Perdition Catch My Soul But I Do Love Thee

/me was always very amused by men who imagined women were running after them. Oh, the joys of ironing someone else's underwear. rofl



Yes..."they all died" was the punchline.

In my experience these generalities have validity. But, also in my experience men, especially as they get older, do like to be and have a "special someone" in a loyal relationship that will reliably meet their emotional and physical needs without requiring constant new negotiations. And women sometimes find them selves casting around for newer better partners.

When society was designed to make it difficult for women and their children to survive without the patronage of men men could believe all kinds of ridiculous things about women.

I disagree that this is biological - based on what, Darwin? Not all women WANT children. (Yes I know, there was the proviso "It's a generality." In matrilineal cultures "the women behave like men" with trading older models in for toyboys, and all. Power does this to people...feeling there are options and that treating people well is one of them. *Power* corrupts, not biology.

Women are sooo eager for more of that golden ten minutes we'll do anything, yep. Cook, clean, iron. Gotta keep the source of magic around! We're sooo weak and helpless; cheat on us and beat us, anything but leave us. Is that it?

Yes some women buy into that BS, still. Works pretty well for the man who wants his undies ironed and a blind eye turned while he chases every tail that wiggles by...not so well for the woman at home thinking she "needs" him.

If the same things were said about races there'd be an outcry but call females inherently dependent and weak, and unable to stand on their own two feet and it's applauded as "scientific."

ETA: Kaimi, many men STILL believe it...and some women fall for it hearing it. See: some of the posts in this thread. :/

I think you are taking some tongue-in-cheek posts a bit too seriously.

Yes I'm sure some are...or at least I really hope so.

I was joking about the baking cookies part. I only agree with the bit about ironing underwear.

Too true. But even when almost everyone seemed to assume that women should difer to men (*shudder* I was around then) my experience was that even men who had super dependent women found a strong independent woman to be attractive. (If they ever started thinking of that woman as their woman of course they would need her to act like a "normal" woman.) And even in those days many men (including my father and my first husband) enjoyed having wives who were capable of interesting conversation and helping with decisions.

I'll grant two things, one my statement was a generalization (I did say as a species), and two I'm no expert.

however there are studies that bear this out in the general sense. we are social pack animals still. yes there are some lone wolf type individuals that completely break from that mold, but they're the exception not the rule. and yes many people that shy away from human contact still desire it (by their own claims), but have other complex issues impeding them, such as lack of trust (which we never see in SL ::snicker::). obviously we have hermits in the world, individuals always vary, but the general rule still stands. most want at least some direct contact.

the minority that doesn't want direct contact will be the ones that lead the way into virtualization, and those that are conflicted will drive the development of extending the virtual experience to provide ever more physical options, which may lead to more people accepting that as a sole means of interaction.

but on a grand scale, I don't see this happening for any majority in my lifetime, probably not in my childrens lifetime either

Interesting read, thanks for the link... I wonder though, is it the sense of touch or the authenticity of the interaction that helps? If you could see and hear your mom, but not touch her, would you still experience high levels of stress due to separation? The study with the "fake" monkey mothers explores this to some degree, but I think the sense of touch is but a small part of the overall picture. Real interaction between a monkey (or a human for that matter) is much more multifaceted and complex.

The studies they did mostly involved children who were pretty much deprived of any interaction. I don't think it's sufficient to conclude that the children in the Romanian orphanage had their growth stunted because they didn't have someone to physically "cuddle" with. I think the social neglect and lack of mental stimulation or interaction may have been a bigger factor. The case studies in this article were taken to the extreme in my opinion.

That aside... my original point has more to do with a fully developed adult than a child. Granted they mention that even adults (i.e. soldiers) will develop heightened amounts of cortisol due to stress, but is that just because they don't have a warm body to cuddle with? I don't know, but there are definitely many other stress factors that could be responsible. I was mostly interested in the idea in the context of Second Life where you can fully experience social stimulation with visual and audio queues, web-cam even, but you are deprived of touch.

I disagree. There is any amount of vitriol flowing around SL that demonstrates just how readily people can be disturbed and even hurt by the virtual experience they share with others. The trouble is that, generally speaking, we haven't learned to compartmentalise the joys and woes of the fantasies we share: just as someone's power supply, internet connection or the Grid itself could fail at any moment, the people we are dealing with can 'fail' for any number of reasons that are invisible to us.

That is where the noun 'game' comes in to play regarding SL.

Yeah, it's an interesting question.

I like this. A little more each time I read it. Very good.

In rl also the best of people can fail to meet expectations for reasons that are not always clearly understood, predictable, or preventable.

+ 1

Kaimi very true, and a good portion of what misfires in SL may be due to traveling that road to perdition paved with good intentions...but SL does make it easier for a sociopathic personality type to game the gamer, I think, as well. It isn't unique to SL by any means but the medium makes it a more liquid environment for such manipulations I think.

Scott there are various studies proving that physical touch does stimulate growth (including brain development) in infants and children, lowers blood pressure in senior citizens (buy a pet, live longer) and so on. I am unsure if there has been a direct correlation between isolation/lack of touch being more conducive to disease in adults. But I've heard of studies claiming lack of touch lowers the immune system.

Haven't read the bit about soldiers and stress but I'd say there is a lot more for them to be stressed by than lack of cuddling. However, some have employed techniques like massage, relaxation exercises etc., and had some success treating 'battle fatigue' or PTSD that way.

Some people don't like to be touched, that's another issue though. Not everyone's wired the same. Also some dislike being touched because their nervous system is more sensitive and they have to be touched a certain way or not at all...some Aspies for instance. It's not the touch or idea of touch in that case but the other person not being patient enough.