Are Humans Hard Wired to Prefer Men as Leaders?

[Gospel]

Boogieman Alert, Boogieman Alert. Please use the martial arts called Google-Fu to bring up at least one instance of a man using transgender as an excuse to sneak into the lady's locker room? You won't even find that on the onion.

I've known about it happening twice.

That's still quite rare, given my familiarity with the lbgtq. But it happens, I know for a fact.

Given your familiarity with the LBGTQ? What would the LBGTQ community have to do with a heterosexual male lying about being transgernder to enter the lady's locker room have to do with the LBGTQ community?

 

[TomC]

Even if it didn't, the idea that it is acceptable to oppress an entire class of people to prevent a rare crime from occurring is abhorrent and wrong.

This post follows mine, immediately.

Are you referring to my opinions? It's hard to tell.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Boogieman Alert, Boogieman Alert. Please use the martial arts called Google-Fu to bring up at least one instance of a man using transgender as an excuse to sneak into the lady's locker room? You won't even find that on the onion.

I've known about it happening twice.

That's still quite rare, given my familiarity with the lbgtq. But it happens, I know for a fact.

Given your familiarity with the LBGTQ? What would the LBGTQ community have to do with a heterosexual male lying about being transgernder to enter the lady's locker room have to do with the LBGTQ community?

Well, in one instance it was a male who presented as female, planning to become a lesbian.
In the other it was a straight guy who wanted to get laid, or at least a look, and presented as trans to get into the ladies rooms.

I can't help but notice how much of my post you snipped and ignored.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Even if it didn't, the idea that it is acceptable to oppress an entire class of people to prevent a rare crime from occurring is abhorrent and wrong.

I think you might be referring to my post, where I ask if there is any evidence that transwomen commit crimes against females at a lower rate than other males.

Are you saying here that disallowing transwomen from female single-sex spaces is "oppression"? I want to be sure I am not strawmanning you.

If that is "oppression", why is it not "oppression" to forbid an "entire class of people" (that is, men) from women's spaces?

Rather, you have inherent worth and inherent rights, and if even if our individual freedoms do on some level create danger and dissension, that's the cost of having a true democracy.

Do men have inherent worth and inherent rights? Does keeping men (remember, transwomen are men) from female single-sex spaces mean we are oppressing men?

Also, "true democracy"??? What???

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure, it's partly inertia, I agree. But you haven't presented any evidence that instincts aren't playing a part as well. Granted, neither have I, but it's pretty clear how sexual selection has wired us over time. I don't think people are hardwired to view men as leaders, but people are hardwired to view men more favourably when they exhibit ambition. This makes it more difficult for women to be ambitious and still come across well.

I don't know why there's such a hang up on this. Is it such a problem to admit that people have instincts, and not everything is completely arbitrary and socially constructed?

I disagree. I don't think this is hardwiring. It's socially constructed and highly confining gender roles. It's because women with ambition have historically 9and still are) punished for being unladylike. It's because socially we are conditioned that females are quiet, polite, cooperative, and focus on putting other people's needs ahead of their own. Females are taught to be supportive and to cede space to males, we are taught that we are expected to always be nice and friendly and decorative. Males are conditioned to be boisterous, rambunctious, adventures risk takers. They are taught to be loud, to go after what they want, to speak their minds.

The differential treatment of children on the basis of sex based stereotypes are really strong.

A female child who plays in the mud and yells and runs a lot is much very likely to be told to calm down, to have her parents complain about her clothes getting dirty, and to be told that she's misbehaving. A male child doing the same thing is likely to be praised for being so active and adventurous, and dirty clothes are just "boys being boys". A girl child who is very vocal about what she wants is likely to be told that she's being selfish and to think about other people's needs too. A boy child doing the same thing is likely to get his wants met, and to be rewarded for speaking out. A boy child who takes control of his play group will be perceived as a "natural leader" and "charismatic" by adults. A girl child will be perceived as "pushy" and as not caring about the other kids' desires.

There's a flip side to that too, of course. Girls are allowed to cry and be sad, especially if it's empathy related. Boys are expected to "chin up" and not be a bay, they're expected to internalize their physical pain and "take it like a man". And they're discouraged from engaging in "girly" crafts like sewing and needlepoint and such.

The point here is that these behaviors are not inherent. They're taught to us as children, they're reflected in everything we see in fiction, on TV, and from adults. We're conditioned - through both positive and negative reinforcement - to conform with those stereotypes.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's fair, but I think seize power isn't a generous enough explanation of what happened, or what is happening. First, it starts from the assumption that women don't hold any power via the caretaker role. Just because women traditionally care for children, doesn't mean they don't have power. Throughout history men have relied on women to raise their children, take care of their households, and a multitude of other equally important things. So this argument starts from the assumption that being a mother is less important than holding power in society, which just isn't true. Both positions are important for child-rearing. And throughout history women have been able to dictate that men go find some fucking food or we're not having children.

I'm going to push back on this. Sure, there's "power" of a very minimal sort here, at best you've got the Lysistrata paradigm of women withholding sex as a means of power. But that overlooks the fact that for most of history, marital rape wasn't a thing - if a man forced his wife to have sex, it wasn't considered rape, regardless of whether she wanted to or not, and regardless of whether it caused her pain or injury. Additionally, the "power" of being bound to household chores and childrearing came at the cost of women having no agency. Sure, we had "power" over the household... but we didn't get to make decisions about our life as a whole, we weren't free to pursue our own desires, to seek our own happiness. We were denied the highest peak of Maslow's Hierarchy. The value of a woman was defined by her service to her husband.

As the sex that has historically be consigned to the home and childrearing, expected to find my greatest joy in making my husband happy and fulfilling all of his wants and desires... I rather think that's not really power at all.

The other part of it is that men didn't exactly seize power. Gender roles just became what they became as our societies became more specialized. Women did one thing, men did another. Over time, as our communities became more prosperous this allowed a small subset of men to become very powerful. And now, with only about a century of modernity under our belt we have a post-hoc rationalization that the only valid thing for a human to do is make money, and women are becoming important for family income. So some women are pushing for the ability to make that income. IOW, I don't think it's a big conspiracy by men to hold down women, it's just that for almost the entirety of our history they were forced to hunt (be outside home). And the world has changed dramatically in the past few centuries.

We'll just pretend that whole "religion" thing had nothing at all to do with it, right?

And that whole "some women are pushing to make that income" bit? Yeah, we were pushing for the ability to live our lives without having to be entirely dependent on a man. Being able to support ourselves, maybe even being able to support someone else.

So sure, maybe it wasn't a conscious conspiracy to hold women down... but that sure as hell has been the outcome.

 

[Playball40]

No, I don't think we're 'hard wired' to prefer male leaders. I think it is purely societal and people struggle with changes to societal norms.

 

[Emily Lake]

A thing people we rarely talk about is the fact that mixed workplaces where men and women are equals was rare or special cases before the 1950'ies. Gender mixed workplaces is a recent and massive social experiment we're treating as if it should just work smoothly out of the box, and we're supposed to do soul searching whenever it fails. Instead of being amazed whenever it has worked at all.

Let's give this a shot for comparison...

A thing people we rarely talk about is the fact that mixed workplaces where blacks and whites are equals was rare or special cases before the 1960'ies. Racially mixed workplaces is a recent and massive social experiment we're treating as if it should just work smoothly out of the box, and we're supposed to do soul searching whenever it fails. Instead of being amazed whenever it has worked at all.

Still make sense to you? Still sound reasonable?

 

[Emily Lake]

Pretty much this, although I think the differences run deeper than brute strength.
From body chemistry to neural structures, men tend to be wired for competition and risky behavior more than women.

Yes, because of all things, women are known to not be competitive at all.

In recent centuries, technology has changed and culture is following along, albeit slowly. This is particularly true of communication technology. In a world where "The pen is mightier than the sword" men have far less advantage, and cooperation is valued more, competition less.

Again with women not being competitive? There aren't many fields where women are not able to hang with men.

Women are competitive. But don't discount the effect of testosterone on aggression. Biology does play a part in some observable and very well documented behavioral differences between males and females.

 

[rousseau]

Sure, it's partly inertia, I agree. But you haven't presented any evidence that instincts aren't playing a part as well. Granted, neither have I, but it's pretty clear how sexual selection has wired us over time. I don't think people are hardwired to view men as leaders, but people are hardwired to view men more favourably when they exhibit ambition. This makes it more difficult for women to be ambitious and still come across well.

I don't know why there's such a hang up on this. Is it such a problem to admit that people have instincts, and not everything is completely arbitrary and socially constructed?

I disagree. I don't think this is hardwiring. It's socially constructed and highly confining gender roles. It's because women with ambition have historically 9and still are) punished for being unladylike. It's because socially we are conditioned that females are quiet, polite, cooperative, and focus on putting other people's needs ahead of their own. Females are taught to be supportive and to cede space to males, we are taught that we are expected to always be nice and friendly and decorative. Males are conditioned to be boisterous, rambunctious, adventures risk takers. They are taught to be loud, to go after what they want, to speak their minds.

The differential treatment of children on the basis of sex based stereotypes are really strong.

A female child who plays in the mud and yells and runs a lot is much very likely to be told to calm down, to have her parents complain about her clothes getting dirty, and to be told that she's misbehaving. A male child doing the same thing is likely to be praised for being so active and adventurous, and dirty clothes are just "boys being boys". A girl child who is very vocal about what she wants is likely to be told that she's being selfish and to think about other people's needs too. A boy child doing the same thing is likely to get his wants met, and to be rewarded for speaking out. A boy child who takes control of his play group will be perceived as a "natural leader" and "charismatic" by adults. A girl child will be perceived as "pushy" and as not caring about the other kids' desires.

There's a flip side to that too, of course. Girls are allowed to cry and be sad, especially if it's empathy related. Boys are expected to "chin up" and not be a bay, they're expected to internalize their physical pain and "take it like a man". And they're discouraged from engaging in "girly" crafts like sewing and needlepoint and such.

The point here is that these behaviors are not inherent. They're taught to us as children, they're reflected in everything we see in fiction, on TV, and from adults. We're conditioned - through both positive and negative reinforcement - to conform with those stereotypes.

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

Do you believe, for example, that sexual attraction is something we learn and not instinctive? And if you believe that sexual attraction is innate, where do you draw the line between inherent desire and learned behaviour?

 

[Emily Lake]

Except that currently, if a person who looks like a man comes into a female locker room or shower, the females in the locker room have the authority to ask them to leave, to complain to management, or to yell at them to get out. The females currently have the agency to do so, because the current expectation is that the female changing room is for females only, and people with penises shouldn't be there.

This changes that. With this act in effect, females do NOT have the authority to ask them to leave, even politely - because they can just claim to be trans. We lose agency and consent.

Boogieman Alert, Boogieman Alert. Please use the martial arts called Google-Fu to bring up at least one instance of a man using transgender as an excuse to sneak into the lady's locker room? You won't even find that on the onion.

How about people who claim to be trans? I have no way of knowing if they actually believe themselves to be women or not... but they do identify themselves as transgender.

Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Showers

Sexually Abusing 10-Year-Old Girl in the Bathroom
Restroom Sexual Attack, Voyeurism Against Adolescent Girls
Man “Dressed Like A Woman” Repeatedly Recorded Women in Mixed-Sex Restrooms
Accused of Sexually Assaulting Teen in Walmart Restroom
University of Toronto: Gender-Neutral Restrooms Partially Reversed After Female Students Recorded in Shower
Male Cross-Dresser Accused of Recording Women Using the Restroom

In Shelters and Refuges

Woman in Homeless Shelter Threatened by Transgender Resident
Transgender Pedophile and Rapist Sexual Terrorized Women at Homeless Shelter
Women’s Refuge Opens Doors to Man, Transgender, Who Threatened to Kill His Female Partner

Legal Decisions

Boys & Girls Lose Lawsuit Defending Right to Privacy in Locker Rooms
Note that this is NOT transphobia:

The boys testified that they would not mind changing with gay boys, boys who dress like stereotypical girls, or boys who made hormonal or surgical modifications to their bodies to appear more feminine. They insisted that they had the right to use the boys’ facilities, but should be able to maintain privacy from individuals of the opposite biological sex while doing so. Similarly, the girls who testified said they did not mind changing with lesbians or biological girls who present as masculine, including girls who have a surgically-constructed penis.

Students Do Not Have the Right to NOT Be Seen Naked By Opposite Sex, Judge Rules
So much for consent, I guess.

The policy was put in place when District 211 and the U.S. Department of Education reached an agreement with a male transgender student to allow him to access the girls’ facilities. Shortly after, two other transgender students – one male and one female – were granted permission to use facilities designated for the other sex. Students learned of the new policy when suddenly exposed to members of the other sex while changing or relieving themselves in locker rooms or restrooms.

I don't know what to call this section - strange activism?

Male Teacher, Now ‘Transgender’, Demands Access to Washroom for Elementary School Girls

In January 2020, a male teacher penned an open letter in Our Lives, an LGBT Madison newsletter, accusing the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) of transphobia because the district encouraged adult staff to use staff washrooms, not those designated for children.
...
While staff members are able to use adult washrooms in the school “based on the gender with which they identify”, LeMonds indicated it is a best practice for adults to use a different bathroom than students “for safety purposes”.

Transgender Activists Protest Law That Bans Flashing of Genitals in Restrooms, Locker Rooms, Changing Rooms

Under HB 1151, the existing indecent exposure law will expand to include “incidents occurring in a restroom, locker room, dressing room, or shower, designated for single-sex, multi-person use, if the offender is a member of the opposite sex than the sex designated for use.” The amendment will “ensure that the definition of public space, as is already in law, is expanded,” State Rep. John Ragan, who proposed the bill, explained. It “simply adds clarity to the definitions and otherwise leaves current law on indecent exposure unchanged.”
...
The proposal comes at a time when there have been a number of incidents of men who identify as transgender women exposing their nudity in public facilities designated for women and girls.

I'm not even going to get into the problems occurring in prisons, where transwomen are being given a choice of where they want to be housed... but the female inmates are not given a choice about whether or not they want a person with a penis sharing a room with them.

You can make your own decision about whether these are transgender people, or whether they're cisgender people claiming an unverifiable transgender identity in order to behave badly. At the end of the day, I don't think there's any way to tell the difference. I understand that this is a very small portion of the transgender community, it's certainly not representative of the transgender community as a whole, most of whom are wonderful people. At least, those I've met and interacted with have all been very nice and very compassionate.

But it DOES represent a danger to women and girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

Even if it didn't, the idea that it is acceptable to oppress an entire class of people to prevent a rare crime from occurring is abhorrent and wrong. We have certain rights and liberties as citizens, and public ownership of public facilties is one of those rights. We have been through this many, many times. Black men were accused of being unable to control themselves from raping white women. Interracial marriages were portrayed as inherently exploitative, and "experts" warned of hideous deformed mutant-children. If women were given the vote, they would only duplicate their husbands vote, and their lack of awareness of politics would make them vulnerable to evil demagogoues. Gay people were accused of being unable to control themselves around children. On and on. In all of those cases, though the arc of justice was long in bending, eventually the Supreme Court has had to step in and say that your rights as a citizen are not dependent on what your fellow-citizens are afraid you might do if you have them. No matter how earnestly others believe you to be dangerous, no matter how genuinely terrified they are of your evil potential, their paranoia is not the basis on which your civil rights are founded. Rather, you have inherent worth and inherent rights, and if even if our individual freedoms do on some level create danger and dissension, that's the cost of having a true democracy.

Rape is a rare crime, and yet we have sex-segregated areas in order to reduce the likelihood of it occurring. Do you find it abhorrent that an entire class of people (males) are oppressed (by not being given the right to be in the presence of naked women who don't consent to their presence) is abhorrent and wrong?

There is a difference here, compared to your analogies. Transgender people already have the right to use the services and restrooms that align with their biological sex - which is the basis of that segregation in the first place. A transwoman has every right to use the male restroom or shower. A transman has every right to use the female restroom or shower. A transman has every right to compete in female sports (with some limitation on testosterone levels). A transman has every right to compete in male sports. A transman has every right to access a female rape, domestic violence, or homeless shelter, and a transwoman has every right to access a male shelter, and both have the right to access co-ed shelters.

The right being asked for is the right to ignore sex altogether, and for male people to have access to female spaces - not on the basis of their sex, but on the basis of their internal perception of their social gender. The right being asked for is not an equal right, but a special right.

And it's a right that comes with a giant gaping loophole. Gender identity is completely self-defined, internal, and unable to be verified by anyone else. Consider that there is literally no difference at all between Eddie Izzard half a year ago and Eddie Izzard now. Nothing at all has changed, except for a verbal declaration of gender identity. And with that declaration, Izzard went from being a well-regarded, very funny, transvestite comedian... to being the funniest british woman. Nothing at all has changed. But where he would previously have been expected to use the men's restroom and shower, she now seeks the right to access women's rooms.

If the only difference is literally saying magic words, then there is no difference at all. Allowing transgender people to access spaces and services for their gender identity is, in effect, allowing all people to use whichever space they feel like. It gives males the right to gain access to naked and vulnerable females against the will of those females.

 

[Emily Lake]

Boogieman Alert, Boogieman Alert. Please use the martial arts called Google-Fu to bring up at least one instance of a man using transgender as an excuse to sneak into the lady's locker room? You won't even find that on the onion.

I've known about it happening twice.

That's still quite rare, given my familiarity with the lbgtq. But it happens, I know for a fact.

Given your familiarity with the LBGTQ? What would the LBGTQ community have to do with a heterosexual male lying about being transgernder to enter the lady's locker room have to do with the LBGTQ community?

You are the one who claimed it never happens. It happens. Don't go moving your goalposts now.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure, it's partly inertia, I agree. But you haven't presented any evidence that instincts aren't playing a part as well. Granted, neither have I, but it's pretty clear how sexual selection has wired us over time. I don't think people are hardwired to view men as leaders, but people are hardwired to view men more favourably when they exhibit ambition. This makes it more difficult for women to be ambitious and still come across well.

I don't know why there's such a hang up on this. Is it such a problem to admit that people have instincts, and not everything is completely arbitrary and socially constructed?

I disagree. I don't think this is hardwiring. It's socially constructed and highly confining gender roles. It's because women with ambition have historically 9and still are) punished for being unladylike. It's because socially we are conditioned that females are quiet, polite, cooperative, and focus on putting other people's needs ahead of their own. Females are taught to be supportive and to cede space to males, we are taught that we are expected to always be nice and friendly and decorative. Males are conditioned to be boisterous, rambunctious, adventures risk takers. They are taught to be loud, to go after what they want, to speak their minds.

The differential treatment of children on the basis of sex based stereotypes are really strong.

A female child who plays in the mud and yells and runs a lot is much very likely to be told to calm down, to have her parents complain about her clothes getting dirty, and to be told that she's misbehaving. A male child doing the same thing is likely to be praised for being so active and adventurous, and dirty clothes are just "boys being boys". A girl child who is very vocal about what she wants is likely to be told that she's being selfish and to think about other people's needs too. A boy child doing the same thing is likely to get his wants met, and to be rewarded for speaking out. A boy child who takes control of his play group will be perceived as a "natural leader" and "charismatic" by adults. A girl child will be perceived as "pushy" and as not caring about the other kids' desires.

There's a flip side to that too, of course. Girls are allowed to cry and be sad, especially if it's empathy related. Boys are expected to "chin up" and not be a bay, they're expected to internalize their physical pain and "take it like a man". And they're discouraged from engaging in "girly" crafts like sewing and needlepoint and such.

The point here is that these behaviors are not inherent. They're taught to us as children, they're reflected in everything we see in fiction, on TV, and from adults. We're conditioned - through both positive and negative reinforcement - to conform with those stereotypes.

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

Do you believe, for example, that sexual attraction is something we learn and not instinctive? And if you believe that sexual attraction is innate, where do you draw the line between inherent desire and learned behaviour?

This doesn't make sense. Sexuality is innate in all animals that reproduce sexually. That's how it works. What governs attractiveness is sexual selection - which is not innate. The external markers of sexual selection can become physical traits, such as peacocks having absurdly burdensome tails because that's what the females liked and selected for. But there's no innate, instinctual drive for peahens to find long tails attractive - it's the other way around.

Sexual selection has a definite impact. And not all sexual selection is voluntary. The results of stock breeding are from external sexual selection, breeding for specific traits - some of which become innate behavioral tendencies. Terriers dig, that's what they were selctively bred for. Austrailian shepherd herd anything they can, that's what they were selectively bred for.

I have no doubt that humans have in the past engaged in sexual selection of their partners. I understand that has contributed to the increase in height of humans over the last hundred thousand years or so. And I'm sure that some elements of innate behavioral tendencies have been selected for. But those tendencies are not "instinct" and they're not perfectly confining. Especially because humans exhibit far broader sexuality and breeding traits than most other animals. In most mammals, only a very few males manage to mate with females. With humans, however, most males and most females can (and do) breed.

There are some good documentaries on cognitive behavior out there. Go find some. Behavioral tendencies are innate and have a genetic component, but the reaction to those responses, and the effectuated behaviors are learned. A shepherd has an innate tendency to herd animals... but without training they do a piss poor job of it and mostly just chase everything they can. Terriers have an innate tendency to dig, but without training to dig for specific burrowing animals, they mostly just tear up yards and furniture.

 

[Politesse]

There is a difference here, compared to your analogies. Transgender people already have the right to use the services and restrooms that align with their biological sex - which is the basis of that segregation in the first place. A transwoman has every right to use the male restroom or shower. A transman has every right to use the female restroom or shower. A transman has every right to compete in female sports (with some limitation on testosterone levels). A transman has every right to compete in male sports. A transman has every right to access a female rape, domestic violence, or homeless shelter, and a transwoman has every right to access a male shelter, and both have the right to access co-ed shelters.

Not if they've transitioned. Then, assholes will chase them out of it and try to get them arrested, because they "look male".

Remember, you're not just trying to force women who were born male out of your bathroom. You're also forcing a bunch of individuals who understand themselves to be male, who look male, who totally and nonsecretly want to fuck women, and who have been taking male hormones to bulk up for decades, to use your bathroom. And why? So you can feel safe. The thing is, you're not a very good judge of what is and isn't safe.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is a difference here, compared to your analogies. Transgender people already have the right to use the services and restrooms that align with their biological sex - which is the basis of that segregation in the first place. A transwoman has every right to use the male restroom or shower. A transman has every right to use the female restroom or shower. A transman has every right to compete in female sports (with some limitation on testosterone levels). A transman has every right to compete in male sports. A transman has every right to access a female rape, domestic violence, or homeless shelter, and a transwoman has every right to access a male shelter, and both have the right to access co-ed shelters.

Not if they've transitioned. Then, assholes like you will chase them out of it and try to get them arrested, because they "look male".

It is not the transgender element that gives me pause. It's the functioning-penis-that-can-make-me-pregnant-against-my-will element that I have a problem with. I genuinely don't care how people dress or present themselves. I'm 100% for smashing the gender binary. But the sex binary is a real thing, with real repercussions, and real risks.

If you think that makes me an asshole, well, okay then. Most females, have the same problem. For some bizarre reason, we don't like having male-bodied people around us when we're naked. I can't imagine why. It's a mystery.

 

[Politesse]

There is a difference here, compared to your analogies. Transgender people already have the right to use the services and restrooms that align with their biological sex - which is the basis of that segregation in the first place. A transwoman has every right to use the male restroom or shower. A transman has every right to use the female restroom or shower. A transman has every right to compete in female sports (with some limitation on testosterone levels). A transman has every right to compete in male sports. A transman has every right to access a female rape, domestic violence, or homeless shelter, and a transwoman has every right to access a male shelter, and both have the right to access co-ed shelters.

Not if they've transitioned. Then, assholes like you will chase them out of it and try to get them arrested, because they "look male".

It is not the transgender element that gives me pause. It's the functioning-penis-that-can-make-me-pregnant-against-my-will element that I have a problem with. I genuinely don't care how people dress or present themselves. I'm 100% for smashing the gender binary. But the sex binary is a real thing, with real repercussions, and real risks.

If you think that makes me an asshole, well, okay then. Most females, have the same problem. For some bizarre reason, we don't like having male-bodied people around us when we're naked. I can't imagine why. It's a mystery.

Most men don't like the thought of having gay men in the men's room, either. And yes, that makes them assholes too.

 

[rousseau]

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

Do you believe, for example, that sexual attraction is something we learn and not instinctive? And if you believe that sexual attraction is innate, where do you draw the line between inherent desire and learned behaviour?

This doesn't make sense. Sexuality is innate in all animals that reproduce sexually. That's how it works. What governs attractiveness is sexual selection - which is not innate. The external markers of sexual selection can become physical traits, such as peacocks having absurdly burdensome tails because that's what the females liked and selected for. But there's no innate, instinctual drive for peahens to find long tails attractive - it's the other way around.

So if there is no innate, instinctual drive for men to find certain characteristics attractive in women, and women in men, why do they mate at all? What is driving men toward particular types of women, and not others? Why are men almost exclusively attracted to women that are younger than them, and within their child-bearing years?

And you didn't answer my question:

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

 

[Emily Lake]

Most men don't like the thought of having gay men in the men's room, either. And yes, that makes them assholes too.

That's an interesting one. It's clearly a men's problem, because I have never heard a woman claim to be uncomfortable having a lesbian in the ladies room.

It's not fair to men, but men are simply more aggressive and more sexually violent than women. Men are more aroused by visual aspects, and just more lascivious. Women don't leer at each other when we're naked - okay, if it's specifically a lesbian hook-up bar, where everyone is naked I bet they do, but not in a general use context. A whole lot of that is conditioning between males and females as we grow up, and the exposure to how a lot (not all!) men treat women. Some of it might be a result of testosterone. Either way... it's true.

 

[Emily Lake]

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

Do you believe, for example, that sexual attraction is something we learn and not instinctive? And if you believe that sexual attraction is innate, where do you draw the line between inherent desire and learned behaviour?

This doesn't make sense. Sexuality is innate in all animals that reproduce sexually. That's how it works. What governs attractiveness is sexual selection - which is not innate. The external markers of sexual selection can become physical traits, such as peacocks having absurdly burdensome tails because that's what the females liked and selected for. But there's no innate, instinctual drive for peahens to find long tails attractive - it's the other way around.

So if there is no innate, instinctual drive for men to find certain characteristics attractive in women, and women in men, why do they mate at all? What is driving men toward particular types of women, and not others? Why are men almost exclusively attracted to women that are younger than them, and within their child-bearing years?

You know, if you actually bothered to read the entirety of my post, you'd have some answers. But hey, you do you.

And you didn't answer my question:

What is your view on the role of human instinct in how our cultures have developed?

I'm not going to answer it because it's an entire field of study in which I'm not an expert. I'm barely a novice. Go ask an anthropologist or a social scientist of whatever the appropriate field is.