Yes, I used Harvard as a proxy. Harvard. Not so much as an appeal to authority, more because trivially shortcutting an argument seems accepted practice hereabouts.
I don’t have deep knowledge of this subject. I have none, as mentioned above. But there’s info that pops up when you Google around on it, and some of it seems indistinguishable from real research. If it’s from a non-hardcore-science link but seems to based on something that is more professional, or seems to be based on something that is based on something more professional, then it seems like it might have something to say. Have I been duped? How do you ever tell when “knowledge” is legit? Is it a req to have to recapitulate all stages of the development of an academic position in order to have a lovely chat about it in this lively forum?
There seem to be a lot of courses and opportunities about all manner of blather at literally lotsa universities all over the place. Many of them must be good and stuff. With smart people and things. So I looked at stuff coming from there. Versus the University of BB Comments, about which I have not been able to find any sort of institutional accreditation statement.
Oh yes, you got me. I can’t possibly know what all women feel, so clearly you need to explain to me how boobs work.
My point, really, is that women shouldn’t be subjected to gross and dehumanizing treatment. I honestly don’t understand why this is such a confusing point for you or anyone else.
Your point is fine and I am not confused. Do you think I think anyone should be subjected to dehumanizing treatment? Where did I say that? I didn’t, and I don’t. However, I only have one brain and can’t speak for the other several billion of them around the place.
What you seem to have been confused by is the little word “for”, as I pointed out above. In this context, you could take it to mean “why did x evolve” or “what is x for now”. You see where a simple lack of clarity resulted in misunderstanding? You feel good about that? With all your eye-rolling and Al Gore stage sighing? You seem to have just wanted an excuse to flail about indignantly. Job well done.
That’s just so… what’s the word I’m looking for… reductionist? The story is about an individual, and we are having a conversation among individuals. Not all men or all women or all genderfluid.
It simply sounds like this is excusing bad behavior–that is consciously controllable–by the way of evolutionary psych. Not putting words in your mouth, that is how I interpret your arguments.
Why do you mash those two together though? There’s a reason or array of reasons things happened evolutionarily, and separately there’s how people deal with things nowadays. Separate. This “argument” is happening because some people mashed the two together and others didn’t. Why is it so hard to follow this logic? Why is “asking the question” the same as “excusing bad behaviour”? No one can ask a question?
Adding: Maybe some “EvoPsych douchebags” do, but I’m not one. I don’t know fucking thing one about it other than what came up in some searches yesterday. Results that appeared to be peer-reviewed scientific articles from reputable institutions. Try to educate yourself and ask a question about it, only to be jumped on and accused of dehumanizing people? Fuck that. No wonder people don’t engage here. Read the i09 comment thread I linked above, it’s a totally different environment.
It is perfectly fine to ask questions. But what I think (again, this is my opinion) you are missing is the context in which you asked the question. I am not going to set up strawmen, I am just gonna give it to you straight.
Bringing up tenuous evolutionary hypothesis in a conversation about the humiliation of a person based on their breasts won’t win you any friends.
Exactly—the evolutionary aspect of this is a different discussion, which (while it does interest me) has no bearing on the events in the article.
“Boobs aren’t here for your enjoyment” does not mean “Evolutionarily, breasts’ advantage was not that they provided a visible heuristic males used in selecting mates.”
Frankly, interpreting it that way seems disingenuous.
The gym was wrong for singling her out. It required a judgment call of an inappropriate nature, and she was very legitimately offended. They deserve to be called out for it, with legal implications if possible. Full stop.
But then that got extrapolated to “boobs are not here for your enjoyment”. Everyone’s? In every situation? Forever? Did that really make people feel better?
But making an absolute, sweeping pronouncement about what “boobs” are not here for is ingenuous? OK, strike enjoyment. Where does that leave us, for purposes of overall remaining breast functionality? Can you map it out a bit?
