Lead

Jan 25 17 1:14 AM

Tags : :

I have come to mistrust gender stereotypes. They have a tendency to derail the discussion, as well as the the transgender process of self-discovey. I have had MTF crossdreamers tell me that they cannot be a woman, because they like video games. Huh!

The most persistent stereotypes is that male and female sexualty is completely different, women being shy, coy and passive, men being aggressive, dominant and active. Women are chaste, men are promiscous. Or -- at least -- they ought to be, if they follow the rules of Darwinian competition.

It turns most of these ideas are rooted in Victorian misconceptions. New research shows, for instance, that females, in most species, are not more monogamous than males.

[b]Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females[/b]

Zuleyma Tang-Martinez writes:
Birds have played a critical role in dispelling the myth that females evolved to mate with a single male. In the 1980s, approximately 90 percent of all songbird species were believed to be “monogamous” – that is, one male and one female mated exclusively with one another and raised their young together. At present, only about 7 percent are classified as monogamous.Modern molecular techniques that allow for paternity analysis revealed both males and females often mate and produce offspring with multiple partners. That is, they engage in what researchers call “extra-pair copulations” (EPCs) and “extra pair fertilizations” (EPFs).Because of the assumption that reluctant females mate with only one male, many scientists initially assumed promiscuous males coerced reluctant females into engaging in sexual activity outside their home territory. But behavioral observations quickly determined that females play an active role in searching for nonpair males and soliciting extra-pair copulations.


The reason previous researchers missed this was cognitive bias:

 
Unconscious biases and expectations can influence the questions scientists ask and also their interpretations of data. Behavioral biologist Marcy Lawton and colleagues describe a fascinating example. In 1992, eminent male scientists studying a species of bird wrote an excellent book on the species – but were mystified by the lack of aggression in males. They did report violent and frequent clashes among females, but dismissed their importance. These scientists expected males to be combative and females to be passive – when observations failed to meet their expectations, they were unable to envision alternative possibilities, or realize the potential significance of what they were seeing.The same likely happened with regard to sexual behavior: Many scientists saw promiscuity in males and coyness in females because that is what they expected to see and what theory – and societal attitudes – told them they should see.


We should keep this in mind when discussing the autogynephilia theory as well. Blanchard is deeply rooted in the Victorian paradigm on what constitutes proper sexuality and gender identity.
Quote    Reply   

#1 [url]

Jan 25 17 5:32 AM

Ummmmm.....I didn't know that Blanchard is still alive.  Then, having read some secondary sources about his work and theories, I learned that Blanchard mostly works with male pedophiles.......who got caught........ and are awaiting sentencing. 

I understand Blanchard much more now, and my take is that he is rooted in modern-day feminism, as in pro-female TERF style......as in, males are ALWAYS bad, even when they play female.  Hmmmmm...mmmmmmm.  Never mind that there are female pedophiles because they're sooooooo cute.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jan 25 17 2:59 PM

lal2828 wrote:
Ummmmm.....I didn't know that Blanchard is still alive.  Then, having read some secondary sources about his work and theories, I learned that Blanchard mostly works with male pedophiles.......who got caught........ and are awaiting sentencing. 

I understand Blanchard much more now, and my take is that he is rooted in modern-day feminism, as in pro-female TERF style......as in, males are ALWAYS bad, even when they play female.  Hmmmmm...mmmmmmm.  Never mind that there are female pedophiles because they're sooooooo cute.

Hm, I really don't know anything about Blanchard except for his autogynephilia theory and how much it is loathed and heckled by trans activists. They may be right or they may be wrong, I'm not hundred percent sure, and I guess I don't really care either way. The trans activists "SJW's" are in turn heckled by alt right gay star on the firmament Milo Yiannopoulos, like here:
[url]

Guess he scored a few home runs there. Must I now hate Milo? It's pretty easy to like the guy. He's likeable. Do I really have to take a stand for or against Mr. Yiannopoulos?

"We live only to discover beauty. All else is a form of waiting."

- Khalil Gibran


If I cannot be a feminine traditional woman, what's the point of being a woman?

- Me

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jan 26 17 11:59 PM

Cordelia Fine. Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society

Regarding the original topic.

Cordelia Fine has written one of the most interesting deconstructions of the way natural science and psychology treats gender in both humans and animals.  I highly recommend the book Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference.

 
Next week she will publish a new book called Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society, which looks equally promising. 

NPR says this about the book in the article The Science Of Gender: No, Men Aren't From Mars And Women From Venus:

When it comes to humans, yes, Fine says, on average men report a greater interest in casual sex than do women. But according to a large-scale British study of more than 12,000 people ages 16-44, the most common number of sexual partners for both men and women was ... one. That answer held whether the respondents were asked to report for the previous three months, the previous year, or the previous five years. Both men (80 percent) and women (89 percent) also said they preferred to be in a sexually exclusive relationship. What about the now-famous studies done on college campuses that show men are far more likely than women to accept the request of an opposite-sex unfamiliar peer (actually a research confederate) to come over to their apartment or even to go to bed together? Here Fine is at her best, registering this objection (among others): "What this study is actually primarily showing is women's lack of interest in being murdered, raped, robbed, or inflaming the interests of a potential stalker.... Social realities mean that women and men in these studies are simply not participating in the same experiment."
 Over and over, Fine takes us through studies to show how gendered behavior is immensely influenced by our social circumstances. Risk-taking is often presented as an inherently male trait, to take another example. Yet it's much more complicated than that. In one study, more than 1,500 U.S. households were surveyed, with the finding that women, on average, perceived higher risks in society across the board. When the researchers looked beyond gender to ethnicity, however, they discovered that one group saw society as safer than any other: white males. "What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference," Fine writes, "was actually a difference between white males and everyone else."

When it comes to humans, yes, Fine says, on average men report a greater interest in casual sex than do women. But according to a large-scale British study of more than 12,000 people ages 16-44, the most common number of sexual partners for both men and women was ... one. That answer held whether the respondents were asked to report for the previous three months, the previous year, or the previous five years. Both men (80 percent) and women (89 percent) also said they preferred to be in a sexually exclusive relationship. What about the now-famous studies done on college campuses that show men are far more likely than women to accept the request of an opposite-sex unfamiliar peer (actually a research confederate) to come over to their apartment or even to go to bed together? Here Fine is at her best, registering this objection (among others): "What this study is actually primarily showing is women's lack of interest in being murdered, raped, robbed, or inflaming the interests of a potential stalker.... Social realities mean that women and men in these studies are simply not participating in the same experiment."Over and over, Fine takes us through studies to show how gendered behavior is immensely influenced by our social circumstances. Risk-taking is often presented as an inherently male trait, to take another example. Yet it's much more complicated than that. In one study, more than 1,500 U.S. households were surveyed, with the finding that women, on average, perceived higher risks in society across the board. When the researchers looked beyond gender to ethnicity, however, they discovered that one group saw society as safer than any other: white males. "What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference," Fine writes, "was actually a difference between white males and everyone else."

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Jan 28 17 11:46 PM

@Monique

That liberal university in NY that Milo said that would not permit him to speak on campus at the beginning of the video was the one I attended for 3 university degrees.  It was one of the reasons why I have devoted my life to going in the university's oppositional direction: RIGHT, and why I live to promote and defend THE PATRIARCHY™! Yeah, liberal education can do this to you. 

I get no "philia" from gender-bending in my mind 24/7.  I just get creativity.  I want nothing to do with the rainbow community.  It's so trendy to be different these days that many people don't bother to flip open a history book and see that rainbow variations have been in all cultures throughout the history of mankind.  I'm not here to follow a pride trend.  I just want the creativity, however my mind enables me.  

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jan 29 17 12:06 AM

@Jack

Ummmm....one partner? White guys? This is typical of most European White societies, the known ones anyway.  But more human societies practice polygamy, to this day, and these societies are not necessarily "backwards" or non-White.  It's almost a necessity even.  Sure, the model of the polygamy is usually one husband and many wives, but both men and women accept this.  It is for the simple reason that females stop having children at a certain age while males do not.  Polygamy is even practiced among gorillas and lions, and........the BDSM community.  It is more innate to higher functioning animals than monogamy.  (Both sides of my family came from polygamous clans until 2 generations ago.  Like with the university experience, I go astray.....far far astray.......to the priestly way!)  

 

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jan 30 17 12:49 AM

Ummmm....one partner? White guys? This is typical of most European White societies, the known ones anyway.  But more human societies practice polygamy, to this day, and these societies are not necessarily "backwards" or non-White. 


What I have read of historical and antropological studies seems to indicate that sexual monogamy is unusual and -- one migh even argue -- unnatural. In THE PATRIARCHY™ this is also an implicit truth. The episode of the p*ssy-grabbing Trump tells us that men are expected to have sex with many women. In Victorian Britian fathers were know to take their sons to brothels to teach them the fact of life. Victorian times did teach the idea of the asexual and faithful woman, but I suspect this was -- on one level -- a way of controlling their sexuality. Deep down men feared that their demure wife had sex with the servants.

Still, we have to keep in mind that this is about more than sex. In many commities marriage is monogamous (even if sex is not), given that marriage is a social contract for two people to raise a family in somewhat stable framework conditions.

Others may be sexually promiscous, while being romantically/emotionally monogamous. They have one "soul mate" but many "sex mates".

As for polygamy. There is even matriarchal polygamy!
Mosuo 'Marriage'The Mosuo men practice tisese which misleadingly translates as walking marriage in Chinese. However, the Mosuo term literally means 'goes back and forth'.Women have the choice to invite men of interest to their private sleeping room. If the man does not reciprocate this desire, he may simply never visit the woman's household. Men perform tisese in the true sense of the word. They can seek entry into the sleeping chambers of any woman they desire who also desires them. When feelings are reciprocal, a man will be allowed into a woman's private sleeping area (Hua, C.) There he will spend the night and walk back to his mother's home in the early morning.Male suitors have been known to commonly descend into a woman's bedding chamber from a designated opening in the ceiling, commonly using a grappling hook, or modern rock climbing apparatus.Anthropologist Cai Hua termed tisese as 'furtive' or 'closed' visiting, meaning no public acknowledgement or obligations are required between parties. At night Mosuo adults are free to experience sexuality with as many or as few partners as they wish.Though a Mosuo woman is allowed to change partners whenever she likes, having only one sexual partner is not uncommon. Typically walking marriages are long term. During these unions a woman may become pregnant by the same man multiple times. But when children are born, they become a responsibility of the woman's family. Instead of marrying and sharing family life with spouses, adult Mosuo children remain in extended, multigenerational households with their mother and her blood relatives. 

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Feb 13 17 10:34 AM

I blame religion, seriously, it screws us up totally, and other cultures seem to have managed to survive for millennia without creating half the problems we seem to have created for ourselves in just a few hundred years.



So I guess we invented monogamous marriage because well we had this idea that whoever sires the child is held responsible for both the mother and the child, at least for the first decade or so of the child's existence. (We've since mostly solved this problem with the welfare state..)

Then because of uncertainty of paternity we invented the idea of pre-marital celibacy and virgin brides, else how could be sure that the offspring that the woman claimed that you had sired were actually yours. (We've since mostly solved this problem with DNA testing..)

Then because of saving yourself for the right person to get married, we invented dating, else how could you be sure you were with a person that you would happily spend the rest of your life with, before tying the knot. (We've since mostly solved this problem with Match.com, sexting, cyberstalking and instagram..)

Then because of the difficulty initiating dates, as since that silly Garden of Eden incident we weren't around to just walk around naked anymore, we invented external symbolic representations of social status, like owning a fancy car, having a prestigious job title, having 'prospects' and a pension plan, and so on and so forth.

(We've since mostly solved this problem with the invention of Cheevos, apparently.. )

Then because it was difficult to get a fancy car without either stealing it, or enslaving someone else to work for you we had the concept of criminal law and the judicial system..



I think I lost my train of thought there somewhere..



Oh, and in all of that we somehow never figured out that the women were gagging for it just as much as the men were, and would happily seek out each other's company, or even mechanical aids if necessary, otherwise they could be diagnosed with 'hysteria'.

[url=https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/830476504718925824" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/bbcthesocial/status/830476504718925824

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Feb 13 17 12:08 PM

Xora, religion is a big part of it, although I believe we are still somewhat living in the shadow of Victorian middle class values. For some reason, the 19th century emerging middle class became a bastion of prudishness that neither the aristocracy or working class fully bought into. I suspect that the aristocracy was so secure that they felt they could fool around without consequence, and working class felt it had nothing to lose, and sex was an escape from all the misery. But the middle class had to claw its way to affluence through hard work and a lot of discipline.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Feb 14 17 12:19 PM

since that silly Garden of Eden incident

AaaaaahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!image So funny!!!

I do understand why you want to blame religion, Xora.  But I thank heavens for religion.  Everything I find right in life, I found in celibate monastic sects, especially in Catholicism and Buddhism (these two religions are soooooo similar.)  People who commit to monastic life understand nature and nurture too well in my opinion such that they have to "step aside" from it all.  They actually understand the myth of the paradoxically coy yet seductive female.  They understand the apparently dominating but enslaved male who is obligated to care for dependents.  And yet, life was full of death, famine, destruction, war, and pestilence TO THIS DAY.  Life is full of suffering.  Death is at every corner.  The replacement rate had to keep up with the death rate.  These extraordinary men and women were some of the few who could read and write at a time when most could not.  These people lived in austerity but taught others to do so only moderately just to maintain the replacement rate.  And thus, the anxiety to compete in middle-class and working-class life.  It's all an attempt to work with nature that creates and destroys equally so. 

Alas, the world is about to reach 8 billion people.  Procreation, especially of those in developing nations, somehow won out because the desire to climb up the possession ladder (weath, children) is so embedded into human psyche.  Desire ...... is all powerful......and destructive! 

(I'm being invited to a bridal shower .....full of females!  image It's this week!  Don't people know I......I.........I've risen above.............Damn, desire is all powerful!!!!!!!!!!!)

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help