Plenty. As in a plentiful supply of food.
If the price of that commodity is reduced, so is the price of virtue.
Such hypotheses from evo-psychologists are interesting, but without adequate testing, they remain hypotheses. ‘A, B, and C societies all have this trait about mating-partner choice’ indicates that there might be something connected about that trait, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it stems from our evolutionary heritage. Such hypotheses are very difficult to test for.
This seems trivially easy to disprove – we just need one example.
So then it’s not “nature”, because it can depend on societal factors – supply of food (or other resources), etc.
eh?
In your own cite, there is an abundance of qualifications, concessions and conditionals. Even if biological forces drive preferences in partners in some ways, it doesn’t follow that it underlies an inherent contempt for sexually active women. We KNOW sexual/partner preferences are culturally mediated. Sexuality and sexual norms varies tremendously. There may be themes that show up again and again, but very few are universal, and variations between cultures are myriad.
We also know that cultural attitudes can shift rapidly when the on-going imperatives that supported them disappears.
I am not talking about “equality” in some broad, over arching sense. I am talking about shifting the cultural conception of sexual relations into one that does not see sex activities as inherently degrading. Study all the science you want, but in the meantime, I am going to teach my son that sex is a loving, beautiful thing between peers. You seem to be arguing that that is a lost cause, and he’ll never be able to look at a woman he has sex with as a peer, because the sex act itself will lessen her in his eyes. Cuz genes. I think that needs a lot more evidence than you’ve provided.
This particular characteristic of many human societies is not “nature” (rather, it’s “nurture”), because it can depend on societal factors like resources, rather than something intrinsic to humanity.
That’s a very broad category. There is simple image porn, the “tasteful” posed porn that simply shows nude women. Then there is intercourse porn showing generally pleasing “making love”, which may involve oral or vaginal intercourse but is portrayed in a manner of mutual sharing.
Then you start getting into the fetish divide. The internet has proliferated the sorting factor of porn. It is incredibly easy to find your special little niche interest porn. The flipside is that most mainstream porn is immediately tailored and marketed to fit niches. So, you get stuff marketed as “teen” and then it jumps immediately to “milf”. Similarly, there is a proliferation of more aggressive porn in mainstream categories. Not just oral and anal and facials, not just deepthroat, but hard deepthroat and gagging, ass-to-mouth, etc. There is a lot of porn that pushes degradation of women, from mild degradation via rough intercourse to harsh degradation and outright abuse - face slapping, gagging, hard anal, name calling, etc.
Catcalling is jerkish behavior. For instance, watching the video segment from that article where the show hosts are trying to argue that many of the catcalls were not offensive, they were compliments. Like, say, “I just saw a thousand dollars”? People aggressively complimenting and demanding gratitude for their “appreciation”? That’s not offensive? What a bunch of morons.
The one guy tried to make the argument that these low-income guys treat the sidewalks as their “bar”, their social access for picking up women. Somehow he overlooks that many women would like to use the sidewalk as a sidewalk, not a social circle or dating website.
What immediately jumps out at me from that website is that it is going on and on trying to compare the position of Spiderwoman with Spiderman to show they are posed almost exactly the same so there shouldn’t be any controversy over that cover. Except Spiderman is wearing tights, while Spiderwoman is buck-ass naked. Hmmm.
Yes, I’ve faced this attitude in myself. It’s an ongoing process.
Yes, sociologists do that because there is a lot of overlap and because of the similarities between them versus other jobs.
Very informative link.
Science is, by definition, tentative. I’ll admit there isn’t a very substantial amount of evidence supporting the claim. It still appears to be the best theory for how mates are generally selected. Regardless, it’s observable by behavior that men and women generally have different sexual drives and motivations for sex. Attitudes will naturally follow this. Why do you think women are the ones typically reporting that they feel used after meaningless sex? Do you attribute that completely to slut-shaming?
If biological forces drive preferences in the way I’m claiming then it would reasonably follow that violating said preferences would cause an inherent biological moral reaction (disgust). This disgust would probably work it’s way into the culture at large. Even in more progressive societies like America you see these attitudes. How many societies treat men and women the same when it comes to sex?
The alleged on-going imperative would never disappear in this case so I’m not sure why that’s relevant.
I never said that sex will degrade a woman in the eyes of her man. It’s that the act would degrade her as a mate in the eyes of other men; Which it does culturally, and, I’m alleging, biologically.
I usually don’t make emotional arguments since they’re nothing but rhetoric, but in this case I’ll make an exception.
I argue to base our understanding around science so we can love women as they are instead of what we wish they were. 
What you call a hypothesis evolutionary biologists call a theory.
“I’m suggesting men aren’t capable of respecting non-virgins, virgins, other men, or their own mother’s as equals.”
Then provide one.
Cite? And I was talking about evolutionary psychologists (as I thought you were), not evolutionary biologists.
Me, my brother, my dad, my cousins, many friends, etc.
Listen to yourself. I’ve bolded all the places where either you admit their isn’t sufficient evidence, or where you are making an inductive claim. If any of those connections aren’t correct, the whole thing falls. If this is current “best theory” for why some men/societies feel disgust towards sexually active women, I’d say we have no theory at all. There’s certainly nothing that demands there be an immutable biological underpinning to that reaction.
It’s relevant because it demonstrates that a lot of the things that appeared to be inevitable parts of society–and therefore, potentially biological in nature–have turned out to be quite mutable. Look at childbearing: you’d think the desire to reproduce would certainly be something immutable and selected for, but over and over again we’ve seen that people adapt their family size to what suits their society (huge families in farms; mid-sized in nomadic situations; delayed, small, and some times not at all in urbanized environments).
It’s not enough that you can construct a just-so story for why The Man Condemned The Slut. You’ve got to show there’s a particular reason why this is an immutable biological imperative. In the meantime, I’m going to raise my son to think of women, and think of myself, as more complex than that.
Actually, in most traditional culture, sex degrades a woman in the eyes of her partner. It inherently justifies the sex if she’s not a wife–“It’s okay to have sex with her, because she’s a slut/whore”. In the case of the spouse, it becomes a concession, a terrible, humiliating experience that she “allows” out of love or obligation. What do you think it’s like to “lie back and think of England”?
I usually don’t make emotional arguments since they’re nothing but rhetoric, but in this case I’ll make an exception.
I have no idea what this means.
Wait, what? So does this point of view ever consider that many women like fucking and certainly see some men as “sex objects” (here, “sex object” = “wow, I’d go to bed with him in a New York minute!”).
Here you can find a history of the theory along with scientists who have submitted findings supporting it.
http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/57.full#ref-8
I was using the term as an umbrella which included evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists which is technically incorrect. They cannot be considered two completely separate fields ,however, due to Evolutionary Psychology being based on biological principles. It’s a hybrid science between Psychology and Biology.
If you’ll look back at my post you’ll see how that example doesn’t qualify since none of those people are the same as you, therefore, you can’t treat them as equal to you. Equal implies the same and they are all distinct people from you. The idea of equality is based on fairness and respect, but in reality things don’t always translate perfectly.
You are actually pretty close.
Agriculture.
We see remarkable sameness is sexual controls in agricultural societies. And agricultural societies are so widespread that it’s easy to think their organization must be human nature.
But non-agricultural societies (or farming societies with unusual circumstances) show much more variety. And this is pretty clear in our own society, where changes in sexual mores have a nearly perfect correspondence to the shift away from agriculture.
IMHO, it’s about inheritance. Inheriting land can be a life-or-death thing in a farming community. But inheritance just isn’t that important elsewhere for most people.
In this context, equal means “a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality” – the same status/quality, not the same people.
You also emboldened the part where I stated science is tentative itself which is pretty ironic since it goes towards proving my point. Psychology, even is humans, is still tentative in a lot of areas. We don’t know what causes a lot of mental disorders like depression, but we still operate under the assumption that it exists. What method, aside from science, do you suggest we operate with?
That logic is completely flawed since even a weaker theory is still a scientific model of how the world works. There is no magic point in which it becomes reality. It is the best we’ve got aside from just **hoping **everything ends up being equal between the sexes.
No, we see society try and control that desire to reproduce (like China’s One Child Policy). We also see fathers run out on their children just to make more all throughout society (some communities more than others). You’ve shown nothing that’s mutable; Only controllable.
Thank you for crediting me with constructing it, but I’m not actually a scientist that ever contributed to the theory.
What you teach your children is your business, but what method do you suggest we run society with other than science?
My theory doesn’t explain every single attitude in society. Limit the discussion to what I am claiming it affects.
You would need to be the same person in order to be treated with exactly the same status/quality since these things are still value judgments. You can strive for something like equality under the law, but with social status and quality; Complete equality is unattainable since we all have different personalities, motivations, and drives that value separate things.
Yeah, the Brain Glutton specifically excluded prostitutes in the statement I was responding to. So in the interest of honesty - Sociologists tend to lump “sex industry workers” together.
Yep.
No point in arguing about these semantics. Most people understand what “equal” means in the context of comparing people or comparing groups of people.
It’s not semantics. I’m telling you how that concept cannot be achieved. You can strive for it, but never actually reach it. .