Comments for New Cool Thang

Comment on Pitching Modesty by Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:01:23 +0000

Still cracks me up how closely aligned evolutionary pyschologists and conservative Christians end up being on so many of these issues. I posted on that a couple of years ago.

Comment on Pitching Modesty by Tim J

Tim J — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:26:11 +0000

This video was also making the rounds when the study came out. It is from a non-Mormon Christian, which I think is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkc

Comment on Pitching Modesty by Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:22:24 +0000

Seems to me that a lot of the most vocal critics of modesty teachings in the church deeply discount human male instincts. We all may be spiritually children of God, but our physical bodies are still large primates. Forgetting or ignoring the latter seems imprudent to me.

Comment on Pitching Modesty by Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:53:07 +0000

I’m guessing this Fiske study was probably discussed at length in the Bloggernacle when it came out. I just don’t remember participating in those discussions.

Here are a few articles about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/19/women.bikinis.objects/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090216-bikinis-women-men-objects.html
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/02/17/22773/

Comment on Pitching Modesty by writerteacher11

writerteacher11 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:44:27 +0000

The most disconcerting thing about the Fiske study is the extend of objectification by men who tested as being given to sexist attitudes already.

This is a limited study. It means that in one study conducted with a group of college age students men were prone in brain scans toward the objectification of women in scanty bikinis. That is a concern and it deserves to be discussed and known. It does have serious implications. I’d like to see more research.

Let’s also not take it to mean that if I look at my girlfriend or in the future my wife, in a bikini, all I see is an object and I don’t register any concern or care at all for her as a person. That’s not what the study is saying.

Comment on Pitching Modesty by writerteacher11

writerteacher11 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:32:43 +0000

You should look up the study by Susan Fiske and colleagues. There is apparent evidence hardwired, less socially constructed tendency to objectify women women found in the study which involved 21 male heterosexual undergraduate students at Princeton.

At the same time the scope of the study is limited.

The study does not rule out the ability of men to exercise control and choice.

Comment on Pitching Modesty by Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:27:55 +0000

Her claims sort of fly in the face of arguments that energetically preaching modesty objectifies women. She basically is claiming that men’s brains instinctively objectify immodest women while they end up seeing more modest women as people rather than objects. Of course that is surely over-simplified and these sorts of things can be taken to ridiculous extremes like demanding full burkas and whatnot, but it seems that there has to be some healthy middle ground…

Comment on Does God know the biggest number? by Barry Smale

Barry Smale — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:28:28 +0000

Broz, thanks for your comments. I would like to speak to you more on this matter of the infinite. My phone number is 450-465-5679. To add upon what you and others have said, I will say this. We and deity all live in thë eternal NOW, which is infinite. Past and future do not exist execept in our or Gods (heavely parents) memories. I think their memories are quite a bit bigger than ours. God’s emories cannot be infinite either
The universe does not have to be mathematicaly infinite in size for you to have an infinite number of experiences. Joseph Smith (thru relevation) said that matter, energy, and intelligence cannot be created or destroyed, only changedwhich kind of indicates that number of the different “particles” that represent these things are finite. To put things into perspective, the naumber of the smallest theoretical smallest particals on the known viewable universe based on the planck length is only about 10**187. A very small number compared to infinity.
To understand infinity, time, foreknowledge, you have to consider the “eternal round”, “eternal families”, the genealy of the “Gods”, etc.
If anyone wishs to pursue this train of thought with me, please phone me at the given> maybe we can learn from each other. Cheersa

Comment on Stalked by the Living Scriptures by mike g

mike g — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 05:13:36 +0000

thank you josh.

I found out myself that living scriptures are full of crooks starting at the top.

Comment on Moral Rightness and the Same Sex Marriage Debate by Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:40:01 +0000

I recommend the work of Robert P George, and Jennifer Roback Morse on this topic…