Page 8 of 11 [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

04 Dec 2014, 10:13 pm

LKL wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Spiderpig wrote:
What do you mean by “object”? Just like with cat-calling, I doubt there’s a unique, widely accepted definition. To a heterosexual man, women are by default inherently pleasurable (though this can be ruined by other qualities, of course), but this doesn’t mean you have to see them as “objects”. It’s no wonder, considering that’s how natural selection has worked on them. What is not so readily apparent and you have to learn is that pointing out that a woman is a pleasurable being will most likely get you in trouble some way or other. In practice, it seems the best thing you can do is completely ignore this fact, like an elephant in the room. Surely enough, this will prevent you from getting relationships, or even making female friends, but, at least, it’ll minimize your chances of being considered a creep.


Sexual objectification is a redundant term meaning "x is attracted to y sexually". We're hard-wired to find each other sexually appealing. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is, frankly, delusional.

finding a *person* attractive is not the same as objectifying them sexually. A sexual object does not need individuality or personality, and does not need any dignity or respect. It's the difference between 'I'd tap that ass,' and 'I'd like to get to know that person.'

We are about equally related to chimpanzees and bonobos, but we are clearly a separate species. Just for starters, the tribe-to-tribe cultural variation in either of those species is paltry compared to human cultural variation.

Wrt. 'Hi' and cat-calling, very often what starts out as 'Hi' turns into some variation of 'nice tits' or 'I'd like to (*%^T*Y your (*&(*^)^%' if the woman respond even with a casual 'Hi' back. Usually it's not just innocent human connection when it comes from a stranger.

Aspie blankface works very well against cat-calling, btw. Men seem not to know what to do with it.


Actually, there are many similarities that humans share with Bonobos that both separate species do not share with chimpanzees or any other primate, for that matter.

Bonobos share a similar empathy gene as human beings as well as related empathy brain structures and are much more peaceful than the chimpanzee in their simple matriarchal ways of culture, including using sexual pleasure to reduce instead of enhance violence, as compared to all other primates including some humans, at least, it appears who are the exception rather than the common rule per innate human behavior. :)

They are the only primates to share similar sexual behavior to humans as well per face to face sexual interaction.

But anyway here is a full documentary on Bonobos that is changing the way humans look at themselves as well, in science, at least.

And yes, overall both chimpanzees and bonobos in approximate DNA similarity share about 98 percent with human beings, but the differences in the empathy DNA and empathy related brain structures, do set the chimpanzee and bonobo apart as very different primate species, in true effect and affect of general behavior, and culture as well.



And as far direct sexual invitations even among strangers of the opposite sex after a hello or hi that is not common human behavior for either male or female on the street that is more associated with a personality disorder than civil discourse among humans.

ON on TOP OF THAT it doesn't work and is truly only aggression and violence related behavior instead of real consensual human connection, and truly part of a rape culture that the 'chimpanzees' among 'US Bonobos' exist as a minority of TRUE HUMANS THANK GOODNESS.

AT LEAST WHERE I LIVE, AND IF it is that way where you live, I would get the Hell out of 'CHIMPANZEE LAND', IF POSSIBLE, AS THAT IS THE CRUDEST BEHAVIOR ONE NORMALLY SEES RELEGATED TO A DANCE HALL WHERE POTENTIALLY IT MAY BE WELCOME AMONG THE 'WILDER' SEGMENT OF WOMEN IN 'OUR' SPECIES, PER INNATE PROMISCUITY, BUT STILL RELATIVELY SPEAKING ONLY RARELY SO, as far as I can see in my extensive current REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE in the dance halls of life.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Dec 2014, 2:35 am

aghogday wrote:
Actually, there are many similarities that humans share with Bonobos that both separate species do not share with chimpanzees or any other primate, for that matter.

And there are many similarities that humans share with Chimpanzees that both separate species do not share with bonobos or any other primate. And there are many more characteristics of humans that are shared with neither bonobos nor chimpanzees.

Quote:
Bonobos share a similar empathy gene as human beings...

There is no such thing.
Quote:
But anyway here is a full documentary on Bonobos that is changing the way humans look at themselves as well, in science, at least.

I'm a trained biologist with a focus on evolutionary theory. I've read, heard, and seen a great deal about bonobos, chimpanzees, and human evolution... but thanks for the thought.
Quote:
And yes, overall both chimpanzees and bonobos in approximate DNA similarity share about 98 percent with human beings, but the differences in the empathy DNA and empathy related brain structures, do set the chimpanzee and bonobo apart as very different primate species, in true effect and affect of general behavior, and culture as well.

As I said before, we share similarities with both species. You're picking and choosing if you say that we share more similarities with bonobos just because you like them more.

We have quite a lot in common with wolves, pigs, and rats, too. Our facial expressions are more congruent with those of a dog (not a wolf) than a chimpanzee.
Quote:
And as far direct sexual invitations even among strangers of the opposite sex after a hello or hi that is not common human behavior for either male or female on the street that is more associated with a personality disorder than civil discourse among humans.

*snort*
You are ignorant. It happens all the time. It is only a violation of civil discourse if you respect the other person as a human being. Many men do not think of women as being actually, fully human.

Quote:
ON on TOP OF THAT it doesn't work...

Sure it does... unless you thought that the point was to get laid?

Quote:
...and is truly only aggression and violence related behavior instead of real consensual human connection...

Uh, yeah. It works just fine, when you consider what it really is.
Quote:
...and truly part of a rape culture that the 'chimpanzees' among 'US Bonobos' exist as a minority of TRUE HUMANS THANK GOODNESS.

In the current day and age, and in Western culture, yes. However, for much of human history, including European-American history until quite recently, most men still considered women either property or wards of their male relatives. This was codified in law.
Quote:
AT LEAST WHERE I LIVE, AND IF it is that way where you live, I would get the Hell out of 'CHIMPANZEE LAND', IF POSSIBLE, AS THAT IS THE CRUDEST BEHAVIOR ONE NORMALLY SEES RELEGATED TO A DANCE HALL WHERE POTENTIALLY IT MAY BE WELCOME AMONG THE 'WILDER' SEGMENT OF WOMEN IN 'OUR' SPECIES, PER INNATE PROMISCUITY, BUT STILL RELATIVELY SPEAKING ONLY RARELY SO, as far as I can see in my extensive current REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE in the dance halls of life.

This is a little reflective of the advice to women to 'just don't walk, if you don't like being catcalled.'
Sorry, but women have lives to lead, errands to run, dogs to walk, etc.
The onus should be on men to stop behaving like as*holes, not on women to avoid leaving their homes.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

06 Dec 2014, 11:21 pm

If you do not have the time to watch the recent research I suggest you read it, if you like, as LINKED BELOW, AS Bonobos are the only primate that share yawns with other same species primates per human affective empathy.

This is controlled by similar genetics, and while there is no specific part of the DNA that is attributed to it in either humans or bonobos, never the less, it is not a nurture issue and is driven by similar genetics PER NATURE.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-bonobos-great-apes-animals-science-evolution/

And of course there are similarities between all primates AND ALL OTHER MAMMALS as they all share similar DNA, but the emotional contagion of yawns per human affective empathy is just one genetic example that sets the human and bonobo separate from all other species of primates SPECIFIC TO DNA THAT CONTROLS EMPATHY.

LISTEN as I clearly stated I do not deny that direct sexual invitations are not common place where you live, wherever that may be, but THEY ARE NOT, where I live as my wife is totally gorgeous and has never ever received one in all her experience in the general public, in 44 years, and that is just one example, but still clear evidence that it doesn't happen all the time for everyone everywhere that is female.

Additionally, I worked here with the general public to the tune of literally tens of thousands of REAL LIFE PEOPLE IN FACE TO FACE EXTENDED CONTACT OVER HOURS AT at a time at a military installation, FOR OVER 2 DECADES that is SUPERTESTOSTERONE CHARGED, AND NEVER ONCE DID ANY MAN DIRECTLY ACOST A WOMAN WITH DIRECT SEXUAL ADVANCES ON OR OFF DUTY after a simple interchange of hello JUST TO BE FRIGGING CIVIL AND NICE.

SO YEAH, men CAN CONTROL THIS BEHAVIOR WITHOUT FAIL IF THEY WANT TO AND IF IT IS NOT CONSIDERED acceptable behavior, CULTURALLY SPEAKING PER SOCIAL NORM, AND POTENTIALLY at risk of GETTING BEAT UP BY OTHER DUDES OR WORSE IF THEY DO IT, UNLIKE the civilized way of communicating with both males and females as human beings, and not just MEAT.

AND NO I NEITHER CONDONE THE UNWANTED BEHAVIOR OR BELIEVE MEN SHOULD NOT CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOR AND BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT THAT DO IT, ANYWHERE THEY DO IT, but considering it does NOT OVERALL happen to gorgeous women in the red state protecting the woman instead of raping them culture I live in, it might be an overall better place to live for women, except for the repressing and oppressing ways of sexual nature, that DO SEEM TO KEEP THE DUDES IN BETTER ways of BEHAVIOR, overall.

SO YEAH, THAT'S THE GOOD PART OF GOING TO CHURCH WHERE I LIVE, APPARENTLY, AS THESE DUDES TRULY DON'T WANT TO GO TO HELL, yes literally the majority believe that AND YES, THEY JUST INNOCENTLY SAY HELLO to their neighbors or strangers out in public both male and female without the intent OR DIRECT DISCUSSING ANYTHING OF A sexual nature.

It's totally taboo where I live, other than BARS, and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, AND TOTALLY STUPID AS FOLKS HERE PACK HEAT, LEGALLY, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, AND KILL ANIMALS FOR SPORT, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.

SO maybe there IS AN ADVANTAGE TO BEING FULLY ARMED, in this way, IN A 'REDNECK' AREA but religion has always been enough to keep it from happening where I live, overall, before packing heat was legal.

Discrimination on homosexuals and rude comments are still 0pen season, sadly still.

And again, I hate the fact that happens to you BUT NO it is NOT the norm of behavior in all cultural pockets of the US by FAR.

And when I say it doesn't work, yes, I am talking about getting sex, BUT HELL NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT BEHAVIOR, AND HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVEN thought about doing it myself, nor have I ever ever heard any of male friends talking about or seeing them doing it, in 54 years here, in Jesus RED STATE LAND.

I keep ethical friends though, admittingly so. They seem drawn to me, for whatever reason. :)

AND NO I AIN'T A RED STATE DUDE, but never the less, THERE ARE ADVANTAGES, AS EVIDENCED HERE, it seems at least, and kind of another fascinating potential topic here, I think, for someone who might want to expand on it.

I am also an Anthropology holding degree dude, along with Health Science and Social Sciences Interdisciplinary and Human being in the hunter and gatherer/FORAGER WAY, BEFORE AGRARIAN WAYS ALSO LIVED in matriarchal leaning cultures, and still do in primitive cultures in the world now.

And smaller societies that operate peacefully without violence and this crap, simply operate more according to innate peaceful loving human nature like the Bonobo, as humans are NOT EVOLVED FOR MORE THAN about 150 sets of connecting eyes, per study on the 20 most peaceful societies in the world.

It's against BASIC CLASSICALLY EVOLVED human nature, and that's where the crap starts, similar to any other animal population that is stressed because of overpopulation.

The area I live in is rural so there is part of that human ENVIRONMENTAL POSITIVE ingredient there.

I suggest you wait until you call me ignorant until I have the opportunity to rebut your opinions, WITH FACTS, but it's just a suggestion as I'm a really big AND nice boy, and can handle ALMOST ANY heat, INCLUDING GUNS, just fine. :)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

08 Dec 2014, 7:58 pm

Don't have time for more than a short reply: DOGS share contagious yawning with humans. I think that you will agree that chimpanzees, despite the lack of yawning, are genetically closer to us than dogs. Cherrypicking your favorite similarities will not magically make bonobos closer to us than chimpanzees, and a shared yawn - even if it is some conserved single gene that bonobos, humans, and dogs somehow retained from our last common ancestor but chimpanzees lost - is NOT the same as an "empathy gene."

"PER NATURE" looks a lot like "PER GOD," especially when you're splaining at someone who's better informed about evolution and genetics than you are. Just one example: you state that humans 'are not evolved for more than 150 sets of eyes...' based on one study that selected for peacefulness. Do you not see that the question is being begged there, just a little bit?

Yes, men CAN control their behavior. I did not mean to imply otherwise. In fact, MOST men do. The problem is that even the ones who do, largely refuse to admit when they see other men not controlling themselves, and somehow believe that it is more parsimonious that thousands of women are lying about their experiences than that a few men might be out of control.

I do not get cat-called a lot, especially now as I have gotten older. However, the last time it happened? At work, in the hospital, last week, as I was gowning up to enter an isolation room (ie, 'what I was wearing' was scrubs and a yellow isolation gown). as*hole blew by with a rude comment, deliberately timing it so that if I wanted to respond I'd have to shout after him down the hall.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

08 Dec 2014, 9:38 pm

LKL wrote:
finding a *person* attractive is not the same as objectifying them sexually. A sexual object does not need individuality or personality, and does not need any dignity or respect. It's the difference between 'I'd tap that ass,' and 'I'd like to get to know that person.'


Thus "is attracted sexually". Being interested in someone primarily (or even exclusively) for sexual gratification is not an inherently bad thing. Creating a label with negative connotations is simply not necessary. There's a world of difference between one's desire and one's actions.

Quote:
We are about equally related to chimpanzees and bonobos, but we are clearly a separate species. Just for starters, the tribe-to-tribe cultural variation in either of those species is paltry compared to human cultural variation.


Yeah, I'm not especially interested in the human/primate comparison tangent being explored in other posts either.

Quote:
Wrt. 'Hi' and cat-calling, very often what starts out as 'Hi' turns into some variation of 'nice tits' or 'I'd like to (*%^T*Y your (*&(*^)^%' if the woman respond even with a casual 'Hi' back. Usually it's not just innocent human connection when it comes from a stranger.


Is pursuing someone sexually wrong if done within the confines of law and social boundaries? We're in the realm of thought-crimes here, and I find it distasteful. It's entirely irrelevant what the goal is, it's only when the option to say 'no' is taken away that a problem arises. I'm not at all a fan of people howling at each other in the street - and yes it goes both (all?) ways - but I support even the most buffoonish cretin's right to free speech and expression.

Quote:
Aspie blankface works very well against cat-calling, btw. Men seem not to know what to do with it.


Sadly this doesn't seem to work in reverse. My younger, less-experienced self had some unfortunate experiences with predatory females (and one male), though I am happy to report that I suffered no more harm than a bruised ego.

With apologies for the slow response, I recently became the primary carer for a tiny bundle of vomit, poop and responsibility. 8O



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

08 Dec 2014, 10:55 pm

LKL wrote:
Don't have time for more than a short reply: DOGS share contagious yawning with humans. I think that you will agree that chimpanzees, despite the lack of yawning, are genetically closer to us than dogs. Cherrypicking your favorite similarities will not magically make bonobos closer to us than chimpanzees, and a shared yawn - even if it is some conserved single gene that bonobos, humans, and dogs somehow retained from our last common ancestor but chimpanzees lost - is NOT the same as an "empathy gene."

"PER NATURE" looks a lot like "PER GOD," especially when you're splaining at someone who's better informed about evolution and genetics than you are. Just one example: you state that humans 'are not evolved for more than 150 sets of eyes...' based on one study that selected for peacefulness. Do you not see that the question is being begged there, just a little bit?

Yes, men CAN control their behavior. I did not mean to imply otherwise. In fact, MOST men do. The problem is that even the ones who do, largely refuse to admit when they see other men not controlling themselves, and somehow believe that it is more parsimonious that thousands of women are lying about their experiences than that a few men might be out of control.

I do not get cat-called a lot, especially now as I have gotten older. However, the last time it happened? At work, in the hospital, last week, as I was gowning up to enter an isolation room (ie, 'what I was wearing' was scrubs and a yellow isolation gown). as*hole blew by with a rude comment, deliberately timing it so that if I wanted to respond I'd have to shout after him down the hall.


Well, LKL, while your specialized credentials in Biology are impressive I'm sure, I presented both a documentary and research sponsored by National Geographic.

They aren't exactly NOT IN THE SCIENCE know, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

THEY REFUTE YOUR POINTS SOLIDLY, if you can take the time to advance your knowledge.

And just because I don't have a degree in biology, don't be TOO SURE THAT I AM NOT BETTER READ IN CURRENT RESEARCH.

THE 150 TO 200 SETS OF EYES, IS NOT JUST ONE STUDY nor does it have anything to do with the Bonobo research, as it is specific to Human Beings.

I said a similar empathy gene not the same empathy gene and I say what I mean.

And I also said it was only one similarity. The National Geographic sponsored research I provided per both video documentary and printed research has many more similarities specific to human beings.

But since you seem to suggest that you are too smart from your historical knowledge, to even look at it, I will NOT trouble you with any peer reviewed studies.

My knowledge is a thousand times greater in all subjects than what it was in college, per those three degrees, as I never specialize in any one area of education.

Additionally, I do not have to work so I have all day every day to do it if I like.

And yes, I like to do it. :)

And being able to read 10 to 15 times faster than the average human being, PER MY HYPERLEXIC FORM OF AUTISM, if you want to KNOW MORE ABOUT INNATE HUMAN POTENTIAL, IS CERTIFICATION OF THAT ENOUGH in the much bigger life of school

I can read several books doing TAI CHI at Barnes and Nobles listening to music, ALL AT THE SAME and remember almost all the salient facts per extreme focus.

I rarely buy books, as I don't need to, in other words.

And yes, witnesses to this on request.

I was born that way, and needed no degree at all for potential in crystalized knowledge.

But that is only one small piece of the pie of human intelligence, perhaps 10 percent at most.

Biology and science, in general, is still way behind on human potential, particularly the full potential of emotional and physical intelligence working 'hand in hand'.

Biology doesn't touch that much, but a detail here and there.

Tapestry of knowledge in all types of intelligence is fuller human potential.

Sorry, but your presentation of intellectual superiority doesn't impress me for good reason.

I keep learning and leave no study unturned.

That is the secret of my FULL intelligence ALONG WITH PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE working 'hand in hand' that most people in western societies almost completely ignore.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

08 Dec 2014, 11:53 pm

And LKL, since I SAY i am such a nice guy, if you change your mind and want to learn more about the 150 to 200 sets of eyes thingy.

Here is a start here.

http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/11/robin-dunbar-on-dunbar-numbers/

MY statement on 'per peaceful societies' and 150 sets of eyes was only a general one per lower population societies and was not specific to that 20 most peaceful societies study, other than a generality based on other research specific to smaller societies working more peacefully without too much social stress.

I find that people often view life through their own pre-conceived lenses, based on their own experience, and specialized education, as well.

That's why I depend ON CUTTING EDGE CURRENT research in science to get the CURRENT facts, IF SCIENCE HAS MOVED TO THE SPECIFIC AREA OF KNOWING I AM INTERESTED IN.

I FIND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, HOWEVER, unfortunate AS that may be.

BUT THAT STILL doesn't stop me from pursuing more knowing PER WHATEVER THAT TAKES.

I think it's fun, so I JUST DO IT.

BUT clearly my reading speed, MEASURED Standard IQ, FULLER WAYS OF INTELLIGENCE AND NOT HAVING TO WORK,
PER being able to take full advantage of potential greater learning opportunities in all areas of human intelligence, is a clear advantage in all online avenues of discussion I participate in, as this is far from the only one.

It's a blessing, but nah, please don't try to tell me you are MORE EDUCATED than me, from a frigging online discussion.

Writing has been a weakness all my life.

I'm much better in person in getting points across, still, even through I've had approximately literally 10 million words of practice on the writing thingy, during the years of effective loss of my hearing and eyesight.

I ADAPT to CHANGE AND I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SUCCEED AS I EVOLVE THROUGH THE REAL LIFE EFFECT AND AFFECT OF EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY in just one lifetime.

AND YES, I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALL THE 'AMAZING' REAL LIFE RESULTS, upon request.

SOME OF WHICH NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE BUT ME, in the entire world, per the record as it stands.

It is what it is and I just do it.

AND OTHERS CAN TO, if they dare to move outside the BOX.

BUT THAT IS THE WAY EVOLUTION WORKS, OUTSIDE THE BOX, BOTH CLASSICALLY AND IN ONE LIFETIME PER EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY per adapting to new challenges for perceived negative and positive change.

Doing the same thing over and over, per Einstein, is just insanity.

And I agree with him per my successes and FAILURES IN LIFE.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Aspie19828
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

09 Dec 2014, 1:02 am

Cat calling is misogyny, sexism and intimidating towards women. It must be stamped out from society because it may lead to assault.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

09 Dec 2014, 1:51 pm

^^^

When guys around me do it, and it is not consensual I can stamp it out with just a look.

It only happens in bars where I show my martial artist prowess in dance too, as the boys in the general public per overwhelming majority where I live in 'RED STATE JESUS LAND', have been raised 'proper' by their mama's and daddy's for the most part in this respect.

So yeah, a look from me works. ;)

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING EVER SINCE THE FIRST 'RED NECK SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN BULLY' IN MIDDLE SCHOOL TOLD ME I WAS GAY CAUSE I SMILED a lot WITH LOVE, I TEND TO RESPECT WOMEN overall MUCH MORE ANYWAY, AS THEY ARE EMPATHICALLY NATURALLY MORE LOVIN LIKE ME.

SO YEAH, IN REAL LIFE, I AM A 'SUPER HERO' FOR WOMEN. ;)

AND NO I DID not say I am GOD's gift to women, but I have a whole collage of ABOUT 120 SELFIE photos WITH ME AND AND ABOUT 150 of my so-called 'gorgeous' and so-called 'plain' looking girl FRIEND DANCE PARTNERS at that BAR in a recent blog post that could reasonably prove that OUT as true, PERHAPS. ;)

NO! I DID NOT ATTRACT THAT MANY girl FRIENDS OF ALL SIZES, COLORS, SHAPES AND LOOKS CAUSE i am a jerk. ;)

And yes, I show guys how to treat girls WITH RESPECT in REAL LIFE BARS TOO, AS A ROLE MODEL, TOO. :)

AND SINCE THERE IS OBVIOUS, NOW DOCUMENTED REASON THAT I HAVE SUCCESS IN ATTRACTING GIRLS THIS WAY, perhaps they will come to believe there is something to the way I approach women with RESPECT THAT WORKS. :)

That's kind of tongue AND CHEEK and that's kind of true too, in a totally respectful way, per the innocence of SACRED UNCONDITIONAL love of empathic human connection THAT SEEKS TO DOMINATE NO ONE.

IT'S A REAL THING FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IT IN REAL LIFE.

BUT SADLY ENOUGH IT DOESN'T EXIST FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE IT IN REAL LIFE.

BOYS THAT LOVE LIKE THIS RESPECT FEMALES AND GAY FOLKS THE SAME AS THEY NATURALLY TEND TO BE MORE EMPATHIC LIKE THIS TOO for whatever reason, but I will not get into the cutting edge biological research on that now per 'those' reasons.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Evil_Chuck
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 494
Location: Lost in my thoughts.

10 Dec 2014, 4:54 am

I agree that cat-calling is harmless, but flattering? I think it's dreadfully immature and have never done it myself. Nor have I ever wolf-whistled (I don't even know how), used a pickup line, or hit on a woman at all.

Then again, I rarely had the courage to ask one out in a respectful manner either.


_________________
RAADS-R SCORE: 163.0

FUNNY DEATH METAL LYRICS OF THE WEEK: 'DEMON'S WIND' BY VADER
Clammy frog descends
Demon's wind, the stars answer your desire
Join the undead, that's the place you'll never leave
You wanna die... but death cannot do us apart...


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Dec 2014, 7:10 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Being interested in someone primarily (or even exclusively) for sexual gratification is not an inherently bad thing.

Of course not. I never said otherwise. However, one does not masturbate in public because it's not polite to force one's sexual gratification on the public at large.
Quote:
Creating a label with negative connotations is simply not necessary. There's a world of difference between one's desire and one's actions.

Yes. One can be sexually attracted - to use your words - without acting on that.
Quote:
Yeah, I'm not especially interested in the human/primate comparison tangent being explored in other posts either.

Tell that to the guy who brought up the subject.
Quote:
Is pursuing someone sexually wrong if done within the confines of law and social boundaries?

Social boundaries are what we are talking about here. It is impolite to turn a casual 'Hi' from a stranger into 'I want to f**k your (whatever) until it bleeds.' It's impolite to try to hit up every other person of the sex you are attracted to for sex. If nothing else, think of it as if there were walking, talking advertisements constantly targeting you, personally, every time you left the house - and you never know if one of them is going to follow you, harm you, or threaten to harm you. Think of walking, talking advertisements that occasionally grab you or grope sensitive body parts. Think of how being groped by a stranger might feel to a tactile-sensitive, stranger-averse aspie, if none of the earlier stuff gets your attention.

Quote:
We're in the realm of thought-crimes here...
No, we are not. We are talking about a specific behavior: cat-calling.
Quote:
...and I find it distasteful.

Hmmm, I believe the proper response, to parrot the other side, is 'you do not have the right to not be offended.'
Quote:
It's entirely irrelevant what the goal is, it's only when the option to say 'no' is taken away that a problem arises.

Do a little bit of research about what women undergo when they overtly say 'No' to a man who is pestering them. Not saying 'No' is a learned response for many women, after one or more men flip out on them for it. And, again, if this were a very rare thing, it would not be a problem. Are you old enough to remember a particular phone company, before cell phones, that had a practice of calling people at home just as they were likely to be sitting down to dinner? It happened to many people several times a week. They all, of course, had the ability to say, 'No, I don't want to switch long-distance carriers...' but that company was part of the impetus for passing legislation for the do-not-call list. It was just too annoying to tolerate... and then, when people started getting pestered by advertisers on the cell phones that they started to carry with them everywhere, that was the death knell of phone advertising.

Congrats on your bundle of poop.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Dec 2014, 7:21 pm

aghogday wrote:
...I presented both a documentary and research sponsored by National Geographic...

So you did. Why do you assume that I haven't seen a thousand such documentaries?
Quote:
They aren't exactly NOT IN THE SCIENCE know, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

Nor are they, exactly, 'in the science know.'
Quote:
THEY REFUTE YOUR POINTS SOLIDLY, if you can take the time to advance your knowledge.

Oh, really? Which points?
Quote:
And just because I don't have a degree in biology, don't be TOO SURE THAT I AM NOT BETTER READ IN CURRENT RESEARCH.

Like National Geographic? :roll: Your arguments demonstrate the point sufficiently.

Quote:
THE 150 TO 200 SETS OF EYES, IS NOT JUST ONE STUDY nor does it have anything to do with the Bonobo research, as it is specific to Human Beings.

Find me the research, then. Don't just quote it like an anecdote.
Quote:
I said a similar empathy gene not the same empathy gene and I say what I mean.

Dude, my problem is the claim that there is a single "empathy gene" in any species, not the question of whether or not single 'empathy genes' are homologous.
Quote:
And I also said it was only one similarity. The National Geographic sponsored research I provided per both video documentary and printed research has many more similarities specific to human beings.

FFS. I am not saying that humans and bonobos don't have lots of similarities. I'm saying that humans and chimpanzees also have lots of similarities.
Quote:
But since you seem to suggest that you are too smart from your historical knowledge, to even look at it, I will NOT trouble you with any peer reviewed studies.

*snort*
Yeah, that's why you're not presenting any actual studies... ok. Sure. Whatever you say.

Quote:
And yes, I like to do it. :)

I'm happy for you.
Quote:
I can read several books doing TAI CHI at Barnes and Nobles listening to music, ALL AT THE SAME and remember almost all the salient facts per extreme focus.

Extreme focus on what? That sounds more like splitting your attention, to me. Personally, the deeper I go into aikido, the less verbal I get. When I go deep into music, I tend to close my eyes and blank out the rest of the world. Doing all three things at once would require less than perfect attention on any of them.
{snip bragging}
Quote:
Sorry, but your presentation of intellectual superiority doesn't impress me for good reason.

Honey, I'm not claiming intellectual superiority. I'm claiming superior background knowledge, which I am sure you know is an entirely different thing.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Dec 2014, 7:31 pm

aghogday wrote:

Did you not notice that the scientist himself points out that the research is based only on European data? During times, btw, that were not entirely 'peaceful.'
Quote:
I find that people often view life through their own pre-conceived lenses, based on their own experience, and specialized education, as well.

Uh, yeah. That's not exactly a revolutionary statement.
Quote:
That's why I depend ON CUTTING EDGE CURRENT research in science to get the CURRENT facts, IF SCIENCE HAS MOVED TO THE SPECIFIC AREA OF KNOWING I AM INTERESTED IN.

I FIND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, HOWEVER, unfortunate AS that may be.

*snort*
Ok. Noted. :lol:
Quote:
I ADAPT to CHANGE AND I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SUCCEED AS I EVOLVE THROUGH THE REAL LIFE EFFECT AND AFFECT OF EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY in just one lifetime.

No, you do not. Your individual genome expression does change over time - as does the genome expression of every living organism - but only populations evolve. Evolution is the change in allele proportions in a population over time. Neuroplasticity has to do with brain wiring, not so much with genetics (much less evolution).
Quote:
AND YES, I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALL THE 'AMAZING' REAL LIFE RESULTS, upon request.

Given that you're failing on the level of semantics, I doubt that.
Quote:
SOME OF WHICH NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE BUT ME, in the entire world, per the record as it stands.

...that you know of.

I'm done with this, aghogday.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Dec 2014, 7:33 pm

Evil_Chuck wrote:
I agree that cat-calling is harmless, but flattering? I think it's dreadfully immature and have never done it myself. Nor have I ever wolf-whistled (I don't even know how), used a pickup line, or hit on a woman at all.

Then again, I rarely had the courage to ask one out in a respectful manner either.


If you just say 'Hi,' and talk pleasantly about the weather, you'll already be ahead of most of the random dudes a woman encounters on a daily basis.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,131

12 Dec 2014, 9:24 pm

LKL wrote:
aghogday wrote:

Did you not notice that the scientist himself points out that the research is based only on European data? During times, btw, that were not entirely 'peaceful.'
Quote:
I find that people often view life through their own pre-conceived lenses, based on their own experience, and specialized education, as well.

Uh, yeah. That's not exactly a revolutionary statement.
Quote:
That's why I depend ON CUTTING EDGE CURRENT research in science to get the CURRENT facts, IF SCIENCE HAS MOVED TO THE SPECIFIC AREA OF KNOWING I AM INTERESTED IN.

I FIND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, HOWEVER, unfortunate AS that may be.

*snort*
Ok. Noted. :lol:
Quote:
I ADAPT to CHANGE AND I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SUCCEED AS I EVOLVE THROUGH THE REAL LIFE EFFECT AND AFFECT OF EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY in just one lifetime.

No, you do not. Your individual genome expression does change over time - as does the genome expression of every living organism - but only populations evolve. Evolution is the change in allele proportions in a population over time. Neuroplasticity has to do with brain wiring, not so much with genetics (much less evolution).
Quote:
AND YES, I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALL THE 'AMAZING' REAL LIFE RESULTS, upon request.

Given that you're failing on the level of semantics, I doubt that.
Quote:
SOME OF WHICH NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE BUT ME, in the entire world, per the record as it stands.

...that you know of.

I'm done with this, aghogday.


I suggest you check up on Epigenetics.

It's the difference between a shut-in 54 year old man as opposed to the strongest man overall, who can lift 810 LBS with his legs per all the marines, at an elite military gym. And yes I've already provided the irrefutable evidence on that on this website, several times, for the naysayers about.

Epigenetics works for those folks who adapt TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES and succeed in one lifetime.

The director of the Institutes of Mental Health, Tom Insel, per current cutting edge research also reports that grade school bullying can bring about epigenetics in the opposite direction per mental illness.

Genes can express themselves in many ways during one lifetime, depending on environmental challenge, per Epigenetics.

I used the word evolve as a common metaphor for change, and no NOT CLASSICAL evolution.

Culture functionally disables human beings, by taking away challenge, particularly IN PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE that science now shows is the driving force of intelligence behind emotional regulation and sensory integration and MOST HUMAN beings do not come close to reaching their basic human potential as many now are functionally disabled in this type of potential fuller intelligence, as just one example.

And higher functioning Autism may also be a result of this as well, at least in part, as science now shows a brain focused only on mechanical cognition activities 'withers away' per social cognition and empathy.

But truly that's only common sense for folks with experience that have been around the block a few times.

And I never said Bonobos get along all the time, nor do humans either, obviously. And of course humans have even greater potential for human empathy and cooperation, otherwise we would not have the complex language, cultures and over 7 billion plus humans on the planet

And so what if the data was European, they have similar brains too, you know. :)

If you really had your ducks in a row, truly you would not have to resort to personal attacks on my intelligence that by the way earned me 11th place overall and 3rd place for males in a class of 381, in high school; three college degrees, all at one time at the top of my class, while working three part time jobs to get through it, and a 24 year government career ending at the GS9 to 11 level, and now financial independence.

It's a little hard for you to belittle me, and boost your knowledge and experience UP, in this way, at least as far as I am concerned. I have a 'few' credentials too and the greatest ones are in the HARD KNOCKS of life.

I did not fall off a turnip truck, dear.

And have a nice day.

And please do finish what you do or do not like, your will, not mine.

I'm just here for intelligent open-minded discussion, and not 'small' attempts at belittling my intelligence.

I have good reason to be confident and also good reason not to have to resort to this behavior with other folks here, as I am secure in both my knowledge per crystalized intelligence and ability to learn new things with fluid intelligence.

It works for me GREAT!..:)

And I'm so excited as there is SO MUCH MORE to learn..:)

And oh by the way, since now I see you responded twice up there, Genetics control human behavior like empathy too, and just because a specific NAME FOR AN empathy gene has not been identified does not mean that a similar empathy gene controls the same behavior in primates alike PER THIS instance with the Bonobo and Human beings.

And no, that was not my opinion, it was a statement made by the Bonobo scientists WHO specialize and DO THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING THAT I was paraphrasing.

I go by the research when possible and not my opinion.

I'm FAIRLY sure the SCIENTISTS WHO ARE specialists in this field of study of Bonobos are more knowledgeable than either me or you.

That is why I provided their evidence and not mine, alone.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Last edited by aghogday on 12 Dec 2014, 9:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

12 Dec 2014, 9:28 pm

LKL wrote:
Of course not. I never said otherwise. However, one does not masturbate in public because it's not polite to force one's sexual gratification on the public at large.


Implying that the intent of cat-calling is sexual gratification? I'm fairly certain that the primary motivation is to demonstrate bravado to their male peers. Besides, there's no way I'm letting such a blatant false analogy slide by without, well, at least pointing it out.

Quote:
Yes. One can be sexually attracted - to use your words - without acting on that.


I'm glad that you agree with me on that point. Many do not.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I'm not especially interested in the human/primate comparison tangent being explored in other posts either.

Tell that to the guy who brought up the subject.


I've elected to ignore his posts where possible.

Quote:
Social boundaries are what we are talking about here. It is impolite to turn a casual 'Hi' from a stranger into 'I want to f**k your (whatever) until it bleeds.' It's impolite to try to hit up every other person of the sex you are attracted to for sex. If nothing else, think of it as if there were walking, talking advertisements constantly targeting you, personally, every time you left the house - and you never know if one of them is going to follow you, harm you, or threaten to harm you. Think of walking, talking advertisements that occasionally grab you or grope sensitive body parts. Think of how being groped by a stranger might feel to a tactile-sensitive, stranger-averse aspie, if none of the earlier stuff gets your attention.


I agree with you that it's impolite, I just don't see how that's relevant. I think it's important to remind you that we're talking about cat-calling here, not any presumed slippery-slope consequences or escalation. I don't need to imagine the examples you're citing as I've been the victim of them myself.

Quote:
Hmmm, I believe the proper response, to parrot the other side, is 'you do not have the right to not be offended.'


Which would be missing the point entirely. You cannot possibly know the intent of strangers when they offer greeting, unless the situation is so extreme that their very presence is suspicious.

Quote:
Do a little bit of research about what women undergo when they overtly say 'No' to a man who is pestering them. Not saying 'No' is a learned response for many women, after one or more men flip out on them for it. And, again, if this were a very rare thing, it would not be a problem.


Pestering =/= cat-calling. If you want to change the topic to harassment, that's all well and good. Let's not conflate the two however. It seems like you're suggesting we teach women how to say 'no'. I'm all for personal empowerment too, so you'll get no argument from me here. I am concerned that you don't seem to acknowledge that harassment is gender-blind, though. As I mentioned, I've experienced such behaviour myself.

Don't misunderstand me. I find cat-calling and other such macho nonsense to be the puerile behaviour of insecure man-children. I'm all for people voicing their distaste to such irksome tools too, it's just that I recognise their right to behave the way they do, no matter my personal preference.

Quote:
Are you old enough to remember a particular phone company, before cell phones, that had a practice of calling people at home just as they were likely to be sitting down to dinner? It happened to many people several times a week. They all, of course, had the ability to say, 'No, I don't want to switch long-distance carriers...' but that company was part of the impetus for passing legislation for the do-not-call list. It was just too annoying to tolerate... and then, when people started getting pestered by advertisers on the cell phones that they started to carry with them everywhere, that was the death knell of phone advertising.


This is just another example of harassment, albeit the corporate variety.

Quote:
Congrats on your bundle of poop.


Thank you. :lol: