Thoughts on the origins of violence
March 2, 2003 10:42 PM   Subscribe

Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. If this 1975 article from the The Bulletin of The Atomic Sciences were written today, the "Body Pleasure" bit would have probably been left out. But that doesn't mean this article isn't worth the time to read. Also see this cite of James W. Prescott's work in Carl Sagan's bestselling book and PBS series in chapter 13: Who Speaks for Earth?
posted by crasspastor (12 comments total)

 
Err. That should be The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists
posted by crasspastor at 10:46 PM on March 2, 2003


You're probably right, and I think it's a theory, un-PC as it may be, that's worth investigating... the quoted stats are scary and sad.

[this is good]
posted by kevspace at 10:48 PM on March 2, 2003


Great post, crasspastor. This will take some time to digest. Thanks!
posted by homunculus at 11:06 PM on March 2, 2003


Steele noted that almost without exception the women who abused their children had never experienced orgasm.

Wow. That would be quite a correllation, but I'm skeptical about the causation. It seems to me (generalizing horribly) that women who abuse their children are likely to abuse or be abused by their domestic or sexual partners. The abuse between adults seems more likely to directly relate to a poor sex life, and my PC brain is muttering that bad sex lives are the results of abusive (inconsiderate, controlling) relationships, rather than the cause thereof.
posted by hippugeek at 11:11 PM on March 2, 2003


So how come the "posted by crosspastor" bit looks different to those on all the other front page posts? Just curious..
posted by kev23f at 11:48 PM on March 2, 2003


CP foobed the HTML. there's an extra quote in the href tag for the link that's supposed to be after the words "chapter 13." Preview was created for a reason, peeps. ;)

Great link, though.
posted by SpecialK at 12:01 AM on March 3, 2003


Thanks SpecialK. It's not to be missed. Click here!

And kev23f, do you care to explicate? I don't understand.
posted by crasspastor at 2:27 AM on March 3, 2003


i shall explicate - i was just wondering why the whole "posted by" piece wasn't on a separate line. And the words "posted by" actually point to a link, as opposed to just being blank. I think specialk explained it above, but it makes no sense to me, but i'm technically ignorant anyway so no surprises there. Sorry, shouldn't have brought it up and derailed the thread.
posted by kev23f at 4:03 AM on March 3, 2003


and the reason for this is given by SpecialK. capice?
posted by quonsar at 4:25 AM on March 3, 2003


Wow. Good stuff.
posted by eas98 at 7:09 AM on March 3, 2003


hippugeek, the article contends the damage is done in early development so by the time in a sexual relationship it is hardwired abuse built in it goes a long way explaining why some people fall for the wrong people over and over and never seem to learn, problem is internal.
posted by stbalbach at 8:02 AM on March 3, 2003


Thanks, stbalbach. I seem to have taken one bit of information in through each eye, and somehow they didn't meet up in the middle.
posted by hippugeek at 5:24 PM on March 3, 2003


« Older The Amazon.com Of Spirits...  |  Your passport to ecstacy, Luxu... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments