 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Conservatives have to believe in only two genders. It's their way of suppressing their secret homosexual feelings, or their worry that their women might discover that they're useless in bed (as if they didn't know already). |
I pass for a socially liberal person in Sweden, and I'm one of the very few heterosexual men I know who'd joke about my own sexual orientation; I think I've got a decent claim to being neither a conservative nor a homophobe. Yet, I don't think there are more than two genders, nor can I imagine that turning gay would change that.
Edit: Furthermore, the only gay person with which I've discussed this issue with in any depth was pretty adamant (in a if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-with-the-fundies sort of way) that his gender was "masculine".
Last edited by Last Conformist on 13-04-2005 at 03:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Marcus hasn't posted for a long time...
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I had that trouble in HS
in college I found smarter guys...
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
you know in basic reading of all described thus far; expanding classifications of male and female does make limited sense - at least for those few minds out there looking (and able) to recognize such specification repeatedly, throughout mature life. Though as John T appropriately pointed out, for this world, it indeed has no practical place. Not quite yet, at least.
We're still, at such a high level, hard-wired as animals. I'm going to have to agree with any assertion that the majority of males are "potential rapists" as the majority of males are indeed hard-wired as rapists. By cognitive arrival; the average "male" will experience inclining pangs to do just that. In any basic lustful stare, for instance, males are cognitively hardwired towards thoughts of physical superiority in the sexual act. In any basic lustful stare for a female, the hardwiring is towards thought of losing control to a man fit enough (ie., per average, genitically endowed enough) to ensure just that. Thus the model male puts up offensive front, the model female defensive - ensuring an average repeating pattern of the strongest seed surviving through reproduction. As not all born males are necessarily "strong" enough to force any female, weaker seeds (were) repeatedly weeded out
By evolutionary convention; the sex side of this loosely continuing male-female partnership which is more physically active is the one to be established as the more offensive. That's common sense. The same common sense states that the defensive side compliments/completes the repeated equation by putting up full enough a fight as to ward off the weakest of potential "mates". The defensive side therefore comes more and more a cognitive roleplayer to be just that, a defensive.
In evolutionary repition - rape has a mathematical spot as human science. And our hardwired brains have FAR but evolved to the same convention that our sudden and exponential social growth has provided. Bottom line; that which many like to describe as "arbitrary" roles in gender are not so blankly "arbitrary". Gender roles, in their infancy - stem from and are ultimately supported by the natural cognitive state of humans.
Now when we include current systems of mentioned social growth.. things obviously get touchier. The average male is still going to have repeating thoughts of wanting to rape; those same thoughts being effectively dulled from action by learned social convention & its justification by socially imposed consequence.
And if males are ultimately the force based superior in the equation; where did this consequence based system of shunning rape come from? Why did Godess worship, then Chivalry, then Women's equality, et all, all come about and STAY tolerated - when man's force could assure otherwise? For the most part, likely in repeated social practise and compounded learning: that increased benefit in child raising from the defensor comes from a nice balance of beating her enough to submit, but no so much as to entirely debilitate :|
(Yes ladies, not to mention the fact that a male lead tyranny would in so many ways be a painfully difficult enforcement for males themselves)
So as social learning increases with compounding effect; the system slowly fine tunes itself to "what level of oppression is needed?" in weight with "how little physical/mental injury can be afflicted upon the defensor (to assure best child raising / general co-operative results)".
Upon which.. at least in Western Society - Women achieve their arrived power of socially granted/upheld right to personal defense. This defense, of course - comes at price of the counter swing a male dominant system has slowly, subtly, and subconsciously put into place: that of exaggerating gender roles. It's at least my theory, that in the repeated social dulling of hard-wired needs - a collectively frustrated male mindset finds collective and subconscious solace in forced gender exaggeration. The females, the more able and genitically endowed females, become more visibly female in their hardwiring acceptance of being defendor. The (lesser) females, the less able and genitcally endowed females, slightly less often become visibly female in their hardwiring partial acceptance of being defendor. The more offendor prone females, the more genitically assertive and perhaps aggressive ones - more often reject the concept, etc. In such scale of graduation, it eventually furthers contrast levels of "the female" for easier male selection/identification.
This, of course - has its own mirror trend in female expectation of male gender exaggeration; though one much smaller by convention of who's overall "running the show".
It gets incredibly complicated when our previously mentioned exponential social learning gets to a point of everyone coming to know the system - then seeking unique and further specification in mainstream realization of the old systems' simplicity. I think that's a part of universal recognition we're embarking upon today, with mention and debate of sexuality, gender role and sex definition at a historically massive peak. Violent, perhaps resurgent hiccup of the now male lead system will probably come about when biologically readable definitions of individual humans and their "scale" of sex become available and challenge the fine tuning opression outright.
Either that or the fine tuning continues until a relative equality is reached. A full "equality" or erasure of sex seems impossible, as our still unchanged hardwiring would always challenge for something different. Who knows. All I know for now is that I'm about to beat off to some nice SHAVED likes and their linking bonus zone before going to bed.
GRUNT. Deceptively partial Male.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005 01:53
).
|