About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, October 12 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Also of note, they say that men are dogs, and this article makes no effort to curb that analogy:

... males sometimes put themselves in a position where they can be taken advantage of by their female playmates.
Ain't that the truth! Whether it's something casual or not, something meaningful or just a night at the mansion.

The gentlemanly dog behavior is even accompanied with a bow.

"We found that self-handicapping tends to occur in conjunction with play bows," lead author Camille Ward told Discovery News.

One wonders whether or how much the chivalrous bow or the tip of the hat to a female has its roots in such self-handicapping. Feminazis -- after all -- don't just say it's inherently sexist, they say it's inherently degrading (i.e., that it's soft-bigotry).

Females were more likely than males to initiate play with their own sex ...
====crickets====

Because adult female-female aggression, when it occurs, can generally be more intense ...
That has been my experience. Female-on-female "crime" even makes ME shudder, and I am someone who enjoys watching mixed-martial-arts ultimate-fighting! Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Yes it does. The fury of a woman scorned by another woman. Discounting feminine males, I've never seen its equal.

... we suggest that females may use play with other females as one way to practice threat and appeasement signals that may serve to ritualize aggression and limit overt aggression later on ...
This has been my experience as well. Feminine males and females -- in my life -- have been quick to cut off one's beef with another (to stem the tide of one's aggression with another). Women -- in my life -- have been able to quickly castrate an argument at the point where it becomes likely that a bridge will be burned or a brow will be beaten. They have not just done it, but done it rather skillfully. I suspect that there's evolutionary significance of that.

While males were less likely to initiate play with other males, they seemed eager to play with females, and would go to all sorts of lengths to keep the play going.
Again, could these things really have any more of a ring of truth than they already do?

:-)

The male puppies, for example, would sometimes ...
Alright. I'm just going to stop now. If you want the rest of the story then click on the link. I can't keep doing this, it's driving me crazy!

:-)

Ed




Post 1

Sunday, October 12 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I've heard this from plenty of divorced men, and they didn't have the excuse of being young pups.



Post 2

Sunday, October 12 - 9:56amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Divorced men?

On a quartile scale of happiness, a psychological investigation I heard about, single or divorced men were the least "happy." If my memory serves me correctly, the statistically-discovered scale was as follows:

=====================
Happiest
--Single or Divorced women

Almost Happiest
--Married men

Less Happy
--Married Women

Least Happy
--Single or Divorced Men
======================

It's natural to ask why these rankings were found. An over-arching confounder would, of course, be the definition of happiness used. Different definitions would produce different results.

One reason that the divorced proportion of single or divorced women are, statistically, the "happiest" creatures on Earth might have to do with the hell (or the "growth"?) that men put them through in a marriage. Another reason -- involving assumptions bordering on bigotry -- might be that of simply getting half of a man's produced wealth for the rest of his life (and sometimes beyond).

That married men were happier than single or divorced men surprised me. I thought that the playboys might rank higher than the settled-downs. Of course, this assumes that single or divorced men are predominantly playboys. It also assumes a rather superficial view of happiness. Again, there's that controversial confounder of giving up half your produced wealth for the rest of your life. Other competing reasons abound.

Perhaps I got confused about the nature of marriage growing up watching Archie Bunker (damn our TVs!), or other related sit-coms portraying the moral hazard of marriage (i.e., marriage among the morally stunted).

:-)

Ed
[I am a divorced man, for what that's worth to casual onlookers]



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.