Re: violence...

Bryan Moss (
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 20:15:45 +0100

Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

> > Perhaps increased violence is directly related to better health care.
> > Just as promiscious sex was (no doubt) increased by the introduction of
> > contraceptives. However, because you don't (usually) want to get hurt
> > whereas you do (usually) want to get laid, we prefer to watch fictional
> > or consensual acts of violence.
> Actually, IMHO, people got laid a lot more and talked about it less back
> then than now. The whole myth of 'saving' one's self for marriage was
> only expected of daughters of aristocratic families, most other people
> got married with one already in the oven.

I thought saving yourself was just good Christian values, that's what the born-again-ers seem to think. I'm not sure about people being more promiscuous then (pre-contraception) than now since I have no evidence either way but I very much doubt it.

> The increased violence is a backlash against the way in which the
> societal drift toward a matriarchal society manifests itself as a
> fascism of politial correctness toward mens traditional recreational
> activities.

When my mother took away my BB gun I sure felt like hurting someone.

> From my experience it has little to do with being hungry. Its a matter
> of working the brain in its natural environment, giving it a complex
> problem of tracking and stalking another creature that has been evolved
> to avoid your best efforts. Making the kill at that point may or may not
> be necessary.

Well, the eyes are sensitive to green so all that foliage could have some sort of effect, the diversity of smells, sounds, etc, might do something for us. The problem of tracking the animal might be rewarding. Beyond the hunters own interpretation of what he or she is doing can you suggest why hunting is a unique relief that can't be gained any other way? Wouldn't cross country running without a map be equivalent?