What are you wearing today?

[pierce]

Why not? Tell her you love her and that monogamous relationship are a social construct. The same as why we like drop crotch trousers over FUBU jeans :)

I'll stop now. Please post clothes.

[Sombre]

Why not? Tell her you love her and that monogamous relationship are a social construct. The same as why we like drop crotch trousers over FUBU jeans :)

I'll stop now. Please post clothes.

Sorry. I deleted the post. This was directed at me.

Pierce, I tried, but she kinda flipped, so I just keep everything of that nature to myself.

[zamb]

Yes, of course it's part of your nature! In a complete social vacuum, I would probably have sex with anything I came across

well, of course I would never cheat on my wife, I asked the question to actually stimulate an argument, in part because there is always an appeal to nature as justification for certain kinds of things, and for me its broader than gender/ sexuality issues and hence the absence of such commentary in my original post.

I have a mind and I can reason the consequences of certain things in my mind, I got three hours sleep yesterday and was exceedingly tired when I got up, I could have said its natural for me to be tired and go back to sleep, but I reasoned in my mind that such a perspective would create complications in my day that would be catastrophic, hence my mind willed my body to get up and do what I had to get done. Whatever desires I have for other women would have to be brought under the subjection of the conclusions of my mind.......my nature and physical makeup, is only part of my decision making apparatus, and as much as I can, my emotions and desires will be subjected to my intellect...........

[zamb]

off to bed, don't wanna get shortage of sleep three nights in a row!

[casem]

I think we actually agree here Zamb! Your emotions and desires are controlled by your intellect, but your intellect is informed by society. You weren't born knowing that putting off sleep to get work done would be more helpful than succumbing to your initial desire to sleep, but you learned that if you don't do the work there will be consequences (imposed by society) that will be more painful than a lack of sleep. If you were in the aforementioned social vacuum without pressure to make money, be successful, earn respect etc. going to sleep would have been the better choice.

I'm monogamous too, I've been programmed with the same feelings about relationships and the role of sex that everyone else has and I'm subject to those feelings. But, I also know that these feelings do NOT spring from some unchanging universal truth, rather they are a product of the place and time in history I was born into. It can be empowering to realize that most of the ideas we hold as fundamental are no more universally true than Lady Gaga is universally awesome (she's not). But of course, once we come to this realization, we have to go back and work with what we've got because we aren't born without context, and those who have no regard for social convention are typically labeled as crazy. So, I agree we must accept certain parameters to have a productive argument, you don't get very far if your intellectual trump card is always "it's subjective". But one should know that the parameters agreed upon to contain an argument are, well, subjective.

well, of course I would never cheat on my wife, I asked the question to actually stimulate an argument, in part because there is always an appeal to nature as justification for certain kinds of things, and for me its broader than gender/ sexuality issues and hence the absence of such commentary in my original post.

I have a mind and I can reason the consequences of certain things in my mind, I got three hours sleep yesterday and was exceedingly tired when I got up, I could have said its natural for me to be tired and go back to sleep, but I reasoned in my mind that such a perspective would create complications in my day that would be catastrophic, hence my mind willed my body to get up and do what I had to get done. Whatever desires I have for other women would have to be brought under the subjection of the conclusions of my mind.......my nature and physical makeup, is only part of my decision making apparatus, and as much as I can, my emotions and desires will be subjected to my intellect...........

[pierce]

You have come to the conclusion that freud did when he "discovered" the super ego.

Thats why I liked Martin Margiela so much, he stripped away all these social constructs and just experimented with shapes and proportions and see is it visually appealing. No marketing, magazines, brand/look/style tribalism, social definitions of beauty or even if it would sell. Just ideas, process and see what things look like at the end.

[Enaml]

nah, i sort of like the nature of this thread. fits and debate, both being quality on occasion..

I think discussions like these (in WAYWT threads, of all things) really prove that SZ transcends the title of "fashion forum" in favor of something loftier, more profound.

It's a perfect example why this is really the only forum I frequent anymore.

[MoFiya]

Well, to make things clear: although there is evidence that the heritability of same-sex sexual behavior is 40% that does not allow you to do transfer that to any individual. The heritability is a statistical value which says how much of interindividual difference in population can be explained due to differences in genetics. It is does not make explain anything about individuals, for the individual personality is always a complex interaction of nature and nurture!

And, on a side note, the rest of the 100% explaining interindividual differences in sexual behavior are non-shared environmental effects (I dont know the proper word in English) - which is friends and all... Features which make children growing up in the same family differ from one another - meaning on the other hand that parental education and such does not have any influence on sexual orientation at all.

edit: On another side note: a strong genetic influence on any personality characteristic does not mean that it is determined by genetics!! It just sets the limits to some extent in which the indivual still can vary (as it does with the environment - as said before: interaction). Just as an example: we know from quite a big number of studies that intelligence has a heritability of almost 50% - which does not mean we are dumb by nature!! Education in school, by parents even by training our working memory we can change as much as our biological nature allows us to.

By the way: I like those discussions in WAYWT :D

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but I find this post full of lawlz. I don't really care much about whether sexual orientation is genetic or not, and if I were to put forth an opinion, I would probably agree with you. However, I do find it hilarious that, in the same breath, you can urge someone to have faith in science, and accuse others of ignorance for having faith in something else. I sort of think that's missing the point. Your assumption that sexual orientation is genetic seems barely less arbitrary than those early attempts at explaining the sun.

[Fade to Black]

It's perfectly, undisputedly "normal", "natural" and "human" to have polygamous desires, especially if you're a man...but that said, if you are in a mutually loving relationship on an emotional and spiritual level, it's worth making the effort to tell your superego to keep everything in check in the long run. The prettiest girls on first sight get boring the fastest.

[Johnny]

If I understand Zamb correctly he appears to be of the view that it's no use saying, for example, that homosexuality is in some, even limited, sense "natural", because what is natural is not always good, or intrinsically justifiable by virtue of that alone. This is quite right. Thus while it's natural to feel tired after only three hours sleep, he feels that he must work on, otherwise his day will be written-off and there will be even more trouble because of missed deadlines, or whatever.

Not working on will have objectively bad consequences. As would cheating on your wife. Zamb explains his choices by referring to his "intellect", by which I think he can only mean his consciousness - that is, that he will make a conscious decision to resist the tempation to do the natural thing. The question is, what informs the decision making process here? WHY decide not to chat up the nice looking woman. To my mind, it must be that others may be let down, inconvenienced, hurt, devasted...........harmed. We don't do these "natural" things because other people get hurt if we do.

Where's the harm in being a poof though?

[ronin]

Zamb explains his choices by referring to his "intellect", by which I think he can only mean his consciousness - that is, that he will make a conscious decision to resist the tempation to do the natural thing. The question is, what informs the decision making process here? WHY decide not to chat up the nice looking woman. To my mind, it must be that others may be let down, inconvenienced, hurt, devasted...........harmed. We don't do these "natural" things because other people get hurt if we do.

I like your word "consciousness" better because this kind of decision implies you are conscious of sharing the same nature as people around you, you are conscious that you are a human in the same way they are and you can project feelings and emotions on them; still I don't know what is the main reason, is it pure empathy, or is it morals, the fear of being a bad person because you don't act the way the group expects you to, hence the fear of being punished, now or in afterlife?

I have trouble understanding what you mean, FadetoBlack, by "The prettiest girls on first sight get boring the fastest.", I must have missed a step in your reflexion. As for polygamous desires being more obvious and natural for men than women, I'm not sure I agree, couldn't it be social too? There are societies in which women have several husbands (brothers of a same tribe, generally). Although it is very rare. Genetic descent strikes me as the cause of polygamy being more commonly admitted for men, of course, but is it more common in facts because it is natural or because women have repressed it due to social inacceptance?

[Fade to Black]

no, women are just as freaky, but from a more fundamental angle, i think a natural part of the male brain is more wired towards responding to the instinctual purely physical attraction side of things from their perception, whereas with women it may be more complex and involving some of the emotional/intangible things at the forefront of what turns em on. i truly don't believe it can be for a woman, no matter however they project outwards that it's ever 'just sex,' whereas with men this is so easy it's second nature. it's easier for us to tune out, takes more dedication to tune in, vice versa for the opposite.

and what i meant by the initial comment about prettiest girls...maybe it's just been my experience, but a lot of women i've encountered in enclosed situations that generated a lot of initial male attention, superficially, didn't turn out to be all that once engaged with. my rule of thumb is people lose their 'magnetic' appeal, mystique or some kind of electric ineffable attraction the more with each passing word they say...so if someone's in it for commitment, they should get a real good feel before jumping into these things... i dunno...my girl right now is a knockout, she gets pervy stares whenever i'm out with her, and i really vibe with her on a more personal level, which is most important. guess opinions on these things come down to luck of the draw and individual experience just like anything else...

[Macro]

http://podcasts.thestranger.com/savagelove this guy seems to tackle many questions regarding sexuality.

Any good outfits lately? sheeeeeeeeesh! :P

[Fade to Black]

that Savage guy's column is featured in one of the local coffee shop freebie publications...I think it's HK Magazine. I enjoy reading his responses to letters...he has a very grounded, mature and reasonable take on love, sex & relationships. Refreshing, and it's sadly refreshing because nowadays people (or is it something in the air...) often come across as very skewed on these topics. He sets them straight, always comes correct.

[AKA*NYC]

this thread needs 24 hour lockdown