Tony Porter: A Call to Men

[Traitorfish]

Linguistic pedantry, yet no actual argument. How about that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

"natural corollary"

Corollary:
An immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion.
A natural consequence or result.

As in, it is a natural, and immediate consequence that if masculinity is biologically programmed, differing concepts of manhood must be explained through biological programming.
If you disagree, I'm very interested in hearing your explanation on how these differences are derived, and why our biological programming sucks so badly that all it takes is the habit of speaking a funny language to override it.
I'd leave aside arguing via image macro. This forum is ill-suited for it, and it's a habit best used by people far more amusing then you.

 

[Tacitusitis]

Well I mean I could reply substantively to your post, like this:

You realize that the natural corollary to explaining male gender in biological terms means that differences in male gender across cultures must be explained in biological terms as well.
What an interesting and unfounded assertion that would be.

Hmm, or perhaps differences in male sexual behavior across cultures, differences that are explicitly inculcated by those cultures, could best be explained by culture? Ya think?

But why bother since all you have yet to make a real point in this thread...

 

[Tacitusitis]

I'd leave aside arguing via image macro. This forum is ill-suited for it, and it's a habit best used by people far more amusing then you.

Your passive-voice fake formal-speak grates on my soul btw.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well I mean I could reply substantively to your post, like this:

And reverse your entire argument in one post! Masculinity is a product defined by culture now, not by genetics! Glad you could see things Traitorfish's way.

Your fake formal-speak grates on my soul btw.

Deal with it, nerd.

 

[Tacitusitis]

And I already responded to that:

Sexual behavior has various components: autonomous, unconscious and conscious.

I'll make the comparison to eating. Chewing is conscious behavior. Swallowing is partly an unconscious reflex. Digestion is autonomous.

At each of these levels, behavior is genetically determined to some degree, although far more so at the autonomous level. So it depends what level of sexual attraction and sexual behavior you want to discuss. But things like attractive-face studies have shown considerable uniformity across cultures about what is sexually attractive.

Sure, cultures reconstruct the sexual relation - creating everything from child marriages to foot binding to wet t shirt contests. But this reconstruction of conscious behavior doesn't really dig down and undo the genetically mandated unconscious makeup of sexual attraction.

Any number of cultural fetishes can be laid on top of human sexuality, everything from foot binding to changing fads about whether it's sexier to be tan or pale, or thin or fat.

This does not change underlying sexual behavior though. Like "attractive face" studies which show, who would have guessed, a MONOLITHIC and BINARY model of what human beings across cultures see as attractive and definitively masculine/feminine faces.

if only you had read the thread instead of posting crappy quips in High Fantasy Speech

 

[ParkCungHee]

My post didn't even mention sexual behavior.
If only you had read anything other then the ladder theory musings of fellow lonely misogynists.

 

[civ_king]

Well, traditionally masculinity has been used as force of dominance so I dont see why you felt the need to arbitrarily correct me. "Primal" masculinity isn't really what we're talking about is it? "Primal masculinity" if you want to invent such a term, imo would be concerning animal behaviour such as how patriarchal family primate groups hammer out a hierarchy.

The the subject at hand is a discussion on the way men have put women in a certain place in society throughout history. Which, admittedly, is just a more complex form of ordering within the animal kingdom, though I feel the distinctions are exceptional enough to warrant a separation. Don't you?

As I said, it all comes down to what you choose to call things. You just happen to have a different interpretation, congratulations.

Primal also includes Hyper-Masculinity

 

[Traitorfish]

Primal also includes Hyper-Masculinity

So men are genetically inclined to be rapists?

 

[civ_king]

So men are genetically inclined to be rapists?

copulate≠rape
copulate just means to have sex with, doesn't imply consent or lack thereof

 

[Traitorfish]

copulate≠rape
copulate just means to have sex with, doesn't imply consent or lack thereof

"Hyper-masculinity" was used in this thread to dismiss all those manifestations of traditional masculinity which lead to violence and rape, and "primal masculinity" as a label for some ill-defined biologically motivated tendencies. Therefore, to suggest that hyper-masculinity", as used here, is an incarnation of "primal masculinity" used here, is in effect a suggestion that men are genetically pre-disposed to rape. This may not be what you mean, but it's what it sounded like.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Struggling to find this clause in CFC rules

Also, wrong

Go ahead and report me for trolling on the grounds of pointing out that my own post said nothing about sexual behavior.
Or better yet prove me wrong and point out where my post made reference to sexual behavior.

 

[Tacitusitis]

I posted substantively and you responded with quips.

You proved my original assertion that you are not actually worth arguing with.

 

[Traitorfish]

I posted substantively...

Well, no, you didn't. You made some vague comments about how culture could influence sexual behaviour, but you didn't actually address his original point, which was that normative masculinity differs from culture to culture and so cannot be entirely biological. Your only attempt to do so was a brief, crudely sarcastic remark that, unless I am missing something, seemed to act as a contradiction of everything you'd said up until that point.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think that means what you think it means.

You responded with an unrelated chunk of text, and I have since then made the repeated assertion that it is unrelated. This isn't even a bald assertion, a bald assertion at least addresses the point. I suggest you read it again because, and this time I'm going to highlight the important part:
I am not talking about sexual desires or behavior, and therefor your (unsubstantiated) claims about the nature of sexual behavior have no bearing on my point.

 

[GamezRule]

Men are naturally programed to have sex. Period.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Men are naturally programed to have sex. Period.

Yes, but so are women, or at least men and women are in most cases. This doesn't tell us a great deal about masculinity does it?

 

[Karalysia]

Men are naturally programed to have sex. Period.

And women are apparently without sexuality?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Spammy posts removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[GamezRule]

Well, I realize that was a stupid statement. I was tired, I realize that my post did not bring across what I was trying to bring across. Of course, now I can't really remember what I wanted to say.