Cat-calling is harmless flattery...

Post Reply New Topic

OY GEVALT!! !



I don't want to be a newt! I want to be a pony!

Yes, I had that film in mind. Sadly, there was no witch willing to do that spell for me.

You've made a few points which I think require individual responses, and so I am going to revert to type and fisk my way through your post.



The same is true for men. I have a bit of a problem with the language you're adopting because it sounds like a dichotomy of "women are the victims, men are the aggressors" - I'll come back to that later. We're all vulnerable to an extent, and there are people (of both genders) who have no compunctions about preying on the weak. Personally I don't like any strangers to approach me ever. The thing is, no matter how we perceive it due to an increased anxiety, a simple hello is still just a simple hello.



Okay, so we're in the realm of unwanted attention from a specific archetype of male towards a woman. I'm going to refrain from commenting on sexual objectification except to state that it isn't relevant here. The problem is one of anxiety caused by the aforementioned unsolicited attention.



I'm not sure what men you're talking about in the first sentence, but here's my take on it. People have the right to address each other in public, and sometimes that's going to take the form of people talking to you in a manner that you don't like. You have every right to say it bothers you, but that right is the same right that allows fat, creepy old men to say they like your hair when you're out in public. It absolutely does matter if the intention is harmless flirting, because part of your argument is that the intention is something else. Either intent is relevant or it is not.

If a man chooses to express himself, however impolitely, it absolutely is his right to do so. Just like it is for women. The slippery slope argument of cat calling sometimes turns into rape is absolute nonsense. Rather it is safe to assume that a man who is capable of raping a stranger would quite readily demean strangers verbally too.



The man in your analogy absolutely has the right to tell you to take it as a compliment, just as you have the right to not do so. You have no right to determine what his opinions should be, no matter how misguided they are.

We're back to the dichotomy of men vs women again, and it's somewhat perturbing to see the language you're using. I'm going to rewrite that last paragraph to demonstrate what I mean.

"It would be much better if people approached each other in a polite manner, and respected each other as individuals. I don't like being told how to react to things I find personally offensive, but I accept that we don't all have the same standard of tolerance. it is our right as people to voice our opinions on anything and have them respected. No matter how much anyone insists, nobody can dictate my feelings to me."

The heart of the problem is that the majority of people are moderate. By changing the language you can at least have a discussion with that majority. Telling men that they don't have the right to express their views, on the other hand, won't get you anywhere - especially with anyone who thinks that asking to see a stranger's breasts is socially acceptable behaviour.

Sexual objectification is a redundant term meaning "x is attracted to y sexually". We're hard-wired to find each other sexually appealing. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is, frankly, delusional.

We are also hard-wired to desire being treated with respect.

Yes, this is exactly the problem. There is a definite urge by activists to redefine terms that already have a perfectly reasonable definition. It's a fantastic way of creating conflict but serves no useful purpose for the majority of us. I find it especially distasteful when the narrative indicates or suggests that it is anything other than a minority of men and women who are guilty of 'social crimes'.



Finding someone sexually desirable or physically beautiful is not disrespectful by any definition of disrespect that I recognise. We're actually hard-wired for instant gratification - the social concepts of respect and equality run contrary to human nature. In order for society to function, we have had to overcome our base instincts and redefine the tribal hierarchy. All the evidence suggests that we're managing this just fine at the moment, without the need for sensationalism or the increasingly shrill accusations of the politically divisive.

^^^

Actually the idea that respect and equality run contrary to human nature is an antiquated idea based on the chimpanzee primate per alpha male behavior, violence, and domination.

Human beings share a similar empathy gene with the Bonobo and similar empathy related brain structures that no other primate shares.

While the chimpanzee rapes and pillages for domination the peaceful EASY LOVING BONOBO RESOLVES CONFLICT AND POTENTIAL VIOLENCE THROUGH pleasure seeking sexual behavior.

So yes, it's perfectly natural to get turned on by SEX ALMOST ALL THE TIME FOR HUMAN BEINGS WHO SHARE much of the nature of the Bonobo including the Kinsey report that indicates that only about a third of human beings are truly innately monogamous by choice rather than cultural or religious dictation.

However, human beings and Bonobos in the wild are naturally matriarchal leaning social hierarchies where the females rule the roost through social cooperation for the most part.

The 20 studied most peaceful societies in the world are relatively small societies where sharing and social cooperation is the norm AND NOT collecting and chimpanzee like dominating alpha male structured patriarchy.

With the advent of Agriculture the ability to gain instant gratification grows greater and progressively through the Industrial age and now the Information Technology age.

This is not what human beings are evolved for as they stay healthy with intermittent gratification, more so than instant gratification.

THIS IS plain to see in a culture now where there are so many relatively CHEAP AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE WAYS TO INCREASE THE INNATE PLEASURE NEUROCHEMICAL DOPAMINE THAT HUMANS NOW FOR THE MOST PART SPEND LITTLE TIME exercising their human being in movement, PER PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE.

This includes non-verbal SOCIAL COMMUNICATION intelligence PER ways of EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND YES, THESE ARE the main type of intelligences that humans are innately evolved for to even survive in ways of social cooperation.

The negative impact of this on human beings that are no longer balanced per their innate human being ways of emotional and physical intelligence are pain killers of some kind used by almost 50 percent of the general population, sky rocketing use of anti-depressants even increasing in childhood cases of depression, as well as close to two thirds of school age children who are pre-type two diabetic.

NO, HUMAN BEING IS NOT JUST GETTING ALONG OKAY.

HUMAN SUFFERING IS MORE SILENT THAN THE PAST BUT IT SPEAKS A MIGHTY VOICE IN DISINTEGRATION OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

THE STATISTICS BEAR THAT OUT IN IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

AND rising cases of higher functioning autism per environmental risk factors specific to this discussion are relevant as well. Truly it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if one doesn't use it per emotional and physical intelligence one either doesn't have it or loses it.

The American Education system is EFFECTIVELY 'ret*d' WHEN IT COMES TO SCHOOLING FULL HUMAN BEING.

AND YES, EFFECTIVE when it comes to creating cogs in a very complex machine of culture.

The price of that, sadly as it may be for many folks, is losing their innate ancestrally valued human being.

EVEN SADDER than this IS MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA OR REFERENCE POINT TO even knowing what happened to them per cause of their HUMAN SUFFERING.

The saddest result of all is studies that show that college age adults have lost up to 30 percent of empirical measures of empathy in the last several decades.

This is the reason that people are turning into chimpanzees and losing the love and respect of the Bonobo who like human being overall, is innately evolved for basic loving ways and social cooperation.

The scientific now studied reason why is that humans have two pathways of the brain; one per mechanical cognition, yes to keep the machine of culture going and one for social cognition to keep the empathy of human being going.

When one pathway is used the other is repressed.

When one pathway is used to the exclusion of the other, the other withers away like a river that dries up of empathy or a systemizing mechanical cognition way of path of brain closing up that is necessary as well for the continued development of tools of culture for greater human comfort.

Human being requires a balance and when folks lose their innate respect for their fellow human beings it truly is a thermostat of the health of culture and HUMAN BEING.

AND CAT CALLS AGGRESSIVELY DONE RATHER THAN in truly loving ways OF DESIRE IN COMUNICATION that are consensual are A PART OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT.

finding a *person* attractive is not the same as objectifying them sexually. A sexual object does not need individuality or personality, and does not need any dignity or respect. It's the difference between 'I'd tap that ass,' and 'I'd like to get to know that person.'

We are about equally related to chimpanzees and bonobos, but we are clearly a separate species. Just for starters, the tribe-to-tribe cultural variation in either of those species is paltry compared to human cultural variation.

Wrt. 'Hi' and cat-calling, very often what starts out as 'Hi' turns into some variation of 'nice tits' or 'I'd like to (*%^T*Y your (*&(*^)^%' if the woman respond even with a casual 'Hi' back. Usually it's not just innocent human connection when it comes from a stranger.

Aspie blankface works very well against cat-calling, btw. Men seem not to know what to do with it.

Actually, there are many similarities that humans share with Bonobos that both separate species do not share with chimpanzees or any other primate, for that matter.

Bonobos share a similar empathy gene as human beings as well as related empathy brain structures and are much more peaceful than the chimpanzee in their simple matriarchal ways of culture, including using sexual pleasure to reduce instead of enhance violence, as compared to all other primates including some humans, at least, it appears who are the exception rather than the common rule per innate human behavior. :)

They are the only primates to share similar sexual behavior to humans as well per face to face sexual interaction.

But anyway here is a full documentary on Bonobos that is changing the way humans look at themselves as well, in science, at least.

And yes, overall both chimpanzees and bonobos in approximate DNA similarity share about 98 percent with human beings, but the differences in the empathy DNA and empathy related brain structures, do set the chimpanzee and bonobo apart as very different primate species, in true effect and affect of general behavior, and culture as well.



And as far direct sexual invitations even among strangers of the opposite sex after a hello or hi that is not common human behavior for either male or female on the street that is more associated with a personality disorder than civil discourse among humans.

ON on TOP OF THAT it doesn't work and is truly only aggression and violence related behavior instead of real consensual human connection, and truly part of a rape culture that the 'chimpanzees' among 'US Bonobos' exist as a minority of TRUE HUMANS THANK GOODNESS.

AT LEAST WHERE I LIVE, AND IF it is that way where you live, I would get the Hell out of 'CHIMPANZEE LAND', IF POSSIBLE, AS THAT IS THE CRUDEST BEHAVIOR ONE NORMALLY SEES RELEGATED TO A DANCE HALL WHERE POTENTIALLY IT MAY BE WELCOME AMONG THE 'WILDER' SEGMENT OF WOMEN IN 'OUR' SPECIES, PER INNATE PROMISCUITY, BUT STILL RELATIVELY SPEAKING ONLY RARELY SO, as far as I can see in my extensive current REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE in the dance halls of life.

And there are many similarities that humans share with Chimpanzees that both separate species do not share with bonobos or any other primate. And there are many more characteristics of humans that are shared with neither bonobos nor chimpanzees.


There is no such thing.

I'm a trained biologist with a focus on evolutionary theory. I've read, heard, and seen a great deal about bonobos, chimpanzees, and human evolution... but thanks for the thought.

As I said before, we share similarities with both species. You're picking and choosing if you say that we share more similarities with bonobos just because you like them more.

We have quite a lot in common with wolves, pigs, and rats, too. Our facial expressions are more congruent with those of a dog (not a wolf) than a chimpanzee.

*snort*
You are ignorant. It happens all the time. It is only a violation of civil discourse if you respect the other person as a human being. Many men do not think of women as being actually, fully human.


Sure it does... unless you thought that the point was to get laid?


Uh, yeah. It works just fine, when you consider what it really is.

In the current day and age, and in Western culture, yes. However, for much of human history, including European-American history until quite recently, most men still considered women either property or wards of their male relatives. This was codified in law.

This is a little reflective of the advice to women to 'just don't walk, if you don't like being catcalled.'
Sorry, but women have lives to lead, errands to run, dogs to walk, etc.
The onus should be on men to stop behaving like as*holes, not on women to avoid leaving their homes.

If you do not have the time to watch the recent research I suggest you read it, if you like, as LINKED BELOW, AS Bonobos are the only primate that share yawns with other same species primates per human affective empathy.

This is controlled by similar genetics, and while there is no specific part of the DNA that is attributed to it in either humans or bonobos, never the less, it is not a nurture issue and is driven by similar genetics PER NATURE.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-bonobos-great-apes-animals-science-evolution/

And of course there are similarities between all primates AND ALL OTHER MAMMALS as they all share similar DNA, but the emotional contagion of yawns per human affective empathy is just one genetic example that sets the human and bonobo separate from all other species of primates SPECIFIC TO DNA THAT CONTROLS EMPATHY.

LISTEN as I clearly stated I do not deny that direct sexual invitations are not common place where you live, wherever that may be, but THEY ARE NOT, where I live as my wife is totally gorgeous and has never ever received one in all her experience in the general public, in 44 years, and that is just one example, but still clear evidence that it doesn't happen all the time for everyone everywhere that is female.

Additionally, I worked here with the general public to the tune of literally tens of thousands of REAL LIFE PEOPLE IN FACE TO FACE EXTENDED CONTACT OVER HOURS AT at a time at a military installation, FOR OVER 2 DECADES that is SUPERTESTOSTERONE CHARGED, AND NEVER ONCE DID ANY MAN DIRECTLY ACOST A WOMAN WITH DIRECT SEXUAL ADVANCES ON OR OFF DUTY after a simple interchange of hello JUST TO BE FRIGGING CIVIL AND NICE.

SO YEAH, men CAN CONTROL THIS BEHAVIOR WITHOUT FAIL IF THEY WANT TO AND IF IT IS NOT CONSIDERED acceptable behavior, CULTURALLY SPEAKING PER SOCIAL NORM, AND POTENTIALLY at risk of GETTING BEAT UP BY OTHER DUDES OR WORSE IF THEY DO IT, UNLIKE the civilized way of communicating with both males and females as human beings, and not just MEAT.

AND NO I NEITHER CONDONE THE UNWANTED BEHAVIOR OR BELIEVE MEN SHOULD NOT CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIOR AND BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT THAT DO IT, ANYWHERE THEY DO IT, but considering it does NOT OVERALL happen to gorgeous women in the red state protecting the woman instead of raping them culture I live in, it might be an overall better place to live for women, except for the repressing and oppressing ways of sexual nature, that DO SEEM TO KEEP THE DUDES IN BETTER ways of BEHAVIOR, overall.

SO YEAH, THAT'S THE GOOD PART OF GOING TO CHURCH WHERE I LIVE, APPARENTLY, AS THESE DUDES TRULY DON'T WANT TO GO TO HELL, yes literally the majority believe that AND YES, THEY JUST INNOCENTLY SAY HELLO to their neighbors or strangers out in public both male and female without the intent OR DIRECT DISCUSSING ANYTHING OF A sexual nature.

It's totally taboo where I live, other than BARS, and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, AND TOTALLY STUPID AS FOLKS HERE PACK HEAT, LEGALLY, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, AND KILL ANIMALS FOR SPORT, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.

SO maybe there IS AN ADVANTAGE TO BEING FULLY ARMED, in this way, IN A 'REDNECK' AREA but religion has always been enough to keep it from happening where I live, overall, before packing heat was legal.

Discrimination on homosexuals and rude comments are still 0pen season, sadly still.

And again, I hate the fact that happens to you BUT NO it is NOT the norm of behavior in all cultural pockets of the US by FAR.

And when I say it doesn't work, yes, I am talking about getting sex, BUT HELL NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT BEHAVIOR, AND HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVEN thought about doing it myself, nor have I ever ever heard any of male friends talking about or seeing them doing it, in 54 years here, in Jesus RED STATE LAND.

I keep ethical friends though, admittingly so. They seem drawn to me, for whatever reason. :)

AND NO I AIN'T A RED STATE DUDE, but never the less, THERE ARE ADVANTAGES, AS EVIDENCED HERE, it seems at least, and kind of another fascinating potential topic here, I think, for someone who might want to expand on it.

I am also an Anthropology holding degree dude, along with Health Science and Social Sciences Interdisciplinary and Human being in the hunter and gatherer/FORAGER WAY, BEFORE AGRARIAN WAYS ALSO LIVED in matriarchal leaning cultures, and still do in primitive cultures in the world now.

And smaller societies that operate peacefully without violence and this crap, simply operate more according to innate peaceful loving human nature like the Bonobo, as humans are NOT EVOLVED FOR MORE THAN about 150 sets of connecting eyes, per study on the 20 most peaceful societies in the world.

It's against BASIC CLASSICALLY EVOLVED human nature, and that's where the crap starts, similar to any other animal population that is stressed because of overpopulation.

The area I live in is rural so there is part of that human ENVIRONMENTAL POSITIVE ingredient there.

I suggest you wait until you call me ignorant until I have the opportunity to rebut your opinions, WITH FACTS, but it's just a suggestion as I'm a really big AND nice boy, and can handle ALMOST ANY heat, INCLUDING GUNS, just fine. :)

Don't have time for more than a short reply: DOGS share contagious yawning with humans. I think that you will agree that chimpanzees, despite the lack of yawning, are genetically closer to us than dogs. Cherrypicking your favorite similarities will not magically make bonobos closer to us than chimpanzees, and a shared yawn - even if it is some conserved single gene that bonobos, humans, and dogs somehow retained from our last common ancestor but chimpanzees lost - is NOT the same as an "empathy gene."

"PER NATURE" looks a lot like "PER GOD," especially when you're splaining at someone who's better informed about evolution and genetics than you are. Just one example: you state that humans 'are not evolved for more than 150 sets of eyes...' based on one study that selected for peacefulness. Do you not see that the question is being begged there, just a little bit?

Yes, men CAN control their behavior. I did not mean to imply otherwise. In fact, MOST men do. The problem is that even the ones who do, largely refuse to admit when they see other men not controlling themselves, and somehow believe that it is more parsimonious that thousands of women are lying about their experiences than that a few men might be out of control.

I do not get cat-called a lot, especially now as I have gotten older. However, the last time it happened? At work, in the hospital, last week, as I was gowning up to enter an isolation room (ie, 'what I was wearing' was scrubs and a yellow isolation gown). as*hole blew by with a rude comment, deliberately timing it so that if I wanted to respond I'd have to shout after him down the hall.

Thus "is attracted sexually". Being interested in someone primarily (or even exclusively) for sexual gratification is not an inherently bad thing. Creating a label with negative connotations is simply not necessary. There's a world of difference between one's desire and one's actions.



Yeah, I'm not especially interested in the human/primate comparison tangent being explored in other posts either.



Is pursuing someone sexually wrong if done within the confines of law and social boundaries? We're in the realm of thought-crimes here, and I find it distasteful. It's entirely irrelevant what the goal is, it's only when the option to say 'no' is taken away that a problem arises. I'm not at all a fan of people howling at each other in the street - and yes it goes both (all?) ways - but I support even the most buffoonish cretin's right to free speech and expression.



Sadly this doesn't seem to work in reverse. My younger, less-experienced self had some unfortunate experiences with predatory females (and one male), though I am happy to report that I suffered no more harm than a bruised ego.

With apologies for the slow response, I recently became the primary carer for a tiny bundle of vomit, poop and responsibility.

Well, LKL, while your specialized credentials in Biology are impressive I'm sure, I presented both a documentary and research sponsored by National Geographic.

They aren't exactly NOT IN THE SCIENCE know, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

THEY REFUTE YOUR POINTS SOLIDLY, if you can take the time to advance your knowledge.

And just because I don't have a degree in biology, don't be TOO SURE THAT I AM NOT BETTER READ IN CURRENT RESEARCH.

THE 150 TO 200 SETS OF EYES, IS NOT JUST ONE STUDY nor does it have anything to do with the Bonobo research, as it is specific to Human Beings.

I said a similar empathy gene not the same empathy gene and I say what I mean.

And I also said it was only one similarity. The National Geographic sponsored research I provided per both video documentary and printed research has many more similarities specific to human beings.

But since you seem to suggest that you are too smart from your historical knowledge, to even look at it, I will NOT trouble you with any peer reviewed studies.

My knowledge is a thousand times greater in all subjects than what it was in college, per those three degrees, as I never specialize in any one area of education.

Additionally, I do not have to work so I have all day every day to do it if I like.

And yes, I like to do it. :)

And being able to read 10 to 15 times faster than the average human being, PER MY HYPERLEXIC FORM OF AUTISM, if you want to KNOW MORE ABOUT INNATE HUMAN POTENTIAL, IS CERTIFICATION OF THAT ENOUGH in the much bigger life of school

I can read several books doing TAI CHI at Barnes and Nobles listening to music, ALL AT THE SAME and remember almost all the salient facts per extreme focus.

I rarely buy books, as I don't need to, in other words.

And yes, witnesses to this on request.

I was born that way, and needed no degree at all for potential in crystalized knowledge.

But that is only one small piece of the pie of human intelligence, perhaps 10 percent at most.

Biology and science, in general, is still way behind on human potential, particularly the full potential of emotional and physical intelligence working 'hand in hand'.

Biology doesn't touch that much, but a detail here and there.

Tapestry of knowledge in all types of intelligence is fuller human potential.

Sorry, but your presentation of intellectual superiority doesn't impress me for good reason.

I keep learning and leave no study unturned.

That is the secret of my FULL intelligence ALONG WITH PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE working 'hand in hand' that most people in western societies almost completely ignore.

And LKL, since I SAY i am such a nice guy, if you change your mind and want to learn more about the 150 to 200 sets of eyes thingy.

Here is a start here.

http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/11/robin-dunbar-on-dunbar-numbers/

MY statement on 'per peaceful societies' and 150 sets of eyes was only a general one per lower population societies and was not specific to that 20 most peaceful societies study, other than a generality based on other research specific to smaller societies working more peacefully without too much social stress.

I find that people often view life through their own pre-conceived lenses, based on their own experience, and specialized education, as well.

That's why I depend ON CUTTING EDGE CURRENT research in science to get the CURRENT facts, IF SCIENCE HAS MOVED TO THE SPECIFIC AREA OF KNOWING I AM INTERESTED IN.

I FIND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE, HOWEVER, unfortunate AS that may be.

BUT THAT STILL doesn't stop me from pursuing more knowing PER WHATEVER THAT TAKES.

I think it's fun, so I JUST DO IT.

BUT clearly my reading speed, MEASURED Standard IQ, FULLER WAYS OF INTELLIGENCE AND NOT HAVING TO WORK,
PER being able to take full advantage of potential greater learning opportunities in all areas of human intelligence, is a clear advantage in all online avenues of discussion I participate in, as this is far from the only one.

It's a blessing, but nah, please don't try to tell me you are MORE EDUCATED than me, from a frigging online discussion.

Writing has been a weakness all my life.

I'm much better in person in getting points across, still, even through I've had approximately literally 10 million words of practice on the writing thingy, during the years of effective loss of my hearing and eyesight.

I ADAPT to CHANGE AND I AM FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SUCCEED AS I EVOLVE THROUGH THE REAL LIFE EFFECT AND AFFECT OF EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY in just one lifetime.

AND YES, I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALL THE 'AMAZING' REAL LIFE RESULTS, upon request.

SOME OF WHICH NO ONE ELSE HAS DONE BUT ME, in the entire world, per the record as it stands.

It is what it is and I just do it.

AND OTHERS CAN TO, if they dare to move outside the BOX.

BUT THAT IS THE WAY EVOLUTION WORKS, OUTSIDE THE BOX, BOTH CLASSICALLY AND IN ONE LIFETIME PER EPIGENETICS AND NEUROPLASTICITY per adapting to new challenges for perceived negative and positive change.

Doing the same thing over and over, per Einstein, is just insanity.

And I agree with him per my successes and FAILURES IN LIFE.

Cat calling is misogyny, sexism and intimidating towards women. It must be stamped out from society because it may lead to assault.