“This group has everything I stand for!” is something I have yet to find. I keep looking.

“This group has everything I stand for!” is something I have yet to find. I keep looking. Must be out there. Maybe it’s tribal nature, always seeking out a tribe I guess. Internet’s closest tribe for me so far.

Disingenuous? I don’t avoid groups for the sake of avoiding groups. Rather, if a group stands for things I don’t stand for, why would I stay in them?

I’ve been called things. A natural scientist is one I commonly get. A philosopher is another. Logical is another. Am I? I dunno. I don’t like the politics of any of those groups yet I adhere to many of the principals.

I don’t like the politics of group persuasion. When I notice myself participating in it, I try to back off because I know how it feels to be surrounded by those attempting to push me into a different ideology against my will.

But even there it depends. Some people like a “good fight”. You’re someone who does, so I do it. But if you were showing signs of being pained by the process, I’d back off. It’s one of my values.
===
Now, you’ve talked to me for some time. What camps do you believe I am a part of?

I’ll agree if I think you’re correct or close enough and disagree if not.
=====

With men, you get boob men, leg men, vulva men, nape-of-the-neck men, whatever. Fetishes for body parts. They develop them when they’re in puberty for whatever reason.

They chase after the women with those features. That’s what I see.
=====
Womb fetishing via elaborate evolutionary theories is, to me, just another variation on a common theme.
—–
People fetish all sorts of things, Legs, boobs, vulva, nape of the neck, lips, latex rubber, nipples, penises (peni?), fur, cartoon characters, you name it.
=====
“we”? Whose that?
====
Have I stumbled upon a groupthink?
—–

Society? Oh that thing. I never joined in the parts of society that referred to uncommon people as “deviant”. Such an ugly word.
—–

Yes, but I see fetishing as something most men participate in. Not deviant but commonplace. It’s just that some fetishes are supported by common practice and others are not.
=====
Maybe there’s a better word than fetish? But deviant isn’t a good substitute to convey what I’m talking about.
====

Never said all are standard but rather, not unexpected.

When I was 14, I wanted to learn about sexuality. Library. Dragged out “Sexuality of the Human Male” by Kinsey. Snuck it over to a cubicle.

I learned all about the range of possible male sexual behaviors. All are within range of what I might expect to see, either in myself or others. So, I considered all of that perfectly expected.

But norms? Bell curve average norms? That’s something entirely different to me. I find bell curves generally dull.

===

There’s enough people clusterfucked in the “bell curve average” portions of a graph that I don’t need to support their efforts. It’s boring. Too many people are already doing it.

====
Here’s how I look at it:

a) Look at behavior of TODAY.
b) Mentally travel back in time to Pre-History. No proof possible.
c) Create story that convinces people of TODAY that explains behavior of TODAY.
=====

Evolutionary psychology as a named field is early 90s. Sociobiology as a field (which is its original name) is traced back to the mid 1970s, to ONE author.

Before that, only animals were referred to in this way. Not people.

===
I’m saying it’s full of and overloaded with: BULLSHIT.

Maybe there’s some good stuff in it. But I grew up hearing the bullshit about “Alpha males” in the 80s. It was bullshit then and now. Yet it came back again. Blows my mind.
=====

If it explains things to your satisfaction, that’s great. I’ve found little in it that was satisfactory. Some of it I’ll buy into because it beats nothing. (Am I ADHD /anxiety because of an evolutionary advantage for hunting and shit? Maybe. Or maybe school was chaotic and stupid and got me spazzy) I’d rather keep the answers to “what’s traceable” more than throwing them back into history whenever possible.

===

As personality traits? I’m fine with it. For me, I see category errors and the dangers that come from it.

For example, how many men believe they’re “alpha” (because they want to be)? They believe the myth about the wolves because people STILL write “how to score chiks” books, “BE THE ALPHA! in business” books, and they make changes to try to conform to this personality type.

It’s not their natural type. But they try to make it that way.

But what’s it based on? Nothing evolutionary.
=====
It’s another form of NLP to me. I’m fine with NLP but not when it’s tied into the sciences.
====
That’s how it’s used though.
====

Do you see the problem I have with it yet? Maybe it’s a valid science. But it’s been tangled up with “BE A REAL MAN – DON’T BE A WIMP!” books / vhs / dvds / youtubers / websites” since the 80s, and probably before than but I was too little to know.

That’s the bullshit I’m talking about. It shows up in womens things, men’s things, and there’s a lot of bullshit parading around as if it’s science when it’s just someone’s thrown-together explanation that satisfies a magazine article or youtube video.

===
I use rhetoric to convince, and use logic and emotional appeals and whatever else I can to convince someone to consider my position. I don’t expect agreement, just consideration. That’s all I ever do.
=====
I’ve seen very little that is convincing that comes out of evolutionary psychology. It seems like hacked together stories to me, absolving people of responsibility for their actions and fixing stereotypes of behaviors of today into the untouchable unprovable past.

Some of it is plausible. I heard a good lipstick argument once..
=====

If evopsych was around in the 1950s, they’re would be elaborate proofs of why bullet bras use an evolutionary advantage to women seeking men to get men. Now when men see bullet bras, they tend to be scared of them… unless their fetish is bomb shaped boobs.
=====

Some? Sure. Some things are genetic. Some things are environmental. It’s a mix. But it’s good to spot bullshit and separate it from what’s more likely true.
===
No, but I heard some BS from 80s sociobiology (evopsych’s old name) that tried to explain “Why men’s attraction to young teenage girls is an evolutionary advantage” and gave lists of features, attempting to explain lips and lipstick, body features and stuff. Whole thing made me want to throw up. One of which included “perky breasts” to help explain why bras… ugh, it was such bullshit. Not the only time either.
===
So yeah, maybe it’s maturing as a field somehow. I sure hope so. It was certainly shit for a lot of years and I’m less than convinced that it’s improved much from there.
=====

No. Men are naturally attracted to young women of child bearing age and maturity because older women are less likely to be fertile or able to care as well for their children and more likely to produce unhealthy offspring.

==
Eh. I dunno. Are most heterosexual men attracted to 13 yr old girls? I don’t think they are.
==

and if you are correct and this is a worldwide evolutionary issue, then some MAJOR new laws need to come into play. It also means the “all men are rapists if a young girl dresses provocatively” are right and new dress codes should be enforced such as covering up the body.

====
This is why I prefer my fetish-ist argument over yours. Mine has individual choice and flexibility.
====
I might agree to an evopsych explanation of “why some men are attracted to (fetish) boobs”. That’s reasonable.
===
When you tell your background, how you ended up where you are today makes sense. I didn’t come from a strongly religious background so I never needed a strong push away from it. I tried intense religious interest but I ended up doing so more academically in the end.

So for me, there was no polarity to deal with really. Yet from your background, it makes sense that you are where you are right now.
=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 × two =

Leave a Reply