12-08-2012, 10:14 AM
KID:
At a young age on the school yard, it generally goes against social upbringing to play with one another. Is that really a learned behavior?
HAIR: I think it's primarily a learned behavior, but that’s jmo. I don't know the answer, experts in human psychology can't even agree. It could be learned, it could be innate, it could be a combo.
In sally's scenario, sex and reproduction don't exist. If people, for some unknown reason, had different organs between our legs even without their existence, then men having a penis and women having a pussy (or not having one, as in your scenario) would mean that gender was defined by a cosmetic difference in how urine is exited from our bodies. There wouldn’t be puberty without sex and reproduction, so other physical attributes would be consistent between both sexes.
If men were still in the minority (for the short time before the human race became extinct) then they might be seen as deformed for having something protruding where the majority did not. If men were in the majority, the lack of protrusion could cause women to be seen as deformed. In any case, under these “what if” conditions, I suspect some of us wouldn't care about the cosmetic difference between the genders and would play on both sides of the playground in the same way we do now with people who have different skin colors. Others would stick to one side of the playground and interact only with their kind. I think that choice is based on environmental influences and learned behavior primarily, but IDK for sure. It's all just my opinion.
KID: I do think I'd be safe in making the general statement that girls typically are attracted to the male sex at a younger age than the boys are attracted to the females. We're typically not interested in them until we discover the art of rubbing one off. I also think that "just being friends" is much easier for a woman than a man. And while it's acceptable to a lot of men, somewhere in the back of their minds (or maybe the front) is the thought/want of sex. So I would hope you wouldnt be surprised to learn, HOTD, that some of your "friends" want to give you the hi-ho-long one. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule.
HAIR: I agree that it might be easier for some women to just be friends than for some men, but I can only speak from my personal experience. I know that one of my friends wouldn’t mind giving me the hi-ho-long-one, a couple of others already have, and the rest I presume would not (there have never been any signals that they’d like anything sexual with me or any of our mutual female friends and some of them have been in committed relationships since I first met them).
Which takes us back to your original contention. If some men are friends with women, whether they wanna fuck ‘em (in the back or front of their minds) or not and the friendship goes on and thrives for years with no sexual aspect, then it’s false that all men have no use for all women beyond the pussy. You've now noted that there are exceptions to what you presume to be the rule and I'm not sure that your exception isn't actually the rule.
It doesn’t matter if we never see this the same way; it was an interesting exercise to imagine the “what ifs” in the combination of yours and sally’s scenarios.
No playgrounds for me today; lots of client visits. One of them is a Japanese couple in their 90s. They haven't been physically able to have sex for at least 2 decades, but they value each other in a very strong and touching way.
At a young age on the school yard, it generally goes against social upbringing to play with one another. Is that really a learned behavior?
HAIR: I think it's primarily a learned behavior, but that’s jmo. I don't know the answer, experts in human psychology can't even agree. It could be learned, it could be innate, it could be a combo.
In sally's scenario, sex and reproduction don't exist. If people, for some unknown reason, had different organs between our legs even without their existence, then men having a penis and women having a pussy (or not having one, as in your scenario) would mean that gender was defined by a cosmetic difference in how urine is exited from our bodies. There wouldn’t be puberty without sex and reproduction, so other physical attributes would be consistent between both sexes.
If men were still in the minority (for the short time before the human race became extinct) then they might be seen as deformed for having something protruding where the majority did not. If men were in the majority, the lack of protrusion could cause women to be seen as deformed. In any case, under these “what if” conditions, I suspect some of us wouldn't care about the cosmetic difference between the genders and would play on both sides of the playground in the same way we do now with people who have different skin colors. Others would stick to one side of the playground and interact only with their kind. I think that choice is based on environmental influences and learned behavior primarily, but IDK for sure. It's all just my opinion.
KID: I do think I'd be safe in making the general statement that girls typically are attracted to the male sex at a younger age than the boys are attracted to the females. We're typically not interested in them until we discover the art of rubbing one off. I also think that "just being friends" is much easier for a woman than a man. And while it's acceptable to a lot of men, somewhere in the back of their minds (or maybe the front) is the thought/want of sex. So I would hope you wouldnt be surprised to learn, HOTD, that some of your "friends" want to give you the hi-ho-long one. Granted, there are exceptions to the rule.
HAIR: I agree that it might be easier for some women to just be friends than for some men, but I can only speak from my personal experience. I know that one of my friends wouldn’t mind giving me the hi-ho-long-one, a couple of others already have, and the rest I presume would not (there have never been any signals that they’d like anything sexual with me or any of our mutual female friends and some of them have been in committed relationships since I first met them).
Which takes us back to your original contention. If some men are friends with women, whether they wanna fuck ‘em (in the back or front of their minds) or not and the friendship goes on and thrives for years with no sexual aspect, then it’s false that all men have no use for all women beyond the pussy. You've now noted that there are exceptions to what you presume to be the rule and I'm not sure that your exception isn't actually the rule.
It doesn’t matter if we never see this the same way; it was an interesting exercise to imagine the “what ifs” in the combination of yours and sally’s scenarios.
No playgrounds for me today; lots of client visits. One of them is a Japanese couple in their 90s. They haven't been physically able to have sex for at least 2 decades, but they value each other in a very strong and touching way.