I think you're both missing the point, I mean both camps, the nurture/nature debate here. I know it is already off/topic of Ana's post and I always go off/off/topic and take it too far, but I think the real point is that evolution isn't a dead process, like, say history. It is taking place right now. As a matter of fact, men are, every generation becoming less "masculine" because of degeneration to the y chromosome. This isn't the only part of evolution, but it is an important, oft overlooked one. When apes and chimps and neanderthal split off, I mean any time a species, well, becomes a species, it is often as not because of this process.
Its funny, if you think about it like say Woody Allen, sort of neurotically, if you think about say John McCain or about the Bush father son team, about the so-called greatest generation, you think about Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, men have these impossible archetypes to become, filling your father's shoes, that sort of thing. Woody Allen might envision it as the future of sex with the orgasmatron, others envision it as all men becoming neutered (I think he had something on that too, didn't he) or asexual, perhaps Morrissey was a signal in this direction. All sort of aseptic and white and clean like a hospital. If you think about certain elements of Apple design and how chic and futuristic it looks, well, we have the metrosexual, you know. Then again we have shows like Mad Men which envision a sort of middle ground between today's metrosexual and the John Wayne, Greatest Generation Humphrey Bogart types. But they're all just images, John Wayne wore women's panties and Rock Hudson was flaming. But I think the issue of being gay and these archetypes might be two separate ideas, not sure if they are mutually exclusive or not.
My point is that humans might be currently evolving, if you mention this in a bar or at a superbowl party in the context I've stated the room becomes quiet, you'll get an "oooooKK" and people looking at you funny, then the guys will start burping and chest bumping to prove how manly they are. A beer or truck commercial will come on and they'll all high five or fist bump and then people are reassured when things return to normal. Whatever normal is.
But it is a scientific fact. What does it mean exactly? I'm not quite sure. But if you took this fact solely with certain trends you might come up with some either terrifying and disturbing or enlightened and hopeful conclusions based upon your own outlook and stereotypes and gender biases. If you look at it with birth control, cloning, same sex marriage, women's rights, the glass ceiling, you might start to draw the conclusion that Maureen Dowd did, are men really necessary. In bee colonies they protect the queen, one gets chosen to mate her, the rest look for flowers and dance. Sounds a lot like clubKids. Fabulous.
But these things always come in waves and then reactions to the waves, backlashes and it tough to tell sometimes which direction things are really going in. Men have been threatened by women's grab for power in politics and the home and the workplace, and have reacted by creating sports dens, sports bars, we pump ourselves up with Viagra and steroids, we cloister together to watch football and connect to virtually kill online in hunting packs over high speed broadband, we fantasize en masse with baseball and Jenna Jameson, or whomever the latest hottest porn star is, we retreat to man caves to find solace in the mundane, from ranking our favorite softcore tit wanking hardbody glam pinups to checking scores and updating links and watching Arnie and Stalone and now even Jamiee Fox shoot stuff and blow shit up.
Saying no girl likes to be lied to is actually insulting to women, it is an absolute statement that does not take into account, well, psychosis for one thing. Perhaps an addendum differentiating girls and women as a woman would be self-actualized and not a lil girl, but then you get the whole bag of defining a woman, which well, I won't even touch. I have enough trouble defining myself let alone men and I've obviously barely got a clue here right. But ya, most, 99 percent of women not only don't want to be lied to they don't deserve it, I've been as guilty as any man of lying to women to get laid or to someone how other try to manipulate the situation to however you want to say it, better serve my own needs or agenda. It always backfires.
That's life.
One problem is that if you admit it, then you get dumped on by both women and men. Men suddenly kick you out of their secret men only women haters club (see the little rascal for details) with the secret hand shake and unspoken understood misogyny. And women point you out and say, see, he admits it, hang him. Or they just assume you're gay if you are trying to get more in touch with your feelings.
So I think, to get back to the original post and not my tangent, that perhaps you need to redefine the terms of the discussion. Men feel betrayed that a woman will say she wants the honest straight shooter, but when the guy tries to come clean he's either a sleaze bag for his past indiscretions or he's gay for trying to get in touch with his emotions. Women will say, no we just want honesty and that is sexy. The man says, OK, then I think you're hot let's get it on, show me some bikini shots. Ew don't be gross and childish. See, I told you, you don't want me to be honest. No, I want you talk about your feelings. They guy talks about his feelings the woman says he's whining. Or being weird. So the man ends up with the conclusion that women are either lying themselves or they are clueless about what they really want, or that they like to be lied to. Because they are in effect saying that what the woman wants, an honest guy who's straight, handsome good looking clean cut likes sex no emotional issues grown up commitment friendly blah blah blah does not exist, no such animal, that this is an image they've created in their minds, and what they settle for at the bar, or on the eSite or whatever is some version of this they project onto the guy that he readily fills if it gets him what he wants (playa, playa) and they inevitably end up disappointed when the horrid truth comes out.
Eh, well, I guess that's one version, but people still get married, settle down, have kids, right?
Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen in a world dominated by women, there is evidence to suggest that society was ruled by women perhaps from 120,000 years ago until very recently, as in the past 5 or 10 thousand years. Then again look at Ape culture and the silverbacks, But then again we didn't descend directly from apes, and Bonobos for instance have lesbian tea parties all the time.
I don't know, I mean it is probably be careful what you wish for, some sort of dark nightmare vision from Heinland or Philip K. Dick or something like the handmaiden's tale, a sort of immature prepubescent fantasy with dominatrixes in vinyl and platforms, serving milk at the clockwork orange Korova titty bar, while ruling from on high.
I understand women aren't asking for that and don't want it, if you believe Sex in the City they just want more closet space (OK I probably took away the wrong message, sue me); they, you, want equality, fairness, working together, honesty, I know I know. But things often don't work out that way. Rock the boat don't rock the boat baby, tip the boat don't tip the boat over. There is the law of unintended consequences. Who's to say where same sex marriage, higher pay for women, in vitro and cloning, estrus and the pill, women's rights and politics could all lead in a hundred years. Women certainly gained certain advantages whenever they started getting 13 periods a year, instead of mating in one season, but mention that to any woman and she'll punch you in the gut a few times and ask you how that feels. And obviously men gained a few advantages too, there was a lot more sex.
Men are "degenerating" regardless of science. But as science continues to improve on technology, women might eventually have 100 percent control over the reproductive process, legality often is slow to keep up with technology. But as women slowly take more political power this will change too. So that 100 years from now it might be normal to have families of lesbians raising children and being completely accepted in society. But why stop there, this is already the case in some areas (the acceptance part), why not envision entire towns (sometimes people segregate out of choice because they are not accepted elsewhere). Of course I've gone back on my tangent.
Think about it, if guys could just be honest you wouldn't have to be reading my insane lunatic rant which seems to have no end and less point.
As for us men and our tendency to cling to certain anti-social behaviors like lying, the way we retreat to our men caves and in general act like Neanderthals, I find it ironic that at the same time, we (as in society) mock cavemen (Geico, the flintstones) and laugh at how backwards they are. The typical look is bigger, slower, slow as in less witty more dull, more muscular, a big dope. I mean it was the degeneration in the species so to speak, the degeneration in the y chromosome, where we probably had less of these characteristics we think of as so male, I don't know enough about the effects of the y chromosome on testosterone to talk with authority on it, but just in general it seems like, well wait a minute. Isn't that exactly the same thing that is going on now? Shouldn't we be happy to get in touch with our more sensitive side, turn into metrosexuals or whatever, hand in our mens only women's haters club cards for NOW membership and become more progressive? Wouldn't we be happier? Then wouldn't we simply look back and laugh at how ignorant and backwards we used to be?
Or have I been co-opted and brainwashed by Maureen Dowd (and now Ana)? Hmm...
Well, as in the Amish, I think there will simply always be pockets of groups in society which simply refuse to keep up with the times and decide that they are going to hide their heads in the sand and simply act as if the changes in society have not happened because they refuse to see them.
Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)
by
tiggerporn on
01/24/2009 07:10:48 PM EST
[
Parent ]
