful when strangers just try to talk to me. ("Get your hand outta there! Can't you see I'm reading Franny and Zooey here...")
2500. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:36:22 PM
Ducky,
(blush)
oh my!
2501. mgleason - 9/18/2000 4:37:45 PM
I'm still waiting for Walden II to materialize, so what do I know?
I want to go on record as being opposed to Skinner boxes, however.
2502. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 4:38:23 PM
Interesting questions, CalGal.
I have long believed that the main reason for religeous and government institutions to push us toward monogamy had to do with property laws. If sex produces children, then monogamous relationships are a very simple way to assign child-rearing responsibilities and inheritance rights.
But now we have birth control. Sex without reproduction is routine. It is possible to have many casual sexual relationships. It is also possible to have many deep sexual relationships. Why not?
Also, we might be able to build a better scheme for raising children. Mormons have multiple wives to raise the kids, the rest of us have day care. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps it is possible to take the best aspects of both and build a super family.
Imagine three mothers and three fathers raising six kids, all as one family. They could be far superior to the Mormon model.
2503. CalGal - 9/18/2000 4:39:31 PM
The culture will take some time to adjust.
I agree. On the other hand, we've adjusted quite a bit already.
I wasn't proposing that scenario as better than the current one. I was only coming up with an example that was a bit less tired than Doc's "let's all fuck like monkeys with anyone".
2504. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:39:41 PM
Lab,
You know the difference between kinky and perverted right?
Jamie,
I don't mind strangers talking to me it's all that surreptitious rubbing they do that's irritating.
2505. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:41:17 PM
Doc,
Come on, 'fess up you just want to live in a hippy commune.
2506. CalGal - 9/18/2000 4:41:35 PM
It is also possible to have many deep sexual relationships.
Exactly. Everyone poses your scenario, in which sex becomes boring and ordinary. I think that my scenario is equally unlikely, but it brings up a different set of issues.
2507. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:44:58 PM
CO
Kinky - is when you use anything to accent a sexual encounter.
Perverted - is when you involve "property laws" and "inheritance rights"?? [ref #2502]
2508. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 4:47:14 PM
You're one in a million, ChristinO.
Actually, I'd love a hippie commune, if hippies got to drive exotic cars and play with high-tech toys.
They might have a great idea. It takes more labor than ever to raise children, and parents have less of it to give. Just fill a hippie commune with Yuppies and see what happens . . .
2509. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:48:20 PM
"Well, it is only in the last century that the really severe repercussions
of sex have become scientifically manageable with a degree of
reliability. The culture will take some time to adjust."
It isn't just culture, though. Take a look at the animal kingdom, and you will see ample evidence that it is almost universal for females to be the gatekeepers of sex. The pill hasn't changed genetic dynamics.
Assuredly some of it *is* cultural, as the sexual revolution has shown, but casual sex is still a minor exception to the rule (rhetorical question: what percentage of your sexual experiences have been casual vs part of a relationship that at least one of you thought was monogamous?)
2510. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 4:50:03 PM
Lab,
Kinky is when you use a feather.
Perverted is when you use the whole chicken.
Doc,
I've got a friend whose grandparents lived in some kind of collective. Let me see if I can find her and convince her to come talk about that a little bit.
2511. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:50:04 PM
Rasko
Female may own the gate...but male own the key.
2512. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:50:10 PM
"It is also possible to have many deep sexual relationships."
At the same time? Sure. Rich men do this all the time. It is called "having mistresses".
2513. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 4:51:16 PM
Lab: but they typically make you jump through hoops to make sure it is the *right* key.
2514. CalGal - 9/18/2000 4:52:15 PM
No, "mistresses" are just a variant on the couple scenario. Some people are rich enought to afford one to many, rather than one to one. I'm suggesting a many to many, with no official "couple" model.
2515. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 4:53:45 PM
CO
...and I'm branded as incorrigable??
That ranks with what's the difference between a brown gerbil and a white one.
The white one escaped...
2516. bloodnfire - 9/18/2000 4:55:35 PM
ChristinO. I thought we agreed that you'd never mention the serruptitious rubbing and the chicken on The Mote ? I tried to explain that I never drink alcohol and that....well, you know.
2517. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 4:56:56 PM
Female gatekeeping doesn't really apply to CalGal's scenario does it? A woman can quite easily insure a good life for her one child by Mr. A, while enjoying childless affairs with Mr. B and Mr. C. She's maybe being more discriminatory than Mr. D, E and F would like, since she keeps brushing off their advances, but she's not being monogamous. If you assume that males will sleep with anyone all the time, and women will sleep with some of the population some of the time, the end result is not necessarily monogamy, even if the women always decide when sex occurs.
2518. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:00:51 PM
Or she can have sex and a child with Mr A and Mr B, but sex and no child with Mr. C and D, and no sex and no kids with E-Z.
Likewise, C and D have children with Woman B, who has sex but no kids with Mr. X, Y, and Z.
Of course, Mr. G has sex with Mr. I and Mr. J and just enough sex with Woman C to have a child.
2519. DocBrown - 9/18/2000 5:00:52 PM
I think it is possible, CalGal. All that is required is the desire on the part of the participants.
Male and female bodies are basically the same chasis, with a few minor variations. As I suggested a couple thousand posts ago, a little bit of pharaceuticals might shut off the gatekeeper motivation, allowing women to indulge the same indiscriminate many-partner lust as men. If the women liked it, we might see a significant cultural shift. Women and men might finally achieve total equality.
2520. labwabbit - 9/18/2000 5:01:32 PM
RaskO
Jumping through hoops. Now that could be considered kinky if ChristinO's definition of relevance is applied.
'Spose that's where the term "tricks" came from I suspect.
2521. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:03:03 PM
I still believe that one of the main issues still impeding total equality is women's willingness to live with equality when she feels like it and opt out when she doesn't. Of course, that's on men to change, since women have the best of both worlds right now and no reason to switch.
2522. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 5:09:52 PM
Doc,
Before you start injecting folks remember your own double standard: Women who have sex as often and with as many partners as men say they wish really don't get any respect from men.
If I were to sleep with all the guys I'm attracted to who wish it I would quickly find myself the subject of derisive or dismissive conversation.
Men don't want their wives or girfriends going out and boinking a bunch of other guys but they're happy when the wives and girlfriends of other men want to sleep with them.
The monogamy thing isn't just a female libido issue.
2523. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:11:40 PM
"Female gatekeeping doesn't really apply to CalGal's scenario does it?"
Which is why I think Cal's scenario, absent Docs' horniness drugs, is unlikely to be particularly common.
2524. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:14:48 PM
"The monogamy thing isn't just a female libido issue."
Very true. Men don't want their wives/girlfriends stepping out on them.
2525. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:16:12 PM
Yes, but in biological terms isn't that because they want to be sure that the kid is theirs?
2526. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:21:55 PM
Basically, many of the environmental factors which drove the genetic determinants of sexual dynamics have been somehwat rendered irrelevant by technology (the pill) and law (alimony and child support payments). But that doesn't change the genetics. Women are still hardwired to be gatekeepers (evolutionary reason: to screen out men who won't stick with them when they are more vulnerable while pregnant or with a young child) and men are still hardwired to be jealous when their mate sleeps around (evolutionary reason: you don't want to waste time supporting someone else's kid).
2527. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:24:12 PM
"Yes, but in biological terms isn't that because they want to be sure
that the kid is theirs?"
Yes, but we are talking about hardwired emotions. It doesn't matter if the evolutionary reason for the jealousy is removed by the pill, the genetic component of jealousy is untouched.
2528. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:28:28 PM
Rask,
I know that is the reasoning. I do think that Jamie is correct--things have changed quite a bit in just 50 years. I don't necessarily believe that biology is destiny.
Still, I've already said I thought my scenario was unlikely.
2529. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 5:39:22 PM
I'm not disagreeing with your take on the ev-psych, Raskolnikov. I'm sure that serial monogamy is going to be the norm for a long, long time. But I do think there's enough flexibility in human psychology to produce some truly surprising variation, and the costs of experimenting are now very low and getting lower all the time. For what it's worth (warning, anecdote)the women I've known have been on average far more promiscuous than the men. They have eventually settled down to stable traditional relationships, but only after long "experimental" phases. People live a long time these days. Maybe what we'll see will be something like poly-youth followed by monogamous midlife.
2530. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:39:36 PM
"I know that is the reasoning. I do think that Jamie is correct--things
have changed quite a bit in just 50 years. I don't necessarily believe
that biology is destiny. "
Of course not. But look *how* things have changed. The institution of marriage has taken a severe beating, but monogamy, albeit serial monogamy, is still by far the norm. There are few shorter ways to disrepute than cheating on your significant other, married or not. Casual sex accounts for only a very small percent of the sexual activity among hetero couples.
There was a fascinating study I read about a few years ago. The had an attractive man and attractive women all hit on many members of the opposite sex in a bar, using three different propositions ("would you care to go out", "would you care to come back to my place", "would you like to have sex"). The results showed completely reversed likelihoods of acceptance. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 60% of the men agreed to the date, 80% agred to go back to her place, and 90% agreed to have sex. For women, 60% agreed to the date, 20% agreed to go back to his place, and 0% agreed to have sex.
I don't think we have changed all that much.
2531. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 5:41:58 PM
I didn't think we were talking about casual sex. If we are, then I agree completely that ev-psych is going to rule that out as the norm for women.
2532. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 5:42:49 PM
Sorry, by "casual" I mean spontaneous, anonymous sex as described in the aforementioned study.
2533. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:45:17 PM
" For what it's worth (warning, anecdote)the women I've known have been on average far more promiscuous than the men."
Not from the data I have seen. And what do you mean by "promiscuous"? Number of sexual partners, or amount of casual sex?
2534. Ronski - 9/18/2000 5:45:53 PM
Rask,
And then the hitter had to explain to the hittee that it was all for a sociological study? Bummer.
2535. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:45:56 PM
Rask--out of curiousity, did they follow up? Did the guy go home with her, or have sex with her?
I don't think that study proves much--certainly not about my scenario. We're not talking about casual sex.
But in general, I would say that women risk a lot more in going home with a stranger--from a pure safety perspective. Also, it would not surprise me much if a percentage of those men didn't change their mind at some point between saying yes and actually, er, coming through.
2536. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:46:21 PM
You answered my last question.
"I didn't think we were talking about casual sex. If we are, then I agree
completely that ev-psych is going to rule that out as the norm for
women."
well, the specific proposal Doc brought up was precisely this kind of casual sex.
2537. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:47:32 PM
"Rask--out of curiousity, did they follow up? Did the guy go home with
her, or have sex with her?"
The write-up I saw didn't say. I would bet not.
2538. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 5:47:34 PM
Rask,
Those figures don't surprise me but I'm not sure that they prove anything other than what they state: that men are more likely to accept a random sexual proposition than women. It makes no comment on the why of it and whether it's a biological or societal thing.
There's also the problem mentioned not to long ago that a man who brings a strange woman home with him for sex is not as vulnerable as a female in the same situation.
2539. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:48:21 PM
"I don't think that study proves much--certainly not about my scenario.
We're not talking about casual sex."
Have I completely missed the point here? I thought we were discussing the likelihood of Doc's porn-world where casual sex is commonplace?
2540. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 5:49:06 PM
my lack of speed leads to a cross-post.
dang.
2541. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:49:40 PM
"But in general, I would say that women risk a lot more in going home
with a stranger--from a pure safety perspective. "
That is certainly true.
2542. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 5:51:52 PM
Rask,
Doc seems to believe-----I could be mistaken----that the reason we don't have more casual sex is because women have a lower libido than men. Amount of sexual activity driven solely by desire for sex.
As I and others have pointed out simply wanting sex doesn't assure that one will agree to sex.
2543. Jamie R - 9/18/2000 5:52:00 PM
>>Also, it would not surprise me much if a percentage of those men didn't change their mind at some point between saying yes and actually, er, coming through.>>
absolutely. It reminds me of those studies where they ask a bunch of teenage boys if they feel good about themselves on all these issues, and then conclude that teenage boys have great self esteem instead of concluding that teenage boys are mostly full of shit.
2544. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 5:52:43 PM
ROTFLMAO!!!!
2545. CalGal - 9/18/2000 5:56:34 PM
Jamie,
Exactly. Likewise, girls are all depressed just because they say so.
Rask,
Right after Doc's proposal, I mentioned one as an alternative, since the whole "casual sex" thing is so old. I'll dig it up. Jamie, Doc, and I have all been referencing it in our responses at various points.
2546. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 5:59:59 PM
"Doc seems to believe-----I could be mistaken----that the reason we
don't have more casual sex is because women have a lower libido
than men. Amount of sexual activity driven solely by desire for sex. "
I think that argument is partly right, but a more important driver is that it takes women a hell of a lot longer to warm up.
2547. CalGal - 9/18/2000 6:00:32 PM
Rask--it was Message # 2490
2548. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 6:06:14 PM
Oh, I misunderstood that post. Still, it has the same things working against it as casual sex. Gatekeeping and jealousy. From what I have seen, the sexual revolution seems to be settling down to a world where serial monogamy is by far the norm.
2549. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 6:06:23 PM
Rask,
It is partially true, but I think the societal barriers are much greater than the biological at this point.
Women are told that sex is love or that sex is sacred and they should only give out so much. Girls are never taught that sex is also fun and a rip-roaring good time.
The penalty for female promiscuity isn't just biological but social. That's going to take a long time to change. It has certainly changed quite a bit in the last 50 years but even someone as pro-sex and as enlightened as DocBrown has stated that the women one meets in bars who are willing to have sex with you are fine for a romp but one certainly doesn't marry them.
I don't have any current urge to get married, but even so were I to act on my sexual impulses I would lose status within my peer group. Most women would because however much men say they want us to be loose, they usually don't really mean it.
2550. ChristinO - 9/18/2000 6:07:43 PM
Rask,
I agree with you on the serial monogamy trend.
2551. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 6:12:01 PM
I should add that in my experience, parallel relationships haven't worked very well. I have done it at two different periods in my life, just prior to "very long" term relationships, where I dated 2-3 women simultaneously. I ended up not taking any of the women seriously enough. "Commitment conversations" annoyed the hell out of me, instead of appearing as romantic. In the first instance, when I was 19, it ended with getting dumped by all three women in one week, all of whom claimed I wasn't taking them seriously. In the second instance, I dumped both of them within two weeks of each other, partially because the "where is all of this going" conversations spoiled the mood of what is normally the time when the relationship should be ruled by the infatuation which carries things through the first year or two.
2552. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 6:13:32 PM
"It is partially true, but I think the societal barriers are much greater
than the biological at this point. "
I would argue that the societal barriers are just symptoms of the biological barriers manifesting themselves, but it is a hard-to-prove chicken and egg argument.
2553. CalGal - 9/18/2000 6:18:05 PM
Rask,
Again, you are talking about problems that occur because of being forced into the "couple" model. It wasn't the serial dating that caused the problems, it was the push for coupledom.
Given the huge social and economic pressure women still feel to be in relationships, it's hard to know what will happen in the event where that goes away.
2554. Raskolnikov - 9/18/2000 6:26:14 PM
"Again, you are talking about problems that occur because of being
forced into the "couple" model. It wasn't the serial dating that caused
the problems, it was the push for coupledom. "
But my point is that the push for coupledom doesn't appear out of a vacuum. It is significantly driven by genetics. Sorting out the extent that it is genetics vs. culture is a swordproof Gordian knot, but I would argue that the stabilization of sexual relationships over the past 20 years around serial monogamy as strong evidence that polygamy/casual sex just aren't popular options.
2555. CalGal - 9/18/2000 6:38:11 PM
Rask,
And you might be right. But given that even with all the changes in the past 20 years, women are still under a lot of financial and social pressure to marry. Don't get me wrong--I think it's of their own choosing, and I also think that much of it is due to the biological factors you describe. So they are still driving the push to couple because they perceive themselves as being safer married.
I'm not sure that this perception will be true 20-30 years from now. At that point--when the genders have something approaching true equality and not the opt-in, opt-out arrangement that women have now--I think it's at least arguable that a more polygamous (but not casual) arrangement might be more common.
2556. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 11:17:51 AM
ATTENTION NEWCOMERS AND LURKERS!
Please do not construe the following comment by Raskolnikov to indicate that I have opened a new e-Business:
I thought we were discussing the likelihood of
where casual sex . ..
2557. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 11:30:26 AM
More recently, Rask said:
But my point is that the push for coupledom doesn't appear out of a vacuum. It is significantly driven by genetics.
This is true, but in the long run it might be insignificant.
Male pattern baldness and female menstrual cramps are also driven by genetics. Some humans who experience these conditions have decided that they do not like them, and so science developed drugs to deal with them. If some of us decide that our biological push for coupledom is an inconvenience, then I am confident that our pharmeceutical industry will solve that, too. I find the concept endlessly fascinating.
In the end, it is a question of quality of life. I believe that if we really want to live in Porn World we can probably build it. What I am unsure of is whether the quality of life in Porn World would be better than it would be in Serial Monogamy World.
2558. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 11:41:04 AM
"Male pattern baldness and female menstrual cramps are also driven
by genetics. Some humans who experience these conditions have
decided that they do not like them, and so science developed drugs to
deal with them."
I earlier acknowledged this with a "lacking any pharmaceutical solution" caveat.
I am skeptical that women are going to want to take a drug that will make them enjoy sleeping around. Of course, you could design a drug that would make them want to take one, but how would you make them take that?
2559. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 11:49:40 AM
Rask:
Tell 'em it will make them lose weight...
2560. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 12:01:02 PM
Rask, I do not want to make anyone do anything. My assumption is that people will do whatever makes them happy. The whole point of this thread is discussing what pleases and motivates us, specifically when it comes to sex.
If someone developed a set of such drugs, I would not expect every woman in the world to use them immediately. But some subculture might.
ChristinO said:
If I were to sleep with all the guys I'm attracted to who wish it I would quickly find myself the subject of derisive or dismissive conversation.
Probably, but that is a cultural issue. Just 200 years ago in America anyone could also be subjected to derisive or dismissive conversation for doing work on a Sunday. Our culture eventually relaxed this rule because we found it inconvenient. If our desire is strong enough, we could relax the double-standard around female promiscuity, too.
2561. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 12:05:34 PM
Doc:
Your last sentence is very funny. If our desire is strong enough, we BECOME promiscuious...but I seriously doubt society would ever relax their condemning tendencies toward women who give in to their lusts. It's the Madonna/Whore thing....
2562. Jamie R - 9/19/2000 1:28:09 PM
Society is not all that monolithic anymore. All that one really needs is a sizeable subculture to be sufficiently relaxed about the subject. I'd say that that's happening now. Conversely, and someone please correct me here, isn't male promiscuity being perceived as more and more pathological these days? For example, when I think of JFK nailing all these secretaries in White House closets, it doesn't seem manly. It seems kind of pathetic and juvenile. Ditto old James Bond movies. Now that everybody's an arm chair psychologists to some extent, it seems like all forms of extreme behavior are becoming suspect. And we don't say "whore" or "scoundrel", we say "ah, arrested adolescence."
2563. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 2:01:05 PM
Judith, I agree with Jamie. All it takes is a subculture to get it started. I realize that it is a difficult cultural barrier to break, but no worse than the barriers already breached by homosexuals.
Sex: it's not just for reproduction anymore.
2564. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 2:42:30 PM
Well, it never was, for me.
Too bad this was so long in coming; I thought the swinging 60s were gonna do it but, alas.........
2565. Jamie R - 9/19/2000 2:49:13 PM
Nope, count me out of any swinging. The people I knew who got a lot of extra-relationship action had to spend an enormous amount of time being social in bars and at parties etc. There's too much networking involved in casual sex for my taste.
2566. labwabbit - 9/19/2000 2:53:10 PM
...or too much casual sex in networking.
2567. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 3:03:32 PM
Well, that's all moot for me but I think back in the 60s, it was less dangerous and mind-numbing. Seemed more fun, anyhow.
2568. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 3:43:17 PM
Jamie, swinging may be labor intensive in our current culture (now that I am married I can't stand the thought of dating again) but this is not absolutely necessary. Remember, we are considering a society in which having sex is like playing Boggle.
If such a society is even possible. I am not yet convinced that it is. Substantial obstacles like the sexual pair-bonding issue, and the possibility that women may actually enjoy the gatekeeper role, stand in the way.
2569. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 3:46:30 PM
The Internet has certainly facilitated the growth of subcultures. A few months ago there was a private "swingers group" that was shut down in Minneapolis (as a public nuisance - some of their neighbors complained), which did its recruiting via the net.
2570. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 3:47:47 PM
I fully recognize that this sort of thing can flourish as a subculture, just like S&M, B&D, and nudism.
2571. theDiva - 9/19/2000 3:49:33 PM
what's B&D?
2572. Raskolnikov - 9/19/2000 3:54:20 PM
Diva: Hard to explain over the net. Let's get together and I'll show you.
seriously, its "bondage and discipline".
2573. theDiva - 9/19/2000 3:56:39 PM
ha.ha.ha.
well. You learn something new every day.
2574. JudithAtHome - 9/19/2000 3:56:51 PM
Sorta like grade schools of the 50s....
2575. Jamie R - 9/19/2000 4:01:18 PM
Well, I'm not going to try to work out some sort of game theoretic scenario right now, but no matter how casual the attitudes about sex, I don't see any society forming like what you envision. Unless you're supposing that people will lose all discrimination in terms of desirability (and attractiveness is probably more hard wired than anything else)some people are going to command a premium in the sexual market (so to speak.) And some people are going to have difficulty attracting partners no matter what. And as people work out various ways of cashing in on that premium or securing second best options etc. etc., exclusive access is going to become a bargaining chip.
2576. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 4:02:37 PM
Rask is right. There are a lot of subcultures out there these days. Perhaps this one already exists. I wonder if some sociologist is studying them right this moment, and answering the questions we have raised about its ability to endure and flourish . . . ?
2577. rubberducky - 9/19/2000 4:03:59 PM
Re: Message # 2565, Jamie R.
There's too much networking involved in casual sex for my taste.
surely you jest. with the internet, there is more casual sex than you shake the proverbial stick at. sometimes, it even turns out to be just what one is looking for, so time is hardly an issue when the world moves at "Internet Time"
2578. DocBrown - 9/19/2000 4:05:55 PM
No offense, Jamie, but wake up! We live in the land of Retin-A, anabolic steroids, gastric bypasses, and plastic surgery! Anyone can be beautiful!
There are already plenty of subcultures in which physical beauty is the norm.
2579. Jamie R - 9/19/2000 4:17:43 PM
DocBrown, I agree you could have a subculture that was wealthy enough (or just lucky enough) to have entirely attractive members. I thought you were envisioning a society wide thing. I'm not disputing that people can form a large circle of fuck buddies. But since it is already the case that they do, what was the question again?
2580. Jamie R - 9/19/2000 4:25:43 PM
rubberducky, that's a world I know little about. How does that work? People arrange trysts through bulletin boards and the like, I assume?
2581. jexster - 9/20/2000 12:10:28 AM
2582. ChristinO - 9/20/2000 5:14:27 PM
A co-worker of mine and his wife go to swinger clubs. The most interesting thing that I've learned about that is that the vast majority of those folks are NOT particularly attractive and most of the "swinging" takes place solely between the women.
They recently went to a swingers' convention in Las Vegas where he found himself standing on the sidelines with the rest of the men. One of them turned to him and said "You know why we come to these things, right?"
My friend replied "Yeah, because the outfits our wives are wearing don't have pockets for drink tokens."
2583. Jamie R - 9/20/2000 5:52:03 PM
Anyone see the alternate reality Friends episode? "I just watched my wife have what can only be described as a TWOsome with another woman!"
2584. Jamie R - 9/20/2000 5:57:09 PM
There's a documentary about swinging culture in the suburbs that I've been meaning to see. I forget the exact title. It may have been The Lifestyle. Anyway, I believe it's much the same picture- mostly unattractive, elderly, outwardly quite conventional people.
2585. ChristinO - 9/20/2000 6:25:40 PM
Jamie,
Yes, I've heard of this film but haven't seen it. Swinging had it's heyday in the 70's right? It seems that it's mostly still the same people who are involved with it.
2586. CalGal - 9/21/2000 1:38:48 AM
That is odd--about the swingers being mainly women. Doc, how's that fit in with your theory?
Jamie--yes, I saw it. Very odd episode. Courtney Cox always gets me ill in that suit she wears. (shudder)
2587. rubberducky - 9/21/2000 1:32:16 PM
Re: Message # 2580, Jamie R.
rubberducky, that's a world I know little about. How does that work? People arrange trysts through bulletin boards and the like, I assume?
well, posting a personal ad online is as simple as can be. it can be anything from a simple workout partner search (such as finding a fellow tennis player) to finding a fuck for the night.
people can and do use them to "hook up". i, myself, have used them, but only met a couple people and didn't think much of it. something to do when bored, i suppose. although, i did meet a guy who is now my bet friend thru the online ads. we met, weren't really attracted to one another, but became good friends because we have so much in common. so, for that reason, i have a good impression of them.
2588. DocBrown - 9/21/2000 4:11:12 PM
ChristinO:
. . . most of the "swinging" takes place solely between the women.
CalGal:
That is odd--about the swingers being mainly women. Doc, how's that fit in with your theory?
So the women swing with each other? Have I got that right? Lesbianism?
The convention seems more like a double life lifestyle than a "Porn World" lifestyle. I don't know much about the subject, but perhaps this type of swinging is not the right path to find a long term lifestyle for large numbers of people.
Anyone know of an orgy-based subculture?
2589. ChristinO - 9/21/2000 5:24:10 PM
Doc,
To the best of my knowledge these women don't identify as "lesbians" since their primary relationships take place with men. The majority are married or in long term committed heterosexual relationships. As for whether it's an alternate v. "porn" lifestyle you'd have to tell me how you define a "porn" lifestyle. Are you speaking in terms of your hypothetical Porn World (you really ought to have a website for that! ;->) or some kind of characterization of a real lifestyle associated with the adult entertainment industry?
I think there is a lot of cross-over and mingling in these "alternative" lifestyles mainly because they are such fringe elements for the most part that they all kind of find themselves grouped together----swingers, BDSM, fetishists. The only thing that they really have in common is their small number and the fact that they are often identified solely by their sexual proclivities. Not all that long ago gays and lesbians would've fallen into this group but they've since become far less marginalized.
2590. ChristinO - 9/21/2000 5:41:40 PM
Doc,
Orgy-based subculture.....hmmmm.....well, not exactly. I knew a group of neo-pagans who would have these kind of Agape-type parties where folks would wear chitons and have drum circles, chew a lot of laurel leaves and then have sort of group sex.
The group wasn't really based on sex although they certainly had a lot of it. It really was geared toward religious/spiritual exploration but it wasn't very organized. Anyway, there were about 20-25 people involved with a core group of about 8-10. Lots of partner-swapping, polyamorous arrangements and the like. There was pairing off into couples, but those weren't always monogamous and often the pairs would mix up later. It was always a chore to figure out who was paired up with whom at any given time. Again, there was more bi-sexual experimentation among the women than among the men. No exclusively homosexual men but a couple of exclusively homosexual women.
2591. labwabbit - 9/21/2000 5:48:37 PM
Sheesh...
I've got to get out more.
2592. ChristinO - 9/21/2000 6:08:38 PM
Only if you're fond of roasted goat.
2593. labwabbit - 9/21/2000 6:16:21 PM
Never know until I try....
That goes for the roasted goat ya know.
2594. Raskolnikov - 9/21/2000 6:18:55 PM
I have to say that a woman wearing goatskin chaps and eschewing deodorant while dancing around a fire isn't going to make me "want to get out more".
I mentioned a Minneapolis swingers club recently. I didn't mention that its members were generally described as men and women in their late 40s and 50s. Glad to know that they are having fun in their middle age, but this isn't the stuff of fantasy. I think that when men hear of swingers, or Bondage clubs, they think of 20 year old playboy models, not 55 year old post-menopausal grandmas.
2595. labwabbit - 9/21/2000 6:23:26 PM
I think that when men hear of swingers, or Bondage clubs, they think of 20 year old playboy models, not 55 year old post-menopausal grandmas.
Hahaha...
You mean finding belly-button lint between someone's breast isn't sexy???
2596. ChristinO - 9/21/2000 6:31:59 PM
Rask,
Yes, you're right. Most of the folks involved in these "fringe" sexual circles are not at all as the media portrays them. They generally tend to be on the social fringe as well--- the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) is rife with them.
It was one of the only realistic things about the almost entirely horrid film 8mm----that the BDSM crowd is for the most part harmless and sort of geeky. That's very disappointing to people who expect it to be like the magazines.
2597. Uzmakk - 9/22/2000 7:56:26 AM
GENDER EQUITITTIES FOR ALL!!!
2598. PsychProf - 9/22/2000 9:31:14 AM
"FROM REAL JOB INTERVIEWS"
"When I asked the candidate to give a good example of the
organizational skills she was boasting about, she said she
was proud of her ability to pack her suitcase 'real neat' for
her vacations."
"When I gave him my business card at the beginning of the
interview, he immediately crumpled it and tossed it in the
wastebasket."
"I received a resume and letter that said that the recent
high-school graduate wanted to earn $25 an hour-'and not a
nickel less.'"
"(The applicant) said she had just graduated cum laude, but
she had no idea what cum laude meant. However, she was proud
of her grade point average. It was 2.1.
"He sat down opposite me, made himself comfortable, and
proceeded to put his foot up on my desk."
"The interview had gone well, until he told me that he and
his friends wore my company's clothing whenever they could.
I had to tell him that we manufactured office products, not
sportswear."
"(The applicant) applied for a customer service position,
although, as he confided, he really wasn't a people person."
"On the phone, I had asked the candidate to bring his resume
and a couple of references. He arrived with the resume-and
two people."
2599. PsychProf - 9/22/2000 9:32:54 AM
Haha...I meant this for Cal's fine Employment thread...I wonder what the Freudian dynamics are here.
2600. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 11:10:11 AM
>>When I asked the candidate to give a good example of the
organizational skills she was boasting about, she said she
was proud of her ability to pack her suitcase 'real neat' for
her vacations
At college once we skimmed an Emily Post from the 50's for laughs. I remember this gem: "remember ladies, an efficiently packed suitcase is more attractive to a man than the smartest hat ever made."
2601. Jamie R - 9/22/2000 11:13:54 AM
Back somewhat on topic, there was a poly discussion on Table Talk the other day that made the lifestyle seem somewhat less than inviting. I realize the ideal is some kind of benevolent freedom each partner generously grants the other. The reality looks more like two people taking turns being pissed off and bitter that one's having a tryst and the other isn't. Sounds like a massive headache. Anyone had a poly experience that comes close to the ideal?
2602. CalGal - 9/22/2000 11:25:27 AM
Back somewhat on topic, there was a poly discussion on Table Talk the other day that made the lifestyle seem somewhat less than inviting.
Oh, god. Way the fuck too much information, that was.
However, it is interesting to note in light of Christin's comments, that at least one of the women discussing her poly life is extremely overweight. She's also a witch, I think.
2603. greystoke - 9/22/2000 11:43:02 AM
"... at least one of the women discussing her poly life is extremely overweight. She's also a witch, I think."
Please refrain from discussing my wife in this thread.
2604. theDiva - 9/22/2000 11:45:42 AM
'poly' lifestyle? What's that? Yeesh, youse are giving me a real edumacation here.
(grey, that was harsh.)
2605. CalGal - 9/22/2000 11:48:02 AM
I'm telling on you, Grey.
Deev,
As I understand this whole poly thing, it is an "open" relationship. Except sometimes they get into arguments because one doesn't want the other to be as "open" as the other one was in the beginning.
I think.
Anyway, I was both cringing and laughing my ass off while I read this conversation (for the uniniated, tabletalk is the Salon magazine forum). The funny part was how some of the women sighed and said, "Oh, poly relationships must be so difficult."
2606. theDiva - 9/22/2000 11:48:41 AM
oh, Lordy. Noooooo, thanks.
2607. Uzmakk - 9/22/2000 11:58:01 AM
Poly relationships are for children.
2608. quivver - 9/22/2000 12:14:16 PM
Poly relationships are very much not for children, although childish types tend to gravitate towards them as a way to shortcut taking responsibility for their actions and relationship choices.
Not poly, find the idea vaguely annoying, but I do respect the people that go into it with their eyes open and with no intent of sidestepping commitment and faithfulness issues (yes there is commitment and faithfulness in poly situations. and a lot of trust/respect in the good ones.) The people who treat poly life as entree into Porn World are the ones who get sulky and bitter, as are the ones who think going poly means only they get to have other partners. And so on.
aem.
ps: On the flipsideish, Salon did have a stupid, inept article (ah what other sort have they these days, heheh) about the dotcommers that went in for poly and bdsm happiness. A beautifully hilarious supposition was made that as many of these people were conventionally unappealing and rejected, they were coming into adulthood by crazily having sex with each other.
Sort of a giant loser's orgy/circle jerk scenario. It was funny because I know a number of dotcom kiddies quite like that. Conventionally rejected and flinging themselves knees first into something unconventional. But to each their own.
2609. labwabbit - 9/22/2000 12:17:37 PM
Poly-relationships are for discos.
2610. Uzmakk - 9/22/2000 12:42:29 PM
and many a homosexual.
2611. CalGal - 9/22/2000 12:47:18 PM
Not poly, find the idea vaguely annoying, but I do respect the people that go into it with their eyes open and with no intent of sidestepping commitment and faithfulness issues (yes there is commitment and faithfulness in poly situations. and a lot of trust/respect in the good ones.)
I don't know if I respect anyone in particular for their relationship choices, but I do agree that the women I saw discussing their problems definitely are in committed relationships.
2612. CalGal - 9/22/2000 12:49:03 PM
And vaguely annoying is a good description. I'm not actively offended by it, but I think long-term committed polygamy is far too earnest--and earnest folks always grate at me. If you're going to do long term polygamous relationships, it's important to be non-committal.
2613. PsychProf - 9/22/2000 12:51:56 PM
Oh Oh.
2614. greystoke - 9/22/2000 1:03:14 PM
Did all this poly talk give you an orgasm, PP? Thanks for sharing.
2615. PsychProf - 9/22/2000 1:07:42 PM
It was said earnestly.
2616. seadate - 9/22/2000 1:39:32 PM
It sure would be tough getting dumped by two spouses at once.
2617. seadate - 9/22/2000 1:40:30 PM
course, if it's non-committal, I wouldn't give a damn anyway.
2618. theDiva - 9/22/2000 1:56:41 PM
I can't imagine how you'd handle a poly relationship anyway. How could you keep all those balls in the air?
2619. seadate - 9/22/2000 2:05:58 PM
hahaha
2620. labwabbit - 9/22/2000 2:29:20 PM
Diva...
well...ummm...
incorrigible comes to mind.
2621. theDiva - 9/22/2000 3:04:43 PM
oh, geez, listen to how that sounded.
2622. seadate - 9/22/2000 3:09:22 PM
Diva -
You can pun but you can't hide.
2623. quivver - 9/22/2000 9:24:34 PM
The most sensible 'poly' thing is a menage a trois. With two girls. It's about the only multi-partner situation that tends to last over time. With two guys can work, but it's less common. The guys have to be pretty laid back. Aside from that, a standard couple that has occasional outside affairs is the only other really stable configuration I know of that works consistently.
aem.
2624. CalGal - 9/22/2000 9:27:26 PM
And yet, if the swinging stats are any indication, it is the women who do best with poly, not the men. Guys generally have to buy their second, as a mistress.
2625. CalGal - 9/22/2000 9:28:02 PM
Incidentally, quivver, I'm assuming you're new to our site? Welcome!
2626. quivver - 9/22/2000 9:34:17 PM
Gratzie. Yes, I'm new and shiny. And know far too many 'interesting' people. Heheh.
2627. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 10:22:56 PM
Seems to me that two guys and one chick would work better than two chicks and one guy. One man can't easily satisfy two women, but one woman can easily satisfy (and 'house', if you will) two guys. Plus, women don't run out of gas when they cum. The only counterargument I can think of is that women would generally be more willing to pleasure each other than most guys would, which would give them something to do while the guy is recharging his nads.
2628. CalGal - 9/22/2000 10:27:51 PM
I don't know if women are more generally willing.
2629. quivver - 9/22/2000 10:44:20 PM
The reason two girls tends to be more stable is girls tend to want sex less, girls tend to be a little more prone to please others to keep things stable, and girls tend to share more readily. There are possessive jealous chicks, and those situations don't work, but one is more likely to get that with two guys trying. They are likely to fight over the girl a bit more.
Not a lot of well-adjusted people go poly, but those that do are more likely to go with the menage approach. In my highly anecdotal experience.
2630. Nostradamus - 9/22/2000 10:47:46 PM
Girls tend to want sex LESS???
Who have YOU been sleeping with?
2631. quivver - 9/22/2000 10:52:12 PM
Note I said 'tend'. There's obviously always going to be individual differences. ;)
2632. altitude /w attitude - 9/24/2000 9:59:39 PM
Aren't there always individual differences because you are dealing with individuals? If we don't tend to be individuals, we may as well be sheep. They only require one ram with "gross anatomy."
2633. CalGal - 9/24/2000 11:09:30 PM
Yeah, you can talk about what any large group of men or women might "tend" to do, without coming anywhere near what any individual one might actually do.
2634. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 10:04:19 AM
ChristinO said:
Are you speaking in terms of your hypothetical Porn World (you really ought to have a website for that! ;->) or some kind of characterization of a real lifestyle associated with the adult entertainment industry?
Only the hypothetical. The twentieth century saw many new subcultures emerge, from the Harley Davidson lifestyle to the homosexual lifestyle. This happened because people found they liked these things, while changing technology and culture enabled them. The technology for a porn World almost exists (birth control works, but STDs are still a problem).
The twentieth century also saw new mainstream lifestyles emerge. The automobile culture, working mothers, the Internet . . . probably many others. All of them started as subcultures then they grew.
As you pointed out in your Pagan example, we already have partner swapping subcultures.
I'm wondering if the men and women of the coming generations will find the non-stop partner swapping of a porn world to be so much fun that it will become a mainstream lifestyle.
2635. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 10:39:26 AM
Ask the people in some suburban churches or the Congress...they are already hard at it...although "swapping" may not be the term for it; more like sampling...
2636. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 10:45:39 AM
Judith, as I am trained in statistical analysis, I assure you that sampling is a good thing. In fact, the more you sample, the better your results.
2637. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 11:04:03 AM
Worked for me.....
2638. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 11:16:45 AM
(Doc...I know this is off topic but do you think $250 is a good price to get my headliner replaced? I know you are familar with what sort of car I have...)
2639. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 11:47:43 AM
Judith, I only had one cup of coffee this morning. Right now I can't remember the model of your car, although I vaguely recall something about it being intimidated by a moose. Gimme a few minutes to think.
$250 is a little bit more than I paid to have new headliners put in my DeLorean. But then, I used non-original cloth from GM. The color is a perfect match, but it is still not original. My car is no longer Councours quality.
2640. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2000 12:44:57 PM
Doesn't Judith drive a Jaguar into which she piles odd pieces of used furniture and such?
2641. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 12:46:03 PM
Doc:
It is a '91 XJ6 and I don't care about the color matching that well, so long as it isn't leopard skin or fuschia...my mechanic bid $365 and said I should be very careful that whoever did it knew Jaguars well...of course, he said that after I told him the others bid $250. These guys have been in business since 1965 and my sons boss, who is a mega-lot used car dealer with lots all over North Texas uses these guys for all his cars and trucks that need spiffing up.
The headliner is loose enough, just all of a sudden, to threaten my hair-do...must take action soon or risk the flathead look. (Which is a fine look for some but not for me.)
2642. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 1:30:33 PM
Oh yeah! The XJ6!
I have no idea why Jaguar headliners would be different from any other type of car. This site sells the material, but gives no prices online. It describes the XJ6 headliner as "glued to headliner panels, there is no sewing involved" so I think it should be a standard operation that any car restoration shop could do.
Were I in your shoes, I would give Welsh Jaguar a call. I visited there place a few months ago, and was very impressed.
Good luck!
BTW, I believe it is perfectly fine to discuss Jaguars in a forum about sex.
2643. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 1:38:25 PM
Wow, great site! Those wire wheels look fabu but are a bit overdone for my model.
I'm going ahead with the new liner because, as you said, it's only glued and probably I could do it myself, were I so inclined. Maybe....well, probably not but it seems easy enough for these guys to handle. I could see being picky if I were showing the car or if it were some rare edition but it's just my little auto that gets me from estate sale to antique mall, as Pelle so rightly noted.
2644. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 1:42:19 PM
btw, Doc, did you see this and then
this?
2645. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 1:46:44 PM
Some fabric stores sell foam-backed material that will work as a headliner. I bought some once, along with the spray-on adhesive that car restoration shops use. I sprayed and spread . . . and ended up with a mess. I could not stretch the material properly and hold it in place until the glue dried.
I also tried contact cement, and it was even worse. It soaked through the material and looked awful. It also got on my hands, so I looked like a leper for a few days.
So I took it to a restoration shop that Porsche's father recommended. For just over $200 they did a great job. I wish I knew the trick. Stretching the material to shape is an artsy-craftsy talent that I don't have.
Just in case Indiana Jones is wondering what we are doing to his thread: all this talk about exotic cars is getting me aroused.
2646. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 2:51:39 PM
welcome, DocBrown, to the first thread of the days of your life
or, something like that
2647. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 2:55:57 PM
Yes, welcome! Will you be serving snacks as host?
2648. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:03:29 PM
Thanks. You'll find I'm a wonderful host. Usually I do serve snacks, but in this thread I think I'll be serving champagne.
2649. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 3:05:11 PM
Oh yum! Hows about a nice paté and crusty French bread to go with that? My treat...
2650. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:13:05 PM
Okay, the question on the table:
For a week or so, we have been discussing a hypothetical fantasy lifestyle as it is depicted in "mainstream" pornographic movies. (If you don't know what I mean by mainstream, consider yourself lucky. There is some pretty strange stuff out there.) In such movies, everyone happily jumps into bed with perfect strangers. Five minutes later they seek out another sex partner, just for fun.
We have established that some subcultures accept similar behavior for various reasons. Pagans, for example, have some rituals that involve group sex.
The question is:
Assuming technology could eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STDs, would mainstream culture ever embrace "Porn World" as an acceptable form of recreation? Why or why not?
2651. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 3:16:00 PM
Because it's mainstream culture...which usually means, a reduction to the blandest, least offensive type.
Mainstream culture has given us Yanni, Julie Andrews, and boy bands.
2652. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 3:17:05 PM
Oooops...I left off the answer: No.
2653. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 3:20:02 PM
Re: Message # 2650, DocBrown.
well, Doc, would “I” be in a "real" relationship?
if so, then no. if not in one, then probably - if i didn't have bowling that night. it would be acceptable to me b/c sex is just sex - until, of course, you find someone with whom you are connecting more than body parts with.
2654. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:20:53 PM
Mainstream culture has also given us a zillion Microbrews, Judith, less than seven decades after it gave us Prohibition. I'm wondering if 50 years from now we might consider "Porn World" as bland as we consider Julie Andrews today.
2655. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 3:22:00 PM
hell, a lotta porn is bland now, Doc
2656. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:26:02 PM
Interesting point, Rubberducky. What do we get out of "real" relationships that we cannot get out of plain old sex?
Today divorce has become very common, mutating our monogamous society toward a serial polygamous society. When (if ever) will the mutation stop?
2657. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 3:28:32 PM
Jesus Doc, that's a pretty neat prospect!
Let's see. Everyone is eugenically programmed or surgically corrected so as to be beautiful. People together in an arbitrary group, everyone takes drugs to feel relaxed and horny, and you hump the person who happens to be beside you.
That's some brave new world you're proposing.
2658. labwabbit - 9/25/2000 3:32:48 PM
hump-kin?
2659. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 3:33:25 PM
Re: Message # 2656, DocBrown.
What do we get out of "real" relationships that we cannot get out of plain old sex?
for me, emotional connection. fucking someone is for physical release - relationships are for emotional ones.
Today divorce has become very common, mutating our monogamous society toward a serial polygamous society. When (if ever) will the mutation stop?
when gay marriage is legalized... haha
but, i think the divorce rate is just a product of our disposable, no consequences American culture
2660. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:34:42 PM
"Assuming technology could eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STDs,
would mainstream culture ever embrace "Porn World" as an
acceptable form of recreation? Why or why not? "
My answer is still no, because I think that there is an evolutionary drive toward wanting your sexual partner to be monogamous. Overcoming such a drive would take pharmaceutical tinkering or some evolutionary change. The latter isn't likely, and the former I just don't ever see as popular ("a pill that makes you want to cheat on your partner? Why not a pill that makes you want to kill your partner, as long as we are leaving our morality at the mercy of drugs" - I can see the reaction now).
2661. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:41:22 PM
Raskolnikov:
. . . there is an evolutionary drive toward wanting your sexual partner to be monogamous. Overcoming such a drive would take pharmaceutical tinkering or some evolutionary change. The latter isn't likely, and the former I just don't ever see as popular . . .
Given your presumptions, I agree with your conclusions. However I am not convinced that people are so attached to their monogamous drives. In the long run, is monogamy fun?
2662. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 3:44:15 PM
alistair, what is your image of the brave new world?
I'm just using the "Porn World" image to explore the concepts of what pleases us. Our species has a history of shaping the world to its liking.
2663. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 3:45:48 PM
Rask:
We don't need a pill to make us want to kill our partner; it's already here and it's called "forgetting a birthday".
2664. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:47:17 PM
"Given your presumptions, I agree with your conclusions. However I
am not convinced that people are so attached to their monogamous
drives. In the long run, is monogamy fun? "
I don't think that it is so much an attachment to a monogamous drive as it is a disinclination to allow one's partner to screw around. By observation, it is more fun to be monogamous than it is to be polygamous and have your partner screw someone else.
Have you ever tried the "I think we should both see other people" line in a relationship? It is basically synonymous with "I am dumping you".
2665. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 3:47:27 PM
You guys are combing Huxley and Wells in a neat way....The Shape of Things To Come is a Brave New World.
2666. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 3:49:04 PM
>> i think the divorce rate is just a product of our disposable, no consequences American culture
I'd be more inclined to think divorce is a consequence of the importance the culture places on individual happiness in the sphere of romantic love, coupled with the sad fact that people screw up when making relationship choices. The first is a good thing, and the second is simply inevitable. Think of the positive side of a high divorce rate. A lot of awful relationships are ending.
2667. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 3:51:39 PM
I have long wanted to see better research into the negative consequences of divorce. Sure, children of divorces have more problems than children whose parents stay together, but that has an obvious selection bias problem. The real question is how would the children of divorced parents done when compared to how they would have done if their dysfunctional family had stayed together.
2668. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 3:57:32 PM
Doc, my sarcasm must be a bit too oblique for you. I presume you've read the Huxley book? If so, you know what I think about your fantasy. I think the idea of life as instant gratification is eminently worthless.
Or maybe I'm just channelling my tight-arsed Presbyterian ancestors.
2669. JudithAtHome - 9/25/2000 4:01:19 PM
Pass the SOMA....
2670. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 4:01:32 PM
Wow, lots of good stuff here!
Jami and Rask have made seperate points defending divorce. Both seem to point to a lot of misery in monogamous relationships.
2671. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 4:01:42 PM
Divorce as an easy option which enables the pursuit of personal gratification : I'm not saying that it represents the majority of cases, but it's certainly a factor.
And I think it's a bad influence on children. Many relationships can be saved with a bit of work and goodwill; when divorce represents the soft option, it's not only disruptive for the children, it's a bad example to them.
2672. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:06:18 PM
"Jami and Rask have made seperate points defending divorce. Both
seem to point to a lot of misery in monogamous relationships. "
There is obviously a lot of misery in marriage, or there wouldn't be high divorce. But I don't lay that at the feet of monogamy. I could see the institution of marriage dying off in favor of serial monogamy.
I also see that a lot of the misery in relationships come from attempts at polygamy by one of the supposedly monogamous partners. I also see that a lot of people prefer being miserably single to being in a relationship where their partner refuses to be monogamous.
For the record, I am happily married.
2673. DocBrown - 9/25/2000 4:08:11 PM
alistair, how does divorce give a "bad" example to children?
Suppose the message I want to give my children is: "It's a cutthroat world out there! You must be ruthless in the pursuit of the things you want! Don't believe that you can count on anyone!"
It seems that a divorce would present them with an excellent example. The experience might even make them more successful in climbing the corporate ladder.
2674. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 4:14:53 PM
I think that parents have an obligation to be good parents, period. That means not entering into divorce lightly when children are involved, and doing everything possible to minimize the consequences of a divorce for the children. I only object to the trivialization of "personal gratification."
2675. rubberducky - 9/25/2000 4:22:00 PM
Re: Message # 2666, Jamie R.
I'd be more inclined to think divorce is a consequence of the importance the culture places on individual happiness in the sphere of romantic love, coupled with the sad fact that people screw up when making relationship choices.
i don't think we are that far apart, really. I'd say that the importance placed on "individual happiness" is because we have such a "no consequences American culture". don't like your wife, get another! your man can't get it up? hell, there are plenty more out there.
people are seldom shown how things play out ... unless it's a Ally 2-parter that night.
2676. alistairconnor - 9/25/2000 4:25:39 PM
Doc, to labour the point, I think it's a bad example because I have a value system which doesn't correspond to the one you describe.
I wouldn't want to minimise the importance of personal gratification, though. But I do affirm that the world can be improved if enough people can grasp the concept that duty and commitments to others have their importance too; and that a degree of abnegation has moral worth, and may even be a source of long term gratification (think of it as a long-term high-interest bond, Doc.)
2677. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 4:30:24 PM
Sorry, I'm a little confused. Your criticism then is not that people divorce for their own happiness, but that they are probably mistaken in thinking it will indeed further their happiness? Am I understanding you right?
2678. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 4:31:37 PM
Sorry, that was to rubberducky.
2679. CalGal - 9/25/2000 4:50:26 PM
The real question is how would the children of divorced parents done when compared to how they would have done if their dysfunctional family had stayed together.
Actually, they've done studies like that--there was just a cite for one over at Tabletalk. Comparing like to like marriages, children of divorce consistently do worse. It was a well-regarded study, done over a long period of time.
They do worse financially, they do worse in terms of relationships with their parents, and they do worse in forming their own relationships.
That being said, I think it is more of an argument for redefining divorce and mandating behaviors from parents than it is restricting divorce. I think that studies of kids after divorce who had regular access to both parents would paint a different story. They'd probably still have more trouble than not forming relationships (but that is selection bias).
2680. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 4:55:05 PM
Interesting. I am curious how the marriages were "like to like" when one of the groups, by definition, ends in divorce and the other doesn't.
2681. ChristinO - 9/25/2000 4:56:45 PM
Doc,
We place more value and importance on things that are rare or hard to aquire. I think humans will likely always tend toward desiring exclusive relationships. Whether it's a lasting monogamy or a serialized monogamy we like to be the center of attention and affection. True intimacy can be hard to come by. It certainly isn't aided by sharing the same thing with all and sundry. Everyone likes to feel special in some way.
2682. CalGal - 9/25/2000 4:57:33 PM
Rask,
I'll see if I can find the study link.
I forgot to mention: high conflict marriages (physical abuse) were a constant exception.
Like to like: holding constant for the quality of relationship, income, whatever. Kids with parents who bickered and stayed married, kids with parents who bickered and divorced.
2683. ChristinO - 9/25/2000 5:04:16 PM
Time magazine's cover story this week (last week?) is about the long-term effects of divorce on children. While I think it is important for people to find personal happiness I cannot condone destoying a child's life/world just because one isn't totally satisfied in one's marriage. I've seen too many of my peers parents split because they needed to "find themselves" or minister to their inner children. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for adults who minister to themselves at the expense of their children.
2684. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:04:59 PM
"Like to like: holding constant for the quality of relationship, income, whatever. Kids with parents who bickered and stayed married, kids with parents who bickered and divorced."
But how can you hold bickering constant when in one group it ends in a divorce? I am not disputing the study. I am just quite curious how they solved what seemed to me an almost intractable measurement problem. How did they quantify bickering and control for other divorce factors? Basically, there are a lot of qualitative factors at work here, which are extremely tricky to control for.
2685. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 5:17:08 PM
>>I cannot condone destoying a child's life/world just because one isn't totally satisfied in one's marriage. I've seen too many of my peers parents split because they needed to "find themselves" or minister to their inner children.
while I agree with the basic premise, a child whose life is destroyed by the mere fact of their parents divorcing had some real problems to begin with. Children become adults. An adult who has been raised by competent parents should be able to repair such psychic damage as a divorce may have inflicted. It's more likely that the parents inflict the real damage by abandoning the child (and not the marriage) in their quest to "find themselves." And I agree that that is reprehensible.
2686. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:26:29 PM
Rask,
There wasn't a link, as it turned out, but the poster is a family therapist and summarized the study and the book:
The work that I am aware of as being credible and peer reviewed was published as A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. by Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth
Amato and Booth analysis of longitudinal child outcome data from a large national sample of families challenges the common wisdom that parental unhappiness is worse for children than parental divorce. They found that about 70% to 75% of divorces represent the termination of low-conflict marriages that, whatever their shortcomings, are distinctly better for children than the reality of divorce.
Moreover, Booth and Amato estimate that, "as divorce becomes more socially acceptable, an even higher proportion of future divorces will involve precisely those low-conflict situations in which divorce is worse for children than the continuation of marriage".
Their conclusion is that for these low-conflict marriages the children are better served by staying married then by dissolving the union. "Spending one-third of one's life living in a marriage that is less than satisfactory in order to benefit children-children that parents elected to bring into the world-is not an unreasonable expectation."
Amato and Booth's findings have been born out by other studies, including a study following California families (Black & Weiss, 1997) that found that except for families where conflict included or bordered on physical abuse, divorced children were less well-adjusted, more likely to experience depression and poorer students then those who stayed in an intact (albeit "bad") marriage.
...the Abrams/Booth study was done longitudinally with as many controls in place to mitigate the effect of income, social class, education, location etc that could be placed without manufacturing humans in a test tube.
2687. Rick Norwood - 9/25/2000 5:28:29 PM
I am currently going through a divorce. My wife wanted a divorce because...well, she gave a lot of reasons, but the main one was that she wanted someone who would make her feel like the most wonderful person in the world. She didn't find that someone, though she tried on a couple for size. Now, she would be willing for us to get back together, but since it is clear that she is only willing to settle for me because she found out she couldn't do better, this time I am unwilling. And yet, I would have stayed together for as long as I lived if it had been up to me, because I made a committment, both to my wife and to our kids. And I would like to marry again (for a third time) if I can find someone who is intelligent and kind. They say divorce is the most painful experience most people live through. It has been for me. Makes me wonder why it is so popular. The kind of marriage I had was probably hell on the kids. The thought that diverce is even worse for them is absolutely scarey. But I have regular visits, which I enjoy greatly. The youngest is 18, now, and a fine young man.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
2688. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:31:40 PM
The other issue the book raised (again according to the therapist), is that many marriages have problems that don't affect children at all: infidelity, impotence, money matters, and so on. So while the parents could be utterly miserable, the kids are often very happy.
In other cases, the marriage was unhappy but the huge disruption of the divorce and the loss of contact with one of the parents, less money, and the fact that the parents were still unhappy after the marriage meant that, from the kids pov, they were much better off with all the conflict and money and a home.
The book's purpose was not to advocate a return to stoning divorcees, but rather to demonstrate that what is best for the parent is not always what is best for the child, and that there are a lot of commonly accepted notions about kids and divorce that aren't borne out.
I just remembered another summary she did--can't remember if it had a cite. I'll check and see.
2689. Jamie R - 9/25/2000 5:42:37 PM
>>"Spending one-third of one's life living in a marriage that is less than satisfactory in order to benefit children-children that parents elected to bring into the world-is not an unreasonable expectation."
this is very nicely put.
2690. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:42:40 PM
The key seems how they define "low conflict". The controls I am interested in aren't so much income and class, but level of bickering, the extent parents denigrate each other in front of the kids, the extent kids are used as pawns in a parental struggle. Basically, some of these "low conflict" marriages are ending in divorce, and others aren't. What is causing *that*? How do we know that *that* isn't what is causing the long term impact on the kids. The variables which could be driving this, such as level of commitment, amount of bickering, and the like are difficult to control.
2691. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 5:44:46 PM
It does make sense to me that an issue like sexual incompatibility or infidelity is less likely to have a negative affect on the kids. But of course these problems can easily grow into other problems which would, such as abuse, frying pan tosses, and lots of invective.
2692. CalGal - 9/25/2000 5:46:57 PM
The controls I am interested in aren't so much income and class, but level of bickering, the extent parents denigrate each other in front of the kids, the extent kids are used as pawns in a parental struggle.
Yes, this is called "low conflict" and the study and book (again, according to this person) compared like to like.
2693. seadate - 9/25/2000 5:54:55 PM
Rick -
I'm convinced that if you're not happy with what you won't be happy with what you get - as I expect you probably already know, nobody will ever make her happy.
Divorce has certainly provided the most painful experience in my life. IMO, try not to make too much sense of a highly complex situation that will likely never make much sense.
2694. ChristinO - 9/25/2000 6:10:47 PM
Jamie,
I don't mean destroying someone's life forever but the destruction of a child's life in that his parents are pretty much his whole world and when his home breaks up that world is turned upside down. Specifically I'm thinking of younger children, but even adolescents suffer when their family splits.
2695. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 6:10:56 PM
"Yes, this is called "low conflict" and the study and book (again,
according to this person) compared like to like."
And I am wondering how they did this. This stuff is awfully hard to accurately quantify.
"How often did you and your spouse argue (defined as a disagreement where your voices rose over 70 decibels) in the past month. Please be precise".
"Please rate the severity of any insults hurled:
1) mild ('you meanie', 'you are irresponsible', etc.)
2) medium ('bitch', 'bastard')
3) harsh ('goddamn bitch' 'fucking bastard')
4) extremely harsh ('cocksucking slut who spreads her legs for anything more than two inches long' 'which disqualifies you, you dickless motherfucker')
2696. CalGal - 9/25/2000 6:11:35 PM
Rask,
Okay, here was the other summary she put together. Obviously this is thirdhand, but you can check out the book if you like:
The differences seem to fall into three broad categories:
Parental Relationships: Relationships with one or both parents tend to exhibit less affection, less consensus, less preceived support (child feels he/she gets less support form one or both parents), less contact and increased conflict.
Lower Socioeconomic Attainment: lower education, poorer quality education, lower parental involvement in education, lower occupational status and higher levels of financial adversity even as young adults.
Lower Future Marital Quality: Increased probability of divorcing (parental divorce increases the probability that married offspring of either gender will divorce by nearly 75%), dissatisfaction with relationships (even in dating) and an expectation of relationship failure (they don't believe relationships can work).
These tendencies to poor outcomes for children are also seen in troubled marriages. BUT, the tendencies are amplified by the divorce. IOWs, a bad marriage has some of the same effects, but divorcing drives the potential outcome for children even lower.
2697. MsIvoryTower - 9/25/2000 6:13:40 PM
Rask
As with most sociological research, the researchers will make some benchmark assumptions, put them up front, and if you disagree with their assumptions, then you can question the results.
However, just questioning the assumptions without then redoing the analysis with a different set of break points doesn't much get you anywhere in the research community.
2698. ChristinO - 9/25/2000 6:15:48 PM
Rask,
"the extent parents denigrate each other in front of the kids, the extent kids are used as pawns in a parental struggle"
These things don't stop just because the parents split up, in fact, I'd be willing to bet they increase once the parents don't have to answer to one another on a daily basis. The resentment and anger are still there, but when you've got a captive audience and no opponent present it's far more likely that you'll bad-mouth your ex than when s/he is standing in the next room. Once people decide to divorce they often quit trying to even be civil----why bother since they aren't staying married seems to be the reasoning.
2699. Raskolnikov - 9/25/2000 8:23:20 PM
Cal: those are the study outcomes, not the methodology, but they are interesting.
Ms: "However, just questioning the assumptions without then redoing the analysis with a different set of break points doesn't much get you anywhere in the research community."
I am not doing this. I am genuinely curious how they tried to control for these variables, as creative variable operationalization is something I am always interested in. The problem struck me as almost intractable, and I was curious how a highly regarded research team tried to solve the problem. As a social researcher myself (non-academic), I am fully aware that sometimes you just have to do the best you can, as a proximate answer is better than no answer.
However, I always always told, under such circumstances, to do a sensitivity analysis to see how sensitive your results are to changes in your assumptions.
2700. CalGal - 9/25/2000 8:35:02 PM
Rask,
I didn't mean to imply they were the methodology.
One thing to remember is that most studies don't even attempt to quantify the quality of the marriages, or compare like to like. They just do blanket comparisons. This study was well regarded in large part because it made a serious attempt to control for these factors.
Here's the book: A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval
And here is the link with an overview. Someone had sent it to me; that's why I couldn't find it in the thread.
2701. altitude /w attitude - 9/25/2000 9:01:49 PM
re 2660: Raskolnikov: It is not evolutionary. You, I, We, were created to be in a monogamous relationship.
2702. Slackjaw - 9/25/2000 9:04:20 PM
since it is clear that she is only willing to settle for me because she found out she couldn't do better, this time I am unwilling.
Interesting sentiment, given that she only settled with you the first time because she thought you were the best she could do in expectation. Now she's sure.
2703. altitude /w attitude - 9/25/2000 9:23:32 PM
Where are the studies re: long term relationships that are committed enough to stay together and resolve differences. what message does that give to a child? What then is the outcome for this child as he/she matures and attempts a monogamous relationship. I think the like to like variables if you will, fall by the wayside as they live out what they were exposed to. ie conflict resolution and committment. No one mentions the ecocentricity of the younger child who in divorce/seperation feels responsible for the situation. What is modeled for children when there is divorce? People are disposable and do they wonder if they are next? If I'm "bad" will Mom/Dad make me leave?
2704. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 10:18:55 AM
"re 2660: Raskolnikov: It is not evolutionary. You, I, We, were
created to be in a monogamous relationship."
Are you hitting on me? If so, appeals to creationist BS is not the way to do it. Try flowers.
2705. Jamie R - 9/26/2000 12:26:29 PM
>>Interesting sentiment, given that she only settled with you the first time because she thought you were the best she could do in expectation. Now she's sure.
This is pretty funny. But no one wants to be a minimax solution.
2706. rubberducky - 9/26/2000 12:40:11 PM
Re: Message # 2677, Jamie R.
Sorry, I'm a little confused. Your criticism then is not that people divorce for their own happiness, but that they are probably mistaken in thinking it will indeed further their happiness? Am I understanding you right?
more along the lines of people having no idea what they want partly because of a culture that is based on the here and now (disposable) versus a real commitment. i daresay many marriages are entered into with at least a sub-conscious notion, of knowing there's an "out" should one be desired.
wrt divorce, it's been my experience that it, like shit, just happens. i don't think it should be looked at in that manner, but i concede a certain level of ignorance as a bachelor.
2707. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 1:36:04 PM
ChristinO said:
True intimacy can be hard to come by. It certainly isn't aided by sharing the same thing with all and sundry. Everyone likes to feel special in some way.
I agree. But (as discussed earlier) we are living in a world where we have fewer deep relationships and more shallow ones (i.e. 500 years ago most people only met their family and neighbors, today we have hundreds or thousands of friends). I have no idea when this trend will stop or reverse. Perhaps it never will.
I get along with a large number of shallow friendships. My grandparents had fewer, deeper friendships. I wish I had deeper friendships, but life is busy and I don't have time. My shallow friendships make me feel special enough.
If we can get along with more, shallower friendships, can we also get along with more, shallower romances? Why can't shaloow romances make us feel special?
In fact, I might argue that nothing makes a person feel more special than a fresh, new romance. The more new romances you have, the more special you feel.
2708. Slackjaw - 9/26/2000 1:45:45 PM
Ah Jamie, but everyone's marriage partner is a constrained expected optimum at the time of marriage.
It's not insulting until you specify the value of the Lagrange multiplier.
2709. Raskolnikov - 9/26/2000 1:53:01 PM
Slack: In grad school I once tried to model that exact problem on the student lounge whiteboard. At another time, I tried creating a model demonstrating how long after meeting a girl should you ask her out, based on the point where the downward sloping perception of risk in dating someone knew meets the upward sloping cost of ruining a growing friendship. Both times I was called a geek, and had notebooks hurled at me. I was just wondering if the same thing happened to you, and if not, what your secret was.
2710. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 1:54:38 PM
Doc,
Then by all rights prostitutes should feel like the most special people on earth. Not only do they have a greater number of fresh new romances---sometimes several a day---but they even get paid for them.
Shallow romances don't make us feel special in the same way that the smile of a stranger doesn't make us feel special for more than a few minutes. It's flattering and exciting but it doesn't last and in the end it's a lot like eating nothing but candy. There is no lasting nutritional value. Eventually you're just sick to your stomach with a mouthful of cavities and a bad sugar crash.
I agree that we have an increased number of aquaintence relationships than our ancestors simply because we come into contact with more people, but I don't know that I agree we have fewer deep relationships. How do you come by this decision? I would imagine that our larger pool offers us more chances to find people we connect with giving us more opportunity for deep relationships.
2711. Slackjaw - 9/26/2000 1:56:09 PM
Why no Rask, that never happened to me.
My secret is an eye-wateringly offensive odor, so no one gets within 40 feet. Too far to throw notebooks.
Plus, I hang out with people who get paid to say stuff roughly like that with a straight face.
2712. CalGal - 9/26/2000 1:56:31 PM
I can hear Slackjaw's wife now:
"You're a 15.9999! I want a divorce!"
2713. mgleason - 9/26/2000 1:56:54 PM
Christin, would you e-mail me at mariagleason@yahoo.com?
Thanks; I've got a few questions.
2714. Slackjaw - 9/26/2000 1:57:48 PM
I don't let my wife outdoors, because I don't want her to know the population expectation.
2715. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 2:03:25 PM
Yes, Maria, sorry I didnt' get to you earlier this morning.
2716. PsychProf - 9/26/2000 2:10:18 PM
Sorry if this has already been linked and discussed....I checked backposts and did not immediately see it.
Prof
DIVORCE AND CHILDREN
click on photo 
2717. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 2:14:30 PM
Thanks for the link PP, this is the article I was talking about.
2718. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 2:34:01 PM
ChristinO said:
Shallow romances don't make us feel special in the same way that the smile of a stranger doesn't make us feel special for more than a few minutes. It's flattering and exciting but it doesn't last and in the end it's a lot like eating nothing but candy. There is no lasting nutritional value.
This is fine as a poetic analogy, but to discuss the subject I need to know what you mean more precisely. What exactly is the "nutritional value" of a lasting, monogamous relationship? Is it absolutely necessary? What will happen to a person with a defficiency of this "nutrient?"
2719. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 2:53:11 PM
The article about divorce and children is terriffic stuff.
I wonder if there is a way to have our cake and eat it too? That is, could we create a substitute for the two parent family? Maybe a way for divorced parents to raise their kids just as well as or better then married parents? It would certainly be expensive . . . but I wonder if it could be done?
2720. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 3:11:20 PM
Doc,
I don't know that I'll be able to quantify it for you, but maybe I can sketch around it well enough to give you a good outline of what I mean.
The first thing that came to mind for me was "Do we really need other people?"
The answer comes back a resounding "Yes!" Certainly there are different levels of need but either extreme is generally cause for alarm---think Ted Kazinski or Amy Fisher. There seems to be an optimum level of human interaction for people and those who don't get it are often disturbed. Whether their pathology is the cause or the effect of bad interpersonal relationships isn't the point merely that we correlation between the two.
The second question that came to mind was "Why?" or "What is it that we get from our association with others?"
The answer to the first is simply "Just because". That's the way we're made. Why do antelopes and horses live in a herd? Because they do. It's the way they're made. What does the human herd animal get from his association with others? The most basic anser is "survival", but our emotions lead us to need certain relationships that aid in herd survival. We WANT to be around others. We have an emotional need to form relationships with others.
Why do a multitude of shallow relationships not accomplish the same as a fewer number of deeper relationships? The only thing I can say is what I've been saying all along---we just don't get the critical amount of validation from shallow relationships to satisfy our need.
It's a question of quality rather than quantity. Could 10 shallow relationships with other women take the place of your relationship with your wife? What is it that you get from her that led you to marriage rather than frequent interaction with a host of others?
2721. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 3:13:49 PM
Thanks for your contribution, Norwood.
I am tempted to agree with Slackjaw, although it would be jumping to a conclusion. How old was your ex-wife when you first married? Is it possible that she married you in haste, through no fault of yours?
I've never gotten divorced, but I've been dumped by plenty of women. They gave reasons, which I believed, but the reasons never worked themselves out. For example, a woman who said "Sorry, Doc, but I need a relationship that is going somewhere . . ." immediately got herself into several brief relationships and a quick marriage / divorce with someone she had known for years.
If the main thing she wanted was a relationship that was "going somewhere" then why the divorce? She knew the guy well, and the marriage had no surprises. She just dumped him. It turned out that a relationship that was going somewhere didn't scratch her itch after all.
When someone breaks up with or divorces their partner, they may not give the real reason. They may not even know the real reason. But they do say something . . . and my guess is that their speech is often nothing more than a final complaint, worded to make them feel good about their decision.
I think this happens because everyone tries to make themselves sound like ambitious heroes, bravely looking for something noble, rather than traitorous villains unwilling to work at a relationship.
2722. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 3:14:13 PM
Doc,
If you could get divorced parents to continue living together as roommates with a modicum of civility then, sure. Open up the marriage and let both partners date etc. but keep the family unit intact until the children are grown and out of the house.
2723. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 3:37:19 PM
ChristinO asked:
Could 10 shallow relationships with other women take the place of your relationship with your wife?
Absolutely not. In that scenario I would not be myself . . . my very personality would change. But that might not make me mentally ill. Ten Shallow Relationships Doc would be a different man from Happily Married Doc, but he might still be able to function effectively. TSR Doc might even have some advantages over HM Doc. I would love to be able to measure those advantages, but I cannot.
What is it that you get from her that led you to marriage rather than frequent interaction with a host of others?
I could give a million answers about what I get from my wife, but I am less able to speculate about what I might get out of a host of others. I always hated dating, so I never gave much thought to the TSR Doc scenario.
I can only speculate that TSR Doc would probably survive. He may or may not have been happier than HM Doc. HM Doc is probably better qualified to be a father, but Porsche and I have no children.
ChristinO, I am sincerely trying to follow your thinking to answer the question: "What 'nutritional value' do you get from a lasting, monogamous relationship that you cannot get from many shallow relationships?" Unfortunatley, my own personal experience does not give me enough experience with shallow relationships.
I do know that my relationship with my wife gave me a lot of great things right from the first moment. As with most relatonships, the beginning was very intense. If I could guarantee someone a constant stream of new relationships just like that . . . I might recommend it over marriage.
2724. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 3:42:27 PM
ChristinO, if you open up the marriage and let both parents date, what sort of relationships can they have?
Would you recommend that their dates never spend the night? I might.
This plan might actually work, but it would require some paradigm shifts. Live-together parents that date others would create new types of relationships, with new social norms. It might be fun to write the unwritten rules for such relationships and see if they make sense.
2725. theDiva - 9/26/2000 3:50:53 PM
Doc
"Maybe a way for divorced parents to raise their kids just as well as or better then married parents? It would certainly be expensive . . . but I wonder if it could be done?"
Do you mean divorced parents as a whole vs. married parents as a whole, or a particular couple doing a better job divorced vs. married?
2726. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 3:54:00 PM
Doc,
Yes, but that is precisely why shallow relationships are shallow. We don't just let go of our deep relationships because they have more value to us.
My contention isn't that a multitude of shallow relationships is necessrily a problem but that a lack of deep relationships is. I think maybe I haven't been specific about stating that before.
TSR Doc wouldn't necessarily be unstable or unsuccessful, but he's not the norm. It isn't that all people must have the same thing simply that humans mostly tend toward desiring some number of deep relationships. Those who cannot or will not form ANY deep relationships generally DO have problems.
I see what you're saying about not having experience with a multitude of shallow relationships, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility to look at those who do and evaluate their effectiveness/success in life.
2727. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 4:24:22 PM
Diva, I'm talkng about a system. The article shows that society has a system that allows married parents to give their children some things that divorced parents may not. I am skeptical that there is something magical about the wedding that gives them this power, and equally skeptical that a divorce automatically must take it away.
I believe the power comes from the family system.
Is it possible to build a system that gives divorced parents the same power to benefit their children?
2728. DocBrown - 9/26/2000 4:26:42 PM
ChristinO, if I look at the shallow relationship people I know I think they are just as happy and just as fulfilled as the deep relationship people. No is is the picture of bliss. There are lifestyle tradeoffs, but none that I can single out as absolutely superior.
2729. theDiva - 9/26/2000 4:29:07 PM
Let me go read the article and then cogitate. I've been through divorce as a child and as a parent (within one ten year span) and I can tell you it is no walk in the park.
2730. Toenails - 9/26/2000 4:40:00 PM
I don't know if I've been around for this entire discussion, but the gist of it seems to be that divorce is this awful-awful thing for children.
Self-evident, I suppose, but too easy. After all, divorce is not always the product of two people too shallow, or too selfish, to stay together.
My parents divorced because my father wouldn't stop drinking long enough to be a husband and father. A couple of years later, my mother remarried and stayed married until her death 35 years later.
I was an only-child product of divorce, but my stepfather did a hell of a lot better job of raising me (and my half-sister, who came along later) than my "real" father would have.
Sure, too many people cause all-around misery by too-casually breaking up family structures. My bet is that, at least as often, breaking up something already broken is the right thing to do.
2731. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 4:42:34 PM
Doc,
"if I look at the shallow relationship people I know I think they are just as happy and just as fulfilled as the deep relationship people."
You know people (shallowly of course) who have no deep relationships with anyone ever? No parents, siblings, friends etc they could call in a moment of despair and talk things out? No one who understands them uniquely or loves them uniquely? Are you sure it's maybe that you just don't know them well enough yourself to determine the nature of their happiness or relationships?
I have several friends with whom I spend a lot of social time and with whom I share a certain degree of intimacy but these are not particularly deep relationships. I couldn't tell you the names of their parents or siblings. I don't know the truly intimate details of their lives or the minute intricacies of their personal quirks. To the best of my knowledge, however, they all have intimate relationships with others.
2732. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 4:46:28 PM
Toenails,
I don't think anyone here is denying that divorce is a valid choice in the right circumstances. The main thrust seems to be that divorce in general is not as negligible an event for children as it has often been purported to be and that it may not always or even mostly be preferable to living with two parents who are unhappy in their marriage.
2733. theDiva - 9/26/2000 4:48:35 PM
mm. That had to have been tough on you as a kid. I'm glad it worked out fine and you had a good stepdad.
As painful as I found both divorces (my parents and mine) to be, I am loath to say I wish they'd never happened. For myself, obviously, because I have a happy marriage now and a baby on the way. For my parents, too, because they are both now remarried and happier than I ever remember them being. Their respective spouses are so suited to each of them. The divorces weren't 'good', but good came out of them.
Rich and I were separated for so long that Gracie has no memory of her father living in the house with her. The divorce didn't bother her as much as did her father's taking up with a woman....that really devastated her. I think she felt replaced. IAC, he and I have worked diligently to maintain a warm friendship because it is so good for her, and to her advantage that we get along. Greg has also been a stable influence in her life for many, many years.
Is she better off now than she would have been if there'd been no divorce? Who knows? What's done is done. It is our (meaning the adults) responsibility to put aside animosity and differences, and put her interests first.
I won't lie...the memories are still painful and I sometimes still feel like a failure. But there's no reason she needs to know that; it's not her responsibility to make me feel better.
It just irks me when people do things like that father in the first anecdote in the article...kid comes home and finds dad gone. How selfish is that?
2734. CalGal - 9/26/2000 5:37:15 PM
After all, divorce is not always the product of two people too shallow, or too selfish, to stay together.
That is true, but it is also a non-factor in determining whether or not divorce is harmful to children.
Is anyone but me absolutely appalled at that Olympics commercial where the dad is telling the mom that he's moving to California with his girlfriend?
2735. Slackjaw - 9/26/2000 5:40:43 PM
I would amplify the sentiment in Toenails's 2730 that divorce is rarely the product of shallow and/or selfish people who just prefer to follow the path of least resistance. I've never been divorced, but it does not seem an easy path to take. In any case, the dominant theme on the "divorce is the easy choice" side is that other, unspecified people (surely never the poster or poster's good friends) cannot be trusted to make good decisions, that being inferred from the fact that a lot of shitty stuff happens out there, so somebody must be screwing things up.
Divorce must be related to the outside options available to the marriage partners, and as everyone knows half of marriage partners have outside options they never used to have. As a personal guess I would pin divorce on that more than lack of persistence etc.
2736. Nostradamus - 9/26/2000 5:43:33 PM
I'm totally appalled, Cal.
Why on earth would anyone move to California?
2737. Slackjaw - 9/26/2000 5:53:31 PM
Doc, Message # 2721
What difference does it make how old she was? That affects maybe the precision of her conditional expectation, but do you believe she would have married someone thinking that, accounting for the costs of search, she could have done better in expectation?
2738. ChristinO - 9/26/2000 6:10:16 PM
CG,
I haven't seen it since the coverage of the Olympics mostly just gives me a rash.
All of this frantic media attention now over a non-competitor's drug tests is just sickening. We've completely lost sight of what is news in this country.
NBC---it's not news. It's gossip.
2739. altitude /w attitude - 9/26/2000 8:53:14 PM
Check out the off button on the TV. It is generally located on the front of the set. If unable to locate off button, try unplugging it.
2740. altitude /w attitude - 9/26/2000 8:57:43 PM
RE # 2704 Raskolnikov: What about food?
2741. CalGal - 9/26/2000 11:24:30 PM
Clipped from TT, because it's incredibly surreal:
My roommate's coven just experienced some psycho-drama with the dissolution of one of its cornerstone polyamorous relationships.
2742. CalGal - 9/26/2000 11:28:41 PM
Toe,
My bet is that, at least as often, breaking up something already broken is the right thing to do.
According to the study (both the one I cited and the ones mentioned in the Time article), this isn't true. The exception is high conflict marriages, those with extreme abuse. It may also be true of addiction, but I imagine it depends on how badly the addiction affects the kids (in other words, whether the condition reaches extreme abuse or not).
I think the
2743. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 9:26:41 AM
>>My roommate's coven just experienced some psycho-drama with the dissolution of one of its cornerstone polyamorous relationships
{Apologies- Obscure reference.} This sounds like the Objectivist movement circa 1968.
2744. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 9:32:33 AM
I was alive in 1968 and musta missed that one Jamie...
2745. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 9:53:01 AM
Sorry. Ayn Rand's little experiment in individualist groupthink (experiment must be considered a failure.) They had quite a little world of their own going until her right hand man decided to quit sleeping with Rand, leave his wife, and instead flee the scene with one of his students. With mommy and daddy suddenly fighting, the whole society blew up almost overnight. It's quite a good story if you're at all interested in the dynamics of intellectual ingroups. (Sorry, that's not the word I want. "Cults" is too strong. Cliques maybe? Sorry, I'm not fully awake yet.)
2746. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 9:55:12 AM
I think the term "cults" fits.
2747. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 10:00:19 AM
Well, I meant close intellectual groups in general, not Objectivism in particular. I would include Marxist groups and certain branches of the feminist movement as having a similar dynamic. But I'm not sure it rises to the level of cult. I admit it's certainly an arguable point.
2748. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 10:10:57 AM
ChristinO, when I mentioned the "shallow relationship people I know," I was referring to a handful of people who never seem to find long term relationships. The ones I know are both heterosexual and homosexual. They are not my closest friends, but I know them well enough to see that they jump from romance to romance in a matter of months.
Some days they are lonesome, but not always. One of them holds an annual "No Families Allowed Thanksgiving Party." If you don't want to spend Thanksgiving with your family you can come to his party, get trashed, and maybe even get laid.
Porsche and I ran into another of them on Labor Day Weekend. He is a very good looking guy who goes through women as if they were cartons of milk and friends as if they were lightbulbs.
We hadn't seen him in about a year and a half, so we asked him how he was doing. He just looked at us in all seriousness and said: "And you are . . . who?"
He is incredibly shallow, but apparently happy.
Anecdotal data like this doesn't prove a trend, but it allows for a possibility. I believe it is possible that some shallow people are happy.
2749. rubberducky - 9/27/2000 10:17:24 AM
One of them holds an annual "No Families Allowed Thanksgiving Party."
where do i sign up?
2750. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 10:21:36 AM
Slackjaw asked:
What difference does it make how old she was?
Maybe none. I was just curious, based on the upthread discussions of young women making relationship decisions they later regretted. I was beginnng to wonder how common it was for late 20s women to be unhappy with the relationships they started in their teens and early 20s.
That affects maybe the precision of her conditional expectation, but do you believe she would have married someone thinking that, accounting for the costs of search, she could have done better in expectation?
No. I am only considering the possibility that a person's priorites could change significantly in just a few years.
2751. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 10:24:35 AM
A Theory of Love(Robert Sternberg)
A basic question in Sternberg's research is, "Why do so many relationships fail?"
Divorce is rampant in the United States and even among those couples who stay
together, happiness is elusive. In order to relate this to persons with hearing
impairments, we must first understand the essential components of a love
relationship.
1. Commitment. Commitment is the cognitive component. It involves knowing
and perception. It can keep a marriage together long after passion is spent and
intimacy is no longer obtainable. But commitment without one or both of the
other elements, constitutes an empty marriage. Many older persons today
despair over our younger generation's seeming unwillingness at worse, and
slowness at best, to make commitments. Perhaps younger people (with evidence
of parental experience) realize that people and relationships change and that
making a commitment should go far beyond what matters to them in the short
run.
2752. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 10:24:41 AM
cont...
Research by Sternberg and his assistant Sandra Wright suggests what will and
will not be important in the long run. Examples: a) As a relationship develops,
the willingness to change in response to each other, and the willingness to
tolerate each other's imperfections become important. When you are young and
"in love," even visible flaws are submerged while many others may simply be
overlooked or unknown. Tolerance, or lack thereof, emerges as a key factor. b)
Sharing of values, especially religious values is important. Mixed religious
marriages and intercultural marriages can cause trouble when children are born
of the relationship. "Love overcomes all," a sentiment often expressed by young
couples, is put to the test when hard decisions about children have to be made.
Suddenly, something not considered has become important and stressful to both
parties. Again, in situations of this sort, the need for effective communication
can be critical.
2753. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 10:24:45 AM
2. Intimacy. Intimacy is the emotional component in Sternberg's love triangle. It
involves the ability to confide in one another to express your deepest thoughts,
fears, hopes and dreams. It involves trust and, beyond having shared values, the
ability to express them. Not surprisingly, Sternberg's research found that
"Women are better at achieving intimacy and value it more than men, so if
women don't get the intimacy they crave in a relationship with a man, they try to
find it with another woman. They establish close friendships. They can say
things to another woman they can't say to a man." Part of that, perhaps, stems
from the societal perceptions of the role men and women play in the United
States (a perception that is changing significantly). Acceptance of each partner of
the other as equals may impact on this finding over time. Obviously, there are
other physiological and psychological differences which condition the degrees to
which men and women can achieve intimacy and, as in the case of commitment,
good interpersonal communications plays an important role. A marriage without
intimacy even though commitment and passion are still present, is likely to be
unsuccessful.
2754. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 10:24:51 AM
cont...
3. Passion. Passion is the motivational component of Sternberg's love theory. It
is the power of receiving or being affected by outside influences. In the case of
love, it leads to physiological arousal and the desire to be united with the loved
one. Originally the word meant suffering or agony, as of a martyr. And when
passion wanes, as it usually does, both parties to the relationship may feel that
original meaning. Sternberg believes that passion is quick to develop and quick to
level off. Then, using Richard Solomon's opponent process theory of motivation,
which says that desire for a person or substance involves two opposing forces,
he notes that the negative force, the one that works against the attraction, is slow
to develop and slow to fade. When passion dies (or one party to the relationship
discards the other), the agony begins. Withdrawal symptoms occur. Depression
and all its consequences can appear. "The slow starting, slow fading negative
force is still there after the person or the substance is gone." It's like an
addiction
2755. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 10:25:07 AM
Isn't this an emotional variation of "ignorance is bliss"? More seriously, there's happy and then there's happy. Supposing that someone isn't simply chronically inept at relating to people or a plain old fashioned misanthrope, I would think no strong friendships at all could mean two things. A) The person is so passionate about a particular thing (job, for example) that there is simply no room in his life for people. B) The person has no strong values of any kind, so one person looks pretty much as good as any other. I would think A could experience the kind of happiness worth having. B is only going to have a village idiot kind of happiness, which I am not even sure is worthy of the name. Maybe B can have contentment. His belly is full, his wallet is heavy, and life is full of pretty distractions. Ah, satiety.
2756. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 10:26:16 AM
Sorry, that was a reply to 2748.
2757. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 10:29:00 AM
I have presented Sternberg's work because it provides an interesting(IMO) foundation for the discussion of "relationship" both within and outside the marital institution.
2758. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 10:43:44 AM
Thanks, PhychProf. I believe Sternberg's Committment / Intimacy / Passion triad will be valuable to the discussion.
2759. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 10:45:43 AM
In response to my post on shallow relationships, Jamie said:
His belly is full, his wallet is heavy, and life is full of pretty distractions. Ah, satiety.
But what is wrong with that?
Can you prove that these people would be happier or better off in a long term, monogamous relationship?
2760. bubbaette - 9/27/2000 10:57:43 AM
I think that at least a portion of the people who don't really last in long term relationships are in love with the newness of relationships and tire once they become routine or they start recognizing the other person's flaws.
I don't think I'd like to live perpetually in a new relationship because (as Mike and I were discussing recently) we never got any sleep. Of course, sleep deprivation might bring its own psychlogical dimensions to a relationship, but I'd prefer not to experiment in that realm.
Basically, I think that there are people who are junkies for strong emotion. Outside of sexual relationships, these people's lives are constant melodramas as they pursue conflicts and/or have intense (but brief) friendships of a non-sexual nature.
2761. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 11:00:38 AM
>>Can you prove that these people would be happier or better off in a long term, monogamous relationship?
Heavens no. Sorry, I'm evidently not tracking well. I thought the context had moved to people who have no strong relationships of any kind, ie. no wife, but also no best friend. Just lots of pals.
2762. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 11:09:07 AM
Doc...Message # 2759...Haha...how can you say Sternberg will be valuable and then ask this question?
2763. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 11:42:54 AM
PsychProf, Sternberg is discussing the causes of relationship failures. Unless I read it wrong, he is not promising the universal key to longterm happiness.
2764. Jamie R - 9/27/2000 11:48:33 AM
Yeah, only L. Ron Hubbard can make THAT promise.
2765. CalGal - 9/27/2000 11:58:39 AM
PP,
Interesting. Thanks for posting it.
Bubba,
I think there are any number of reasons why people can't form relationships. A fair number of them lead back to childhood.
2766. PsychProf - 9/27/2000 12:25:09 PM
Doc...I thought this thread was talking about "happiness" as it applies to relationships...if it is possible for anyone to be "happy" under any condition then what's to talk about. He(RS) would say that "happy" long term relationships involve all 3 facets of the interpersonal interaction...passion, commitment, and intimacy. Hence, we can reflect such on a "shallow" relationship, no?
2767. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 1:39:53 PM
Okay, Psych Prof. It seems to me that the shallow relationships are a bit thin on intimacy and completely lacking in committment. I believe that the participants would find a "happy" long term relationship undesirable, so they intentionally avoid committment.
Obviously I am getting way over my head in speculation. I cannot prove that any of the shallow relationship people I know are happy. I only know that they act happy, so I wonder if maybe it is possible for some people to live a full life without ever having a long term relationship.
. . . if it is possible for anyone to be "happy" under any condition then what's to talk about . . .
I do not believe that any person can be happy under any conditions, only that some people might be happy under conditiond that would make others miserable. Frankly, I have been hoping my speculation would encourage someone to chime in with more information or personal experience.
2768. labwabbit - 9/27/2000 1:41:09 PM
Y2K BOOM!!!
It's the babies 2000 month!
It looks like those who chose to stay indoors to "cozy-up" to avoid any Y2K buggy madness, found a better way to make some noise. There appears to be an increase of 20% the number of babies born or being born this month over last year during the same month. The products of the new year's revelry or paranoia. Whatever the case, making babies or practicing, may have been the thing to do on new year's eve, at least more so than in the recent past.
The spike in numbers could also be attributed "in part" to a good economy and the accompanying optimism to have children.
2769. Rick Norwood - 9/27/2000 1:43:05 PM
How happy you are seems to have more to do with how well your brain manufactures seratonin (or whatever) than with anything else. I'm happy most of the time, unless something goes seriously wrong. My son Hal, who suffers from depression, is seldom happy. He considers that to be part of who he is, and resists taking Prosac because he feels like it would change him into something he's not.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
2770. CalGal - 9/27/2000 1:58:31 PM
He considers that to be part of who he is, and resists taking Prosac because he feels like it would change him into something he's not.
I sympathize with that quite a bit. However, I think there are people who have true chemical imbalances--in which case, Prozac is helpful because it won't change who they are, but fix the imbalance.
Other people are exceptionally sensitive, and bumps and shocks that other people shake off tend to hit them harder. In fact, just living is harder for these people. For this group, I truly believe that Prozac would fundamentally change them. If they were made far less sensitive in order to better handle the shocks, how could they be the same person?
2771. Rick Norwood - 9/27/2000 2:00:59 PM
I wish my son would take Prosac, but he is twenty, and so I really can't push, especially since he lives with his mother, and I only get to visit once a week.
Rick Norwood
www.io.com/~norwoodr
2772. JudithAtHome - 9/27/2000 2:04:11 PM
The couple at whose home we attended a fantastic Y2K party just had a baby 2 weeks ago (at home, no less!) and they say the reason for the tots conception was far too much champagne that night.
2773. labwabbit - 9/27/2000 2:12:16 PM
J@H
Haha
That too I suppose. If I remember it correctly, the mood was pretty right here as well.
2774. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 2:13:53 PM
Labwabbit, where can I find documentation of the Y2K baby boom?
I'd like to send a reference to someone.
2775. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 2:15:23 PM
Never mind. I found it here.
2776. labwabbit - 9/27/2000 2:20:22 PM
Doc...
I read the local rag with my coffee this morning before coming to the office.
It was funny to read their take on it and found it amusing to recant memories of what the "mood" was like as midnight sailed around the globe.
2777. labwabbit - 9/27/2000 2:22:10 PM
Thanks for the link Doc.
Ha. Were all just a bunch of animals.
2778. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 2:26:18 PM
Doc Re: Message # 2748
I don't think I ever claimed that people who have nothing but shallow relationships can't be happy. I have claimed that they are not the norm and that the realm they inhabit is also inhabited by folks who are dangerous to themselves and others. The vast majority of people require more than just shallow relationships.
I was under the impression that we're hypothesizing about an attitude that might work for an entire society rather than about whether some few subjects might find it acceptable. Yes, some people appear to be content with nothing but shallow relationships, however, some people appear to be content in physically abusive relationships. Does this mean that everyone could or should be happy in them?
2779. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 3:13:31 PM
Actually, ChristinO, maybe we've come full circle.
Out of curiosity, one Thanksgiving Porsche and I excused ourselves early and dropped in on the "No Families Party". All of the party attendees seemed to be on bad terms with their parents and siblings, and they had few close friends. Many were meeting for the first time. When they weren't complaining about their disfunctional families, they were trying to get laid.
Based on the conversations, most of them came from divorced families. And all of them loathed long term relationships.
Does this mean that everyone could or should be happy in them?
Certainly not. The alternative culture I saw at that party simply seemed to be a viable alternative. I found it a bit shocking.
2780. DocBrown - 9/27/2000 3:28:10 PM
The vast majority of people require more than just shallow relationships.
If this is true, can anyone clearly explain why?
I don't mean the evolutionary causes, and I don't want someone to answer the question with another question (e.g. "Why do you stay married, Doc?"). If I asked why people need vitamin C in their diet someone could clearly explain its role in the body.
I doubt that any one can answer that question.
2781. Jenerator - 9/27/2000 5:57:18 PM
[Hi Rick Norwood!]
2782. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 6:09:16 PM
Doc,
I thought I had explained why. Deep relationships meet an emotional need that shallow relationships do not. Why do we have this emotional need? The only answer I can think of would have to be biological. This need prompts us to seek relationships that are advantageous to the survival of our species.
Emotional needs are not specific tangible things like vitamin C. Their measurement will never be as precise as how many miligrams of praise one needs on a daily basis for optimum psychiatric health. The most scientific you're likely to get with it is that certain behaviors on the part of others with whom we interact in deep relationships cause neural messages in our brains that we find pleasurable and which we desire, but what does that mean other than "We need these relationships"? Nothing. The answer is still "Because that's the way it is."
2783. seadate - 9/27/2000 6:18:51 PM
Christin -
So how does one stop smoking? Does this require giving up sex? :)
2784. ChristinO - 9/27/2000 6:41:32 PM
Bite your tongue! If it required that no one would ever quit.
2785. DocBrown - 9/28/2000 10:06:23 AM
So ChristinO, do shallow people have different emotional needs?
If so, why? Is it genetic, chemical induced, or learned behavior?
Hypothetically, if I wanted to raise shallow children because I believed they would be happier, could I do it? Or are shallow people born that way?
2786. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 10:36:57 AM
I think shallow people have it in their genetic makeup to be that way; they are predisposed to be selfish and more inward looking. You can see it in young children who seem to be selfish beyond the bounds of learned behavior.
Doc, my new headliner looks great; worth every penny! (how's that for shallow!!)
2787. seadate - 9/28/2000 10:41:04 AM
Judith -
I find it interesting that you're convinced that "shallow" people are doomed (for lack of a better term) to this type existence. I think environment has to play some role also.
2788. DocBrown - 9/28/2000 10:54:33 AM
Interesting, Judith. If there is a genetic reason for shallowness, I wonder if it is a Darwinian advantage in today's world of corporations and MTV?
In a few years the shallow people might be running the world, if the don't already.
2789. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 11:01:00 AM
Doc and Seadate:
I said they were predisposed...of course environment can play a role in it, too. And I wouldn't necessairly say they are doomed; the world needs selfish people, too. And there's even a case to be made for shallow people...as examples, I would imagine. "Look, Jimmy, how shallow that person is! Even tho you may be predisposed to being that way, you can change if you try...."
2790. Jamie R - 9/28/2000 11:18:11 AM
Neither selfish, shallow, nor inward looking describe the same thing. I believe the examples given have mostly been of extremely gregarious people who have shallow relationships.
2791. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 11:20:12 AM
So maybe I misunderstood the question....fine by me.
2792. Jamie R - 9/28/2000 11:26:37 AM
Well, I'm not trying to jump on you or anything. I'd agree that there seems to be a strong biological component to personality.
2793. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 11:39:51 AM
ISSUES IN BIOLOGY AND PERSONALITY
2794. CalGal - 9/28/2000 11:50:07 AM
Prof,
I've been looking for a good online rebuttal to Harris. It was also an interesting link in general. Thanks.
2795. seadate - 9/28/2000 11:50:16 AM
Dumb Question -
Why all the &*%^!!!ing fighting between mates/SOs/or whatever you want to call it?
2796. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 11:54:13 AM
JamieR:
I know you weren't jumping on me...sorry if I seemed abrupt.
2797. Jenerator - 9/28/2000 11:55:55 AM
Judith,
I think that all children are selfish. We have to teach them to share. Ever see a two year want something that someone else has?
I love kids, I just believe that some of our greater behaviors (like being compassionate, sharing, compromising, and thinking of others) are learned.
2798. marshame - 9/28/2000 11:59:27 AM
{Jenerator: see you at 11:45 at you-know-where.}
2799. PsychProf - 9/28/2000 12:00:31 PM
Seadate...good question. It will be interesting to see the answers.
2800. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 12:02:30 PM
Jen:
Of course all children are selfish; I'm talking about certain cases where that aspect of their personality isn't ever outgrown. I'm sure you've seen older children who are totally selfish and nothing that has been done has made a difference. They grow into selfish adults and what is saddest, grow old as selfish people, too. No amount of loving or caring or forgiving will sway them from their selfishness.
2801. seadate - 9/28/2000 12:54:40 PM
PP -
Apparently not.
2802. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 1:04:04 PM
Why all the fighting? Because you can't always want exactly the same thing that your partner wants every minute of the day. Because even when you love someone and they love you both partners have differing levels of need at different times.
Because if we didn't fight where would be the fun in make-up sex?
2803. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 1:04:35 PM
My guess is that most fighting between married or cohabitating couples comes from differences related to:
Money
chores
child raising
sex
politics
2804. bubbaette - 9/28/2000 1:05:08 PM
in that order
2805. JudithAtHome - 9/28/2000 1:08:52 PM
There's very little or no fighting around here and what there is we quickly resolve before it gets out of control. But we have friends who seem determined to start WWIII almost daily. They have 3 teenagers and one has just gone off to college...I think the father is feeling the pull of middle age crazy and regret at losing his youth. He takes out his frustration on the mother.
2806. seadate - 9/28/2000 1:12:05 PM
Chris -
Ok, the making up part is a good motive. What is disturbing is that otherwise clear thinking people frequently resort to fighting (I'm not talking about fighting "fair") between themselves rather than utilizing everyday skills they may use to resolve conflict/differences with less damaging consequences.
2807. ChristinO - 9/28/2000 3:00:25 PM
seadate,
Yes, we do tend to take advantage of those we love in that way, but I think it's another part of intimacy. Not a great part, but sort of the cost for the good stuff. Think of arguments you'd have with a sibling or parent. You feel comfortable being less than mannerly with them because you are sure of their affections. I'm not saying one OUGHT to be rude or mean to family members only that some of that is a mark of comfort and intimacy.
You'd never ask a stranger on a bus if he is resonsible for that interesting rotten egg smell, but if your brother showed up smelling like that you'd let him know right off.
I know this probably isn't exactly what you meant. You're probably referring to the pettier ways in which we treat our intimates in the little power and affection struggles. That seems to me to be what those things are about. Not really the issue at hand but some underlying irritation with the other person and one's place in their world. You'd think we could just be assured of those things once and not have to test them, but that's not the way of it. We constantly test one another in little ways just to "make sure" we know where we stand.
2808. seadate - 9/28/2000 3:54:46 PM
Christin
Oh Hell -
I thought it was all due to PMS until you explained it ;)
2809. arkymalarky - 9/28/2000 7:48:14 PM
Why should married couples expect not to fight? I know those who don't, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with those who do.
Bob and I are both strong-minded and independent people with significant tempers. I don't know how we wouldn't fight some. Neither one of us is the type to hold in annoyances, though he's more likely to than I am, so there are few slow burns and no silent treatment. Speaking of which, I've often wondered how people can manage that. My aunt has gone over a year at a time without speaking to her daughter. I can't go ten minutes without saying something when I'm mad, and the longer I try to stay quiet the more I accumulate a string of things to say when I do open my mouth. Anyway, often fights are just fights and a normal consequence of living with the same person day in and day out, riding in the same car, sharing the same bathroom and bed and refrigerator and storage space, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year....
What amazes me is that we've been together so long and don't fight very often, even though now we're commuting together and working together. Though when we do fight, Katie bar the door--although after reading some of the flamewars online we seem rather tame by comparison--in fact, on a side note, if I come up with a particularly cutting line in an argument he'll say "You got that from the Mote, didn't you?"
2810. arkymalarky - 9/28/2000 8:20:43 PM
PS--I think make-up sex can be a dangerous game, and Bob and I don't do that. If the physical relationship reaches a slump and that becomes a means of trying to stimulate something, iow if hostility becomes too closely tied to physical intimacy or a way of increasing it, it seems that couldn't be very healthy over the long term.
2811. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 9:52:45 AM
from a joke e-mail:
Every "Hormone Hostage" knows that there are days in the month when all a man has to do is open his mouth and he takes his life in his hands. This is a handy guide that should be as common as a driver's license in the wallet of every husband, boyfriend or significant other.
DANGEROUS: What's for dinner?
SAFER: Can I help you with dinner?
SAFEST: Where would you like to go for dinner?
DANGEROUS: Are you wearing THAT?
SAFER: Gee, you look good in brown.
SAFEST: Wow! Look at you!
DANGEROUS: What are you so worked up about?
SAFER: Could we be overreacting?
SAFEST: Here's fifty dollars.
DANGEROUS: Should you be eating that?
SAFER: You know, there are a lot of apples left.
SAFEST: Can I get you a glass of wine with that?
DANGEROUS: What did you DO all day?
SAFER: I hope you didn't overdo today.
SAFEST: I've always loved you in that robe.
2812. theDiva - 9/29/2000 10:11:12 AM
ha! I'd like to see the female version of that. We're not the only ones ruled by our hormones, ya know.
2813. rubberducky - 9/29/2000 10:12:18 AM
well, sure, diva, but male hormones have less of a tie with the tides....
2814. theDiva - 9/29/2000 10:12:54 AM
true. Male hormones rage along at a constant pace.
2815. seadate - 9/29/2000 11:12:57 AM
And are generally predictable imo.
2816. seadate - 9/29/2000 11:17:18 AM
Arky:
I was joking re: make-up sex being a motive ... That would be like putting a match out on your tongue because ice cream tastes good afterward.
When I refer to a fight - I mean FIGHT (not physically) - the type that does nothing to resolve petty day to day issues.
2817. labwabbit - 9/29/2000 11:42:55 AM
#2812
Ya..we are ruled by hormones...WOMAN'S!
(which reminds me...are ya still cranky at me Diva fer my transgressions?..)
2818. theDiva - 9/29/2000 11:46:51 AM
no, darling, I never was.
2819. labwabbit - 9/29/2000 11:49:35 AM
Then it is going to be a good day!
2820. DocBrown - 9/29/2000 4:26:23 PM
I often think of the individuals who make up a couple as two hemispheres in the same brain. They share the same experiences, but they may not always see every problem the same way, and they may not like the same solutions. Yet they must reach agreement before they can take any significant action.
For brain hemispheres to reach agreement, they communicate through the an amazing conduit called the corpus colossum. No one outside the brain sees how much "noise" is being exchanged. For married couples to reach agreement, they must communicate through a much sloppier medium, which allows the whole world to hear their negotiations.
2821. ChristinO - 9/29/2000 4:28:47 PM
One of my grandmother's best friends lived next door to her husband for 20 years---while married.
They used to just tap on the walls.
2822. labwabbit - 9/29/2000 5:39:10 PM
For brain hemispheres to reach agreement, they communicate through the an amazing conduit called the corpus colossum. No one outside the brain sees how much "noise" is being exchanged. For married couples to reach agreement, they must communicate through a much sloppier medium, which allows the whole world to hear their negotiations.
..thus generating excruciating noise in adjacent brains.
2823. Jenerator - 9/29/2000 8:12:15 PM
Bubba,
Re: #2803
My pastor said that the top three causes of marital and relationship problems were:
Money
Communication
Sex
He went on to say that in virtually every couple and/or individual he counseled on relationships with, mentioned one or more of these subjects.
2824. quivver - 9/30/2000 7:32:23 AM
One problem I've found with american society is that people tend to box off the demarcation between friend and lover more stringently in social terms than in practical terms. I mean, there is the idea of a fuckbuddy, but sometimes there are intensely close relationships that are neither bf/gf nor 'just friends' nor as cavalier as a term like fuckbuddy suggests. The idea of loving someone intensely and to some degree physically and yet not wanting to be with them in a typical or standard romantic relationship is like a foreign concept. Ah, I'm disjuncting. Pah. Perhaps I can articulate it some other time.
2825. altitude /w attitude - 9/30/2000 9:48:20 AM
"This is my friend," conjures all kinds of assumptions at times. Society has a great need to sexualize. I was introduced to a person one time with no clue to their sex, I was in a quandary. I never realized that we/I actually respond differently to people based on their sex. It was a little uncomfortable, but interesting. I wouldn't have believed it. We want to know,"What kind of friend?" Should it matter?
2826. labwabbit - 9/30/2000 2:00:20 PM
When I introduce a good friend to my lifelong friend who used to be my best friend when we had friends in common, I soon came to realize he's not the friendly type after-all because his closest friend is my girlfriend.
2827. DocBrown - 10/2/2000 9:56:01 AM
alt w/ att said:
Society has a great need to sexualize.
I wonder . . . why is that? Many languages actually build gender into their nouns. Why is it gender? Why do none of them use temperature, color, sound pitch, or some other feature that any human could relate to at least as well as gender?
Your post reminded me of the "It's Pat" character from Saturday Night Live. Something about those skits makes me a bit uncomfortable whenever I see them. I have always thought it was just that they were not very funny. Maybe I need to think about why I find them unfunny.
2828. altitude /w attitude - 10/2/2000 10:53:39 PM
Not familiar wuth the skits. Don't see too much TV. Therefore not sure what you are trying to say.
2829. DocBrown - 10/3/2000 11:06:09 AM
So, Alt w/ Att, do you have any opinion on why society needs to sexualize things? Or do you believe that this is simply the way it is and there is no point in further analysis?
2830. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 11:56:59 AM
DocBrown Maybe because what our sex is, is at the core of our being and understanding?
Sexualizing is a way of understanding. girl/girl, boy/girl, boy/boy, girl/boy, brother/sister, mother/father. Each of those and numerous other pairings and relationships are a point of reference. Just as an example: girl/girl could be: 2 sisters, cousins, mother/daughter, co-workers, friends, lovers, committee members, in-laws, and as such, we respond in a unique manner to each situation. I think that there is a great deal of potential for understanding ourselves better through our relationships. I certainly do not have all the answers or the understanding.
2831. ChristinO - 10/3/2000 3:38:16 PM
Doc,
I find Pat unfunny for two reasons: The voice is annoying and it's a one trick pony kind of joke as are many SNL skits. The only concept there is that people don't know how to respond to an androgynous person. It's only funny to me in abstract because I appreciate the idea.
2832. DocBrown - 10/3/2000 4:06:57 PM
ChristinO says that people do not know how to respond to an androgynous person. That deserves some thought.
In the back of my mind I have always been amused by the fact that science fiction movies often make artificial characters a bit androgynous. C-3PO, HAL 9000, and the computer on Star Trek are good examples . . . in different ways their voices are somewhere between male and female. I think the producers play this gender game to remind the audience of the inhumaness of these characters.
It's as if asexual = inhuman.
Therefore, does human = sexual?
At least in our culture?
2833. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 7:07:18 PM
I agree with ChristinO. There is discomfort on being confronted by someone who is not someone. If they are something.... It is probably learned behaviour that goes back to infancy. Scientists have found that people respond to infants differently, based on the sex of the interactor as well as the sex of the infant. Observe the response of a parent if their child is addressed as the opposite sex from the one that they are. Rare is the parent that does not correct the misconception. What message does this give to a child?
2834. labwabbit - 10/3/2000 7:11:15 PM
There is discomfort on being confronted by someone who is not someone.
Sorry for the discomfort.
2835. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 7:13:52 PM
Touchy aren't we?
2836. labwabbit - 10/3/2000 7:15:33 PM
Only in the right spots...
2837. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 7:16:35 PM
In general, what is the first bit of information you note when you meet someone? What kind of car they drive? The color of their eyes? If they have teeth?
2838. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 7:17:27 PM
Forgive me if I've touched a spot. I'm not sure if I wanted to or not.
2839. Uzmakk - 10/3/2000 7:20:01 PM
I always notice if they don't have teeth.
2840. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 7:21:47 PM
first?
2841. Uzmakk - 10/3/2000 7:24:40 PM
Ofcourse first. And ofcourse it sticks out first in my memory.
2842. labwabbit - 10/3/2000 7:25:16 PM
1st bit-o-info would be whether or not they are walking upright. From that point on it's justifying why...or in some cases, how.
Quite often the answer is difficult.
2843. ChristinO - 10/3/2000 7:41:28 PM
The first thing I recognize is whether I know them or not. Secondly whether they look friendly or engaging followed closely by wether I find them interesting to look at.
I have only on two occasions met face to face persons of whose gender I was not certain. The first one struck be because the person was so incredibly beautiful the second one struck be because she was so outrageously dressed. I have no idea if the first person was male or female, I suspect male simply because of the circumstances in which I saw him. The second person is now a good friend of mine and when she isn't dressed like a drag queen there's no question of her gender.
I think we notice gender because one of our primary biological functions is to reproduce ourselves. Perhaps it's hardwired into us even if we have no intention of acting on those impulses. It occurs to me that gender might only specifically be noted if the person you meet is near one's own age ----- or withing a "mating" age. Children and the elderly certainly have gender, but I think they are most often defined by their age before their gender.
2844. ChristinO - 10/3/2000 7:43:14 PM
AwA,
Careful not to scratch him behind the left ear. It makes the labwabbit frisky!
2845. mgleason - 10/3/2000 8:01:42 PM
The very first thing I notice is someone's expression. I know this because it's not uncommon for me not to recognize people I know only casually. I'm absent-minded, I suppose, in that I never notice what people are driving or remember what they were wearing, but my survival instincts are finely honed, so identifying friends and foes is important.
2846. labwabbit - 10/3/2000 8:15:36 PM
Ya CO...that's one of those spots.. ;->
(but you weren't supposed to tell anybody!)
2847. labwabbit - 10/3/2000 8:19:57 PM
In all honesty though it is the gender I tend to notice first. I do admit my nose twitches a little faster when it's a lady bunny however.
2848. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 9:08:01 PM
Thank you labwabbit. I believe we notice sex before anything else, if we are consciously aware of it. I can't honestly say anytime I've been introduced to someone, I couldn't remember their sex. Name, color of hair, what they were wearing, all kinds of other details fall by the wayside, but gender kind of sticks in my mind.
2849. mgleason - 10/3/2000 9:17:03 PM
Oh, I took it for granted that we noticed gender before anything else; it's automatic. What I was referring to was the first thing I notice consciously.
2850. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 9:17:38 PM
ChristinO re Message # 2843
Yes. I think you are right. I've met friends' children and promptly forgot what sex they are. The elderly, can't remember ever saying I forgot if it was an older man or an older woman but probably recalled their age at least as soon as I recalled their gender. On more then one occaision I couldn't remember what sex someones new baby was. Do you think the basis is really biological and wired in? I wonder how much is conditioning.
2851. altitude /w attitude - 10/3/2000 9:20:00 PM
mgleason, That is an interesting thought. What do we first notice consciously? Is it relative to survival or more determined by where we "are at" at the time?
2852. labwabbit - 10/4/2000 11:42:14 AM
...and that is consciously.
2853. msgreer - 10/4/2000 2:17:31 PM
800-973-2211 Curious? Go to Health Thread.
2854. rubberducky - 10/4/2000 2:52:00 PM
apologies
16 things you'll never hear a woman say..
1. You know, I've been complaining a lot lately. I don't blame you for ignoring me.
2. That was fun, when will all of your friends be over to watch porno's again?
3. The new girl in my office is a stripper, I invited her over for dinner on Friday.
4. While you were in the bathroom, they went for it on fourth down and missed. If they can hold them to a field goal they'll still cover.
5. Bar food again?? Kick ass !!
6. I liked that wedding even more than ours. Your Ex girlfriend has class.
7. That girl is wearing the same outfit as I am, Cool, I'm gonna go over and talk to her.
8. I love hearing stories about your old girlfriends, tell me more.
9. I like using this new lawn mower so much more than the old one, what a wonderful Valentines day !
10. Let's just leave the toilet seat "up" at all times, then you don't have to mess with it anymore.
11. It's only the third quarter, you should order a couple more pitchers of beer.
12. Honey come here! Watch me do a Tequila Shot off of Stephanie's bare ass!
13. I'm so happy with my new hairstyle, I don't think I'll ever change it again.
14. Damn! I love when my pillow smells like your cigars and scotch. You passed out before brushing your teeth again, ya' big silly!
15. You are so much smarter than my father.
16. If we're not going to have sex, then you have to let me watch the ball game.
2855. DocBrown - 10/4/2000 3:27:13 PM
Obviously the brain gets information about a lot of characteristics melded together at the same time. Perhaps the brain filters for age and gender in the first moments, subconsciously alert for potentially fertile sex partners. When sex partners (or sexual rivals) are detected, this might send a flag to the consciousness.
Interesting.
In this model, mixed signals could yield discomfort. If your subconscious recognizes that a human is of fertile age, but cannot determine if they are a potential sex partner or rival, it could throw a monkey wrench into your machinery. Your subconscious would not know what flag to throw up, or how long to dwell on the problem.
2856. JudithAtHome - 10/4/2000 6:41:24 PM
Whew....Doc, you should've checked into the Home&Garden thread by now; we are getting worried about the cat visit...or the pinball machine!
2857. altitude /w attitude - 10/4/2000 9:49:12 PM
DocBrown I think you explained it very well. I don't think it really matters if you are in the market or not. I think it just is the way we are created. The responses are awkward. But I was never aware of it until I confronted the experience.
2858. DocBrown - 10/5/2000 10:56:46 AM
Our names, the very symbol of our identy, are strongly tied to sex. In our society you can usually tell a person's gender by his or her name.
2859. altitude /w attitude - 10/5/2000 10:57:48 PM
Hadn't really thought about that either. You're right, when we are introduced the name says something to us. Even before we have a visual.
2860. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 12:06:05 PM
2861. JudithAtHome - 10/9/2000 12:14:27 PM
About names: We went to a play earlier in the year and the ad in the paper had a small picture of the actor and the name underneath: B Brown. It looked as though the actor was male and the name, "B", gave no clue.
When we got to the theater and received the program, I read that the actor was a female and was playing numerous parts in the play; she was a rather masculine looking woman but in the character of a female, she looked entirely feminine.
I could definitely tell who in the audience hadn't read the program earlier by the stunned looks on their faces.
2862. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 9:09:08 PM
2863. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 9:14:30 PM
2865. marshame - 10/9/2000 9:32:18 PM
labbie
Those last 3 are over my head... 3 huge white boxes with a teeny little red x in the corner... what does it all mean?
2866. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 9:40:19 PM
Hmmm
It shows up fine in my view of the thread.
I wonder if I'm the only one?
2867. marshame - 10/9/2000 9:41:17 PM
Well, do you hear voices, too??
2868. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 9:43:08 PM
No...there isn't any sound. Try refresh once you access the thread.
I went to my other PC and it came up ok.
2869. mgleason - 10/9/2000 9:44:10 PM
They're not showing up here, either, LW.
2870. marshame - 10/9/2000 9:48:59 PM
The third cartoon is bigger than my screen (which is admittedly diminuitive) and has thrown off the usual margins in this thread. Maybe that's it.
But then again, I hear voices....
2871. labwabbit - 10/9/2000 9:52:41 PM
I hear voices at times...but my shrink told me not to pay attention to them.
Jeez M & M
It does expand beyond the margins...perhaps I should lessen the width a bit more in the future.
Gotta run..
2872. altitude /w attitude - 10/9/2000 10:09:10 PM
And leave all that blank space?
2873. ChristinO - 10/10/2000 6:47:24 PM
L'wabbit,
I could be wrong here but it looks like you've posted files that are stored on your hard drive. If so then none of us has access to that and that's why we can't see them. Pellenilsson has a site reserved for moties to upload pics at geocities so that you can link to an actual URL and your pics will show.
2874. ChristinO - 10/10/2000 6:49:03 PM
Since we can't see the pic in 2864 I'm deleting it in order to return the margins to normal.
2875. labwabbit - 10/10/2000 8:27:15 PM
Thanks Christin and Hellooo.
They were actually stored on the intranet and x-ferred through ftp.
Sorry for the inconvenience everyone.
2876. altitude /w attitude - 10/10/2000 11:17:07 PM
No prob. I'm not even ready to attempt that!
2877. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 10:11:03 AM
hoooonnneeeeyyyyyyyy
Vigorous regular sex can make you look up to seven years younger, researchers claimed on Tuesday.
well, i know what i'm doing tonight. and for a change, who.
2878. altitude /w attitude - 10/11/2000 10:14:48 AM
I hate exercise!
2879. altitude /w attitude - 10/11/2000 10:15:33 AM
Activity on the other hand....one could live with.
2880. pogie - 10/11/2000 10:34:49 AM
I still don't understand why whores aren't allowed to go fully legal. Regular action could not possibly hurt all the repressed americans out there. 0;D
2881. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 1:05:18 PM
Pogie,
I'm not sure what the rationalizations are, but probably something to do with disease, drugs and other illegal activity or something equally illogical.
The real reasons I suspect are a lingering sexism (both male and female) and the fact that Americans are even more uptight about sex than the British.
2882. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 1:33:03 PM
2883. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 1:42:48 PM
I just went through and boosted some folks' scores. The voters seem pretty harsh.
2884. marshame - 10/11/2000 1:44:56 PM
ducky
If you start looking seven years younger, you're going to have to carry ID to get into R-rated movies.
2885. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 1:47:02 PM
Pogie brings up an interesting point. Why IS prostitution still illegal? I really don't know what the rationale is behind it particularly since pornography is legal.
2886. pogie - 10/11/2000 1:48:13 PM
I will revel in the knowledge that I am too hot for that site. ;D
2887. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 1:51:28 PM
CO:
some of deserve it... i mean if you look like that don't post your picture on a site where people will vote! but, i digress.
MM:
i'm confused. 7 years younger?
2888. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 1:54:53 PM
... some of THEM deserve ...
anyway, CO, it's still illegal, imo, because of the puritanical views of sex the country has.
2889. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 1:59:33 PM
Ducky,
Yes, I'm sure that's the real reason why, but it still seems odd to me. Is there a lot of revenue in busting hookers? I imagine that would be another reason there's no push to legalize.
All I can think is that it would benefit the public health concern if it were legalized and there was some regulation. It would cut down on the spread of STDs and maybe cut some of the crime that goes hand in hand with hooking.
2890. marshame - 10/11/2000 2:00:04 PM
Rubberducky
You said:
"Vigorous regular sex can make you look up to seven years younger, researchers claimed on Tuesday.
well, i know what i'm doing tonight.
I said:
"If you start looking seven years younger, you're going to have to carry ID to get into R-rated movies."
Get it??
2891. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:06:55 PM
Re: Message # 2889, ChristinO.
Yes, I'm sure that's the real reason why, but it still seems odd to me. Is there a lot of revenue in busting hookers? I imagine that would be another reason there's no push to legalize.
i don't think there is as much money as there would be if hookering (©) were regulated and taxed like anything else, no.
2892. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:07:50 PM
Re: Message # 2890, marshame.
heh.
yes, well. sorry for my slowness today.
2893. bubbaette - 10/11/2000 2:09:14 PM
Who would lobby against regulated hooking? Why right-thinkin wives everwhere. If DH is gonna cheat on me, he's gonna have to sneak around and not dip into the bank account to do it!
2894. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:17:35 PM
Bubbaette:
There are, of course, male hookers too.
On this Hot or not site:
I went there and can only see one picture, of a pretty horrific looking geek. is there a means to view other pictures? I'm not sure I want to but my cruelty will soon win over my kindness.
2895. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:21:11 PM
A-5
through some odd bit of programming, you have to rate that geek before you see the next picture
PS it's kinda slow, so be patient
2896. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:21:48 PM
I rated the poor bastard but nothing happened.
2897. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:22:29 PM
Oh, maybe it's 'cos I had Javascript off.
2898. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:24:08 PM
AAH! AAH! Make it stop!
2899. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:24:38 PM
Hey, she isn't bad though.
2900. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 2:25:41 PM
You can get a new pic by refreshing as well and that way you don't have to vote ifn you don' wanna.
Re: Male prostitutes
Yes, they exist, but they are generally frequented by men rather than women.
2901. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:26:00 PM
hahahahaha
and now you see why it's a fun site....
2902. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:34:07 PM
Good Lord.
I'm with Ducky on this one. If I looked that bad I doubt I'd let people take my picture let alone let the Net vote on it. Beauty can be found in many forms and in many places but apparently not very often at AmIHotorNot.com.
2903. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:36:48 PM
I'm looking at someone who looks like a dumb Drew Carey with gold teeth. Stuffed inside a fridge wearing a robe that makes them look like a couch.
2904. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 2:42:44 PM
Wow, you guys are getting much worse pictures than I am. I've had a couple scary ones-----I'm sure one of them is a mug shot of a death row inmate-----but most are right around 5 or 6. I notice that I tend to score people higher than others. I still haven't seen a single nine but I had one 8.
2905. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:43:22 PM
how'd you rate him?
2906. rubberducky - 10/11/2000 2:44:49 PM
CO:
somehow, i almost always was about 1 to 2 points below the average (but then, i gave several 2s & a couple 1s)
2907. angel-five - 10/11/2000 2:45:56 PM
The scale stops at one. That's too bad.
2908. seadate - 10/11/2000 2:49:09 PM
RE: Legalization of Hookering
It does seem inconsistent that Anna Nicole can get away with a multi-year contract.
2909. ChristinO - 10/11/2000 2:52:35 PM
Seadate,
What's even stranger is that we can pay money to see other people having sex for payment but we can't then go out and pay folks to have sex with us.
Unless we film it right? So the way to legalize prostitution is to film all the transactions and call it porn which is legal.
2910. labwabbit - 10/11/2000 4:15:13 PM
Jus me and my KodaChrome...
Next it will be a program virus in digital camera software that could be considered sexually transmittable?
2911. labwabbit - 10/11/2000 9:10:17 PM
Q: Should I have a baby after 35?
A: No, 35 children is enough.
Q: I'm two months pregnant now. When will my baby move?
A: With any luck, right after he finishes college.
Q: How will I know if my vomiting is morning sickness or the flu?
A: If it's the flu, you'll get better.
Q: What is the most common pregnancy craving?
A: For men to be the ones who get pregnant.
Q: What is the most reliable method to determine a baby's sex?
A: Childbirth.
Q: The more pregnant I get, the more often strangers smile at me.
Why?
A: 'Cause you're fatter than they are.
Q: My wife is five months pregnant and so moody that sometimes
she's borderline irrational.
A: So what's your question?
Q: What's the difference between a nine-month pregnant woman and a
model?
A: Nothing (if the pregnant woman's husband knows what's good for
him).
Q: How long is the average woman in labor?
A: Whatever she says divided by two.
Q: My childbirth instructor says it's not pain I'll feel during labor, but pressure. Is she right?
A: Yes, in the same way that a tornado might be called an air
current.
Q: When is the best time to get an epidural?
A: Right after you find out you're pregnant.
Q: Is there any reason I have to be in the delivery room while my
wife is in labor?
A: Not unless the word "alimony" means anything to you.
2912. labwabbit - 10/11/2000 9:10:29 PM
Q: Is there anything I should avoid while recovering from
childbirth?
A: Yes, pregnancy.
Q: Does pregnancy cause hemorrhoids?
A: Pregnancy causes anything you want to blame it for.
Q: What does it mean when a baby is born with teeth?
A: It means that the baby's mother may want to rethink her plans
to nurse.
Q: What is the best time to wean the baby from nursing?
A: When you see teeth marks.
Q: Do I have to have a baby shower?
A: Not if you change the baby's diaper very quickly.
Q: Our baby was born last week. When will my wife begin to feel
and act normal again?
A: When the kids are in college.
2913. altitude /w attitude - 10/11/2000 9:34:52 PM
labwabbit, That is hysterical!
2914. Uzmakk - 10/12/2000 6:45:38 AM
2909ChristinO:
I guess sex, like many other things, is best left to the professionals.
2915. labwabbit - 10/12/2000 12:53:16 PM
There was a farmer who took a young miss
in back of the barn where he gave her a....
Lecture on horses, and chickens, and eggs
and told her that she had such beautiful..
Manners that suited a girl of her charm
the kind that he wanted to take in his...
Washing and ironing and then as she did
they would get married and raise lots of...
SWEET VIOLETS...SWEETER THAN ALL THE ROSES...
COVERED ALL OVER FROM HEAD TO TOE
COVERED ALL OVER WITH SWEET VIOLETS....
2916. altitude /w attitude - 10/12/2000 1:56:47 PM
Are violets all that sweet?
2917. labwabbit - 10/12/2000 3:55:37 PM
There are variations to that as numerous as the minds that complete those verses "correctly".
2918. altitude /w attitude - 10/12/2000 6:13:27 PM
What's the matter with the way they are completed? Didn't Mitch Miller sing it?
2919. labwabbit - 10/13/2000 2:10:29 PM
For the ladies....and females. 
2920. labwabbit - 10/13/2000 2:28:49 PM
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INFORMATION BULLETIN
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
WOMAN: A CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Element:
Symbol:
Discoverer:
Atomic Mass:
Occurence: Woman
WO
Adam
Accepted as 120 lb, but known
to vary from 100 lb to 300lb
Copius quantities in all urban areas
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
1. Surface usually covered with a painted film
2. Boils at nothing, freezes without any known reason
3. Melts if given special treatment
4. Bitter if incorrectly used
5. Found in various states, ranging from virgin to common ore
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
1. Has great affinity for gold, silver, and a range of precious stones
2. Absorbs great quantities of expensive substances
3. May explode spontaneously without prior warning
4. Insolable in liquids but activity greatly increased by saturation in alcohol
5. Most powerful money reducing agent known to man
COMMON USES
1. Highly ornamental, especially in sports cars
2. Can be a great aid in relaxation
3. Very effective cleaning agent
TESTS
1. Pure specimen turns rosy pink when discovered in natural state
2. Turns green when placed beside another superior specimen
HAZARDS
1. Highly dangerous except in experienced hands
2. Illegal to possess more than one, although several can be maintained at
different locations as long as specimens do not come into direct contact with another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2921. altitude /w attitude - 10/13/2000 5:09:14 PM
Depends on what kind of catalyst precipitates their contact with one another.
2922. labwabbit - 10/13/2000 6:39:40 PM
awa
Being male...it's always the wrong catalyst.
2923. altitude /w attitude - 10/13/2000 6:46:23 PM
Depends on the relationship doesn't it? Your sisters might be fine together. Your Mother and a friend might be OK. A lover and a friend.... And your wife and your lover.... Or both of your lovers... Could be bad form. Unless they are all incredibly liberal.
2924. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 2:20:15 PM
awa
And your wife and your lover.... Or both of your lovers... Could be bad form. Unless they are all incredibly liberal.
Not with my luck...
2925. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 2:21:47 PM
Freudian slippers... 
2926. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 4:16:27 PM
For lack of clarity at any size...the message reads "HELP" "ME".
Something my brothers would have done if they had the opportunity.
2927. Electric Slide - 10/14/2000 4:28:56 PM
That's mean.
2928. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 4:37:56 PM
Ya...I didn't think of it either.
2929. labwabbit - 10/14/2000 5:42:33 PM
I am a man,
But I can change,
If I have to,
I guess.
Red Green Show - A Man's Prayer
2930. altitude /w attitude - 10/14/2000 8:45:33 PM
Red Green is awesome! Harold is a jerk. He's supposed to be HOW old? Watch out for the ice you're keeping your stick on!
2931. boohab - 10/15/2000 12:22:19 AM
how long does it take to figure out you want to sex someone. on average?
2932. altitude /w attitude - 10/15/2000 12:33:57 AM
As in determine their sex? or what?
2933. DocBrown - 10/16/2000 11:24:08 AM
Sorry I've been too busy to post this week. But I have kept abreast of this thread.
Boohab asked:
how long does it take to figure out you want to sex someone. on average?
Taking your question literally, I would say the decision making process of a man can be measured in miliseconds, if at all. That is just the man seeing the woman (or potential sex partner) and deciding if he wants it or not . . . usually he wants it. Deciding if that affair is worth the effort is another matter, which may get substantially more thought.
2934. DocBrown - 10/16/2000 11:36:14 AM
The Man's Prayer works best if you bow your head, slump your shoulders, and sigh pathetically as you say the "I guess."
Over the summer I was a groomsman in the wedding of two of my friends. Just before the ceremony all of us groomsmen went into a private room and, with deadpan seriousness, we recited Red Green's Prayer. Imagine all of our tuxedoed figures saying those words and sighing in unison . . . it looked like something out of a Monty Python movie.
I hope they left it in the wedding video.
2935. JudithAtHome - 10/16/2000 11:42:31 AM
"Womens faults are many;
men have only two:
Everything they say and
Everything they do."
...as told to me by a beautiful and volatile Greek lady.
2936. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 12:14:27 PM
Doc - 2934
That must have been a great mood-setter. The slumping and sighing is the only corrrect way, and probably precipitated by Judith's #2935.
If they edited that out of the video the marriage is doomed I say!
2937. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 1:07:44 PM
2938. ChristinO - 10/16/2000 1:34:40 PM
how long does it take to figure out you want to sex someone. on average?
It depends. You can look at a fine physical specimen and the answer is YES!! immediately. Then the specimen opens his mouth and the answer is NO WAY!! Then you talk a little more and he relaxes and has a cute smile and you think WELL, MAYBE. Then you find out he's got a girlfriend and the answer is NOT LIKELY.......and then he licks his eyebrow.
2939. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 1:46:12 PM
AWA #2930 Watch out for the ice you're keeping your stick on!
That's why I wear pants.
2940. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 1:47:38 PM
CO
Haha...you're one demented lady...
I think I love you!
2941. ChristinO - 10/16/2000 1:53:01 PM
whythankyuhverramuch.
2942. ChristinO - 10/16/2000 5:43:10 PM
Boohab,
Seriously I think it's an interesting question, but there are different parameters. Are you talking about a one night stand, a casual fling or a long-term romance? Someone you just met or someone you've known a long time?
2943. marshame - 10/16/2000 5:47:36 PM
sex someone?? I know I'm a little out of touch with these things (hardy har) but what does "to sex someone" mean? Is it shorthand for "to have sex with someone?
2944. ChristinO - 10/16/2000 5:52:48 PM
That's what I assumed. I could be mistaken, though.
2945. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:02:49 PM
I thought the concept was an agricultural term, as in "to sex chickens or livestock." Thereby determining what their sex was.
2946. marshame - 10/16/2000 6:04:44 PM
Whew, Haa, that's what I thought too, like "sexing a chicken" by looking at the egg in a special light.
So, the question becomes, how long does it take you to sex someone (presumably a chicken egg)? Are there any farmers here who can answer??
2947. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:06:00 PM
labwabbit #2939
Something wrong with your stick? or is it the ice?
2948. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:07:13 PM
marshame, that is candling eggs to determine if they are fertile.
2949. marshame - 10/16/2000 6:08:45 PM
Haa
Well you've exposed me for the City girl I am.
2950. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:08:53 PM
And that is another concept for sexing I hadn't thought about.
2951. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:10:08 PM
We don't usually anticipate the fertility of a sex partner unless it is to hope that they aren't.
2952. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:13:39 PM
marshame,
anything else you need to know, let me know. Who would ever think you might need that kind of information? Wearing white shoes, now that is another matter that could have long term repercussions in a city environment. The chickens ain't gonna care one way or the other!
2953. marshame - 10/16/2000 6:17:22 PM
Wondering about your partner's fertility would rank second only to wondering about your partner's sex, in my rank-order of things I hope to never have to to worry about.
2954. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 6:18:51 PM
Amen!
2955. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 8:09:40 PM
awa #2947
neither...
...it perhaps is good advice, and at times beneficial in the event a cold shower isn't available. But there comes a time when it is not good advice...particularly when one prepares to take a shot at the goal.
2956. CalGal - 10/16/2000 8:16:12 PM
boohab,
Generally, I know right away. Occasionally, having sex with a guy will cause me to realize that I don't like him, or think there's something too 'off' about him. But I wouldn't know that until I had sex with him anyway, so whaddayagunnado?
2957. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 8:19:10 PM
Opt for th' guy to have sex with your sister first...
2958. CalGal - 10/16/2000 8:23:00 PM
???
What would that accomplish? I mean, from a practical standpoint. I'm sure he'd be delighted with the approach.
I'm not talking (generally) about technique or anything like that.
2959. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 8:29:49 PM
I admit, it probably does sound more practical from a guy's standpoint...but if given that it takes sex, iyo, to make a final determination the alternatives are few. Being a part-time firefighter I can relate to not knowing for sure you have enough hose until you try to put out a real fire!
2960. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 9:40:45 PM
labwabbit #2955
Shows you what I know about sports. That's why I spend so little time in PP's. Is this the season to go for goals or is it still bases, runs, and football?
2961. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 9:41:52 PM
...all the above.
2962. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 9:44:09 PM
Should be some corollary about the length of hose and the amount of pressure being equal to the job at hand.
2963. labwabbit - 10/16/2000 9:45:12 PM
bingo!
2964. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 9:47:36 PM
Goals, bases, runs, football. No baskets yet, right? How does anyone keep up with it all? I'll just have to find another area of expertise because it will never be sports.
2965. altitude /w attitude - 10/16/2000 9:48:48 PM
Hey, bingo I understand.
2966. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 10:58:32 AM
A critical question remains unanswered.
If "sexing someone" means determining gender by inspecting their genitals, then how long does it take you to decide you want to do it?
2967. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:10:02 AM
This may sound simplistic but if I have to get to that point, inspecting genitals before figuring out what sex the person is, I think it's time to go back to school....
2968. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 11:11:31 AM
....speaking of simplistic, I see I misread your question....
"Never mind..." Emily Latella
2969. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 12:25:47 PM
Americans Have Sex the Most, Japanese the Least
iteresting tidbits:
Americans had sex most often this year, while older teens and young adults in Japan did it the least, a global survey by a British condom maker said Tuesday.
Americans were also the quickest to lose their virginity but it was the French who boasted of having the most sexual partners, said SSL International, which manufactures Durex condoms.
wonder why Americans are so quick to lose it?
``The Americans claim to be enjoying the most sex at 132 times a year followed by the Russians (122), the French (121) and the Greeks (115).''
132? that's it? hahaha
Most Dutch people said they learned about sex from their mothers, while the Americans attributed their knowledge to their fathers.
i learned about sex from the street like everyone else - i don't know what these "Americans" are talking about
The French also seemed to have the most sexual partners, claiming an average of 16.7 each. The Greeks were second with 15 partners each, followed by the Brazilians at 12.5 and Americans at 11.8.
the thought of all those smelly French humping each other makes me ill.
2970. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 12:26:28 PM
or, even, interesting tidbits
2971. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 12:38:14 PM
rd
Bien OUI!
the thought of all those smelly French humping each other makes me ill.
Shit ya little weasel...your just jealous. How much do you think YOU would be sweaty and smelly after 16.7 partners? heh.
2972. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 12:40:25 PM
Re: 2973. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 12:41:30 PM (hmm, repost something went awry) 2974. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 1:58:35 PM CG, 2975. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 2:04:16 PM Ducky, 2976. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 2:17:02 PM ChristinO, I asked it as a joke. 2977. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 2:23:36 PM oh duh. 2978. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 2:29:52 PM CO: 2979. JudithAtHome - 10/17/2000 2:33:31 PM More honest? I would think they would be more likely to be less honest, in a bragging sort of way. One thing you can be pretty certain of, though...they ARE more active, whether honest about it or not. 2980. DocBrown - 10/17/2000 2:43:28 PM 2981. seadate - 10/17/2000 2:47:07 PM Clinton 2982. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 2:48:17 PM Judith, 2983. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 2:49:20 PM Better if it is only the results getting skewered! 2984. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 2:50:15 PM DocBrown: 2985. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 2:50:58 PM Sex as a commodity, hmmmm. Never seen it listed with hog futures. 2986. Slackjaw - 10/17/2000 3:01:56 PM I think there have been a number of reliable surveys that show married people have more sex than single. Since folks are waiting longer to get married these days it would tend to say that 16 - 25 year olds aren't having the most sex. 2987. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 3:06:02 PM The pressure....being french...the reputation and legacy that being french one must uphold... 2988. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 3:08:08 PM Slack, 2989. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 3:16:55 PM Awwww, I can't fool you guys. 2990. rubberducky - 10/17/2000 3:17:54 PM 2991. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:18:16 PM labwabbit 2992. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 3:21:13 PM Naw...I think I do alright. 2993. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 3:23:41 PM awa 2994. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:24:10 PM labwabbit 2995. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:25:04 PM So what are you doing with your millions? 2996. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 3:26:33 PM awa 2997. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:28:51 PM Kool! Well then, there go your millions. 2998. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:29:53 PM But I guess one cicarette a year is not going to amount to much $. 2999. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 3:30:13 PM cigarette 3000. CalGal - 10/17/2000 3:31:08 PM snag? 3001. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 3:46:49 PM hussy 3002. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 5:24:32 PM 3003. marshame - 10/17/2000 5:30:55 PM While channel surfing last night, I stumbled across of moment of Conan O'Brian. Cutting to a commercial he introduces "Suzie Camel-toes, who believes that man should not be the only ones to get to stuff their pants." The camera then cuts to Suzie, this ditzy redhead who comes out swinging her pelvis and arms, showing off her enhanced camel toes. 3004. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 5:40:56 PM Hahaha.... 3005. ChristinO - 10/17/2000 6:03:48 PM You know her pants are too tight when you can read her lips. 3006. marshame - 10/17/2000 6:17:29 PM No, you missed the part about "enhanced"! And "stuffed"! 3007. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 6:46:18 PM That's when I turn it off. 3008. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 7:09:02 PM That's when I turn off ....period. 3009. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 7:18:09 PM (*) means what? or is it a personal message? 3010. labwabbit - 10/17/2000 7:26:34 PM * = speechless. 3011. altitude /w attitude - 10/17/2000 7:27:43 PM I am seldom (*). 3012. labwabbit - 10/18/2000 3:47:26 PM 3013. altitude /w attitude - 10/18/2000 10:51:15 PM That just distresses me. Don't know if it is his attitude, her presence, or just their proximity. Thought provoking. 3014. altitude /w attitude - 10/24/2000 10:46:00 AM Alas, no more love and lust in the mote. Tunnel of Love/Tower of Lust pt. 2
Shit ya little weasel...your just jealous. How much do you think YOU would be sweaty and smelly after 16.7 partners? heh.
haha
sure, if it was all in the same night - which would break even MY record!
Re: Message # 2971, labwabbit.
Shit ya little weasel...your just jealous. How much do you think YOU would be sweaty and smelly after 16.7 partners? heh.
haha
sure, if it was all in the same night - which would break even MY record!
Yep, I'm with you on that score. Although I've found that doing psychedelic drugs with people tells me the same things about them as having sex with them. I have no idea why, but there you have it.
Doc,
Having only once ever met someone whose gender I was uncertain of I really couldn't say. My inclination would be that if I was uncertain of a person's gender I wouldn't be making sexual overtures to him/her in the first place so it's unlikely that I'd be inspecting his/her genitals. Or maybe I misunderstood your question.
Interesting findings, but kind of irrelevant to all of us geezers here since 24 seems to be the oldest age surveyed for that study.
After first meeting a person, how does it take you to decide whether or not you want to inspect his/her genitals?
I wonder if the data about sex frequency by country has changed over time. Perhaps when the economy is good, Americans have lots of sex.
More likely the compliment is true: when Americans have lots of sex it puts us in a good mood and we become super-consumers, fueling a mighty economic boom.
In that case, it is the patriotic duty of every American to engage in as much recreational sex as possible!
God bless President Clinton, a one-man booming economy.
sorry!
As I pointed out to Ducky, the survey seems a bit limited since it's pulling from only the 16 to 24 range. Most of those people are single and it's already been shown in other studies that married people have more sex than single people.
well, actually, it's a "survey of 18,000 adults aged between 16 and 25."
but, yeah, you're right in that it probably skewers the results somewhat.
i wonder if the age range is what it is because younger people tend to be more honest about that sorta thing?
Ow! I hate it when my results get "skewered."
Booming Economy
More Sex
More Cigars
That's not what I've heard. I think there have been a number of reliable surveys that show married people have more sex than single. Since folks are waiting longer to get married these days it would tend to say that 16 - 25 year olds aren't having the most sex.
Nobody likes to think that his folks have more nookie than he does, but singles have to hunt for sex. Marrieds have domesticated the beast.
I would imagine that younger couples have more sex than older couples and newlyweds more than longer-weds, but a significant portion of the sex among singles consists of one-time encounters or short lived flings with long dry spells in between. They're likely to talk about it more and be more adventurous but it's due in large part because they can't get it when they want it so it's a more valuable commodity.
hahaha, can you tell i only marginally paid attention in my statistics classes?
J@H:
good point, although, my unscientific guess-timate is that younger people would be more honest to a complete stranger while being less honest with people they know or what to impress when it comes to discussing sex. i'd further guess the opposite is true, on the average, for older adults.
Surely any self respecting inference from such surveys would compare like to like, people identical on all observables except marital status. Precisely because people tend to marry older the comparison between 16-25 yo's and 26-35 yo's (say) is confounded. Married 26-35's may have more sex than single 26-35's, but who knows about married 26-35's and single 16-24's.
I try to hold up my end, but being one-o-dem-"geezers", I can be perfectly honest. I only made it to 13.4 partners last night versus 16.7.
Yep, I'm getting old I guess. But I guess I shouldn't mind, I have to run longer to chase them down the street, it takes me longer to subdue them, (is it me or are they makin' tougher these days?), and draggin' em all the way back to the house is really starting to wear on me.
Another sign that my activity is on the wane is more and more frequently, the demand to NOT stop until they say to is really taking the fun out of it. Particularly when I know some of them have been collecting social-security for quite some time.
Yes, I agree that a reliable survey would compare like to like. I was merely conjecturing. Upon re-reading my post it made it appear that the surveys had said 16 to 25s have less sex because they tend to be single. That was just my sloppy writing and sloppier reasoning.
Actually I do the wild thing only once a year....and I missed last year.
yeah, but do you stink before/after/during?
condolences
Thanks, but I really save alot of money by not buying all that cheap champagne and duct-tape.
I guess nothing in over a year is "alright" if you say so.
I'm afraid the cigarette after is what I really look forward to. 
If this catches on, examining one another's genitals will be easy.
Thank God they promptly cut to the commercial!
Datz gotta hurt!
Yikes!
Well I guess you just had to be there.
CO... (*)! 
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top