Weight concerns... I don't weight enough!?

[russell_allen]

Isn't the whole thing that she'd said something mildly offensive to him, and he wasn't gonna turn around, "Hey, I like the way you insult me baby, what you doing later?" *pointy-finger-click-motion*

Sounded like something from D. H. Lawrence or an older Gerald Durrell to me, kinda strong willed, grumpy but humoured with it.

[soilman]

b4s writes:
==================
Why do guys have to think about sex and naked women all the time?
==================

I think it's cultural b4s; part of the culture of the industrialized world. I do believe that it is not a good cultural phenomenum.

I wonder if I am unusual, in that no such thought occurred to me at the time of the event, at the time I was offered an ambulance ride to the hospital, for heat prostration? Indeed, the young woman was very kind, and thoughtfully concerned about my well-being, and it would have been a very rude way for me to respond, if I had responded with a thought of the kind I remarked about here.

This thought only came to me later, when, after I read Kreeli's comment that I was "hot," and I remembered the woman at the supermarket, a little while earlier, had remarked that I was a different kind of hot.

It didn't occur to me to think about sex and naked women at the time of the incident -- only later, when I was writing about it.

Perhaps this is because I really have not only superficial, but deeply ingrained -- good manners; or perhaps this is simply a result of advanced age; it's hard to tell.

[Vegankat]

Originally posted by Brake4Squirrels

When I meet attractive men, I don't want to say to him "take your clothes off,"


I do.

[russell_allen]

Nope, gotta say, I reckon it's an instinct thing. Bear in mind we're descended from monkeys, and if you look at most mamalian species there's a pattern of males with many mates, therefore more competition between males, therefore sex has to be a more active and driven thing than for women.

Or at least that's just a theory of mine.

And hey, VeganKat... gotta admire your honesty! A woman after my own sentiments. ;)

Russ :)

[HappyDaisy]

I think it's normal to wonder what the other sex would be like in bed. I don't think women think about what the man looks like under his clothes so much, but I do think we think about what it'd be like to do the other person, if that makes sense. :) I mean, if you are talking to someone who you feel somewhat attracted to, it's hard not to have the thought of sex with that person in the back of your mind. Because if you find the person attractive, and especially if you can tell they find you attractive, too, then you have sexual vibes going on between you. I don't find it insulting to know that a man is thinking of me that way. I only find it insulting when it's some strange pervert following me around in Wal-Mart or the bookstore.

[soilman]

HD writes:
==================
but I do think we think about what it'd be like to do [emphasis soilman's] the other person, if that makes sense
========================

Of course, in the story I related, the intention of, and the effect of, me saying "[yes, I could use an ambulance] -- if you get in the ambulance with me and take your clothes off" -- would have been exactly what Brake4Squirrels pegged it as: "a very rude and offensive thing to say" (to a person I didn't even know.) Not that her well-intentioned, but poorly expressed, suggestion that I might need medical help, deserved a rude response. In fact, according to Miss Manners: rudeness must not be met with more rudeness, but rather with politeness. But Miss Manners doesn't seem to have any objection to people thinking of rude retorts; she just objects to people using them.

All B4S said, at first, was that it would have been rude for me to say that. Which i absolutely agreed with. Then she seemed to be saying that although such thoughts, spoken or unspoken, seemed commonplace, among men, that perhaps in addition to not saying such things, perhaps the fact that men thought them so much, was indicative of there being something wrong in the world.

In summary, everyone seems to agree that, unless we want to be rude on purpose, it is best that we do not say such things to people we don't know. What we disagree on, is whether there is something wrong with thinking them.

My opinion is that while it is natural and normal to think them, it would be a better thing, for the happiness of people in general, if we didn't. My remark that perhaps I ought to have said that, was in jest. And I don't think anyone, B4S included, actually thought i would have really said that to the young woman. What I think B4S was getting at, was that there was something intrinically not quite right, about the fact that people had such thoughts, even if they didn't say them. And I have to agree that it would be better if we didn't.

The short, incomplete explanation is that it objectifies people, and objectively categorizes them as to their sexual characteristics, rather than according to the whole people that they are. Sexual characteristics are only a part of the whole. If they are the first thing you think of, when you think of someone -- that tells us more about you, than about them. What it tells us is that (1) you have a interest in and desire for sex and (2) you put that interest and desire ahead of other things. This is simply not attractive in a person.

What is attractive in a person, if they are interested in me, including possibly interested in sex, would be what B4S claims she wants to says to men she is interested in:

===================
I don't want to say to him "take your clothes off," I want to say, "What are you doing tonight? What do you like to do? Do you have a girlfriend?"
========================

That would get my interest more than a woman who came up to me and said "hello, what do you think about getting in my car and taking your clothes off?" Really. I wouldn't be turned on by a strange woman coming up to me and saying that. And if she said "wanna go shopping for fruits and vegetables with me, at about 7 pm" and was really thinking "I'd like to get him in my car and get his clothes off," even though she hardly even knew me, I think I would realize she was thinking along those lines -- and be turned off. There is something about such directness that speaks of lack of choosiness -- which isn't attractive. It suggests she just wants something sexual from me, and doesn't care about me as a person -- which isn't attractive. It also suggests other things about her which make her seem less attractive. An attractive woman would not want to do things this way. I'm not quite sure how to explain why.

An attractive woman would think things would be more interesting, if we both got about the same idea at about the same time.

And so would an attractive man. So if I wanted to be an attractive man, and remain an attractive man -- i wouldn't suggest such a thing unless and until i was reasonably able to ascertain that the woman was also thinking the same thing.

[Brake4Squirrels]

Wow, that was quite an analysis!

I don't know, I just hate knowing a guy is after my body before anything else, and it's even more hurtful when he makes me believe that he likes me as a person, when the truth is just the opposite. I feel that I'm pretty attractive, but I have a LOT more to offer than just my looks.

Russel, actually, both we and monkeys are decended from the same primate, its not that we came directly from monkeys. But anyway, yes, I know all those reasons why men are more sexually aggressive. It doesn't have to be this way though, and they can certainly control it and behave nicely for the benefit of us women!

[soilman]

B4S writes:


yes, I know all those reasons why men are more sexually aggressive. It doesn't have to be this way though, and they can certainly control it and behave nicely for the benefit of us women!


Exactly. But you use exactly the opposite argument for eating fish. You say that you think perhaps is "has" to be that way; that we have to eat fish, and that we shouldn't control it, and behave nicely, for the sake of the fish.

My opinion is that we can certainly control any evolutionary impulse we have to think we need fish, and behave nicely for the sake of the fish. There may be evolutionary precedent for people eating fish, but there is not any real scientific evidence that it ever was, or now is, a nutritional necessity, in order to have optimal nutrition. In fact, most of the nutrional evidence (as opposed to evolutionary evidence) points to just the opposite -- that it is nutrionally better not to eat fish. It doesn't have to be this way -- people eating fish.

I do think that human women are worth making more of an effort for than for fish. But I wanted to point out that you pointed to evolutionary precedent as being an important factor that one should take into account when choosing one's diet, and pointed away from evolutionary precedent as being a important factor that one should take into account, when when men choose how to behave toward women.

I think it is better for everyone involved, if men didn't treat women rudely, and cite "evolution" as justification; similarly, i think it is better for humans and fish, if humans didn't eat fish, and cite "evolution" as justification. Though the former is far more important, the second is quite possible also -- and tends to get us in the habit of doing things the right way, instead of doing them the habitual, or traditional, way.

[soilman]

b4s writes:
================
I don't know, I just hate knowing a guy is after my body before anything else, and it's even more hurtful when he makes me believe that he likes me as a person, when the truth is just the opposite. I feel that I'm pretty attractive, but I have a LOT more to offer than just my looks.
=================

That seems to be exactly the same thing I said in my long "analysis" -- only I said it in a more long-winded way.

[KillsTheWeak]

<< I think as long as you are following your hunger signals >> If your fat already tho, these hunger signals will go off more often, ignoring them loosing the wait will later make them not go off as much :P <--gets on the roof of gotham's grocery store and flashes the hungry signal!

<<(fat is converted to water)>>
than why not screw the fat and drink lots of water?

<<Why do guys have to think about sex and naked women all the time?>>
Steroeotype, i know girls who are hornier and outright about it more than me :P Girls are just as aggresive, this stereotype of men being sex-craved maniacs and girls being inoccent makes me laugh. I've never pushed any girl for sex, i let the do the pushing, hell i've never even approached a girl to talk to them i let them come to me, and it goes on and on like this. Maybe cause im not an upright citizin and i hang with the wrong crowd or whatever, i guess normal girls dont want sex that bad who knows :P

[soilman]

Ktw:
If people said "why to guys and gals have to think about sex and naked men or women according to their preference, all the time" instead of "why do guys have to think about sex and naked women all the time" -- we'd be here all day. I tend to interpret the former to mean the latter, and try to respond to it that way. Indeed, while statistically males may think about naked women more than females may think about naked men, individual women can certainly think naked men more often than some men think about naked women. And women can think about naked women. Etcetera.

While cultural taboos against women being "forward" or direct, are being removed, i feel this sort of directness is not attractive in a person, regardless of which sex they are. I think instead of women becoming more direct, men should become less direct. And indeed, your message suggests that (1) that is what you have done and (2) you seem to be attractive to women. It is because you don't make direct approaches, that you are more attractive. This is an example of what I described in my long "analysis" as b4s referred to it.

[soilman]

ktw asks: "than why not screw the fat and drink lots of water?"

Having stored fat enables one to go for a long time, without having to drink water. In situations where water is scarce, stores of fat are very valuable. It is better for overall health to have only a small amount of fat, to get you only thru only short-term water shortages -- if only short term water shortages occur. But obviously, if long-term water shortages do occur, than having lots of extra fat is better for your health than having too little -- the health consequence of having too little fat would be -- permanent deadness. Not a healthy state. People with more fat can survive longer, without drinking water (everything else being the same, like ambient temperature and humidity and amount of energy being expended in work or exercise).

What do you think is stored in a camel's hump? No it is not water. It is fat.

[Brake4Squirrels]

Originally posted by soilman
B4S writes:


Exactly. But you use exactly the opposite argument for eating fish. You say that you think perhaps is "has" to be that way; that we [b]have to eat fish, and that we shouldn't control it, and behave nicely, for the sake of the fish.



Soilman, just because I use one argument for one issue does not mean I use it for every issue in life.

Your analogy is flawed. It was evolutionary necessary for men and women to have sex, and it happens eventually. It was not evolutionary necessary for men to be wandering around droolling over women all day long, making unwelcome sexual comments to them, and being rude and pushy about sex when the female doesn't want it.

If I had a boyfriend and he wanted to have sex with me, then I would think that is fine and natural. I would smile at him and tell him that I'd have sex with him when I was ready to.

If he got all mad and irriated and started resenting and degrating me for not having sex with him right away or for allowing him to make me feel like **** about it, then I would think that's wrong and bad. I would think it's wrong and bad if he wanted sex before getting to know me. He should have controlled his desire for sex for the benefit of me. But... he didn't, so would say I don't need a jerk like you, get lost!!

[soilman]

That's fine that you think male rudeness is unacceptable b4s. I agree with you. But the reason I spoke about, and compared, your analogies, was not because I believe an evolutionary argument supports male rudeness -- I think an evolutionary argument does not justify males continuing to be rude today, even though males may have been rude in the past. I don't see how I could have made that any clearer. And you made it clear that even though you thought there is an evolutionarily inherited tendency for males to be rude, but that this tradition of rudeness doesn't justify males rudeness being continued today. You made it clear that you felt there was evolutionary precedent for male rudeness being a natural characteristic of present day men -- a natural tendency that you said you thought they should suppress.

You said it like this:


yes, I know all those reasons why men are more sexually aggressive. It doesn't have to be this way though, and they can certainly control it and behave nicely for the benefit of us women!


If men can control sexual agressiveness, even though they have inherited it, then men and women can manage to live without eating fish, even though they have inherited a body that digests fish. Indeed, I think men should control sexual agresiveness, and men and women should not eat fish.

The reason I made the analogy is because i think that not only does an evolutionary argument not support male rudeness, but it also does not support eating fish.

But even if there were such inherited tendencies, I am all for men being polite toward women, despite any inherited tendency for them to be impolite. Similarly, I am all for people not eating fish, despite any inherited tendency for people to eat fish. I think that if men should suppress any inherited natural tendency, if there is one, to be rude -- and indeed I think they should suppress being rude -- then men and women, in my view, should also suppress any inherited natural tendency, if there is one, to eat fish -- and indeed I think they should not eat fish.

[WonderRandy]

Well said soilman!!

That's pretty much how I see it. :)

[soilman]

Thanks WR.

B4S I hope a situation like you describe, where a boyfriend is not able to exert control over his desire, never happens to you, but if it does, it sounds like you have gotten basicly good information regarding how to handle the situation.

Unfotunately, I think situations like that are quite common in the cultural milieu of the industrialized world. They were common 40 years ago, when I developed into sexual maturity, and I guess they are still common today. Not every young woman has adequate education or insight into how to deal with such situations. If you do have adequate education or insight, you can at least minimize the destructiveness of such a situation, to your continued well-being, though you still can't entirely remove all the unpleasantness of it. And I believe it is important to not only educate women in regard to how to deal with these situations, but to simulataneously educate young men, and many older men too, in regard to what manners are appropriate, and what aren't. Just like not every young woman has adequate education or insight into how to deal with such situations, not every young man has adequate education or insight in regard to how to behave with young women. It does make me happy when I see young people making improvements in manners and culture, so that things are better than how they were in the past.

[Brake4Squirrels]

Originally posted by soilman
[B]

The reason I made the analogy is because i think that not only does an evolutionary argument not support male rudeness, but it also does not support eating fish.



There are benefits and drawbacks to eating fish. I think evolution/tradition supports and explains the benefits. My personal opinion is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

What are the benefits to men being sexually rude? None! Here, evolution also explains the behavior, but I still see no benefits to acting on that evolutionary behavior of being pushy.

[Brake4Squirrels]

I have had a few boyfriends who followed their penises through life. At that time I was more naive and stupid-- I let them have their way just because I wanted to have a boyfriend. It was a very hurtful thing that I allowed to happen, but it's good that I went through it because it taught me how to recognize and avoid similar situations in the future. Perhaps one day I will pass that wisdom onto my daughter/s.

[russell_allen]

Originally posted by Brake4Squirrels

There are benefits and drawbacks to eating fish. I think evolution/tradition supports and explains the benefits. My personal opinion is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.


There are reasons for vegetarianism beyond the selfish health one. Especially given the environmental threat posed by overfishing. Besides which, fish are every bit as sentient as us lot, so I don't see we have more right to eat them than they have us. And BOY do we complain if a shark has a go at one of us.

Just my two cents, anyhow.

Russ :)

[soilman]

b4s asks:
"I think evolution/tradition supports and explains the benefits" [of eating fish]

I don't see it. A few anthropology articles don't make a body of knowledge.

Further, while it sounds plausible that perhaps sexually pushy males may have succeeded at reproducing more, and passed on this characteritic more, to their offspring, that is all it is, is plausible. It hasn't been proven.

Many men have more mating success as a result of being non-pushy, and it is conceivable that this may have been so 20 thousand years ago, as well as today. There is no proof for either argument. It is all just conjecture: hooey. Same goes for the argument about pre-historic people developing big brains whe eating fish. It is just conjecture; not fact.

Where we do have fact, rather than just intellectual conjecture, the facts tell us that plants are a better source, and a safer source, than animals, of the dietarily essentially fatty acids. There is not one shred of evidence that fish oils are better than plant oils, for growing big brains.

[soilman]

"[i learned] how to recognize and avoid similar situations in the future. Perhaps one day I will pass that wisdom onto my daughter."

I'm glad that you learned, and grew, B4S.

[LadyFaile]

Originally posted by russell_allen


There are reasons for vegetarianism beyond the selfish health one. Especially given the environmental threat posed by overfishing. Besides which, fish are every bit as sentient as us lot, so I don't see we have more right to eat them than they have us. And BOY do we complain if a shark has a go at one of us.

Just my two cents, anyhow.

Russ :)

lol right on! i totally agree.

[soilman]

russel_allen writes


fish are every bit as sentient as us lot, so I don't see we have more right to eat them than they have us. And BOY do we complain if a shark has a go at one of us.

Haha! I didn't notice the last sentence, before. Thanks for pointing it out LadyFaile.

[Brake4Squirrels]

Originally posted by soilman
[B]
I don't see it. A few anthropology articles don't make a body of knowledge.



If you looked closer, you'd realize that it isn't just a few aricles. Basically the entire scientific and anthropological community agree that there is overwhelming evidence that early human beings hunted and fished.

[Brake4Squirrels]

If this argument breaks out further, I don't think it should be done in somebody's else's thread that originally was on a totally different topic.