sexual advances - the big question

(458 Posts)
BramshawHill Sun 03-Mar-13 10:47:20

BBC the big question is currently discussing whether sexual advances should be accepted as a part of life.

The first speaker has said it weakens men and women if women complain about it every time, and that it IS a part of life.

Anyone else watching? Thoughts?

First time posting, hello btw!

BertieBotts Fri 15-Mar-13 23:51:23

He wasn't expecting anything in return for his compliment.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sun 17-Mar-13 12:11:35

I agree Bertie - I've been complimented like that before when I was all shiny eyed and happy with new lust love and the guy was very respectful... "I hope you don't mind me saying.." and then once he'd said it he walked off so I didn't feel crowded.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 18-Mar-13 01:59:03

Bump

PromQueenWithin Wed 20-Mar-13 18:54:40

Bumpa de bump. Not seen you around much recently Larry. Are you off reflecting?

I read this, and thought of this thread with its references to primate behaviour. It's from Vivien Burr's book on social constructionism:

"Language is unique to human beings. Undeniably, other animals communicate with each other. Scent, sound, markings, gesture and posture are employed by animals to signal danger, occupation of territory, sexual overtures and so on, but do they warrant the name of language? These behaviours clearly do have meanings, to which other animals respond (e.g. by fighting, running away, copulating, etc.) But the difference is that these meanings appear to be fixed and stable. When a dog rolls over and displays its belly, this is a sign of submission. It has the same meaning for all dogs, and this meaning has remained stable for countless generations of dogs."

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 22-Mar-13 12:11:16

YY promchick. It's our evolutionary destiny to eat as much fat as possible then burn it off acquiring more food, be eaten by predators, die of a number of currently curable diseases, dress in furs, live in caves etc etc. But social, as opposed to biological, evolution has reduced or removed these factors for much of humankind.

Yet somehow social evolution, which shapes our day to day lives since birth and before,, can be set aside in favour of our common DNA with monkeys when it comes to certain areas...

apple1234 Sun 24-Mar-13 00:47:56

I have always had problems with 'can i buy a drink/take you for dinner' - the financial transaction part of courtship..with the implicit obligation to pay the person back with one's company.

Replies like 'No let's go dutch, but I would love to chat with you' or 'only if you let me buy the second round' would be charming, but I think are seldom used.

larrygrylls Sun 24-Mar-13 08:47:40

Promqueen,

Were you missing me? Two kids, retraining for a new career, end of tax year investments, planning skiing holiday, voluntary finance work for a charity....you know, real life, kind of intervened.

I am always reflecting, though.

This social/genetic argument is always argued aggressively in the direction of people's views but no one really knows how much of each determine our behaviour. Yes, human beings are unique. Yes, we certainly behave very differently from other species in many areas. However, I think it is wrong to assume that because our language is more sophisticated and the learning cortex of our brains so much larger that the primitive brain areas and drivers are completely redundant.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now