Cat-calling is harmless flattery...

Post Reply New Topic

^^^

When guys around me do it, and it is not consensual I can stamp it out with just a look.

It only happens in bars where I show my martial artist prowess in dance too, as the boys in the general public per overwhelming majority where I live in 'RED STATE JESUS LAND', have been raised 'proper' by their mama's and daddy's for the most part in this respect.

So yeah, a look from me works. ;)

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING EVER SINCE THE FIRST 'RED NECK SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN BULLY' IN MIDDLE SCHOOL TOLD ME I WAS GAY CAUSE I SMILED a lot WITH LOVE, I TEND TO RESPECT WOMEN overall MUCH MORE ANYWAY, AS THEY ARE EMPATHICALLY NATURALLY MORE LOVIN LIKE ME.

SO YEAH, IN REAL LIFE, I AM A 'SUPER HERO' FOR WOMEN. ;)

AND NO I DID not say I am GOD's gift to women, but I have a whole collage of ABOUT 120 SELFIE photos WITH ME AND AND ABOUT 150 of my so-called 'gorgeous' and so-called 'plain' looking girl FRIEND DANCE PARTNERS at that BAR in a recent blog post that could reasonably prove that OUT as true, PERHAPS. ;)

NO! I DID NOT ATTRACT THAT MANY girl FRIENDS OF ALL SIZES, COLORS, SHAPES AND LOOKS CAUSE i am a jerk. ;)

And yes, I show guys how to treat girls WITH RESPECT in REAL LIFE BARS TOO, AS A ROLE MODEL, TOO. :)

AND SINCE THERE IS OBVIOUS, NOW DOCUMENTED REASON THAT I HAVE SUCCESS IN ATTRACTING GIRLS THIS WAY, perhaps they will come to believe there is something to the way I approach women with RESPECT THAT WORKS. :)

That's kind of tongue AND CHEEK and that's kind of true too, in a totally respectful way, per the innocence of SACRED UNCONDITIONAL love of empathic human connection THAT SEEKS TO DOMINATE NO ONE.

IT'S A REAL THING FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IT IN REAL LIFE.

BUT SADLY ENOUGH IT DOESN'T EXIST FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE IT IN REAL LIFE.

BOYS THAT LOVE LIKE THIS RESPECT FEMALES AND GAY FOLKS THE SAME AS THEY NATURALLY TEND TO BE MORE EMPATHIC LIKE THIS TOO for whatever reason, but I will not get into the cutting edge biological research on that now per 'those' reasons.

I agree that cat-calling is harmless, but flattering? I think it's dreadfully immature and have never done it myself. Nor have I ever wolf-whistled (I don't even know how), used a pickup line, or hit on a woman at all.

Then again, I rarely had the courage to ask one out in a respectful manner either.

Of course not. I never said otherwise. However, one does not masturbate in public because it's not polite to force one's sexual gratification on the public at large.

Yes. One can be sexually attracted - to use your words - without acting on that.

Tell that to the guy who brought up the subject.

Social boundaries are what we are talking about here. It is impolite to turn a casual 'Hi' from a stranger into 'I want to f**k your (whatever) until it bleeds.' It's impolite to try to hit up every other person of the sex you are attracted to for sex. If nothing else, think of it as if there were walking, talking advertisements constantly targeting you, personally, every time you left the house - and you never know if one of them is going to follow you, harm you, or threaten to harm you. Think of walking, talking advertisements that occasionally grab you or grope sensitive body parts. Think of how being groped by a stranger might feel to a tactile-sensitive, stranger-averse aspie, if none of the earlier stuff gets your attention.

No, we are not. We are talking about a specific behavior: cat-calling.

Hmmm, I believe the proper response, to parrot the other side, is 'you do not have the right to not be offended.'

Do a little bit of research about what women undergo when they overtly say 'No' to a man who is pestering them. Not saying 'No' is a learned response for many women, after one or more men flip out on them for it. And, again, if this were a very rare thing, it would not be a problem. Are you old enough to remember a particular phone company, before cell phones, that had a practice of calling people at home just as they were likely to be sitting down to dinner? It happened to many people several times a week. They all, of course, had the ability to say, 'No, I don't want to switch long-distance carriers...' but that company was part of the impetus for passing legislation for the do-not-call list. It was just too annoying to tolerate... and then, when people started getting pestered by advertisers on the cell phones that they started to carry with them everywhere, that was the death knell of phone advertising.

Congrats on your bundle of poop.

So you did. Why do you assume that I haven't seen a thousand such documentaries?

Nor are they, exactly, 'in the science know.'

Oh, really? Which points?

Like National Geographic? Your arguments demonstrate the point sufficiently.


Find me the research, then. Don't just quote it like an anecdote.

Dude, my problem is the claim that there is a single "empathy gene" in any species, not the question of whether or not single 'empathy genes' are homologous.

FFS. I am not saying that humans and bonobos don't have lots of similarities. I'm saying that humans and chimpanzees also have lots of similarities.

*snort*
Yeah, that's why you're not presenting any actual studies... ok. Sure. Whatever you say.


I'm happy for you.

Extreme focus on what? That sounds more like splitting your attention, to me. Personally, the deeper I go into aikido, the less verbal I get. When I go deep into music, I tend to close my eyes and blank out the rest of the world. Doing all three things at once would require less than perfect attention on any of them.
{snip bragging}

Honey, I'm not claiming intellectual superiority. I'm claiming superior background knowledge, which I am sure you know is an entirely different thing.

Did you not notice that the scientist himself points out that the research is based only on European data? During times, btw, that were not entirely 'peaceful.'

Uh, yeah. That's not exactly a revolutionary statement.

*snort*
Ok. Noted.

No, you do not. Your individual genome expression does change over time - as does the genome expression of every living organism - but only populations evolve. Evolution is the change in allele proportions in a population over time. Neuroplasticity has to do with brain wiring, not so much with genetics (much less evolution).

Given that you're failing on the level of semantics, I doubt that.

...that you know of.

I'm done with this, aghogday.

If you just say 'Hi,' and talk pleasantly about the weather, you'll already be ahead of most of the random dudes a woman encounters on a daily basis.

I suggest you check up on Epigenetics.

It's the difference between a shut-in 54 year old man as opposed to the strongest man overall, who can lift 810 LBS with his legs per all the marines, at an elite military gym. And yes I've already provided the irrefutable evidence on that on this website, several times, for the naysayers about.

Epigenetics works for those folks who adapt TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES and succeed in one lifetime.

The director of the Institutes of Mental Health, Tom Insel, per current cutting edge research also reports that grade school bullying can bring about epigenetics in the opposite direction per mental illness.

Genes can express themselves in many ways during one lifetime, depending on environmental challenge, per Epigenetics.

I used the word evolve as a common metaphor for change, and no NOT CLASSICAL evolution.

Culture functionally disables human beings, by taking away challenge, particularly IN PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE that science now shows is the driving force of intelligence behind emotional regulation and sensory integration and MOST HUMAN beings do not come close to reaching their basic human potential as many now are functionally disabled in this type of potential fuller intelligence, as just one example.

And higher functioning Autism may also be a result of this as well, at least in part, as science now shows a brain focused only on mechanical cognition activities 'withers away' per social cognition and empathy.

But truly that's only common sense for folks with experience that have been around the block a few times.

And I never said Bonobos get along all the time, nor do humans either, obviously. And of course humans have even greater potential for human empathy and cooperation, otherwise we would not have the complex language, cultures and over 7 billion plus humans on the planet

And so what if the data was European, they have similar brains too, you know. :)

If you really had your ducks in a row, truly you would not have to resort to personal attacks on my intelligence that by the way earned me 11th place overall and 3rd place for males in a class of 381, in high school; three college degrees, all at one time at the top of my class, while working three part time jobs to get through it, and a 24 year government career ending at the GS9 to 11 level, and now financial independence.

It's a little hard for you to belittle me, and boost your knowledge and experience UP, in this way, at least as far as I am concerned. I have a 'few' credentials too and the greatest ones are in the HARD KNOCKS of life.

I did not fall off a turnip truck, dear.

And have a nice day.

And please do finish what you do or do not like, your will, not mine.

I'm just here for intelligent open-minded discussion, and not 'small' attempts at belittling my intelligence.

I have good reason to be confident and also good reason not to have to resort to this behavior with other folks here, as I am secure in both my knowledge per crystalized intelligence and ability to learn new things with fluid intelligence.

It works for me GREAT!..:)

And I'm so excited as there is SO MUCH MORE to learn..:)

And oh by the way, since now I see you responded twice up there, Genetics control human behavior like empathy too, and just because a specific NAME FOR AN empathy gene has not been identified does not mean that a similar empathy gene controls the same behavior in primates alike PER THIS instance with the Bonobo and Human beings.

And no, that was not my opinion, it was a statement made by the Bonobo scientists WHO specialize and DO THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING THAT I was paraphrasing.

I go by the research when possible and not my opinion.

I'm FAIRLY sure the SCIENTISTS WHO ARE specialists in this field of study of Bonobos are more knowledgeable than either me or you.

That is why I provided their evidence and not mine, alone.

Last edited by aghogday on 12 Dec 2014, 9:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Implying that the intent of cat-calling is sexual gratification? I'm fairly certain that the primary motivation is to demonstrate bravado to their male peers. Besides, there's no way I'm letting such a blatant false analogy slide by without, well, at least pointing it out.



I'm glad that you agree with me on that point. Many do not.



I've elected to ignore his posts where possible.



I agree with you that it's impolite, I just don't see how that's relevant. I think it's important to remind you that we're talking about cat-calling here, not any presumed slippery-slope consequences or escalation. I don't need to imagine the examples you're citing as I've been the victim of them myself.



Which would be missing the point entirely. You cannot possibly know the intent of strangers when they offer greeting, unless the situation is so extreme that their very presence is suspicious.



Pestering =/= cat-calling. If you want to change the topic to harassment, that's all well and good. Let's not conflate the two however. It seems like you're suggesting we teach women how to say 'no'. I'm all for personal empowerment too, so you'll get no argument from me here. I am concerned that you don't seem to acknowledge that harassment is gender-blind, though. As I mentioned, I've experienced such behaviour myself.

Don't misunderstand me. I find cat-calling and other such macho nonsense to be the puerile behaviour of insecure man-children. I'm all for people voicing their distaste to such irksome tools too, it's just that I recognise their right to behave the way they do, no matter my personal preference.



This is just another example of harassment, albeit the corporate variety.



Thank you.

They do were I live.

FFS.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I stated as much earlier. Some epigenetic changes are beneficial to the organism; most of the ones we know about are actually quite deleterious.

But you used it at the same time as you were throwing around terms like 'epigenetics,' which implies that you thought that you were using it in a scientific way.

Brain size is irrelevant to the question here; the point is that one cannot claim a biological human universal by looking only at a single cultural group, since so much of human interaction is based as much (or more) on culture rather than biology.


I have not attacked your intelligence. I have attacked your knowledge base. As noted earlier, the two are not the same.


Incorrect. Genes influence human behavior. Human behavior is based on the combination of innate genetics, personal experience, and learned culture.

Jesus H. Christ...
(the 'H' stands for 'haploid,' btw)
I don't give a flying f**k about whether a gene has been named or not. I'm saying that empathy is too complex of a phenomenon to be controlled by a SINGLE GENE. A gene is nothing other than coding instructions for a protein, and you're basically claiming, over and over, that ONE protein is responsible for empathy. It is NOT something that you either have, or do not have; there are degrees of empathy, in the same way that there are degrees of hair coloration, which implies for both that there is more than one potential genotype wrt. empathy.

of course. However, I'm just as certain that I'm better at interpreting what they actually mean, when they speak using scientific terms, than you are, or that the paraphrasing via National Geographic is.
I'm also pretty certain that looking at specialists in chimpanzees would be relevant to your philosophy.

If you read more carefully, you will note that I specifically agreed with another poster that cat-calling is NOT primarily about sexual gratification.

The problem is that cat-calling is far too often a prelude to exactly the sort of escalation I described for women.

True, but when one gives a man the benefit of the doubt and is disappointed a certain number of times, one tends to give fewer and fewer men the benefit of the doubt.

No, they really are the same thing. They're just different degrees on the same scale.

No. Women learn not to say a clear no to men who pester them when men then escalate their harassment into following and overtly threatening them.


Ok: I acknowledge that harassment affects men as well as women, particularly gender-nonconforming men. However, the proportion of men who are harassed on a regular basis, and the number of times an average man is harassed on the average walk to the corner store, is VASTLY lower than the proportion and number of times a woman is harassed. Women are also vastly more likely to be significantly smaller than their harassers.

Glad to see you back.

People often use the word evolve as metaphor for change.

I did it. I clarified I did it. Believe it or not, that's all I did. :)

You assumed otherwise, and I clarified you were incorrect in what you THOUGHT was implied.

I did not say similar brain size, I said similar brains.

Yes, culture has an impact, of course, but the point here is not an impact that goes from 150 to 200 or 300 or even 400 sets of eyes, I am talking about the thousands of sets of eyes a person is exposed to in a busy city. I do not know where you live but considering the lack of empathy that you report it sounds like a big city to me.

Human being strangers treat each other with respect and interact with each other, both male and female, commonly when the population is smaller.

When population pressures INCREASE per social stress folks tend withdraw, and I certainly hope you have read studies to that EFFECT OF HUMAN AFFECT.

THE FRIENDLY STRANGER STUFF, BOTH male and female, happens all the frigging time were I live, in much friendlier 'Bonobo like' RED STATE JESUS LAND.

AND TO BE clear the Bonobo like phrase is a metaphor and NOT to be taken literally.

Crystalized intelligence per knowledge base is intelligence and only one type of intelligence. I provided that information in my last comment.

Okay, Bonobos are the only other primate to have face to face sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex.

http://www.ansci.wisc.edu/jjp1/ansci_repro/misc/project_websites_07/thur07/bonobo%20reproduction/behavior.html

Bonobos have a full range of nonverbal expression when communicating with other Bonobos like human beings that no other primate shares.

And no I did not say one SINGLE gene controls anything in Human or Bonobo behavior or anything else for that matter.

You seem to be reading into implications that you are seeing that I made that I DID NOT INTEND, AND I AM CLARIFYING THAT AGAIN, with you now, whether you want to believe it or not.

The scientists indicated that both similar genes and brain structure are common per these empathy associated behaviors in the only two primates that share them. AND HONESTLY, that's just common sense, considering that human beings already share 98 PLUS percent of similar genetics with them.

Personally, although I did not include my personal opinion, my personal empathy per affective empathy and emotional contagion is ENOUGH TO SEE THAT UNIQUE HUMAN and Bonobo SHARED CONNECTION IN NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION JUST BY watching a video of the Bonobo as opposed to other primates, as I too, share similar genetics.

That's also common sense.

Science suggests that not all people do, either per nature or nurture, sadly as that may be.

But at least for me, I do not even need research to see that truth in living Bonobo facial expression color, including expression of eyes, that are hauntingly human as compared to chimpanzees.

Honestly, I cannot believe you are disputing the OBVIOUS FACT that Bonobos ARE substantially closer in empathic behavior to Humans than chimpanzees.

I thought most people already knew that on this site, and that is why I did not go into further detail, per the current research, and yes there is much more detail to provide on those empathic similarities. It is a fascinating area of study.

And your continued confidence in your crystalized intelligence as opposed to mine on this subject along with your small attempt at a personal character attack of comparing my philosophy to chimpanzee like philosophy is kinda funny to me at this point. :)

Smiles and learn on.

That's what I plan to do.

aghogday, I'm going to let you have the last word on this because 1)I think I've made my points clearly enough and 2)We're not doing anything but annoying everyone else reading the thread. I still think you're wrong (note: wrong =/= unintelligent), but that's that.

I GUESS we can let the reading audience watch the video and the other research I provided and decide for themselves.

At least I provided third party SCIENTIFIC evidence to PROVE MY POINT.

I almost ALWAYS DO THAT, when challenged as such.

Hope you have a nice day, too, with a smile too, per that COGNITIVE empathy related INTELLIGENCE stuff. :)

If anyone gives a damn (which I doubt), they're free to use google, pubmed, etc to examine both sides.

It seems as time goes by and the twitter mind devolves, fewer and fewer people do this, but that is only anecdotal opinion of mine.

I am naturally a fluid intelligence thinking person as I am more of an innate visual thinker than verbal thinker so it is no problem for me, as my mind fluidly works in symbols of images as well as patterns like an algorithm, FOR WHAT COMES NEXT, and that is at core OF what Google is, an algorithm like me. ;)

And obviously no one cares HERE; that was just a tongue and cheek comment for the last word here, but only if you like, per your will, LKL.

I AM LIKE NO ONE here, MORE THAN OBVIOUSLY, and I have absolutely NO plans to conform, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, of course. :)