Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
Absolutely not! I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm with Bells on this one. You're just a pervert.
Turning Cartwheels as Sexual Display
- Thread starter River Ape
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely not! I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm with Bells on this one. You're just a pervert.
River Ape: "You seem to be suggesting that competition for the prize hunk does not exist in primitive tribes?"
Bells: "That depends on the tribe."
One thing we do not disagree about is the diversity of humanity and its customs.
But it would be are rare society in which girls and boys did not try to attract the opposite sex -- with the important proviso that while boys are pretty happy to fuck whatever is available, girls are anxious to invest their futures with a prince (as per the folk stories) or more generally with an alpha male who will give their children the best chance of survival.
There are few older stories than those of love thwarted by the dictates of parents and of the elopements that thwart the parents. (Going back a few generations, my own family has such a true story.) But the impositions of parents, let alone the threat of being kidnapped, are rarely so overwhelming that girls cease from doing everything they can to attract the man they want. Sexual allure and promise, sexual teasing, overt sexuality and the promise of future sexual availablity play rather important roles in that "everything", albeit societies try to impose rules on what is permitted. Giving the guy a flash of what's on offer seems a very natural part of the repertoire. And all of this is not to say that selection of a mate does not entail very much more than sex.
It is very common for societies to dictate from among which group of individuals a mate must be found (e.g. same caste) but there is usually some choice -- except perhaps for whomever is left over at the end! Even girls taken from Britain to Pakistan for forced marriages sometimes have a choice between brothers/cousins, apparently. I am not going to read your references to societies that resort to kidnapping, rape, etc because I do not believe they represent the norm. It would be good to hear the opinions of others.
Bells: "That depends on the tribe."
One thing we do not disagree about is the diversity of humanity and its customs.
But it would be are rare society in which girls and boys did not try to attract the opposite sex -- with the important proviso that while boys are pretty happy to fuck whatever is available, girls are anxious to invest their futures with a prince (as per the folk stories) or more generally with an alpha male who will give their children the best chance of survival.
There are few older stories than those of love thwarted by the dictates of parents and of the elopements that thwart the parents. (Going back a few generations, my own family has such a true story.) But the impositions of parents, let alone the threat of being kidnapped, are rarely so overwhelming that girls cease from doing everything they can to attract the man they want. Sexual allure and promise, sexual teasing, overt sexuality and the promise of future sexual availablity play rather important roles in that "everything", albeit societies try to impose rules on what is permitted. Giving the guy a flash of what's on offer seems a very natural part of the repertoire. And all of this is not to say that selection of a mate does not entail very much more than sex.
It is very common for societies to dictate from among which group of individuals a mate must be found (e.g. same caste) but there is usually some choice -- except perhaps for whomever is left over at the end! Even girls taken from Britain to Pakistan for forced marriages sometimes have a choice between brothers/cousins, apparently. I am not going to read your references to societies that resort to kidnapping, rape, etc because I do not believe they represent the norm. It would be good to hear the opinions of others.
Tiassa: "It might be that you don't recall much literature on the subject because it wasn't there."
I am sure you are right. I think I should probably point out that I never specifically went in search of any, but I did read widely on the subject of evolutionary psychology. I joined a research unit concerned with the psychology of human computer interaction (HCI) because of a long-standing interest in psychology, but from having been Computer Systems Manager at Chrysler Corporation. (At no time have I been funded for research into either sex or children.)
I am sure you are right. I think I should probably point out that I never specifically went in search of any, but I did read widely on the subject of evolutionary psychology. I joined a research unit concerned with the psychology of human computer interaction (HCI) because of a long-standing interest in psychology, but from having been Computer Systems Manager at Chrysler Corporation. (At no time have I been funded for research into either sex or children.)
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
River Ape.. I have asked you multiple times to support your claims with evidence. You are yet to provide a single link or reference a single book to support any of your claims. Instead, you just keep making even more new ones.
No, there is no evidence that doing cartwheels is sexual behaviour. If you see a little girl doing cartwheels and you think that is sexual behaviour, then it is on you to seek professional help sooner rather than later. You keep insisting that it must be sexualised behaviour when there is no evidence to support that claim is a worrying one.
And no, there is no evidence to support any of your other claims that you have made in this thread. On the contrary, there is a plethora of evidence, which has been linked by numerous people, which clearly proves you wrong.
You have a very limited time left to support your claims, before I Cesspool this thread. I would suggest that before you start to spout more unfounded claims and making more factual statements that have no basis in science, you start supporting your claims with actual scientific links. If you do not know how to search for them, Google Scholar is a good starting point.
River Ape.. I have asked you multiple times to support your claims with evidence. You are yet to provide a single link or reference a single book to support any of your claims. Instead, you just keep making even more new ones.
No, there is no evidence that doing cartwheels is sexual behaviour. If you see a little girl doing cartwheels and you think that is sexual behaviour, then it is on you to seek professional help sooner rather than later. You keep insisting that it must be sexualised behaviour when there is no evidence to support that claim is a worrying one.
And no, there is no evidence to support any of your other claims that you have made in this thread. On the contrary, there is a plethora of evidence, which has been linked by numerous people, which clearly proves you wrong.
You have a very limited time left to support your claims, before I Cesspool this thread. I would suggest that before you start to spout more unfounded claims and making more factual statements that have no basis in science, you start supporting your claims with actual scientific links. If you do not know how to search for them, Google Scholar is a good starting point.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're asking us to pay attention to the comment of the spouse of a botanist about something that is clearly a matter of zoology rather than botany???? Is this your idea of science?
You provide no evidence to support that hypothesis.
We all ask you to be scientific, for the precise reason that this is a place of science.
Simply to write the phrase, "an appeal to what seems to be reasonable" identifies you as a person who is obviously not a scientist. Coupled with your myriad other comments, it's likely that you haven't even taken any advanced science courses.
Please stop pontificating to us. You lack the credentials to deserve our attention.
As a fellow moderator, I fully support Bells's suggestion to send this to the Cesspool. People from all over the world drop into our website after being sent here by various search engines. If they happened to stumble into one of your preposterous, unscientific rants, they'll never come back.
It's our job to keep this place in good order, and we'll fail in our duties if we allow a clown like you to scare away potential members who actually want to discuss science.
Sculptor said:
As I understand it, something about open legs and taboo. And, yeah, there is an entire online pornography genre, running perhaps millions of photos and thousands of videos deep, dedicated to females (ahem!) "accidentally" flashing while turning cartwheels.
The thing is that I'm pretty sure there have been many people who looked, perhaps merely out of reflex, over the years. The difference 'twixt then and now is the difference between shaking off the moment and seeking community to celebrate. The latter dramatically increases people's perceptions of importance.
I might liken it to a recurring tale; these days it isn't much of a problem, and not simply because I'm out of the closet, but the way it works is every once in a while, something indecent, sexy, or whatever else happens almost right in front of you, and your first instinct is to nudge whoever you're with, like: Hey, see that?
Every once in a while, this can be embarrassing.
To wit, the six foot tall, proportionately balanced woman wearing a fleshtone lycra bodysuit? Yeah, that gets people's attention. And then it's like, Oh, no Godiva today, but still, yeah, it's pretty inviting to the glance.
But then there are the occasions, and they are always embarrassing, when one nudges the other because, holy shit, look at that ass, in those shorts, and my God do you see the―Oh ... she's, like, fourteen.
Whoops.
Embarrassing.
But, hey, you know, I'm pretty sure I could find a message board to nurse that guilt in; after all, if I put enough effort into it, I could probably devise an argument whereby I am oppressed, because why else would a girl like that wear shorts like that unless she wants me to ... er ... ah ... right. Can I please not finish that sentence?
You learn, you know? And after a while―I don't know, maybe it's just sheer luck, I guess―it occurs to you that if that's how it goes, why would anyone dress like that? It becomes a question of my own priority: Why would anyone dress like that? Well, what's it to me? Why would I notice?
After all, I could easily get used to a world with many, many more fleshtone lycra bodysuits, and nice asses in well-cut shorts, and skirts that are too short for our parents' sense of modesty. Because, you know, at the point you're swimming in it, it's not such a big deal.
To wit, the Slut Walk. We have a joke in my circles: "Sluts are good ...." And, you know, in one context I'll back that any day of the week, especially considering what counts as slutty these days. To the other, that only maintains the label and its negative associations. Still, though, I'd be willing to bet that those among the current progeny who see their favorite grandmother out on the Slut Walk will have a different view of sluts than, say, me.
And one day we'll be through this. She's a slut? Who cares, so am I.
When being a slut isn't a big deal, we'll all be better off.
As to cartwheels? Well, right. It's still a matter of priorities. And the same standards that denounce sluts also include the potential to make little girls turning cartwheels sexually stimulating.
And for the time being, this is what we want to do with human civilization.
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
Four pages of asking for scientific evidence to support a thesis.
Four pages of no evidence being provided to support said thesis.
Instead, it has been a doubling down of a claim that little girls "turn cartwheels" because it is a sexual display to attract males. Multiple people took the time and effort to provide links to show that River Ape was incorrect and that little girls doing cartwheels are not exhibiting sexual behaviour, but are simply playing and doing gymnastics. Despite clear evidence that it is not sexualised behaviour, River Ape ignores said evidence, repeats the perverted assertion that they have to know it was sexual to keep doing cartwheels. He then tries to change the subject to skipping ropes, apparently under the belief that we can read his mind, tells us stories, which again is completely unsupported by facts. When faced with evidence that again shows him he is wrong, he keeps reasserting these incorrect statements and tries to pass them off as facts.
And I am not even touching on the obvious mistakes he keeps making, from clothing, to gymnastics, to skipping rope.. From a historical standpoint, he is absolutely incorrect. He has misrepresented a picture he posted by cutting out a portion of the explaining text that came with it, because it also blew his factual claims out of the proverbial water.
Not to mention a now unpleasant feeling one gets that someone can actually go to such lengths to defend and claim that little girls playing and doing gymnastics are flashing their bits to attract boys....
I think letting it get to four pages in the hope evidence would be provided is going above and beyond the patience of everyone.
Thread closed and yes, will be Cesspooled.
River Ape. I hope you use this as an opportunity to learn that you cannot just post stuff like this without any supporting evidence and expect infinite patience. It was, for a large part, offensive and while I do often encourage confronting posts and ideas in regards to psychology and especially evolutionary psychology in Human Science, there is confronting and then there is 'dear god I am never letting my kids go to the park alone again' confronting. You have not provided any real talking points, and instead, you used this as a sort of blog to postulate and tried to pass it off as fact with factual claims... That, on this site at least, requires you to back it up. You failed to do so.
Four pages of asking for scientific evidence to support a thesis.
Four pages of no evidence being provided to support said thesis.
Instead, it has been a doubling down of a claim that little girls "turn cartwheels" because it is a sexual display to attract males. Multiple people took the time and effort to provide links to show that River Ape was incorrect and that little girls doing cartwheels are not exhibiting sexual behaviour, but are simply playing and doing gymnastics. Despite clear evidence that it is not sexualised behaviour, River Ape ignores said evidence, repeats the perverted assertion that they have to know it was sexual to keep doing cartwheels. He then tries to change the subject to skipping ropes, apparently under the belief that we can read his mind, tells us stories, which again is completely unsupported by facts. When faced with evidence that again shows him he is wrong, he keeps reasserting these incorrect statements and tries to pass them off as facts.
And I am not even touching on the obvious mistakes he keeps making, from clothing, to gymnastics, to skipping rope.. From a historical standpoint, he is absolutely incorrect. He has misrepresented a picture he posted by cutting out a portion of the explaining text that came with it, because it also blew his factual claims out of the proverbial water.
Not to mention a now unpleasant feeling one gets that someone can actually go to such lengths to defend and claim that little girls playing and doing gymnastics are flashing their bits to attract boys....
I think letting it get to four pages in the hope evidence would be provided is going above and beyond the patience of everyone.
Thread closed and yes, will be Cesspooled.
River Ape. I hope you use this as an opportunity to learn that you cannot just post stuff like this without any supporting evidence and expect infinite patience. It was, for a large part, offensive and while I do often encourage confronting posts and ideas in regards to psychology and especially evolutionary psychology in Human Science, there is confronting and then there is 'dear god I am never letting my kids go to the park alone again' confronting. You have not provided any real talking points, and instead, you used this as a sort of blog to postulate and tried to pass it off as fact with factual claims... That, on this site at least, requires you to back it up. You failed to do so.
- Status