Comments on: Rape in Provo

By: sol

sol — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:14:48 +0000

No, let’s let “female sexual organs” stand. You are characterizing sex organs as traits? Legs as sex organs? An “an attractive womanâ€™s body” as a sex organ? Oh my, we are more different than I first supposed. I did not know we were discussing sex organs at all. Guess we took different anatomy classes.
BTW, as previously stated, you do not know where I stand on biology. I have not answered that. You are assigning a meaning and extreme I have not expressed.

By: Carl Youngblood

Carl Youngblood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:14:23 +0000

One further thought. mmiles, I think I see what you’re saying that there is a cultural component to sexuality, and that certain cultures who wear less clothing don’t experience the same arousal at seeing body parts as ours. But this is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Does this happen because of conditioning or because of biology? I would argue that the biology is definitely there to start out with, but after long conditioning it becomes possible to control and suppress it. However, I am willing to admit that some of men’s response to suggestive images may be the result of cultural conditioning. But it would be absurd to claim that biology has no influence.

By: Carl Youngblood

Carl Youngblood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:08:46 +0000

oops, in 287, I meant to address my comment to mmiles (280).

By: Carl Youngblood

Carl Youngblood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:03:31 +0000

Clarification: when I said “certain female sexual organs” it would probably have been better to say “certain female traits.”

By: Carl Youngblood

Carl Youngblood — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:57:50 +0000

sol, I’ll try to engage in the discussion on your blog. About legs and breasts, I think that the instinctual aversion to incest trumps the sexual attraction of these body parts, but they still trigger innate biological responses. If most men were to see an attractive woman’s body with the head cropped from the picture, and they did not know whose body it was, they would probably experience some level of arousal, even if it was a close relative.

While sexual response may be instinctual, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible to develop more extreme types of sexual perversions if certain behaviors are persisted in, but I think that is a different subject.

I think you’re just plain wrong if you are trying to claim that there is no innate biological response in males to certain female sexual organs. Having experienced such things at a young age before I even knew what they meant, I just know that it happens.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:52:31 +0000

Peter, yes, my example is some one-in-a-million extreme, and you cranked it up to one-in-a-billion. We can also crank it down to a more realistic level, however. Do women never intentionally provoke men? Not accidentally, or incidentally, or just by breathing, but intentionally by design? I don’t think this is a factor in most rapes, but I also suspect it plays into some fraction of them. (5%, 10%, 20%? I don’t know.) Those victims should be cared for, too.

By: KLC

KLC — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:50:53 +0000

Please mmiles, I never said that women are inherently less sexual than men. I think my comments adequately expressed my view that men are different than women when it comes to sexual desire and arousal, and either sex that uses their own experience to extrapolate what should be true for the other is in error.

By: sol

sol — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:28:36 +0000

I have to echo mmiles here and say that legs and breasts are not, by nature, sexually suggestive. If that were so, men would find their own daughters suggestive. Some do, but I’m pretty sure the majority of us would find that “unnatural”. Doctors see bodies all the time. Most of us count on them not seeing us as suggestive or arousing. If body parts are inherently suggestive, how are they sometimes not? Maybe your wording was poor. Maybe you were referring to “presentation”- images meant to arouse biological responses. Even then, we are not locked in to what we find stimulating. Child porn is meant to be arousing. Most of us don’t find it so. Much in the world today is meant to be arousing. I think it is possible to see those things and not be aroused. It is possible for a man to feel charity (as has been so discussed is a woman’s duty) and have his heart break at images that defile women (and women that defile themselves). Again we can continue this at http://stuporofthought.wordpress.com/

I will get something up this weekend.

By: sol

sol — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:16:26 +0000

Carl,

I never got back on last night, and I haven’t had time to read everything else here, but I want to respond to you before the thread closes.

Upon reading your #264 I feel that we agree more than I had supposed. I think what you are saying reflects to a great extent what I said many many comments ago about modesty being an act of charity. I would like to explore further what may be similarities or differences in the way we view the role of biology in sexuality. I think there is not time here, but I will post something very soon at:

http://stuporofthought.wordpress.com/

I hope you will check for it and join the discussion. I don’t think you have accurately captured my view in your statements to me, and I am sure I have not fully understood yours. I hope we get the chance to continue the discussion. I find it very interesting. Thanks!

By: Stephen M (Ethesis)

Stephen M (Ethesis) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:11:43 +0000

Comment by susan â€” 2/1/2008 @ 12:04 pm

I only hope you and yours have found support and help. Congratulations on the black belt and the MD. You’ve done well.