truthaddict - 10 September 2009 07:08 AM

Sexuality is often treated as a taboo but what is present on ads and billboards is the selling of sex as carnal lust. No wonder we see the above.

Have you ever looked into this, TA? If you do you may be surprised to find out that it probably goes the other way: sex ads and billboards sell because they reflect our nature. They surely don’t turn men into rapists. You may want to look up some marketing books, Spent by Geoffrey Miller is a good one, and some psychology books, The Evolution Of Desire by David Buss for example.

George - 10 September 2009 01:04 PM

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 07:08 AM

Sexuality is often treated as a taboo but what is present on ads and billboards is the selling of sex as carnal lust. No wonder we see the above.

Have you ever looked into this, TA? If you do you may be surprised to find out that it probably goes the other way: sex ads and billboards sell because they reflect our nature. They surely don’t turn men into rapists. You may want to look up some marketing books, Spent by Geoffrey Miller is a good one, and some psychology books, The Evolution Of Desire by David Buss for example.

I have looked into this issue (I have wondered if human dimorphism and sexual selection play roles but also dont exclude social and cultural practices). As well as in Feminism and women’s studies cover this deeply - women like bell hooks and Cynthia Peters have done great work.

At home and school sexuality largely goes undiscussed. I remember at school everything about hormones and sexual processes was briefly mentioned as physiological processes in the brain. That’s what could be called weak reductionism.

What I am getting at here is that when there is a social climate of silence on this and what is said gets drowned out by the selling of sex in terms of lust, power and domination then we shouldnt be surprised to see what we see and how unequally it is applied.

When males are conditioned at early ages to look at women like sex objects then it is no wonder that we see high incidences of sex crimes where the perp is a male and the victim a female.

And I am not convinced in any way that there is something hardwired into us to treat women like toys. How we perceive the opposite sex and how we structure our gender roles also has social implications that cannot be ignored with references to biology and evolution.

That most perps are white men may be explained via demographics. But look at the state of Iowa where african americans make up less than 3% of the population but account for more than 9% of rapes. Are you to suggest that african american men have DNA that make them more prone to being rapist or do you point to social factors?

George,

Let me ask you: If men were to culturally change their consciousness about their attitudes and treatment towards women don’t you think this would reflect in sexual violence?

I object to using phrases like bitch, cunt, pussy, faggot, sissy, etc because if you notice some of the most insulting words we use towards other men are derogatory towards women. Comparing another male to a female is about as insulting as anything can be. Also, checking how we define what is sexy or erotic is important. Robert Jensen has written extensively about this in relation to pornography.

Now I am clearly not opposed to eroticism or sex and all of that, but I dont find dominating my wife to be what turns me on. And at home there is a conscious effort to balance tasks. Generally women service men by cooking, cleaning, child care and sex. Men’s roles can largely be viewed as playing with children and doing yardwork and men more often not have more time for social activities.

Case in point, my wife’s best friend and her husband pulled in $50,000 last year. She made 35,000 and he 15. She works longer hours and does more cooking, cleaning and child care (one child with him and two of his from a previous relationship). He hangs out with his friends considerably more than her and when she does get to go out she usually has to find someone other than him to watch the kids.

This does not fly in my home. I would never do that to my wife and she would never tolerate it - and when issues arise I have no problem in correcting it (and it usually is me and I tend to find it is due to my own sexist upbringing). We just had a child 5 weeks ago and she is out on leave. She watches the baby during the day and I will get home at 630 tonight and watch her till its time to go to bed. Actually I get Fri-Sun off so that means this weekend I am on baby detail all weekend long. We balance out tasks and responsibilities. We respect one another and we empower one another.

When I am out and hear some 15 yo kid spout off sexist remarks I check him. The point is that improved gender and sexual relations can and are occuring and men need to not only check their attitudes and treatment towards women but check their fellow men too.

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

I have looked into this issue (I have wondered if human dimorphism and sexual selection play roles but also dont exclude social and cultural practices). As well as in Feminism and women’s studies cover this deeply - women like bell hooks and Cynthia Peters have done great work.

I would personally pay very little attention to what feminists have to say on a clearly scientific issue.

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

At home and school sexuality largely goes undiscussed. I remember at school everything about hormones and sexual processes was briefly mentioned as physiological processes in the brain. That’s what could be called weak reductionism.

What I am getting at here is that when there is a social climate of silence on this and what is said gets drowned out by the selling of sex in terms of lust, power and domination then we shouldnt be surprised to see what we see and how unequally it is applied.

When males are conditioned at early ages to look at women like sex objects then it is no wonder that we see high incidences of sex crimes where the perp is a male and the victim a female.

Again, I would look into nature not nurture when it comes to rape.

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

And I am not convinced in any way that there is something hardwired into us to treat women like toys. How we perceive the opposite sex and how we structure our gender roles also has social implications that cannot be ignored with references to biology and evolution.

Who says anything about ignoring it? If anything biology can help us to identify those who may be genetically predisposed to rape and try to figure out which environmental conditions trigger this act. (It would probably be wise not to allow the potential rapists to join the army, send them to Iraq or Afghanistan where they get plenty of chances in raping women.) 

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

That most perps are white men may be explained via demographics. But look at the state of Iowa where african americans make up less than 3% of the population but account for more than 9% of rapes. Are you to suggest that african american men have DNA that make them more prone to being rapist or do you point to social factors?

Do you think you could be capable of rape because of “social factors”?

George - 10 September 2009 02:34 PM

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

I have looked into this issue (I have wondered if human dimorphism and sexual selection play roles but also dont exclude social and cultural practices). As well as in Feminism and women’s studies cover this deeply - women like bell hooks and Cynthia Peters have done great work.

I would personally pay very little attention to what feminists have to say on a clearly scientific issue.

They’re not speaking scientific issues but social and cultural ones.

George - 10 September 2009 02:34 PM

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

At home and school sexuality largely goes undiscussed. I remember at school everything about hormones and sexual processes was briefly mentioned as physiological processes in the brain. That’s what could be called weak reductionism.

What I am getting at here is that when there is a social climate of silence on this and what is said gets drowned out by the selling of sex in terms of lust, power and domination then we shouldnt be surprised to see what we see and how unequally it is applied.

When males are conditioned at early ages to look at women like sex objects then it is no wonder that we see high incidences of sex crimes where the perp is a male and the victim a female.

Again, I would look into nature not nurture when it comes to rape.

I think youre guilty of reductionism by placing more importance on nature over nurture.

George - 10 September 2009 02:34 PM

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

And I am not convinced in any way that there is something hardwired into us to treat women like toys. How we perceive the opposite sex and how we structure our gender roles also has social implications that cannot be ignored with references to biology and evolution.

Who says anything about ignoring it? If anything biology can help us to identify those who may be genetically predisposed to rape and try to figure out which environmental conditions trigger this act. (It would probably be wise not to allow the potential rapists to join the army, send them to Iraq or Afghanistan where they get plenty of chances in raping women.) 

You are by telling me to focus on nature and not nurture. Social factors play a role in our culture of violence. I dont disagree that science offers much about genes and sociobiology, but social sciences and cultural studies have their value too, and i think you are ignoring this.

George - 10 September 2009 02:34 PM

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:36 PM

That most perps are white men may be explained via demographics. But look at the state of Iowa where african americans make up less than 3% of the population but account for more than 9% of rapes. Are you to suggest that african american men have DNA that make them more prone to being rapist or do you point to social factors?

Do you think you could be capable of rape because of “social factors”?

Possibly. Under certain social conditions I wouldnt be surprised to see it happen. I mean, many states see victims of sexual violence as potential perpetrators. Dave Grossman has written about the resistance to killing and how conditioning has been used on soldiers and law enforcement officers to overcome that resistance.

In a sexist world where sexual and gender relations are what they are it is no surprise to see asymetry.

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:57 PM

Let me ask you: If men were to culturally change their consciousness about their attitudes and treatment towards women don’t you think this would reflect in sexual violence?

Men can only change their consciousness culturally if they have the necessary biological genetic predisposition. Kids will lear culture, such as specific language for example, only if they have the innate universal grammar. Kittens and puppies growing up in Canada will never start speaking English.

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 01:57 PM

Comparing another male to a female is about as insulting as anything can be.

Not always. Have you ever noticed how much more painful it could be if someone confused your daughter for a boy as opposed to confusing your son for a girl? What is happening here? Well, females are generally more attractive than males and hence confusing little girl with a boy implicitly says, “Your daughter is ugly.” It is not because we hate men. And something similar happens when you call a man a woman: you are questioning his strength. That’s all. It has nothing to do with our hatred towards women.

[Posted same thing twice.]

truthaddict - 10 September 2009 07:08 AM

....
We spend twice as much on healthcare than the rest of the developed world yet we are less healthy and 60 of us die each day due to lack of healthcare.
......

Today’s Investors’ Business Daily has a long reasoned rebuttal of specific points in the Obama healthcare speech..
[ 9/12/2009 IBD editorial - “Speaking of Misinformation”]

• “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”

This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That’s right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.

The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.

I think youre guilty of reductionism by placing more importance on nature over nurture.

“Reductionism” is a useless term because it’s a pejorative characterization of logic that one person doesn’t like. I suggest that you use a more specific term. And on the matter of nature versus nurture, that’s a stale debate for people who have spent time exploring it. It’s not a matter of nature VERSUS nurture, it’s nature AND nurture. I prefer to think of human behavior as predicated on a layering of causal factors. At the bottom are genetic factors that create inclinations. Next come cultural factors that modulate the genetic factors. These in turn are modulated by individual personality factors. And lastly, the personality factors are modulated by contextual factors. For example, I believe that men possess a genetic proclivity towards rape. However, most men are restrained by cultural factors from expressing that inclination. Some men, however, have personalities for whom the cultural constraints are insufficient. Even then, these men do not rape every woman they encounter; they are able to inhibit their proclivity until a context arises that is powerful enough to overcome their cultural constraints. Thus, all four factors play a role in the behavior: genetics, culture, personality, and context.

Chris Crawford - 13 September 2009 08:00 AM

It’s not a matter of nature VERSUS nurture, it’s nature AND nurture.

I like Matt Ridley’s solution to this never-ending problem: he sees it as “nature via nurture,” which is also a title of his book, where he does a very good at explaining how these two interact.

PC Apeman:

Either you should give us the percentage of the mom’s annual income that’s paid to Social Security or you should tell us what percentage of Warren Buffet’s income was taxed.  I’m sure there is still a disparity but the way it was presented was distracting to the point of not wanting to read more of the same sort of thing

.

The pecentage of FICA paid on wages is 6.2% and is matched by the empolyer for a total tax on wages of 12.4% with a cap of around 110,000.00. (I don’t have my chart at home with me to give you the exact figure for this year.) 

I think the estimate of percentage that Warren Buffet pays may be substancially overstated, as the tax is charged only on wages not capital gains, which also enjoy a lower maximum tax rate than earned income.

Note: My day job among other things, is as a payroll specialist for the IRS.