HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Freud, sex, Jeez folx: figger it out
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:42:34 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <BsvoJL.21G@oryx.com> xcpslf@decsrv.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (stephen l favor) writes:

>In article <BsvHpt.4n4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller) writes:
>|> 
>|> recently, I think it is important to note that FREUDIAN ANALYSIS DOES
>|> NOT MEAN "EVERYTHING IS SEX".  Most of what passes for "Freudian"
>|> analysis is more like a sort of crude folk explanation in terms of sex.
>|> A truly Freudian analysis of myth pays more attention to family
>|> dyynamics than it does to sex - witness his work on the primal horde.

>Hat's off to you!  There are few people who have thought about it enough
>to understand this.  There are many good aspects of Freud's work that
>get overlooked by people in search of phallic symbols, but that's
>for another board...

Aye, but it's hard to think that hard all the time.  It's also hard to say
everything you mean in a few pithy lines -- git in all those nuances, folks,
gotta make sher everone unnerstanz yuh.  (Although I personally think that
bit about the primal horde has a helluva lot more to do with Vienna than
primal hordes!)
-- 
Eric Scoles			: <<insert witty, pithy comment 
scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  :    here >>
University of Rochester --------:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:22:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology

|>Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs, because
|>of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused by human breeding.
|
|Actually, I've heard there's more to it than just human breeding.  Humans
|breed cats and cows without that much variation.  There's something
|peculiar about dogs.
----------

	How did we get to cows, cats, dogs, etc.....?   Oh well, I would
like to add that dogs was one of the first animals for man to
domisticate, while cats were one of the last.  For this reason, cats are
still "wild" in comparison to dogs.  I guess the use of cats as a worker
for man is much different than dogs, therefore the intensive breeding is
not there.

	This might account for much more variation with dogs.

	Kirk
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout dog size variation?
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:13:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <72200003@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis) writes:
>|>Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs, because
>|>of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused by human breeding.
>|
>|Actually, I've heard there's more to it than just human breeding.  Humans
>|breed cats and cows without that much variation.  There's something
>|peculiar about dogs.
>----------
>
>	How did we get to cows, cats, dogs, etc.....?   Oh well, I would
>like to add that dogs was one of the first animals for man to
>domisticate, while cats were one of the last.  For this reason, cats are
>still "wild" in comparison to dogs.  I guess the use of cats as a worker
>for man is much different than dogs, therefore the intensive breeding is
>not there.
>
>	This might account for much more variation with dogs.
>

Well, of course, human breeding of animals is a very valid topic for anthro.
The reason that I think dogs vary more than cats has nothing to do with time,
it has to do with human desires. Macho folks want a big dog, with a deep
bark, and one who can frighten/harm an intruder. Badger hunters want a long
narrow dog (ie a dachshund) that can go into badger burrows and run it out.
Not so macho folks want a little dog, oh so cute, and one that they can keep
in a small dwelling. Gambling folks want a fast dog.....

My point is that dogs are used/desired for so many different things, and this
is why there are so many different kinds of dogs. When someone wants a cat,
they just want a pet, and maybe a mouser, so the variation is not as great.

Plus, biology could play a part. Cats are so small already, that miniturizing
them in the way dogs havce been miniturized is not feasible.

-rob
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:24:35 GMT

I wrote:

	In a physical anth class is was pointed out the humans have the
	greatest variation of physical attributes of ANY species.  
	

Rob Dobson writes:

	Is this really true?!?! Sure, humans have more variation than
	most species, but what about dogs? Think of finding the skeleton
	of a chihuaha (sp?!) and the skeleton of a great dane in an
	excavation. Would you think they were the same species?
	
	Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs,
	because of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused
	by human breeding.



Yes, they specifically excluded dogs and other animals with a history
of human intervention in the breeding process.



William
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic,soc.men
From: scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles)
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:00:20 GMT

In <m-6mp0a.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.175500.18443@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles) writes:
>>In <1992Aug13.055120.413@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>
>>>[ ... ]

>Yes. Any other explanation would be manifestly Incorrect.

>Let's see: these children are wrongly identified as girls, and hence
>socialized as females. But at puberty, their hormones click into place,
>and they not only start to look like males, but to act like males, too.
>And this is supposed to show the strength of "cultural factors"!

>Assuming this is correct, what it demonstrates is that cultural factors
>don't have much effect when they stand in the way of biology.

Actually, in original context, what both of these gentlemen were trying to
stress was that _real_ physiological psychologists don't assume the primacy
of biological factors. 8-)

Incidentally, your argument doesn't follow.  If the cause of late
development is assumed to be biological, it could just as well follow (in
the absence of other evidence) that "normal" subsequent development was due
to the strength of the biological factors.  Some of these biospychologists
feel they can go a long way toward explaining sexual orientation and sexual
preference in largely biological terms, but my understanding is that most of
them see a lot of data conflict down that road.


>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>  
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

-- 
Eric Scoles			: <<insert witty, pithy comment 
scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  :    here >>
University of Rochester --------:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:09:35 GMT

> wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith) writes:
>>	men, as well.
>	
>
>
>In a physical anth class is was pointed out the humans have the greatest
>variation of physical attributes of ANY species.  This refers to stature,
>weight, lengths of appendages, head sizes, etc.
>

Is this really true?!?! Sure, humans have more variation than most species,
but what about dogs? Think of finding the skeleton of a chihuaha (sp?!) and
the skeleton of a great dane in an excavation. Would you think they were
the same species?

Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs, because
of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused by human breeding.

-rob


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I HAVE two)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:15:07 GMT

David Rindos (who I respect a lot, btw) says that he thinks that
enlarged breasts are evolutionarily neutral and the result of a founder
effect.  This is a nice idea, but certainly no more proven than my own
intuition that they are not neutral but selected for.

Especially when we see some populations that (apparently) really do have
very different breast sizes.  

David, with your interest in bio-social evolution, I'm surprised you
didn't jump on the bandwagon with this one.  Isn't there a case to be
made that a primarily social kind of selection could have directly
influenced the physical trait here?  Why should we assume that breasts
are evolutionarily neutral?  I wish I had my files here for those refs
from AA in the early 80s about breast-butt convergence.  Oh well.
-- 
--------------------
=
(former rock star turned grad student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:53:24 GMT

>Derek Abbott writes:
>	 
>	 Does anyone know a reference for this?

>And Dick Cleek responds:
>	sure...
>	The National Enquirer if it was in the US
>	I'm not sure what your Aussie equivalent
>	of this moronic rag is.


William R. Smith quotes Hamlet:
>"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreampt of in
>your philosophy."

OK, you think Dick Cleek is wrong.  Perhaps he is.  But could you please use
a REAL argument?  That's an argument that can NOT be used to defend everything.
That Shakespeare quote hurts my logic circuits.

"I don't believe in homeopathy."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in psi."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in alien visitors."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in miracles."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in the Easter Bunny."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in fire-breathing chickens."  -  "There are more things..."
"I don't believe in plaid anteaters the size of hamsters who live at the centre
of the planet Pluto and always whistle the "Baby Elephant Walk"."  -
  "There are more things..."

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: owens@athena.mit.edu (Tom Owens)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:31:14 GMT

In article <16d2fqINN1os@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
|> In article <1992Aug12.160935.28935@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
|> >Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs, because
|> >of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused by human breeding.
|> 
|> Actually, I've heard there's more to it than just human breeding.  Humans
|> breed cats and cows without that much variation.  There's something
|> peculiar about dogs.

Well, I think dogs had more interference because they were used for more purposes.  Cows are very
limited in use -- and therefore in human-bred variation.  Cats are more.  Dogs are the most.

-- 
Tom Owens
MIT Library Systems Office
owens@athena.mit.edu
617-253-1618
fax617-253-8894
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:39:54 GMT

 ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu writes:

	So what's the explanation for the great :-) variation in breast
	size among women?  Some have next to nothing, others a couple
	of huge mellons, neither makes much sense.  Was this just men

MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

	The first thing we need to do is to document that in fact breast
	size is unusually variable, compared say to foot size, nose size,
	tooth size and so on.  To do that we need to measure the size of
	a number of body parts on a sample of women, and then compute some
	reasonable coefficient of variation.  Probably should do this for
	men, as well.
	


In a physical anth class is was pointed out the humans have the greatest
variation of physical attributes of ANY species.  This refers to stature,
weight, lengths of appendages, head sizes, etc.

Jared Diamond in "Discover" magazine a couple of years ago wrote an article
about regional variation in the shape of women's breast.  In some locales
they were conical and in others round.  He brought up the argument of
selection by sexuality.  A society that thinks a trait is attactive will
continue to favor that trait in marriage and mating.

This argument is runs counter to the statement I heard in a cultural
anth class that selection of marriage partners is too important to be
left to the persons getting married.

Yet I wonder if its an accident that the head cheer leader often dates
the captain of the football team.


William Smith
Intel, SSD

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: arkdr@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Dave Rindos)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I HAVE two)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:28:26 GMT

stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller) writes:

>David Rindos (who I respect a lot, btw) says that he thinks that
>enlarged breasts are evolutionarily neutral and the result of a founder
>effect.  This is a nice idea, but certainly no more proven than my own
>intuition that they are not neutral but selected for.
>Especially when we see some populations that (apparently) really do have
>very different breast sizes.  

>David, with your interest in bio-social evolution, I'm surprised you
>didn't jump on the bandwagon with this one.  Isn't there a case to be
>made that a primarily social kind of selection could have directly
>influenced the physical trait here?  Why should we assume that breasts
>are evolutionarily neutral?  I wish I had my files here for those refs
>from AA in the early 80s about breast-butt convergence.  Oh well.

I think you missed the point in my posting -- I *was* holding that the
HOMINID female breast has evolved fatty tissue deposits around it -- the
idea of sexual signaling seems quite reasonable.  Here, it likely ties
to bipedalism and the upright posture, especially in the savannah
envrionment where long-distance signaling might be more important than
in a woodland/jungle environment.  Hence looking for the evolutionary
reason for why humans have enlarged breasts IN RELATIONSHIP TO OUR
SISTER GROUPS (the other big apes) seems perfectly sensible.  However,
and here we get to the important part, to demonstrate that a MEAN
increase in the amount of fatty tissue deposits has an evolutionary
function is NOT to demonstrate that VARIABILITY in existing populations
of humans has the SAME function (that is, that selection IS acting on
this trait at this time).  Here, it strikes me as most reasonable to
assume that humans, like other species, will have variablility in
certain traits that are NOT the result of selection FOR that trait (the
item of male hirsuitness mentioned earlier, add to it hair and eye
colour, cranial shape, and all of the myriad traits which show high
INTRAPOPULATIONAL variability).  These kinds of traits -- and I include
mean breast size in females amoung them -- are best understood in terms
of founder effect, not selection acting WITHIN these populations.

Dave
From: scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Scoles)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:57:44 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Aug13.130230.7650@uwm.edu> dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dick Cleek) writes:

>From article <1992Aug13.055120.413@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, by dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott):
>> I heard a story that there was a tribe discovered (in this century) who's
>> girls grew a penis when they reached puberty.
>> 
>> 
>> Does anyone know a reference for this?

>sure...
>The National Enquirer if it was in the US
>I'm not sure what your Aussie equivalent
>of this moronic rag is.

Yeh it's interesteing how any unusual genetic phenomenon outside of the
First World immediately becomes an attribute of a "tribe".  Maybe soembody
should writie this up for the Weekly World News (more their style than the
Enquirer, I'd think).  

>-- 
>..........   .........................         .......................
>: |_|\/\/ :   Dick Cleek                        dcleek@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
>:.centers.:   Univ.of Wisconsin Centers         dcleek@uwcmail.uwc.edu
-- 
Eric Scoles			: <<insert witty, pithy comment 
scls_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu  :    here >>
University of Rochester --------:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Freud, sex, Jeez folx: figger it out
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:34:40 GMT


As a footnote to the discussion of biblical stuff that's appeared here
recently, I think it is important to note that FREUDIAN ANALYSIS DOES
NOT MEAN "EVERYTHING IS SEX".  Most of what passes for "Freudian"
analysis is more like a sort of crude folk explanation in terms of sex.
A truly Freudian analysis of myth pays more attention to family
dyynamics than it does to sex - witness his work on the primal horde.
Which is a very interesting thing to contemplate while remembering the
importance of dreams and fantasies to psychoanalysis.  At any rate,
Freud never developed a sociology, which is what is screwed about his
whole project.  And what is screwed about most attempts to do a
"Freudian" analysis of myth.

What do I mean by no sociology?  I mean that there's no attempt to
relate a myth to the larger social world.  I mean there's no account of
the social construction of a myth.  There's only a concern for how the
myth, in whatever form it reaches us and without regard to means of
transmission, translation, etc, how the myth reflects the psyche of some
idealized or imagined teller of the myth.  Or the "collective psyche" of
the entire culture that produced it.  I challenge anyone to show me a
collective psyche.


Good to get all that off my chest!  Whew!  I'll see you next week
doctor?  DOctor?  (I'm afraid he doesn't like me.  I want to kill
him...)
-- 
--------------------
=
(former rock star turned grad student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I'll take two)
Summary: Quip
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


 stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller) writes:
>
>I remember reading an article in American Anthropologist a few years ago
>that speculated that large breasts evolved to resemble buttocks.  And
>then the question was, did breasts evolve to resemble buttocks, or
>buttocks evolve to resemble breasts?  Yessiree, fascinating questions
>these physical anthropologists work on...
>
>But the article concluded that large breasts mostly evolved as display
>mechanisms of some type, and that big butts probably did too.


  "Men stare at those parts of the female anatomy which carry the
   subcutaneous fat necessary for childbearing and lactation.
   This is not news."
                            Prof. Ralph Noble, Psychology, RPI
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:39:00 GMT

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
: >I heard a story that there was a tribe discovered (in this century) who's
: >girls grew a penis when they reached puberty.
: > 
: >Does anyone know a reference for this?
: 
: Well, "grow a penis" is an anagram for Spiro Agnew.  Does that help?
: 
: Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
: Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
: University of Arizona
: Tucson, AZ 85721

Most excellent!!  And some people think that you don't learn anything
practical in philosophy classes.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  It don't mean a THING
Rosemount Inc.                                |if you ain't got that
                                              |SWING!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:719 sci.skeptic:14260
From: wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:32:43 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

Derek Abbott writes:
	 
	 Does anyone know a reference for this?

And Dick Cleek responds:

	sure...
	The National Enquirer if it was in the US
	I'm not sure what your Aussie equivalent
	of this moronic rag is.



"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreampt of in
your philosophy."




William Smith
Intel, SSD
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I'll take two)
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:56:30 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <169vl0INNire@agate.berkeley.edu>
ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>So what's the explanation for the great :-) variation in breast
>size among women?  Some have next to nothing, others a couple
>of huge mellons, neither makes much sense.  Was this just men
>favoring large breasts and so mating with women who had them,
>or is their an environmental angle. . ?

Well I can't answer all these questions but I would say that as the
years go by, this environmental angle you refer to increases.
I assume by environmental angle you mean the angle between the
centerline of breast and the horizontal.  So, with age, this angle
approaches 90 degrees.  This action is of course mediated by the
actual breast mass, with larger masses having an accelerated
rate of angular change.  All of which was clarified in the great
Twiggy-Morganna debates of the 70's.  I hope this helps.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I HAVE two)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:59:32 GMT

I DID misunderstand David Rindos' argument about breast size - that
enlarged breasts are selected for but that in specific populations they
most likely are not.

Hey physical anthropologists - with all the measurements you folks have,
what about racial comparisons of breast sizes?
-- 
--------------------
=
(former rock star turned grad student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:711 alt.mythology:1638