While that's interesting, I do challenge you to find data about any sizable groups to match it. It is also quite possible that you never knew the whole story, no?
I believe that some people choose to engage in homosexual activity for a wide variety of reasons and if they make the choice to do so, they can make the choice to stop, even if that 'choice' is cloaked as a psychosomatic reaction. I do not believe, however, that those people are homosexuals - homosexual behavior is a choice, as are all behaviors, but homosexuality is not. It is a common, natural mutation present to some degree or other in most mammalian species and is no more 'evil' than the first fish who managed to flop onto land and breathe air millennia ago.
"Some fish choose to engage in air-breathing activity for a wide variety of reasons and if they make the choice to do so, they can make the choice to stop, even if that 'choice' is cloaked as a psychosomatic reaction. I do not believe, however, that those fish are air-breathers - air-breathing behavior is a choice, as are all behaviors, but being an air-breather is not."
Sorry.
"Some fish choose to engage in air-breathing activity for a wide variety of reasons and if they make the choice to do so, they can make the choice to stop, even if that 'choice' is cloaked as a psychosomatic reaction. I do not believe, however, that those fish are air-breathers - air-breathing behavior is a choice, as are all behaviors, but being an air-breather is not."
Sorry.
I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying. Putting aside the fact that fish are neither existential nor self-aware, and the fact that 'breathing' is hardly a behaviour made by conscious choice in the animal kingdom, are you trying to make the argument that everyone who engages in homosexual behavior, even once, is genetically predisposed towards homosexuality? Because if so I know a couple of drunk college girls who may disagree with you...
The point was that some people may choose to engage in such behavior for any number of reasons apart from genetics. Those who choose to 'act gay' are in a completely different boat than those who are born that way, and just because one in the first group chooses to stop for whatever reason doesn't automatically mean that everyone in the second group can, even if they wanted to.
I was agreeing with you. You took the fish metaphor out of context and wandered down some lonesome road with it.
It is not up to you to determine who is a homosexual and whose homosexuality is just "homosexual behaviour". Human sexuality is amazingly diverse, but whatever it looks like, it's ingrained in us to the deepest levels. Nothing about homosexuality has ANYTHING to do with mutation (it is not heritable), nor it even remotely touch the field of "psychosomatic reactions". Further, that various species of animals do something has no bearing on any sort of morality of anything any individual might do (and indeed, homosexuality has by now been observed in a large and ever-growing list of species). Finally, if someone does choose to "engage in homosexual activity" without being primarily homosexual, why would they WANT to/why SHOULD they stop, which you strongly imply?
You weren't agreeing with me.
It is not up to you to determine who is a homosexual and whose homosexuality is just "homosexual behaviour". Human sexuality is amazingly diverse, but whatever it looks like, it's ingrained in us to the deepest levels. Nothing about homosexuality has ANYTHING to do with mutation (it is not heritable), nor it even remotely touch the field of "psychosomatic reactions". Further, that various species of animals do something has no bearing on any sort of morality of anything any individual might do (and indeed, homosexuality has by now been observed in a large and ever-growing list of species). Finally, if someone does choose to "engage in homosexual activity" without being primarily homosexual, why would they WANT to/why SHOULD they stop, which you strongly imply?
You weren't agreeing with me.
You are seriously missing points left and right. Stop deciding beforehand what I'm saying and actually listen to it. All of this was in reference to the poster who claimed a friend 'prayed the gay away'. I was implying that if simple prayer was enough to 'cure' him then he MIGHT not have been genetically predisposed in the first place even if he thought he was, and his reaction to the prayer was a psychosomatic reaction. I then said that homosexuality was natural and existed in most species as a genetic mutation or deviation or whatever term you want to use so long as you avoid applying the wrong context to it (which would be a judgemental one which it clearly isn't, anymore than pointing out some fish breathe air is a judgement). Lastly I in no way implied anyone should stop anything, merely that some were making a choice and some weren't. I even said 'even if they wanted to' which is the exact opposite implication you're accusing me of.
Very well. That's a better way to express it. But it still has nothing whatsoever to do with psychosomatic reactions.
My point about sexuality is that whatever it looks like, it's something we can't change. If someone doesn't feel attraction to, say, women, nothing is going to change that. If you are a woman yourself, and do feel attraction toward women, then certainly, your choice to have sex with a woman is indeed a choice, but would never have happened unless you, yes, were "born that way" in the first place. Those drunk college girls were, many others weren't. What you describe as "homosexual behaviour" is a reflection of that person's sexuality, and that is not something science has any clue on how to change, at least not yet.
To get this back on topic; only Iconic I think needs an update is Mythic Lirianne - she went from looking like a proper hardened gunslinger to a Steampunk pin-up. Fair enough her wanting to get dressed up now and again, but there is no way she would be adventuring in that getup, especially when her normal version looks so practical.
For me the part that killed it was her hair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Masculine = more valuable than feminine, is true, in "boy culture" when you are speaking about another boy. Feminine = more valuable than masculine, when you're talking about a girl.
I don't want to seem combative, but I'm curious: as a "feminine boy", where does my social value fall into your paradigm?
Very well. That's a better way to express it. But it still has nothing whatsoever to do with psychosomatic reactions.
My point about sexuality is that whatever it looks like, it's something we can't change. If someone doesn't feel attraction to, say, women, nothing is going to change that. If you are a woman yourself, and do feel attraction toward women, then certainly, your choice to have sex with a woman is indeed a choice, but would never have happened unless you, yes, were "born that way" in the first place. Those drunk college girls were, many others weren't. What you describe as "homosexual behaviour" is a reflection of that person's sexuality, and that is not something science has any clue on how to change, at least not yet.
Some good points Sissyl. Having sex with the same gender sex doesn’t always equal being homosexual, but that doesn't mean we should label them or their activities.
BTW, it is sad that again and again I see both heterosexual persons and homosexual persons labeling people. He is gay, she is strait and those over there are bisexual.
I knew someone once how said there should either be more labels or no labels. He used the term hetero light for those that occasionally were drawn to the same sex, but that didn’t feel comfortable being labeled bisexual. Also, it is surprising that some homosexuals are still provoked by individuals that don’t identify themselves as neither gay nor strait.
Labels are a part of human psychology. It's a shorthand we use to describe situations, not necessarily humans, a way to deal with stuff that could be relevant to us, and do it fast. No labels isn't going to happen. More labels is also not going to happen, at least not in a meaningful way; we have labels for all sorts of things. Heck, we have so many labels we feel we need to acronymize them.
What we need to do is remove the connection of label to moral judgement.
To be clear, my objection above was about the tendency, even after most of society thinks it's okay to be gay, to still try to call it a choice by making a distinction between "those people I have never met but who are legitimately and acceptably gay" and "all the people I do happen to meet who are DEFINITELY NOT legitimately or acceptably gay, but merely people who ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY BY CHOICE."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Stepped away from the keyboard and decided to adjust my tone.
No they aren't. They are being sold what they WANT to buy.
It isn't a conspiracy to mold the minds of young females into "acceptable" forms. This is actually what they want.
Are you sure that they really want to buy it, or do you think that they're taking what they can get? You can't really say it's what they want when they have no choices; that's like saying "all cats like this brand of cat food" in a world where there is a monopoly on cat food.
And by lack of choices, I mean that sure, non-princesses are available, but you've got society rewarding princess behavior, and punishing "tomboy" behavior because not following gender roles can get squicky for some folks.
There have been attempts to make "action girl" toylines in the past. They don't sell terribly well, or stick around too long.
Last I checked, children don't often have their own money; do you think that sales failures could be attributed to parents pushing gender roles the way that my parents, and many others' parents, do? What about the lack of marketing support from companies that are getting pressured by religious groups to push those gender roles?
I work in retail; you'd be surprised how many times I get asked "if *blank* looks like it'd be good for a boy/girl", and how dumbfounded those people are when I respond, "I don't know, what other kinds of things does she/he like?", as if the thought never occurred to them.
Once again: "If you reduce the sex appeal of your art, of the female characters depicted, you will sell less to women."
Citation needed. I'm going to need some serious marketing data on this one.
Namely that from day one practically you can observe behavioral differences between individuals of different gender. This continues and exacerbates the older the individuals in question become.
All of the genders are different to different degrees because folks are different. But how much of this is behavioral and how much of it is learned? Wouldn't you agree that maybe some of our gender differences could be the result of how much society reinforces their division? Ex. objectification of women, standup comedy, or the way that we tend to put greater value on masculinity.
It is not a wild idea. I would have thought any educated person would be aware of certain facts.
Geez, don't take my word for it, there is a plethora of things on developmental psychology, genetics, anthropology out there for you to read, all at typing of a search phrase.
And a lot of marketing data.
This is dismissive at best, disingenuous at worst, and totally entitled and rude in general. You're attempting to pass the burden of proof off onto someone else when you should be the one attempting to support your argument.
All of this was in reference to the poster who claimed a friend 'prayed the gay away'. I was implying that if simple prayer was enough to 'cure' him then he MIGHT not have been genetically predisposed in the first place even if he thought he was...
Most likely he was somewhat genetically/inherently disposed that way, but not as much as some other people, who would not have been reorientable. We like hard bright lines, either/or, but that often doesn't fit reality.
Most likely, he was either bisexual who preferred men, or he was a homosexual who lied about being happy with his wife, at least sexually. He would not have been the first one to do that. Every case is a tragedy.
Labels are a part of human psychology. It's a shorthand we use to describe situations, not necessarily humans, a way to deal with stuff that could be relevant to us, and do it fast.
I know and I agree.
More labels is also not going to happen, at least not in a meaningful way
I respectfully disagree. In fact, it is already happening.
For example in Sweden we only have 2 official genders, but there are other counties in Europe that have 3 genders.Heck, we have so many labels we feel we need to acronymize them.
LOL, but that is good, isn’t it?
What we need to do is remove the connection of label to moral judgement.
Sometimes, yes. At least when we discuss these things.
To be clear, my objection above was about the tendency, even after most of society thinks it's okay to be gay, to still try to call it a choice by making a distinction between "those people I have never met but who are legitimately and acceptably gay" and "all the people I do happen to meet who are DEFINITELY NOT legitimately or acceptably gay, but merely people who ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY BY CHOICE."
My bold.
Sadly I think you are wrong in assuming that most of society thinks it's okay to be gay. What is equally sad is that both gay and straight people often think it is far from okay if someone is bisexual.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic at hand.
I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.
Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.
Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic at hand.
I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.
Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.
Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.
I'm sure Merisiel gets caught staring sometimes, too ;)
To be clear, my objection above was about the tendency, even after most of society thinks it's okay to be gay, to still try to call it a choice by making a distinction between "those people I have never met but who are legitimately and acceptably gay" and "all the people I do happen to meet who are DEFINITELY NOT legitimately or acceptably gay, but merely people who ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY BY CHOICE."My bold.
Sadly I think you are wrong in assuming that most of society thinks it's okay to be gay. What is equally sad is that both gay and straight people often think it is far from okay if someone is bisexual.
MOST people don't CARE. MOST adults are mature enough to see that what two adults do consensually in their bedrooms is none of their business. Those who do NOT think so are loud, however. I stand by what I said, though I admit it may be a bit optimistic. =)
And yes, bisexuality getting such a bad rap is odd, and sad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic at hand.
I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.
Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.
Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.
I suspect Seoni wouldn't get many butt pinches by men who have seen her blast a dragon to pieces with a chain lightning spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are more 'masculine' girls and 'feminine' boys born that way? Probably a lot of the time, yeah, but that's not really the issue, the issue is are all the 'feminine' girls and 'masculine' boys born that way? And the answer's pretty clearly no. A lot of them were much less inclined in that direction and pushed in that direction by society.Could you point me to statistics on that? It'll help clear up my own confusion on the real-life PC issue vs. the gamer PC issue.
Sadly the opinion comes from a long college experience in the social sciences (I'm a Psych Major), not a single revolutionary paper I can cite. If you have any access to a database of scholarly journals in the field just do a search or two and you should be able to find some solid confirmation (I'd do it myself...but as sorta withdrawn from school right at the moment I lack good database access...and even if I had it, citing things you couldn't access wouldn't be much help). This isn't a minority opinion, it's the way the bulk of the data points in almost all unbiased studies done on the subject.
People have tried to work for ages on "praying away the gay" - with no results to show for it.Controversial though this topic may be, one of my closest friends 'prayed away the gay' quite successfully. Whether or not a higher power had any impact whatsoever is completely irrelevant, but at least in this individual's circumstances, his sexuality was a choice. Something he was able to decide, even though changing it was an arduous ordeal.
Based on all the (admittedly incomplete) signs a 'close buddy' has access too, he seems just as happy with his wife as he ever seemed with his old boyfriend, and prior to meeting the wife (but after he got back into the dating scene) displayed immensely strong distaste for men as relationship material.
If one were, say, born bisexual, then one would hypothetically have a choice to be either 'gay' or 'straight' lifestyle-wise (in addition to just going with being bisexual). That doesn't change one's inherent sexual orientation, just how one chooses to express it. Your friend might easily fall into this category (and thus be legitimately happy with his wife), without the idea of changing orientation through will or faith being very applicable. And most people are at least a bit bisexual, so this whole scenario isn't even that uncommon per se...it's just also not necessarily a change in sexual orientation.
Once again, there's quite a bit of evidence in the literature that sexual orientation isn't generally subject to you trying to change it. It is somewhat subject to change and evolution...but not generally in any controlled or directed fashion.
If one were, say, born bisexual, then one would hypothetically have a choice to be either 'gay' or 'straight' lifestyle-wise (in addition to just going with being bisexual). That doesn't change one's inherent sexual orientation, just how one chooses to express it. Your friend might easily fall into this category (and thus be legitimately happy with his wife), without the idea of changing orientation through will or faith being very applicable. And most people are at least a bit bisexual, so this whole scenario isn't even that uncommon per se...it's just also not necessarily a change in sexual orientation.
Hypothetically...
Except we don't really have much choice in who we develop a crush on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the topic at hand.
I read something by Gail Simone: author of Batgirl, Birds of Prey and recently Red Sonja.
Her argument was, that lots of women enjoyed Red Sonja as a guilty pleasure. Simone is trying to change that to an open pleasure. The reason for the guilt was the overt sexualisation of the character. But if that isn't the ONLY way the character is depicted then it's less of a problem, because Red Sonja is sexy, but also kicks ass and is clever and is fearless and it all fits her character. Her sexynwss under Simone's authorship is aspirational.
Seoni is in a similar boat, she's depicted as sexy, but also smart, magically buttkicking, no-nonsense etc, she wears that outfit because she feels good in it, has Mage Armour to protect herself and honestly knows the effect she has on men and doesn't care.
Edit:
I have no problem with Seoni, but I have flip-flopped when it comes to armor shaped for each individual breast instead of a single modification for the bust area. I used to think it was fine since it is only fantasy, but I have done some thinking and the individual breast armor annoys me.
Seelah and especially Imrijka could do with an update. I’m not saying they should retcon the Iconics, but they should add art where they use other armor. Even Kyra and Lini could do with new armor.
I’m not saying they should substitute the old art for new art. I’m saying when they present new art, give them new armor.
|
|
If one were, say, born bisexual, then one would hypothetically have a choice to be either 'gay' or 'straight' lifestyle-wise (in addition to just going with being bisexual). That doesn't change one's inherent sexual orientation, just how one chooses to express it. Your friend might easily fall into this category (and thus be legitimately happy with his wife), without the idea of changing orientation through will or faith being very applicable. And most people are at least a bit bisexual, so this whole scenario isn't even that uncommon per se...it's just also not necessarily a change in sexual orientation.Hypothetically...
Except we don't really have much choice in who we develop a crush on.
True! But if one is, say, trying to be (or behave like) a different sexual orientation (ie: straight or gay) for social or religious reasons one can keep quiet about the ones that aren't appropriate for one's 'chosen' orientation. Especially if one is in a relationship and said crushes aren't going anywhere anyway.
I'm not saying doing this is healthy behavior. I'm saying it's a thing people can and will do, and explains a lot of people who 'stop being gay' or similar things.
DMW: There are few psychologists around that do not believe everything is culture these days. This is, however, not based on any sort of real data. The data that exists, from twin studies, says quite clearly that 50-80% of the variance in various personal traits are explained by heredity. Up to 45% (and that's being generous to the culture side of the fence) depends on the somewhat odd category "unique environment" - the category where the random chance in the development of the human body ends up. Only the last few percents of the variance regarding personal traits depend on "shared environment", the social environment you share with any siblings you might have.
Honestly, it's not unproblematic to make the claims you do anymore.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DMW: There are few psychologists around that do not believe everything is culture these days. This is, however, not based on any sort of real data. The data that exists, from twin studies, says quite clearly that 50-80% of the variance in various personal traits are explained by heredity. Up to 45% (and that's being generous to the culture side of the fence) depends on the somewhat odd category "unique environment" - the category where the random chance in the development of the human body ends up. Only the last few percents of the variance regarding personal traits depend on "shared environment", the social environment you share with any siblings you might have.
Honestly, it's not unproblematic to make the claims you do anymore.
Uh...I'm aware of the studies you mention. I even agree with them. A lot of stuff we do is definitely genetically/biologically based. But that's not really relevant to the specific topic of gender roles, which as a specific category appear to be primarily culturally based. Much like what clothes we wear or what foods we prefer are more cultural than genetic, y'know? The fact that X% of what we do is genetically based doesn't mean that X% of every category of behavior is genetic. Some categories are almost entirely predicated on biology, and some are almost completely not...with gender roles tending towards the latter.
And twin studies (while immensely useful in a variety of ways) don't actually determine whether something is cultural or genetic very well if carried out within the same cultural milieu...which most of them are. They're great for discerning the difference between specific methods of nurture and genetic predispositions, but unless one kid is raised without TV or in a completely different cultural context than the other, they're going to have cultural referents and influences in common, which taints the study for the purposes you're trying to use it for.
In short, you're trying to use twin studies as evidence for one of the few things they're poor evidence for (they're wonderful things and good evidence for many more, mind you). You really need longitudinal cross-cultural studies if you want to determine whether something is cultural or inherent (as opposed to learned in other ways or inherent...which twin studies are excellent for), and those are a stone b~%%~ to set up. But still, the consensus in the literature remains that most gender roles are primarily culturally derived, there are certainly biological influences (men being the primary hunters in societies where hunting is a major part of their subsistence, for example, is pretty cross-culturally applicable) but there are a lot less such cross-cultural roles than there are culture-specific ones (cooking, cleaning, raising children, etc.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not up to you to determine who is a homosexual and whose homosexuality is just "homosexual behaviour".
Kind of funny when you later write:
Most likely, he was either bisexual who preferred men, or he was a homosexual who lied about being happy with his wife, at least sexually.
;P
We all have agendas; some are just more secret about it than others.
To get this back on topic; only Iconic I think needs an update is Mythic Lirianne - she went from looking like a proper hardened gunslinger to a Steampunk pin-up. Fair enough her wanting to get dressed up now and again, but there is no way she would be adventuring in that getup, especially when her normal version looks so practical.For me the part that killed it was her hair.Dear god, yeah. The more revealing clothing is semi-acceptable* since all but a few of the Iconics lost clothing when they became Mythic (not that Seltyiel'll notice; he was doing a pretty poor job of wearing that shirt anyway) but I can only hope she shot whoever did her hair when she realised what a disaster it was.
Actually; for those who don't own Mythic Origins, is that image available anywhere online? And I mean legitimately available, not ripped or extracted from the PDF.
*I say 'semi-acceptable' because she always struck me as a very practical sort of character and that is a very un-practical outfit.
The core classes can be found in the Paizo catalog 2013 (free download).
Merisiel is awefull, she got a boob implant and Kyra looks like a model, really bad.
edit:
But to be fair even Valeros is sexed up.
|
To get this back on topic; only Iconic I think needs an update is Mythic Lirianne - she went from looking like a proper hardened gunslinger to a Steampunk pin-up. Fair enough her wanting to get dressed up now and again, but there is no way she would be adventuring in that getup, especially when her normal version looks so practical.For me the part that killed it was her hair.Dear god, yeah. The more revealing clothing is semi-acceptable* since all but a few of the Iconics lost clothing when they became Mythic (not that Seltyiel'll notice; he was doing a pretty poor job of wearing that shirt anyway) but I can only hope she shot whoever did her hair when she realised what a disaster it was.
Actually; for those who don't own Mythic Origins, is that image available anywhere online? And I mean legitimately available, not ripped or extracted from the PDF.
*I say 'semi-acceptable' because she always struck me as a very practical sort of character and that is a very un-practical outfit.
The core classes can be found in the Paizo catalog 2013 (free download).
Merisiel is awefull, she got a boob implant and Kyra looks like a model, really bad.
edit:
But to be fair even Valeros is sexed up.
Where can i get that, cannot seem to find it...
Where can i get that, cannot seem to find it...
The core classes can be found in the Paizo catalog 2013 (free download).Merisiel is awefull, she got a boob implant and Kyra looks like a model, really bad.
edit:
But to be fair even Valeros is sexed up.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxn7&page=1?The-Mythic-Iconics-are-badass
Check out the link provided by Mikaze in first post.
edit:
I do like Amiri, Seoni and Lini. Kyra isn't awful, but I think they made her into a bit too much of a glamour character for my taste.
Why do some people feel entitled to discuss other people´s sex life?
Just imagine those people discussed there would react like some religious groups or people who want to own and carry guns. They do have all the same rights, maybe even more.
I dunno. The Kyra glamour shots were pretty, I thought. It seems to me that it's an area of lots of standards. It's as if the only reason that a woman would wear ANYTHING is because it's protective and functional. If that were the case, there wouldn't BE any sort of fashion industry, no jewelry made, no beauty products, perfumes, lingerie, tight clothes, impractical shoes, etc. Meanwhile, if a man shows skin (and lifts anvils to show off his muscles), that's just a "male power fantasy".
I don't get it. It sounds very much like shouted slogans, to be honest. It certainly has no bearing on reality. People like looking good, both men and women. People like wearing clothes that give them attention from the other sex. It isn't a crime, and part of what is said here about why it's so bad sounds most of all like a paranoid fantasy.
Sadly the opinion comes from a long college experience in the social sciences (I'm a Psych Major), not a single revolutionary paper I can cite. If you have any access to a database of scholarly journals in the field just do a search or two and you should be able to find some solid confirmation (I'd do it myself...but as sorta withdrawn from school right at the moment I lack good database access...and even if I had it, citing things you couldn't access wouldn't be much help). This isn't a minority opinion, it's the way the bulk of the data points in almost all unbiased studies done on the subject.
That is... problematic. And I can't say that the studies were actually unbiased; in my own look at them, they usually forget to divorce the subjects from the prevailing culture and study their behavior in an isolated subculture. The result is that the studies typically carry an inherent cultural bias due to continuing influence of prevalent culture.
There have been a couple of groups that have intentionally divorced themselves from the rest of humanity to try to combat this, and who have intentionally tried to raise children as gender-neutral. The typical result, from the ones I have talked to, has shown actual inherent cultural differences popping up between males and females, much like in modern society, only with a greater acceptance of cultural crossovers ("tomboys" and "girly boys"). However, their methods and results are entirely unscientific; as such, I would be interested in a scientific examination of this to see if their results are actually true or if their results are from inherent cultural biases of the parents.
Unfortunately, while this kind of research is necessary to get accurate data, it also is typically viewed as unethical.
So basically, it is only okay for women to dress for any sort of attention when they are out on the town?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This particular thread has gone far off-topic and into real-world topics. Closing.