Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Same sex marriage
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 91 of 165 (49696)
08-10-2003 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
08-10-2003 12:15 AM


The way you think disturbs me.
------------------
"I believe in christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."-C.S. Lewis
contact me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 12:15 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 12:39 AM Trump won has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 165 (49697)
08-10-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Trump won
08-10-2003 12:37 AM


The way you think disturbs me.
You're disturbed by the idea that sex is as natural a thing as eating or breathing? What strange ideas you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Trump won, posted 08-10-2003 12:37 AM Trump won has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 93 of 165 (49702)
08-10-2003 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by nator
08-09-2003 11:45 PM


schraf writes:
I don't think it is the same argument.
It is.
1) You argued natural occurences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom supports the naturalness of its occurence in human beings.
2) You argued that just because group A may get abused by group B--- due to hatred or whatever because of what group A is or does--- does not mean that group A should be punished or prevented from doing what it wants to do.
shraf writes:
I found myself unable to argue effectively about the whole prostitution thing because I was getting some pretty deep feelings about it, so I dropped out rather than get overly emotional and stupid.
This sounds sensible. However, would it not be wise to assess the accuracy of your arguments, if you find yourself losing emotional control on a subject?
For example, what would you suggest a creationist do if his/her emotions toward the discussion of evolution kept getting in the way? I don't think it would be to drop out entirely, but to step back and calmly review the strict logic and evidence presented.
schraf writes:
Sex is one of the most powerful and primal expressions of intimacy that humans participate in with one another.
This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."
This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.
Rather it would appear to be as I suggested. Sex in its pure state is about simple physical pleasure, which one can have regardless of emotional commitment.
It is prudishness and moralizing which has driven the natural urge for basic sexual pleasure into a tight box where its connection with personal intimacy becomes a NECESSITY, or it gets slapped with some form of moral censure.
There are people who--- whether from lack of indoctrination or through freeing their own minds--- do not feel the need to connect deep emotional attachments (ie relationships) with sexuality. For them sex has no deep emotional overtones. It is simply fun.
schraf writes:
To turn it into a mere commodity; to turn bodies into mere commodities, is not a step in the right direction for us to go in. It is also highly disturbing to me that you seem unconcerned about what amounts to the commoditization of fake intimacy and fake personal connection at what might be some of the deepest levels we humans can feel.
If sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection and the deepest levels of emotions humans can feel, then there is no problem with its commodification. It is no more odd than commodifying a backrub.
Remember I am not saying prostitution is for everyone, especially those who feel as you do about the intimate nature of sex. I am simply arguing for the ability of those who do not feel like you, to do as they will.
If you look at what you just said above, it is eerily similar to the arguments made by those who do not want to sully the supposed "purity" of sexuality and/or relationships with "base" things like miscegenation or homosexuality.
schraf writes:
The US male population is already intimacy-phobic and unskilled at relationship-building, and prostitution provides them a "pretend girlfriend"; a maleable plaything which never disapproves, criticizes, or expects a single thing from them, emotionally.
No joke, but I've heard evangelicals say the same thing about homosexuality.
And I don't see how you can deny their position. You just slammed all men... or are homosexuals somehow above straight men in their emotional involvement towards sex?
In the end there are men as you describe. Whether it is all men, or a section thereof, prostitution did not begin what you described and its abolition will not end such confused behavior.
Just as allowing gays to adopt children will not make children gay, nor will abolishing gay adoption (or making homosexual sex illegal) end people from being homosexuals.
You asked me to provide evidence for my position on this and I did. I would like to see some evidence... any evidence... to support the stereotype you just presented of men, or that abolishing prostitution would end that phenomenon.
Toward that end I would point out something interesting. Your slam was on US men. Are you saying European men are more sensitive and less scattered about their emotional relationships? If so that tends to support my argument since most European cultures do not link sex and relationships as the US culture does, and often allows for prostitution.
It should start becoming evident if you look at the evidence, even that within your own arguments, that perhaps the more mature and healthy attitude is to separate deep emotions from the simple and natural act of sex.
schraf writes:
It's a step backwards from learning to have equitable, healthy relationships if one can always pay money to have a fake one.
This is a restatement of your strawman, and ignores the European counterexample of cultures which allow prostitution to exist.
It is also a near mirror image to arguments against homsexuality advanced by some fundamentalists, only their argument states that gays get "free sex" without having to make commitments, which is necessary to a "healthy relationship" (which they define as straight relationships).
Does any of this suggest a reanalysis of your position?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 08-09-2003 11:45 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 11:32 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 08-11-2003 4:16 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 165 (49738)
08-10-2003 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Silent H
08-10-2003 1:36 AM


quote:
1) You argued natural occurences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom supports the naturalness of its occurence in human beings.
To argue that prostitution is natural in the animal kingdom, or even just in our closest relatives, you would first have to show that they have an economic system and business contracts.
Giving a potential mate gifts to curry favor is not the same as paying for services. A suitor could give lots of gifts and still be rejected, but a prostitute, if she takes the money, is expected to provide services in the way the customer desires.
If my husband decides one day to bring me home a box of chocolates, is that prostitution?
quote:
2) You argued that just because group A may get abused by group B--- due to hatred or whatever because of what group A is or does--- does not mean that group A should be punished or prevented from doing what it wants to do.
No, not the same. I didn't argue against prostitution because I was afraid that prostitutes would be ostracized, or that school kids would tease the children of prostitutes, or whatever. I argued that the act of prostitution itself is dangerous, and the systems that have historically been built up around it are unfair and damaging to the women involved (and the men, in different ways). You might argue that that's the woman's choice, and that these things won't necessarily happen (in a perfect world...or the Netherlands...), but certainly there are lots of laws that keep people from putting themselves in danger (seatbelt and helmet laws).
That's an interesting legal and philosophical question, but I don't think I'm being inconsistent in my arguments.
quote:
This sounds sensible. However, would it not be wise to assess the accuracy of your arguments, if you find yourself losing emotional control on a subject?
Well, sure. See above
quote:
schraf writes:
Sex is one of the most powerful and primal expressions of intimacy that humans participate in with one another.

quote:
This is where I am going to ask you to review your own arguments. Your post--- linking the naturalness of homosexuality in humans to the sexuality of animals--- involved cattle mounting each other when they get "horny."
This hardly suggests that the level of "intimacy" you say sex is all about, finds its source in nature.
Well, I don't really mean to argue that cows gettin' horny justifies the morality of homosexuality. It's really ONLY to counter the idea that it's "unnatural", or that ONLY humans do it. There are lots of natural things that not only humans do that are definitely wrong and should be made illegal.
quote:
Rather it would appear to be as I suggested. Sex in its pure state is about simple physical pleasure, which one can have regardless of emotional commitment.
I disagree.
Sex, "in it's pure state" is solely about reproduction.
On top of that, in humans and many other mammals, it has also acquired the purpose of pair bonding.
The idea of sex "purely" as something pleasurable that two organisms do, without either reproductive or emotional consequences, is an extremely new and rare thing, not sex "in its pure state". I would suspect that this idea is primarily a bit of mythology that grew out of the sexual revolution.
quote:
It is prudishness and moralizing which has driven the natural urge for basic sexual pleasure
See above.
quote:
into a tight box where its connection with personal intimacy becomes a NECESSITY, or it gets slapped with some form of moral censure.
Do you deny that pair bonding is a large factor in the evolutionary direction of human and other mammals' sexuality?
quote:
There are people who--- whether from lack of indoctrination or through freeing their own minds--- do not feel the need to connect deep emotional attachments (ie relationships) with sexuality. For them sex has no deep emotional overtones. It is simply fun.
OK.
Let them have fun, in a safe, responsible, non-commercial manner.
I have nothing against that.
quote:
schraf writes:
To turn it into a mere commodity; to turn bodies into mere commodities, is not a step in the right direction for us to go in. It is also highly disturbing to me that you seem unconcerned about what amounts to the commoditization of fake intimacy and fake personal connection at what might be some of the deepest levels we humans can feel.

quote:
If sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection and the deepest levels of emotions humans can feel, then there is no problem with its commodification. It is no more odd than commodifying a backrub.
I've already explained that I disagree with this.
Men fall in love with their prostitutes on occasion, you know. If "sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection", why would this ever happen?
quote:
Remember I am not saying prostitution is for everyone, especially those who feel as you do about the intimate nature of sex. I am simply arguing for the ability of those who do not feel like you, to do as they will.
They can do as they will. I don't mean to prosribe who can have sex with who among consenting adults. I argue for severe restrictions on a business practice.
quote:
If you look at what you just said above, it is eerily similar to the arguments made by those who do not want to sully the supposed "purity" of sexuality and/or relationships with "base" things like miscegenation or homosexuality.
I hope what I said above clarifies my position.
quote:
schraf writes:
The US male population is already intimacy-phobic and unskilled at relationship-building, and prostitution provides them a "pretend girlfriend"; a maleable plaything which never disapproves, criticizes, or expects a single thing from them, emotionally.

quote:
No joke, but I've heard evangelicals say the same thing about homosexuality.
Well, those evangelicals would be wrong.
quote:
And I don't see how you can deny their position. You just slammed all men... or are homosexuals somehow above straight men in their emotional involvement towards sex?
Nope, didn't just slam all men. I made a generalization. Not the same. If you like, insert a "on the whole" or "on average" or something, to clarify.
And of course I can deny their postion. There's no connection between fake relationships with one gender (which is what I'm talking about) and real relationships with another gender (which is what those evangelicals are talking about).
quote:
In the end there are men as you describe. Whether it is all men, or a section thereof, prostitution did not begin what you described and its abolition will not end such confused behavior.
That's true. But I think that prostitution encourages and feeds such "confused" behavior.
quote:
You asked me to provide evidence for my position on this and I did. I would like to see some evidence... any evidence... to support the stereotype you just presented of men, or that abolishing prostitution would end that phenomenon.
Truthfully, I don't think you made your case that Bonobos giving gifts to curry favor in a potential mate is the same as a business contract for services. Also, what about the pair bonding that goes on in the tightly-knit social groups that Bonobos live in?
It's not like a Bonobo drives into the city to give a piece of fruit to a Bonobo they have never seen before and is guaranteed sexual access to her in exchange for that fruit.
I'm not arguing the second point.
quote:
Toward that end I would point out something interesting. Your slam was on US men. Are you saying European men are more sensitive and less scattered about their emotional relationships? If so that tends to support my argument since most European cultures do not link sex and relationships as the US culture does, and often allows for prostitution.
I don't know anything about European men. That's why I specified.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 1:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 2:34 PM nator has replied
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 08-11-2003 4:25 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 165 (49742)
08-10-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
08-10-2003 12:15 AM


quote:
Isn't that, frankly, a sexist stereotype? As though the only intimacy or relationship that could exist is the kind that women approve of? Men may be just as able to be intimate or form relationships. They just may not be the kind of intimacy or relationships that women know.
Of course, I totally agree with this, and I was not specific enough in my previous comment. Generalizations are always inaccurate.
However, I was getting at the idea that a huge industry exists which serves to provide fake intimacy and fake relationships to men in exchange for money. Call me crazy, but I think that this says something.
quote:
And I don't see that men visit prostitutes - or strip bars - because they're looking for "pretend girlfriends". The way I see it they're looking for sex, because men seek out sex to a greater degree than women. And sex doesn't always have to be part of a deep, abiding intimacy. Sometimes it's just about deep biological directives. Just as eating isn't always about feasting with friends and family - sometimes it's about being hungry.
The "deep biological directives" of eating are:
1) getting nutrition, and
2) getting fuel
The "feast with family and friends" is a cultural invention, not a "biological directive".
The "deep biological directives" of sex are;
1) reproduction, and
2) pair bonding
The pair bonding that happens with sex is part and parcel of the evolution of sex, not something we have "tacked on" as "cultural baggage" or something.
"Cultural baggage" isn't neccessarily bad (see "feast with family and friends", above). However, just as hunger can be satisfied by non-nutritious junk that serves neither "directive" or has dire consequences to our health, sexual desire can be satisfied in empty ways that can have consequences for our true relationships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 12:15 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 12:18 PM nator has not replied
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 3:16 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 165 (49744)
08-10-2003 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by nator
08-10-2003 12:09 PM


quote:
Chrashfrog: And I don't see that men visit prostitutes - or strip bars - because they're looking for "pretend girlfriends". The way I see it they're looking for sex, because men seek out sex to a greater degree than women.
For heaven's sake, just go jack off.
If men are just looking for sexual stimulation and orgasm, then they can do that.
If they are looking for more than that, then that just confirms my argument that they are paying money for fake intimacy and fake relationships (or possibly to exercise power).
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 12:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 2:46 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 165 (49756)
08-10-2003 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
08-10-2003 11:32 AM


schraf writes:
To argue that prostitution is natural in the animal kingdom, or even just in our closest relatives, you would first have to show that they have an economic system and business contracts.
This argument is so fallacious I am almost overwhelmed where to begin. Let's see, how about we start with the REALITY that animals will never have anything close to the complex economic/social institutions humans have created. Thus comparisons between animal and human behavior do not have to be direct.
If they had to be direct then YOU would have to show that things like taking one's potential mate out to a restaurant and buying presents on anniversaries was normal in the animal kingdom, in order to prove that sexual relationships in animals had something to do with pairbonding.
schraf writes:
Giving a potential mate gifts to curry favor is not the same as paying for services.
This is not what happens in Bonobo communities. If you had read even one of the articles on Bonobos you would understand this. They exchange sex for food, and other menial services. It has nothing to do with longterm, or shortterm pairbonding.
This is why the results of Bonobo research were so startling. They challenged the XTIAN SEX-GUILT MYTH that sex was all about pairbonding.
schraf writes:
A suitor could give lots of gifts and still be rejected, but a prostitute, if she takes the money, is expected to provide services in the way the customer desires.
You should have capitalized IF in the above statement. Yes, just like any other business, IF they take and keep your money then they must provide the service they promised. This does not suggest that prostitutes must accept money for any service, or cannot refuse service if they do not like the customer's attitude.
schraf writes:
I argued that the act of prostitution itself is dangerous, and the systems that have historically been built up around it are unfair and damaging to the women involved (and the men, in different ways).
No, that was part of what you argued. You also argued about how women would be viewed/treated by society (ie devalued), and by men in specific. My defense to that was similar to the one you just gave for interracial and homosexual relationships.
I will now respond to the above argument. I presented several well documented research articles which refute your "historic" claims. It appears you still have not read any of them.
The history of prostitution has been one of gradual enslavement and endangerment of women by INCREASING legal controls of prostitution. Only the loosening of legal controls has HISTORICALLY resulted in greater freedom and safety for women.
It has a direct mirror in women's fights for abortion rights.
Fundamentalists can--- and have--- used your argument above to argue against abortion rights. It was just as fallacious for them.
schraf writes:
Well, sure. See above [proving you have assessed your arguments]
Would reviewing all of your own opinions and checking them against all of your own opinions REALLY count as assessing the validity of your arguments?
It is abundantly clear that you have yet to crossreference your opinions with the Bonobo research provided, as well as research on prostitution (and not simply the history of prostitution in places where it is ILLEGAL).
You have criticized creationists and fundamentalists for less.
schraf writes:
There are lots of natural things that not only humans do that are definitely wrong and should be made illegal.
Hmmm. And apparently you, rather than anyone else in this country is the one qualified to make the determination of which should be made illegal?
I mean if your statement above is real, then why shouldn't fundies be able to condemn homosexuality or miscegenation? I see no logic that precludes them from being just as right as you.
schraf writes:
Sex, "in it's pure state" is solely about reproduction.
On top of that, in humans and many other mammals, it has also acquired the purpose of pair bonding.
The idea of sex "purely" as something pleasurable that two organisms do, without either reproductive or emotional consequences, is an extremely new and rare thing, not sex "in its pure state". I would suspect that this idea is primarily a bit of mythology that grew out of the sexual revolution.
It is your bigoted feminist mythology (ironically founded on xtian-sex-guilt mythology) which seems to be getting in the way here.
Sex acts are necessary for sexual reproduction, but that is not the end all of what sex is about. To claim that its only other purpose, much less legitimate purpose, is pair bonding is absurd.
Didn't you just give cattle as your example of the naturalness of homosexual behavior. Was that pairbonding?
No matter if you've just shifted your argument by limiting sexual pairbonding to primates. Again... BONOBO RESEARCH undercuts what you just said.
In fact I think you can look at great apes to find similar undercuttings of your pairbonding idea.
That is if you don't simply want to look at the history of human behavior. Before Judeo-Xtian-Islamic monotheistic doctrines took hold, and in cultures where it is not strong, sex has not been intrinsically linked to relationships.
It is obvious that sex is important in pairbonding. I am not denying that. But it is not exclusive to pairbonding.
And even within such JXI cultures I think it is safe to say, people often pursue sex for its pleasure alone. A casual glance at rates of prostitution and divorce should spell this put.
But that is even if you have to go to reference materials. Are you telling me as a human being, you never engaged in a sexual act purely for its pleasure?
I should also point out that if what you say is true--- that sexual reproduction and pairbonding are the only natural uses of sexual activity--- then you have clearly provided reasons to criminalize homosexuality as well as fornication and masturbation.
Oh yes, masturbation. I guess that's just a result of the sexual revolution right? Or a myth? And if I jerk off to a porn video, am I attempting to bond with my tv set, the video tape itself, or my hand?
schraf writes:
Do you deny that pair bonding is a large factor in the evolutionary direction of human and other mammals' sexuality?
Actually I am not sure about this. Short term bonding seems to be important for the reproductive cycle (which includes protection and nurture of the newborn), though it is not quite clear if this involves monogamy or longterm commitment at all.
CURRENT sexual research suggests that women are adapted for taking on many suitors for greater chances of successfully reproducing.
And males are adapted for an environment where their "partner" has multiple male partners, not to mention a proclivity to try and mate with as many females as possible to increase the chance of his sexually reproducing.
Are you up on the latest sexual research? Because this is the latest.
I have not read anything which suggests that the evolutionary direction is, or ought to be, longterm monogamy. Bonobo research, which seems to be vital reading if you are going to make claims about our evolutionary directions, also stands in stark contrast to everything you just said.
However I have heard that pairbonding through sex is important for doves and seahorses.
schraf writes:
I've already explained that I disagree with this.
You would not accept this from a creationist or fundamentalist.
Or are you now saying funkmaster's simply not agreeing with you on homosexuality somehow legitimates his position?
schraf writes:
Men fall in love with their prostitutes on occasion, you know. If "sex has nothing to do with intimacy and personal connection", why would this ever happen?
I want to use this chance to push you toward more orderly thinking. Just look at what you said and really think about it.
ANY human contact, sexual or otherwise, has lead to people falling in love with each other. How many people have fallen in love with their teachers, waitresses, librarians, coworkers...???
If you can show me a study which suggests that prostitution results in more "pairbonding" situations (or feelings of pairbondings) than any other social interaction, I may start believing you.
FROM EXPERIENCE, it is only those who share moralities like yours who tend to get confused when going to a prostitute and think they have to treat it like a relationship (otherwise they feel guilty). They are usually disappointed and don't go again, OR the prostitute gets weirded out and doesn't see them again.
schraf writes:
Let them have fun, in a safe, responsible, non-commercial manner.
I have nothing against that.
[and later]...They can do as they will. I don't mean to prosribe who can have sex with who among consenting adults. I argue for severe restrictions on a business practice.
Oh yes,and let them have fun in a safe, responsible, procreative (or non-nonprocreative), monogamous manner.
I have nothing against that. I'm only arguing for severe restrictions on impure crossbreeding of races or nonprocreative monogamous practices.
There is no logical difference between these positions except the beginning moral proscription. You define as immoral; sex outside of strictly emotional pairbonding rituals. They define as immoral; sex outside of strictly emotional pairbonding rituals with the natural end of procreation (and for some... procreation in a way that ensures racial integrity).
Yours is arbitrarily "better" I guess?
schraf writes:
Nope, didn't just slam all men. I made a generalization. Not the same. If you like, insert a "on the whole" or "on average" or something, to clarify.
I didn't say "all", I made a "generalization", just like saying "on the average"? This is clearly the adhoc reasoning of a bigot.
Do you not see that to make such hate-filled and stereotyped "generalizations" about any group of people, is the essence of bigotry?
schraf writes:
And of course I can deny their postion. There's no connection between fake relationships with one gender (which is what I'm talking about) and real relationships with another gender (which is what those evangelicals are talking about).
This is to deny the obvious. You simply disagree with those bigots on what constitutes a fake and a real relationship.
Evangelicals can argue just as accurately that a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is fake, as it cannot lead to the "natural" product of what relationships are supposed to produce... children from each of the parents. Personal and procreative make it real.
Your position is that it must lead to the "natural" product of a personal relationship. Personal makes it real.
Hedonists, arguing as you would argue against the fundie, will argue that a PURELY SEXUAL relationship is just as real as one with the goal of "pairbonding". All relationships are real, as long as participants are honest and understand what they are seeking in that relationship.
Prostitution is the offshoot of hedonistic, or purely sexual, relationships.
And for my part, I have tried to explain to you that in addition to being about purely physical pleasure, prostitution is a BUSINESS relationship. It is just as real as any other business relationship.
If a person goes to one seeking a fake PERSONAL relationship, that's as deluded as the guy who goes to restaurants trying to create fake relationships with the waitresses there. And by the way, that happens.
schraf writes:
Truthfully, I don't think you made your case that Bonobos giving gifts to curry favor in a potential mate is the same as a business contract for services. Also, what about the pair bonding that goes on in the tightly-knit social groups that Bonobos live in?
It's not like a Bonobo drives into the city to give a piece of fruit to a Bonobo they have never seen before and is guaranteed sexual access to her in exchange for that fruit.
I'm sorry, but what the hell articles did you read?
Bonobo research has shown that sex within their community, is EXCHANGED FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AND SOMETIMES JUST TO PASS THE TIME, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAIRBONDING!!!!!!
You could not have read any article on Bonobo research, and come away with the conclusions you just stated.
And that dismissive crack about Bonobos not driving into town? What the f?????
I mean this is just plain insulting, and I'll accept this crap as much as you would accept a creationist quoting the bible and saying it came from the latest biology textbook on evolution.
You can do much much better, and as a scientist you should. Shame on you.
And by the way, Dolphins swim miles and miles (granted not to any particular city) and have sex with just about anything they encounter, including humans! For them... if it's not clear enough with Bonobos... sex is not just about pairbonding.
schraf writes:
I don't know anything about European men. That's why I specified.
And yet you feel qualified to talk about the effects of prostitution on men and society as a whole?
Why then can't racial bigots talk about how bad blacks are and admittedly limit their knowledge to blacks who are underprivileged and grew up in an environment of violence?
Why can't anti-abortion fanatics talk about how bad abortions are, and limit their knowledge base to areas where abortions are illegal and inside cultures that hate women who have them?
Why can't anti-gay bigots lambaste homosexual relationships, and limit their knowledge to gays attending bathhouses and adult theatres, and the negative affects they suffer (at the hands of a society that condemns homosexuality).
Why can't anti-gay-adoption bigots, sit on the scope of their knowledge by refusing to look at data which refutes their claims?
There is no excuse you can give at this point, for not knowing how nature, culture, and legality affect the reality of prostitution among humans. You have been given plenty of references, and have obviously read NONE.
This means you are simply unwilling to have your stereotyped "generalizations" about men, and the nature of prostitution, challenged by FACTS.
As long as you stay this entrenched against the honest evaluation of objective research, you will remain a bigot.
I don't mean to drive you insane by riding this topic with you. Quite the opposite, it is clear your thinking is already disordered and needs to be regrouped. You cannot hope to escape this problem by dropping out of threads and avoiding the evidence.
The result is your popping up in other threads, just like many fundies do, and reiterating arguments which have already refuted. Or even worse, using the same arguments you casually dismissed as erroneous when they seem to suit your ends.
I once had an immense respect for you and so I guess that's why I feel the need for this mental "intervention." You need to confront whatever demon it is that fosters these "generalizations" about men. They are not only outdated, they are erroneous and unhealthy.
In doing this you should eventually confront the evidence which has been provided to you. It stands against your position. The entire weight of current sexual research stands against your position (except perhaps studies funded by evangelicals). It is about as conclusive as research supporting evolution ever could be.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 11:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 5:27 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 106 by Zhimbo, posted 08-10-2003 6:59 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 165 (49757)
08-10-2003 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
08-10-2003 12:18 PM


schraf writes:
If men are just looking for sexual stimulation and orgasm, then they can do that.
This betrays all of your prejudices.
Women, just like men, OFTEN seek pure sexual stimulation and orgasm.
Your limitation that women and men should not engage in sex for purely physical gratification, and--- worse for you--- a monetary arrangement, is the equivalent of saying people should not eat ice cream except the ice cream they made themselves.
Or better yet, if you just want a backrub, why not get your wife to do it, or a vibrating chair?
Your breakdown of what the primary functions of sex compared to eating are was a complete fabrication on your part.
And I'm glad you mentioned masturbation. That blows your sex is for bonding theory right out of the water.
Or is that some "misadaptive" trait, like homosexuality?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 12:18 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 5:31 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 165 (49760)
08-10-2003 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by nator
08-10-2003 12:09 PM


However, I was getting at the idea that a huge industry exists which serves to provide fake intimacy and fake relationships to men in exchange for money. Call me crazy, but I think that this says something.
What industry is that? If you're referring to the sex industry, they don't provide intimacy or relationships. They provide boobies.
The pair bonding that happens with sex is part and parcel of the evolution of sex, not something we have "tacked on" as "cultural baggage" or something.
But not all people who have sex pair-bond. On the other hand, everybody who eats gets less hungry. I'm inclined to see the association of sex with pair-bonded intimacy as cultural invention because not all cultures have that arrangement.
And we pair-bond through food - breaking bread - as easily as we do with sex. So why is pair-bonding through food cultural invention, and pair-bonding through sex not? Seems like an inconsistent theory to me.
sexual desire can be satisfied in empty ways that can have consequences for our true relationships.
I would agree that a man in a sexual relationship who seeks sexual release from someone else is indicative of a troubled relationship, generally. But what about men in no relationships? Not everyone is able to attract mates. What are they supposed to do?
For heaven's sake, just go jack off.
I guess that's what you think they're supposed to do.
I've done both, in my time - jacked off, and had sex that was so without intimacy that it might as well have been mutual masturbation. The sex was still light-years better than jacking off. Maybe it's hard for women to imagine, or something. Sex motivates men because it feels much better than jacking off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 12:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 4:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 104 by nator, posted 08-10-2003 5:57 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 105 by doctrbill, posted 08-10-2003 6:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 165 (49780)
08-10-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
08-10-2003 3:16 PM


crashfrog writes:
But not all people who have sex pair-bond... I'm inclined to see the association of sex with pair-bonded intimacy as cultural invention because not all cultures have that arrangement.
And we pair-bond through food - breaking bread - as easily as we do with sex. So why is pair-bonding through food cultural invention, and pair-bonding through sex not? Seems like an inconsistent theory to me.
Your are exactly right. Schraf's nice scientific-looking "breakdown" of sex versus eating was nothing but made up trash.
That is unless the research she got those conclusions from only studied modern western US civilization, and perhaps even subcultures of that.
Whoever came up with those conclusions seems to have forgotten about the Inuits, the Polynesian islanders (and I believe traditional Hawaiian culture), ancient Greek, Roman, and to some extent Egyption cultures. Whew. Then again, those people are a bunch of uncivilized savages anyway, right? Not evolved enough?
In addition to food and sex there is also grooming. What is the role that plays among primates. I think it is without question that grooming plays an important role in social-bond building.
I guess by extension of her logic, this means paying someone to give you a haircut is immoral. It certainly can lead to unhealthy things happening (especially if you have read the Kama Sutra and its teachings about what goes on at the barber's). Your wife or other family members should cut your hair... Or go grab some clippers and do it yourself!
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 4:21 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 165 (49781)
08-10-2003 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-10-2003 4:12 PM


I don't want anyone to think that I openly support the state of the sex industry in this country. To the contrary I find it needlessly exploitative. For instance strippers actually have to pay the club in order to be "allowed" to strip there. Ludicrious!
So long as it's an industry perched on the fringe of regulation and illegality, it will continue to exploit women. Once it becomes as accepted as waitstaffing in restaurants, though, regulation can ensure that women aren't exploited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 4:12 PM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 165 (49782)
08-10-2003 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
08-10-2003 2:34 PM


It's good to know that I'm not the only one who gets overly emotional on this topic. When you're ready to be rational and discuss, you can bring this up again. You DO have SOME interesting points, but you extrapolate, distort, and put words in my mouth, and seem to be purposefully thick-headed WRT my analogies (what do you THINK the crack about the bonobo driving into town was about? Look at the preceding sentence!)
You obviously have some touchy issues with regards to this, so I'll let you work that out on your own.
It's also obvious to me that you haven't read any articles on the biology of pair-bonding, including the latest research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 2:34 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 11:35 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 165 (49783)
08-10-2003 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Silent H
08-10-2003 2:46 PM


quote:
This betrays all of your prejudices.
Since 99% of prostitution involves men buying sex, I thought it was a reasonable shorthand.
quote:
Your limitation that women and men should not engage in sex for purely physical gratification
And this betrays the irrationality of your approach to this topic. I have never made such a "limitation", and in fact have stated exactly the opposite. Perhaps you're arguing with some stereotyped cartoon character, not me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2003 2:46 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by greyline, posted 08-11-2003 12:02 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 165 (49786)
08-10-2003 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
08-10-2003 3:16 PM


quote:
So why is pair-bonding through food cultural invention, and pair-bonding through sex not?
I won't rule out that pair-bonding through food is biological, actually, although it seems unlikely.
On the other hand, pair-bonding through sex? Hello? Has no one on this forum heard of oxytocin? Here's one cite, pretty much at random:
Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neuroendocrine
basis of pair bond formation
by
Insel TR, Winslow JT, Wang Z, Young LJ.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center,
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Adv Exp Med Biol 1998;449:215-24
and here's a popular-level review of the same line of work:
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/HSNEWS/PUB/EM/EMSum98/vole.html
quote:
I guess that's what you think they're supposed to do.
I find it interesting that you don't comment on all of what I said:
quote:
For heaven's sake, just go jack off.
If men are just looking for sexual stimulation and orgasm, then they can do that.
If they are looking for more than that, then that just confirms my argument that they are paying money for fake intimacy and fake relationships (or possibly to exercise power)."

Yes, sex is better than masturbation. But I don't think all the extra effort and expense is because of vast differences in orgasm (unless men, by and large, are lousy masturbators).
And I'm not really talking about strip clubs here, anyway, or casual affairs. Those are related, but different, issues.
Also, are you saying that the sense of power a person feels at being able to buy another person's body to have sex in might not be a pretty compelling reason for some (perhaps many) men to buy a woman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 3:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 105 of 165 (49790)
08-10-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
08-10-2003 3:16 PM


crasfrog writes:
... we pair-bond through food - breaking bread - as easily as we do with sex.
Wish I'd known about this sooner. Are you sure about it? I've had a lot of dinner dates that went nowhere. But if and when we got together in the sack (whether or not we'd had dinner together), things tended to continue for a while.
... what about men in no relationships? Not everyone is able to attract mates. What are they supposed to do?
Ask someone to lunch?
[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 08-10-2003 3:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024