This is why amateurs should not try to practice psychology. He has absolutely no statistical data supporting his theory, only personal observations, which he makes no attempt at hiding. He is assuming his world view concerning male and female attitudes in humans is the only viable one. I see much cynacism behind his theory. Here are factors he discounts:
1) There ARE people who have friends they find attractive but do not have sex with.
2) Religious and personal moral codes are completely discounted in his arguments (religion was mentioned briefly)
3) He confuses instinctual urges with intention to act on them.
The interaction between males and females is much more complex in human society than he gives credit for. He has never ONCE considered this possibility: That a person is not even put on a ladder at all. Every human - male and female - that I've spoken to has friends they are not out to have sex with that they do not consider unattractive if asked about them. Does it mean that they haven't necessarily thought about it? No, but there are other factors in life that lead people to be friends and nothing more than friends. Attraction and desire are rooted in instinct, true, but the one thing he leaves out completely from this is love. It is not mentioned once in his theory, and leaves a glaring, gaping hole in it. The ONLY thing he is concerned with is sex, which tells me that he is a complete cynic on the subject. He does not believe in love, he views it only as a pseudo-mechanism to bed someone. How pathetic. Love is a very real thing, and it exists far beyond the purpose he would relegate it to. If you want proof of this then just research instances where a friend lays down their life to spare someone else. Altruistic behavior does not factor into his "theory", if you can call such an abomination thus. It also does not explain why people can maintain fidelity in long-term relationships where some long timespan of separation is concerned, such as those in the military. I'm sure in his mind that every military wife or husband is cheating. Let's not forget he hasn't brought children up once either, which is a VERY important thing if you ask anyone, and kind of has a lot to do with sex, seeing as that you can't have children without it.
Perhaps there are a great many humans who treat the other gender the way he proposes, perhaps this is what he's observed from his station in life, I do not know. I would say that from my perch it looks as though he is in the gutter, and thinks everyone else is there too in order to justify his own worldview. This is a classic case of associative translation - he is applying the filter of his life experience to the rest of the world and assuming that everything outside of his little box must be just like what's in it. Objectivity is clearly lacking in his observations. As much as I dislike the gutter mentality of a great portion of human society, I must be fair in that I have seen dedication and commitment between humans that his theory does not account for at all. How else can you explain marriages that have lasted upward of 50 years, where there has been no cheating, where neither individual is rich or powerful? You cannot, save for possibility that these two love each other, and make each other happy, and that is their primary objective - not sex. I've heard it explained that love is cake, and sex is the icing in a successful relationship. It is a matter of prioritization. I suppose you could say he makes the mistake of assuming that sex is at the top of everyone's "ladder" of the things they find important in life. For many maybe it is, but I doubt it would be true for everyone, and certainly not 100% of the time.
|
