Do single women still exist?? (1 Viewer)

[RSJ]

You mightn't agree with me, but it's all to do with guilt. Guys who wear make up feel a crushing desire to cover themselves up due to some deep seated shame. Perhaps they lit a fire in their house when they were young? But the tragedy is, when they start this odd behaviour people make fun of them and so they now need to wear make up to mask their feelings of shame for wearing make up!

What about the time kelso wore makeup on that 70s show? He had no guilt...?

 

[egg_]

...

You know dude, I was on your side until you started trying to pull rank with this psychology bollocks. Displaying your qualifications means you've lost the argument ...

... which is kind of a pity, because I think "guys like girls more than girls like guys" is a funny, pithy phrase with more than a grain of truth in it. Brian and Jane and Sarah etc, don't you accept that there are generalised behavioural tendencies that all humans have? They don't help you predict what any individual is going to do, because, as you say, people are too diverse, but there are certain driving factors behind what we do that mean that the behaviour of large groups, where the diversity gets averaged out, is a bit more predictable

 

[jane]

"Do they all write for Zoo? Because ever since I found out a few posts ago that men don't care about anything except what I look like naked, I gave up on books and now I only read magazines and wait for undergrads to tell me that everything I've learned in thirteen years of studying the complexity of human behaviour can be blown to smithereens by 'gays are like hawks'."

What is your problem with the animal analogy?? I don't actually think gays are hawks, I just think they behave like them! Abstract thinking obviously isn't one of your strong points!

Because human beings are also animals with our own sets of behaviours. And what about the many animals that do have same sex relations, and yet the species doesn't die out? I don't have a problem with abstract thinking, it's your arrogance at your three years of undergraduate education that I take issue with.

What about the social construct of homosexuality, and that as a term, it wasn't coined until the 19th century? What about the notion that in ancient Athenian society, it was believed that true love could only exist between two men? And that for those of the citizen class,it was the 'done thing' for adult men to have teenage boys as lovers? And then there were the hetairae, the educated courtesans who provided rides and deep conversation? None of these men would have been considered 'bisexual' or 'homosexual' because it was all part of what was considered normal in their culturally-constructed terms of sexuality.

Yes, there is a growing body of research that shows sexual preference to be something other than strictly biological, but just because it may be influenced by cultural factors of various kinds and may not strictly be a natural instinct does not mean bisexuality does not exist. To suggest that the only valid and true and 'normal' human behaviours are those driven totally by instinct is to fool yourself. There isn't a single behaviour that isn't filtered through some sort of cultural lens, and so you can't observe them outside of those cultural constructs.

"Or 'bisexuality would make the module too confusing for students, so best tell them it doesn't exist'. It's funny because I was wondering why every time I'm out with a bisexual pal, people think I'm talking to myself! It's like the George Burns/Oh God! movies. Heee-larious. I jsut tried to call one of them to tell her she didn't exist, but her phone rang out!"

I didn't say that the people don't exist, it's the notion of bisexuality! No offence but your friend is kidding herself. She likes one or the other, the brain isn't designed to fancy both genders. Why are you being so horrible to me anyway - why can't you just discuss this normally without resorting to such snide mimicry? Surely if my flawed point of view was so outrageous you'd try and help me understand your perspective rather than just make fun of me in front of your net-friends! You're not actually trying to discuss thism you're just trying to ridicule me. It's not my fault I think this. I'm not a bad person.

Because what you're saying is actually so outrageous that I'm not going to waste my time trying to change your perspective. This isn't a dick-measuring contest, but if it were, and if one's number of years of education were tantamount to actual intellectual authority, I reckon I'd have a good few years on you. I don't think that way because I don't believe that formal education can carry much weight in its own right. You can read all the books in the world and still understand nothing of its realities.

"Also, if women are all afraid of cocks, then why do dildos look like big veiny cocks and not something prettier?"


Actually, women don't buy dildos! There was a study done in the 90's about this which revealed that the majority of sales of dildos were attributed to males buying them for their girlfriends unde the illusion that they would enjoy them!! I think dildos are a result of femminists being jealous of the male ability to enjoy masturbation and so created a tool that apparently "enhances" female solo-course.

This is exactly what I mean by your adherence to theory over reality. You view anything that doesn't fit your abstraction as an aberration, when actually, a good intellectual argument uses experience and evidence to support a theory, and not the other way around, as you're doing.

Theories are constantly being changed and revised because actual real-world examples make this necessary. They can sometimes be used as points of departure for discussion because they make certain generalisations that make discussion and argument a bit easier, but they are not in themselves truths. And there are few people in 2007 who would suggest they were -- even the theorists themselves are not so hell-bent on preserving their theories in intellectual amber that they would deny reality in order to clutch onto their theories.

Theoretical frameworks are constructed in order to find a lens through which to see human behaviours, and the result is frequently that the theory proves to be inadequate for understanding the realities of human life.

Or maybe all of this is because I secretly wish I had a cock.

 

[rettucs]

Or maybe all of this is because I secretly wish I had a cock.

me too

 

[Pantone247]

But the humans do fit the theory!! You must be one of the school who doesn't recognise psychology as a science! My theories stand up to the scrutiny of science and logic!

it's hard to take you seriously when you use so many EXCLAMATION marks

 

[ronan]

I'm amazed at how many people Stephen has fooled in this thread...

 

[Squiggle]

.Brian and Jane and Sarah etc, don't you accept that there are generalised behavioural tendencies that all humans have? They don't help you predict what any individual is going to do, because, as you say, people are too diverse, but there are certain driving factors behind what we do that mean that the behaviour of large groups, where the diversity gets averaged out, is a bit more predictable

Yes, of course there are, the point I was making was that they are far more complex that Stephenoblunt would have us believe and that his generalisations are far too limited and, Jane, Brian and I believe, grossly inaccurate.

Clearly Jane and I have never been physically attracted to men, because we can only be interested in a guy for his mind and personality, because it says so in a book written by a dead guy

In a post somewhere way back in this thread I made the point that I don't think that men and women are the polar opposites that stephenoblunt is portraying us as.

 

[RSJ]

it's hard to take you seriously when you use so many EXCLAMATION marks

And referr to your own species as "the humans".

Man, i don't know which i dislike more, film and tv students who feel the need to do directors commentaries while you're trying to watch film and tv, or psychology students who try to tell you what you are and aren't feeling/liking.

On balance, i think i just dislike students.

 

[egg_]

Because human beings are also animals with our own sets of behaviours. And what about the many animals that do have same sex relations, and yet the species doesn't die out?

Did I miss where Stephen said that "the species will die out due to homosexuality"? Implying that he did when he didn't isn't fair.

 

[ronan]

Stephen is only starting his 4th year...

 

[stephenoblunt]

Some good arguments here, and you prove yourself to have a decent grasp of abstract reasoning for a girl, so fair play to you. But still I have reservations with what you say. And it's not just me. I speak for the whole psychological community when I say these things. This is what is being taught these days. Maybe you are a little out of touch with the current thinkings. And I'm sorry but with all your references to cultures centuries ago, you really do come across as someone with more of an interest in anthropology!

"the 19th century... ancient Athenian society... the hetairae"
"Theories are constantly being changed and revised because actual real-world examples make this necessary."
How can you say what is happening now is like what was happening then?? I am focusing on the gays of today. The women and gentlemen of today! Not people who ate raw meat in the 19th century!


"There isn't a single behaviour that isn't filtered through some sort of cultural lens, and so you can't observe them outside of those cultural constructs."

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I tend to agree more with Wilson and Dawkins on this. As Wilson put it "I think you merely suffer from a case of bad genes"!!!!

An I am completely willing to go back on what I know if the evidence presents itself, but for now I think I'll agre with the psychologists.

 

[Squiggle]

I think I have made some amazing points in this thread

Indeed. In fact you win. Your prize is a signed first edition of Stephenoblunt's wonderful treatise on dating and human interaction. "Why women need masks and men should hide their wobbly bits" Guaranteed to be a best-seller.

 

[egg_]

Clearly Jane and I have never been physically attracted to men, because we can only be interested in a guy for his mind and personality, because it says so in a book written by a dead guy

<sigh>
I've lost the stomach for this one, stephenoblunt has so throughly lost the run of himself now. "Guys like girls more than girls like guys" = maybe fun to argue over. "Bisexuality doesn't exist because the human brain is hard-wired to like one sex or the other" = stupid, you can't even argue about it because it's presented as a fact

What a shame

 

[Lili Marlene]

"Leave me out of this"

 

[ITalkShite]

Uh-oh, the posts are getting longer and more daunting. Could someone please summarise this thread? Or at least the psychology mini-flap bit of it?

 

[jane]

You know dude, I was on your side until you started trying to pull rank with this psychology bollocks. Displaying your qualifications means you've lost the argument ...

... which is kind of a pity, because I think "guys like girls more than girls like guys" is a funny, pithy phrase with more than a grain of truth in it. Brian and Jane and Sarah etc, don't you accept that there are generalised behavioural tendencies that all humans have? They don't help you predict what any individual is going to do, because, as you say, people are too diverse, but there are certain driving factors behind what we do that mean that the behaviour of large groups, where the diversity gets averaged out, is a bit more predictable

I think the problem is, and this is one of the things I've been looking into, and which sort of ended up making some of my research collapse in on itself, while we can make certain generalisations when we're trying to interpret human behaviour, the intentions behind individual human behaviours are so incredibly complex that it's difficult to say anything with certainty. My work kind of centres on the flexible and fluid archaeology (which is really the psychology of material culture in the past) of 'the individual' and what I found, while incredibly interesting in a lot of ways, rendered the theories rather moot. It's not that I discard theory -- I think it's very useful -- but it was fascinating to see the kinds of limitations it has. In essence, I have constructed a bit of my own theory just for the sake of my research because (apart from being a very stupid thing to decide to study, having little previous research to use as a guide) it is necessary in order to have a language in which to discuss these things, but it is something I would be very careful to point out -- it's a language I've developed in order to discuss my interpretations, not an end in itself. And I love the idea of someone coming along and turning it all on its head with new ideas because, well, that's what intellectual curiosity is all about.

Yes, I think there are certain things that can be said are generalised human behaviours, things that are part of us being our own species, which are then filtered through the behaviours and values we have from our cultural contexts at all different levels (nations, kin groups, families, etc). And the problem is that when we study the behaviour of groups, we have to factor out a lot of the diversity among the individuals who make up those groups, so when we get to the level of the individual, many of those theories fall completely apart for about a million reasons. For example, if you went to that Love Ulster thing last year and asked some kid who threw a bottle at the cops, "Why did you do that?" Would he say, "Because I feel that I am socioeconomically disenfranchised from the establishment." No, he'd probably say, "Because I hate cops." Or, "Because it was funny." It doesn't mean he isn't disenfranchised, but that the intersection between someone's own perception of his or her behaviour and others' explanations of it is actually the most interesting bit precisely because they don't necessarily match up. Also, the cop could have thought he did it because he was a total dick. Then there's the fact that it is assault to do something like that, and most of us would think it was horrble to injure someone for sport.

Most people who study human behaviour would agree that there is more diversity within populations and groups than there is between different populations and groups. It doesn't mean that there's no need for theories, or that the whole concept is bunkum, but that human behaviour is too complex and exciting to be reduced to universal truths.

My problem here is stephenoblunt's difficulty in understanding that just as theories are developed out of observation, so they can be made redundant by further observation. They are absolutely infected with all kinds of biases, and that further limits their usefulness to us. They aren't 'truths' they are merely a very flawed language we can use to make statements that are also flawed, and which, if we are to make any progress in the understanding of the society we live in, must be recognised as flawed.

 

[ronan]

So i can take it from this thread that no-one on Thumped is familiar with the work of Boris Belony?

 

[jane]

Uh-oh, the posts are getting longer and more daunting. Could someone please summarise this thread? Or at least the psychology mini-flap bit of it?

Me and Sarah wish we had cocks and my boyfriend only likes me when I'm wearing makeup or showing my norks. And this is true because of psychology.

 

[Lili Marlene]

And I love the idea of someone coming along and turning it all on its head

Now them's some lofty ambitions jane,

 

[BC]

Some good arguments here, and you prove yourself to have a decent grasp of abstract reasoning for a girl, so fair play to you.

uh oh.