(May 30, 2018 03:06 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 30, 2018 05:34 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So romantic love, especially as opposed to being in love, is what precludes camaraderie between men and women? Again, that doesn't follow.
Yes it does. Like C2 said, you're forced to give up opposite sex friends once you're married. This idealistic idea of love assumes that one person is supposed to meet all of your needs.
That's because most people realize opposite sex friendships can rarely be 100% platonic on both sides. All it takes is the right amount of alcohol or vulnerability to upset that delicate balance. Do you really think asexual camaraderie exists between the sexes before marriage? If not, then romantic love has nothing to do with camaraderie, and same-sex friends are supposed to fill the gap partners cannot. If so, you may be a bit naive.
Quote:syne Wrote:Camaraderie between men seems to exist due to similarity, and cooperation, in survival strategies. I'm not sure if female survival strategies share an analogue among them, or if females have been considered a greater survival threat to each other.
Survival strategies include sharing food, protecting children, and looking out for each other. We do it all the time. Probably more so than men.
Since the survival of women has relied more on social status, other women are social threats, which hinders camaraderie. Men, OTOH, perceive other men more as physical threats, allowing relatively unencumbered social interactions.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Touting of what? That men and women can't generally be platonic?
No. Just your everyday run of the mill self-promoting BS.
So you think self-confidence is a bad thing, or something you're supposed to lose in a relationship? O_o
Quote:Syne Wrote:Why, do you feel comparable to an ape?
I could ask you the same thing because you're always using evolutionary psychology to justify your claims. We’re classified with the great apes. We’re primates. Darwin drew several parallels between primate behavior and humans.
LOL! I'm don't need to going back beyond the evolutionary psychology of the human species, because every species has unique behaviors. If you can't differentiate humans and apes (comparing women with apes in heat), that's your problem.
Quote:Syne Wrote:I'm not aware of that in the Bible. Maybe you could show me where. In the meantime:
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:14
She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. - Proverbs 5:6
Well according to 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that’s why you’re not supposed to listen to us and that’s why god said that you shall rule over us.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The way I figure it, if Adam was present when the serpent beguiled eve then he was deceived by the serpent, too. If not, then eve withheld that information, and he was deceived by eve.
So, nothing in the Bible about men being easily deceived, huh?
Nowhere does it say Adam was present when the serpent deceived Eve. Nor that Eve told Adam where the fruit came from:
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. - Genesis 3:6
Big difference between being convinced to do wrong and being slipped a mickey...unless you think roofie victims are somehow morally equivalent to the guy who slipped it to them.
At least judging by your usual inability to rationally justify your opinions, it seems there is some wisdom in not following the blind.
Quote:Syne Wrote:History has been largely brutal, and men have shouldered the brunt of fending off that brutality. Just factual.
Brutality? We’ve fended off plenty. Thank you very much. 
No, women have historically suffered brutality, not successfully fended it off...until the advent of guns.
Quote:Syne Wrote:I know women are much more catty, and much less likely to support each other. Just look at the percentage of women in the country versus women in political office. Most of what may pass as cooperation and woman-crushes (just look at how obscure that term is compared to man-crush*) is masked jealousy.
*Among their own gender, men tend toward envy (two-party) while women tend toward jealousy (three-party).
Give me a break. Here we go with the sexually biased term 'catty' again. What, men don’t compete? Men aren’t cruel to each other. They don’t rip on other men? Of course they do. They also resort to violence. Our discussion about incels revolve around the belief that men are owed sex, and endorse violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men. Both women and men are jealous when someone of the same sex is perceived as a threat to the relationship.
IMHO, traditionally, the males do the asking. Females don’t want to give off too many signals of being sexually receptive because males suffer from paternity insecurity, or so the 'ape' story goes. Men think sexually aggressive women are more likely to cheat. However, this behavior is socially acceptable for men.
Someone like you might say that it’s biological. While someone like me, would say that it’s traditional, (a social role), norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation. Even though there may be more equality between the sexes, social norms, or (what was it that you said?) oh, yeah—bucking the trend is a more difficult.
Edit...
If the roles were reversed like in the film, and men were approached by more women, I don’t think they’d accept every offer. They might even be considered choosier than females, because if we've approached you, we’ve already chosen you.
"Catty" has no male equivalent for a reason. Men do compete, but they're not as concerned with social status. Women compete for social status while men largely compete for dominance, whether through resources or violence.
Pathetic incel beliefs seem to be a result of their emasculated inability to compete. Yes, jealousy can occur in both sexes, in relationships, where vulnerability can expose insecurity. But generally, single, mentally-healthy men don't display the jealousy that single women do. That jealousy accompanied by the male tendency to violence is a recipe for disaster.
Women aren't overly sexually receptive because it lowers their status, among both men and women. A woman who displays indiscriminate sexual selection loses social status and mate value. Things that are rare or hard to obtain are always more valuable. Men think sexually aggressive women are easy and offer less value.
Role theory just ignores any origin to behavior prior to the realm of sociology. It can't explain how those roles formed or how they are so consistently maintained. Evolutionary psychology does both. Again, in the most sexually egalitarian societies, gender differences are greater...not erased.
If men were approached by more women, they would take evolutionary advantage of the greater opportunity to reproduce. They wouldn't accept every offer, but they also don't approach every woman. There are plenty of women a decent looking guy knows he is preselected by. Those low-status/value mates do not make them choosier...unless the the guy is already low-status/value.
