Hey women
I don't like being compared to an ape, and that my sex life is the same as an ape, do you.
For that matter, I would think most men wouldn't like to have their sex life compared to an ape either.
edit: replaced monkey with ape. as it is pointed out below to me that bonobo's are apes, not monkeys.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Must not let this topic be discussed! Must engage the writer of the OP in a discussion about something totally different! I know! Ape genus and species minutia! 
a certain suborder of the primate family. So while I agree that we're related, we're not in the same suborder. 
Personally, I'm not putting humans in a different category because "i believe they have a soul" or something like that, I'm putting them in a different category because I was taught that in the anthropoid category we had apes, monkeys and hominids. Humans are in one of these categories, but it's not the ape one.
It seems to be causing some angst 
The ones explaining feminism, proudly boasting about what they've read, not realizing what it says is that they haven't bothered to read much at all.
I wonder if they actually believe the shit they're shilling. Goddess I hope not.
Geez, Violet ........ Nobody's supposed to actually check on all those claims! What are you, some kinda gender-traitor?
I got curious after seeing Bonobo being ignored when he asked her to supply links to all those many, many posts, so being a bit bored, I went and searched and quickly discovered that the claim was bullshit. I've had bullshit claims thrown at me at DU before and I don't like seeing it done to other people...
Good to see you again polly
And, refreshing. 
would you please post it in HoF or PM me a link?
I'd appreciate it very much.
Yup.
This argument is also pure semantics - humans generally aren't referred to as "apes" even though they technically are. The ape family:
[url]
[/url]
As you pointed out, the 3 women on that cover have those asses just sticking right out (thanks to photoshop) waiting for the you know what from all those huge you know whats!
funny shit
looking at my coffee cup right now and asking advice on what stock to buy. The coffee cup will have a better chance to actually have something of value for me.
I grew up in an atmosphere of some men always putting the girls and women down and reminding us that we are really good for one thing. then the heh heh hehs, and if a woman was in a professional field well that only meant she was a whore, heh heh heh, you know the world's oldest profession. Etc., etc., always the message that they were the Great Gods and we were the Nothings.
Surrounded by that, plus throw in the Catholic church and their great ideas for and about women, and you get the picture.
So these guys here are little pathetic pikers compared and I visually imagine them in most interesting ways when they talk stupid shit. 
and in the business world, in the position of leadership that ensured there would not be a hostile work environment for women.
thank you for your post. always fun, lol... anymore. 
http://m.livescience.com/37943-great-ape-genomes-sequenced.html
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes
Offense is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Me: if women wanted to see men's asses as much as men like to see women's asses, there would be magazines showing men's asses in the same proportion.
Josh: it is only because of media manipulation that men are so attracted to women's asses.
me: so how do you explain fetishizing of women's asses throughout history? You see apes and other primates have evolved for men to visually be excited by asses. Take estrus as an example.
Hell, just look at the fetishizes nature of ancient mother goddess statues.
---this hilariously spawned several response threads by Seabeyond as well as BostonBean. One was the overly dramatic straw man thread "were ancient goddess figurines pornography!?" and the other was the equally straw-filled "Hey ladies, he said we were monkeys" (aka "he's so sexist/racist!"
monkey love.
Sorry I'll go sit in the corner now. 
And bonobos do all this…a lot. Among the chimpanzees, sex occurred exclusively during estrus, that is, when female hormones signaled to the male that it was time. The male chimp sometimes fingers a female, sniffs his finger to determine if the timing is right, and if the hormonal signal is positive, then rutting commences. Otherwise the male is not at all interested. Bonobos, on the other hand, have moved way past those hormones. They would “copulate during all phases of the female’s menstrual cycle”—a human tendency as well, and one rendered crisply in the literature as “continuous receptivity.”
In the zoo where chimpanzees were caged next to bonobos, Savage-Rumbaugh observed, the male bonobo would come on to the female chimpanzees all the time. And the female chimps “responded to his soliciting gestures during all phases of their cycles by pressing their genitals close to the wire.” Since there was frequent homosexual as well as heterosexual “bouts,” a great deal of the chatter that took place among the bonobos involved deciding on a position: “Copulatory positioning among Pan paniscus is marked by considerable variability,” and a variety of signals and postures served “to communicate desired copulatory positions of each participant.”
The sheer variety of bonobo sex puts the Kamasutra to shame and Savage-Rumbaugh is at her wit’s end trying to taxonomically describe the numerous positions of standing, sitting, prone, upright. Coming up with distinctions can be fatiguing when, for instance, one of the favored bonobo positions can only be described this way: the “male would at times thrust briefly during a ventro-dorsal prone bout then, while maintaining intromission, begin to walk, pushing against the female with his pelvis and moving her across the ground as she lay on her back, sometimes turning her in a complete circle before pausing to resume thrusting.” What to call that one?
Frankly, if I were a bonobo, I'd be a little pissed at the comparison to such a repressed and frustrated species as humans. Bonobos need to lodge a complaint about that one!
My first response contained three words and a link proving your statement false, which you ignored to double down on your first statement. I provided more links, you're still saying the same thing. You wanted to talk context; in context you're still wrong. You wanted proof, I gave it. I asked for a link, you refused. The one doing the ignoring is you. I did promise you I would attempt to be more civil in my discussions with you, which I did, but the half-life on my patience is very short, especially first thing in the morning when I haven't had my coffee yet (I also, when I made that promise, did not expect something as utterly silly as "humans aren't apes" . I'm pretty sure even you know how ridiculous this is, and are just arguing for the sake of it now. I'm going to bow out, popcorn up and leave you to it.
And yes, it does make you look like an anti-evolution nut. I strongly recommend a self delete.
but ok, you win.
They don't even need an SI issue to display their bodies.
You don't want to discuss issues and such.
I have had your number for a while. Well played with the short replies and cozying up to some. Don't worry, they won't see what you are up to because you toss them a bone here and there.
Tell me, what posts have you made, as OPs, on DU about these issues? Or any other issues?
You play the game well.
Some folks don't discuss - they just complain because they have no argument.
And you wonder why folks on a progressive board have issues with the so called 'feminists' here?
But then, you both don't actually discuss issues do you? You just accuse and rant.
Maybe because you know you won't win an argument
Unless one doesn't believe in evolution and the continuity of species I would expect to see some similarities ss well as differences.
above and beyond those seen within species and as a result we do different things even as we do similar things at some level. So much of what we do differently is based on language and grammar (not mere simple communication).
In fact to say that humans are apes is to say, by definition, that we are different in some ways from other apes.
I learned we're classified as apes in sophomore biology.
The only ones I've ever heard argue against this are the religious folks who literally believe the earth is 5000 years old. Oh and now I can add DU. They believe humans are special (made in God's image) and can't possibly be classified with other animals. 
Delete this embarrassing shit.
there's a big difference with criticism and censorship in my book. What we're doing is criticizing what we see is a problem.
The way I see it, the only one wanting censorship here are the ones that think feminist and POC issues shouldn't be talked about, because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Or as they say "it's flame bait". Why are those issues flame bait when we're on a liberal board? It would make sense that it would be flame bait if we were on an RW board, but not here.
Mark my words, Sea, soon they're going to try to use evo-psych to excuse horrible things in human beings. It won't be pretty.
I'd love to see evo-psych have to go through the scientific process. You know a lot of what they're saying "must be true" is just completely impossible to back up. (Like that silly "girls like pink because it reminds them of BERRIES therefore women were totally gatherers while men hunted."
To be honest, whenever BostonB posted she was not an ape, my mind immediately assumed she MEANT bonobos. So it didn't occur to me that she had to spell it out.
My point is simple: if you want to make an argument, support it with legitimate claims, not anti-science bunk. Posting garbage like you have ("humans are not apes" on a progressive board is insulting to those who have worked hard refuting anti-science claims like this for years. You don't get to sacrifice other causes to support your own. Or at least you shouldn't, not on a progressive, Democratic message board.
If your argument is legitimate, you should be able to support it with other, valid claims. Why don't you do that instead of doubling down on an offensive argument?
Humans belong in the family Hominidae, which literally means "great apes". This family includes the chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and humans.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Hominidae/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/h/hominidae.htm
The anti-science in this thread is making me 
.
We did not descend from the apes, we descended from the same root stock. Therefore the other primates are our evolutionary cousins.
[/center]
Here I was posting threads and trying explain while humans are classified as apes that doesn't anything in this context because it's just a fucking classification- and you nailed it a sentence.
Laughing at your evidence for blue sky. How about "Hey dummy. Look up!"
isn't generally going to be taken too well. That won't take too much convincing for most people
Thank you for that. Really made me laugh.
It's pretty hard to say that one aspect of human behavior is biological while another isn't. So if the desire for--whatever it is the we-are-just-like-bonobos people want--is consistent with biology, then so is resistance to that idea. Our brains generate all our ideas, and they are biological.
Ooh! Ooh! Bunny rabbits on TV!!!! 
Sorry, about that, I was unavoidably distracted for a moment. Everything we do is part of our nature. It is like people who insist being gay is not natural. Well, we are naturally occurring creatures, so being gay must be natural for those with that orientation.
Deep13
You
Me
Your comment without context is
I feel free!
Just no dogs.
Most people on DU aren't evolution deniers. We are mammals. No big controversy there. He was only trying to say that men like to look at women? Uh, another big duh! And no, that wasn't his only point. Why was he bringing up bonobos? It wasn't just because they're his namesake. Men can't control it because of evolution is an evolutionary psychology argument.
"The reason I find this argument sort of silly, as a female, is because there are many threads here that I don't participate on b/c I either disagree or am not informed enough or am not interested in a topic. I don't take that thread to mean that anyone is trying to dominate me. Yet multiple women here have decided that anything posted by certain people is meant to be an attack on them. You all keep the board lively, that's for sure. "
THen why are you participating in this one?
I just found that comment rather gratuitous. If you're going to get down in the mud with us, well, here you are, pirmatology expert. Can't be all high and mighty now.
"If you think he was saying "men can't control it" (whatever it is) you are adding meaning to the idea that something doesn't have to be controlled when it's not a socially negative behavior. Some women on this board think such things as an SI cover are socially negative behavior when posted here." I'm taking him at face value when he compares women to bonobos, complete with a picture of swollen genitals. YMMV of course, primatology expert, and I'm sure that expertise might color how you view that. But surely you can see how some might not take that positively.
My take on the SI cover is it's just trolling to post in GD, personally. There is a time and a place for that. Would people walk into their bosses office and slap that down on the desk? Do they still hang pinups on their walls like they did when they were teenagers? Yes, people like to look at pics of attractive people. But things like that do add a certain atmosphere. Again, time and a place.
But really, an internet poll? They probably ignored it because who cares? It's an internet poll. It's a random, meaningless result. It's like saying Hey, let's settle this by flipping a coin! It is in no way whatsoever classic behavior for someone who doesn't have a valid argument. It's the behavior of people who know it's pointless and ignore the request. That's usually what happens.
"I will avoid going into much of how my post is factual, but anyone who has ever had the delight of dealing with some of what passes for discussion here could post numerous incidents where certain people have used a particular forum to organize against those whose posts they don't like. Call them out. Discuss them. Kind of reminds me of the grooming other primates do for one another. Pick their nits, etc. "
Oh, gee, I have no idea what forum you're talking about. But let me guess. I bet members of no other forum does this. Only they do, right? Everyone else on DU is just perfectly well behaved. Except for them. And DU polls are accurate, too, and that just shows what malcontents they are for refusing such a request
I thought you meant this thread... but I didn't look to see the number of comments, etc.
I think a direct poll, really, would be much better than assumptions based on comments, etc. in other threads. A lot of people hide threads after a while if they're flamefest-y. I do, and I'm not simply talking about this subject when I say that - I'm not saying it for that purpose.
Thanks for the polite back and forth. This is what I miss, too often, when trying to discuss such issues. Take care.
Poor Cornelius hasn't made an appearance yet in this classic... DU, I am disappoint...
As to the semantic circle-jerk up and down this thread, it shows the mentality you're referring to... reveling in sub-human identification as if that justifies some sort of license to be crude, or worse.
We make up a definition that humans are apes, and then insist that it's a fact. Ok, what-the-fuck-ever. Tell you what, when the other apes that we're related to develop their own space program and produce a writer on a level with Shakespeare, then it might have some relevance. Until then humans and apes are more different than alike, which is pretty much self-evident.
And I love how people always intentionally forget that at one time "science" insisted that the world was flat... which is to say that science is only "right" until the next discovery, which usually tends to prove that the previously believed science was wrong. There's still some science left to figure out today, so there's no need to act so absolute about it -- that in itself is stupid and unscientific imo.
Speaking of science, I've come up with a new hypothesis, that people become what they constantly look at. That is why those who constantly look at asses become an ass. I think it has possibilities.
and unintentional hilarity.
I miss Meta. 
Okay, I gave up on reading this thread once I got to the back and forth about words that should be forbidden from ever being uttered at DU in any context, so I'm possibly missing seeing stuff that would explain it.
If someone compared you personally to an ape and said yr sex life was the same, that's unacceptable. I'm gathering from what I've read this has something to do with a post in another thread that for all I know may have said something completely different. So without a link, I've got no idea what's going on
It seems pretty clear to me that, in fact, we are apes, and, frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. To be certain, it's better than being a jellyfish, or a rock, or a tree.
Am I missing something here?
-Laelth
