Sluts/slappers/whores/homewreckers

panda100 wrote: »

The whole caveman thing just doesnt wash with me.How can humans have evolved so much that we have concordes,internet and cures for previously incurable diseases yet we havent been able to evolve past basic 'animal instincts'. How comes when it comes to everything else in life we have fully evolved past our caveman ancestors but when it comes to sex we are still in 600 bc?

As has been noted, we have greater complexity in society now, but our brains are hardwired pretty much the same way for the last 60,000 years at least. You can see it in operation with something like the outpouring of grief when princess diana died. People were crying as if they knew her. As if she was a friend or family member. Indeed even more than if they had known her. Why? Because they knew what she looked like, sounded like, she was on our TV screens and in magazines etc. People did know her, or at least it felt like they did. It felt like that to our 60,000 year old brain. Back then if you had that much info on someone it was someone in your society. Modern media bypasses the logical part and plugs straight into that. Ever see or meet a famous person? It feels weird because at first glance before the thinking kicks in you feel like you know them. Same deal. people being obsessed with virtual society in soap operas is yet another example. I would contend that women tend more towards those kinds of things because they are more hardwired in general for socialisation and the ebb and flow of same.

Now because of the checks and balances in our society those hard wired instincts are controlled, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Indeed "caveman" society is also very complex and has quite a lot of rules governing social interaction and the control of "animal instincts". I think the "caveman" stereotype has a lot to answer for. I do think that in one big way society has changed and we're talking on one of those examples now. today for the first time in history really we have much more interaction by remote control. Yes we wrote letters in the past, but to be this connected yet disconnected is unusual. It may even explain various social issues and social phobias as our brains are furiously trying to catch up with the complexity. Sexuality could be put in that category too. We've gone from a situation where we had no relaiable contraception to paternity tests and sexual freedom. Things which really haven't happened before. There's bound to be a shaky time as that takes hold.

There is, but It is something that is discouraged in society because our capitalist society relys on male and institutional dominance.

Maybe. I would still have issues with that though I appreciate where you're coming from. Much of the problem with that is that anytime it has been tried one, hierarchy gets replaced by another. I would suggest hierarchy is wired into us.

Society is designed artifically to pit generations of women against each other.

Society designs itself to a large degree and that changes with time and resources available to that society. What is considered moral one day can be seen as hopelessly immoral and out dated the next. Slavery is a good example. Slavery's time was up when cheaper power units became available. It's no great coincidence that slavery got the heave ho in europe and america when steam power became more widely available. Capitalism created the market and then destroyed it.

Can you imagine what women could achieve if we were a united force?

Fine but look at men have achieved and it could well be argued we're not a united force. Most of history consists of one group of men pummeling the crap out of another group of men.

We would get paid and recognised for all the work we do in the home,proper parental leave,reproductive choice, fair compensation, an end to the beauty myth where profiteering companies make billions making us feel bad about how we look, proper child care programs,genuine penalties against sexual violence etc etc.

I agree with those aims and society is getting there in a lot of them.

Women achieveing this sort of liberation would turn society on its head so the divisivness of female kind is key to the smooth running of capitalism.

That bit I don't agree with tbh. Women may prove evne more "capitalist" than men. Or even more divisive. I'd put money on the latter in fact. As noted earlier in thread women in general tend towards divisiveness in groups whereas men settle down into a hierarchical status quo. I do think men and women have fundamental differences. I also think we're more alike than different, but in the case of the OT, reproductive strategies, I think we are the most different. The genders have different approaches. Mainly because the genders have different outcomes and needs.

But as this thread shows its the tempting women that will get the brunt of the blame. This whole Idea that womens beauty and charm is an irrisistable force that turns even the most powerful men into putty in our hands is ridiculous. However this view of women as the temptress is deeply embedded into our culture and history.

You could argue that there's an element of chicken and egg. Are women more likely to be sexually scheming than men and that has entered culture because of that? Or is it that when we started to settle in one place, the need to establish paternity for males became more important because of inheritance of resources and female sexuality was considered dangerous? I would suspect the latter as the idea is a lot less prevalent in "caveman" culture. Female sexuality is generally more accepted.

Dragan wrote:

Why do women need to do what men have never done in order to succeed? I'm very sorry, but there is no combined force of males. It's dog eat dog and **** his wife.

I agree with that, though it's significantly more complex than dog eat dog and **** his wife.

Now i'm not being smart here Panda, i met you at the beers in D2. You're a smart girl, good looking. You were well dressed, had the make up on, nice shoes on and well spoken from our brief conversation ( please not i only mention the style of dress and make up because you seem to have issue with the idea of people feeling they should wear make up, or the image of the made up woman).

I don't see the relevance tbh. Or is simply it to point out a perception that there exists a disparity between what she may say and what she may do?

taconnol wrote:

Individuals and societies are more than genetics.

Mmmm I'm not so sure. More I would suggest that individuals and societies follow rules created by a need to balance individual nature and the good of the society at the time. Nature is there though all the time. It drives culture. Sometimes culture drives it, but that would be the minority. There are enough studies that show our individual drives affect us more than we may suspect. One classic one recently was the finding that women on the pill look for subtly different types of men than those not on the pill and if those women subsequently come off the pill, those relationships fail at a much greater rate. That's an example of subconsious nature affecting the dynamics of a relationship and even society.

There is a serious amount of socialisation that happens today, and presumably has always happened.

That's the thing. It's always happened.

You don't see people having to resist the urge to chase down a bird & eat it raw on the spot. We have moved on.

True but there are very few cavemen types that would do that either. If the supermarkets ever run out of stock watch how quick we'll revert. I give it a fortnight.

Sure, we still have instincts, etc but if I need to go to the bathroom, I have enough restraint to wait til I get home, etc.

So would a caveman. Wlak into a hunter gatherer village and poo in front of their dwellings and see how they react. Now people differ and some hippy couples will happily pee in front of each other, but our society has decided that the consensus is that's not a good thing. But any night in a major city after dark and you'll see enough people bucking that particular example.

Social pressures do not receive the awareness they merit for their role in shaping our lives/attitudes/opinions, etc

And those social pressures have at their root our biology. Why don't we crap on the street? Why does it smell bad? Because we are hard wired to avoid other humans waste as it may carry disease. Why is throwing up on the street bad? Disease again. We even have the feeling we'll throw up if we see that or smell that. Why? biology again. If one of our group hurls chunks it would be a good plan for us to do so too in case we ingested the same food and it was poisonous. In our past the chances would be high we would have eaten the same thing. So society says human waste on the streets is bad and conditions us further to avoid doing it. Pretty much every thing in our society has at it's root some biology. They can't be separated.

In the case of human sexuality and in the context of the original topic that goes even moreso IMHO.

taconnol wrote: »

Good post Wibbs,

Ah shucks.:o The fivers in the post.

In the context of the original discussion, I would argue that for many women, their sense of standing in society & feelings of self-worth are linked to their appearance, and to a lessening extent, to the man they manage to bag. You just have to read an Austen novel to see how wrapped up a women's entire existence was in getting a good man just a few 100 years ago.

Yes and it was largely down to women's position in that society and they're roll in reproduction and inheritance. hence virginity and chasteness was even more valued than today.

Clearly we have moved on from then but how much?? Just think of the difference connotations that arise with the words "bachelor" and "spinster". Look at all the horrible press (much of it written by women, I might add) about "poor" Jennifer Aniston & how she's 40 & still single, while at the same time drooling over George Clooney, who is quite a bit older.

You could argue that's biology too. Men have more time to reproduce. A woman's chances are finite and based largely around youth. 99% of what is considered attractive in women is a direct result of their physical reproductive fitness. While physical fitness is a valued quality in men too, its not nearly as tied into youth. A scrawny socially powerful man will trump a muscle guy most of the time. Same with age. If a 35 year old man is standing beside a 25 year old man pretty much the same in the physical attractiveness stakes, trying to attract the same woman(say she's 25 too). Most of the time the 25 year old bloke may as well get his coat. Women are looking for subtly different things. So Ms Aniston will be seen as a woman running out of time to start a family(nonsense though it may be), where Mr Cloony has all the time in the world. Add in an element of jealousy and seeing her fail because she's a famous sex symbol may make some feel better about their own lives. That's more a case with other women and their reproductive competitiveness.

As for the cultural norms, there have been historians who say that women used to be on a very equal standing with men, in caveman times (maybe you're right Dragan - they were the best times!) and that women actually brought more calories into the cave than the men did. As a result, they were treated as equals in their society.

Pretty much. Certainy better in many cases than today. they were more "feminist" socities. Ironic enough.

So yes cutural conditioning has always been happening but I would question the assertion that women have always been viewed, at least on a cultural/social level in the same vein as they have over the past 200 years

I would say they have to a greater or lesser extent since the beginnings of farming and cities. The greeks considered women lesser, as did the romans, as did pretty much every civilisation one can think of.

On the puking thing: this is a very interesting subject. I read a few weeks ago about how many of our "cultural" norms surround food, in particular, have practical origins. For example, if you think about most of the food taboos in our society, they center around meat. Asians eat dogs, insects, the French eat snails & frog-legs, the British like steak & kidney pie and liver pate! Another interesting point made was that wasabi has anti-bacterial properties and so it is wise to eat it with sushi (raw fish). A more unfounded example of this would be the practice of eating lemon with fish, as the lemon was thought to dissolve any fish bones swallowed. Really interesting stuff.

It is too.