Yeah. In general, going for "I win" regardless of method isn't conductive to having a good debate. Ideally you should try to see what the other side is trying to say and argue against that, rather than latch on to every semantic slip, poorly worded argument and, ultimately, opportunity for ad hom. Easier said than done, I know, and sometimes the folks at D&D are awesome at this and sometimes really not. I've been lurking here for a long time before I became more active though, and it seems to me the quality of discussion keeps getting way better.
edit: and I realize I just sounded sickeningly holier-than-thou. Ew. But still.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I dunno if this has been brought up yet. But has anyone considered perhaps that maybe men evolved this way to help them pass on their DNA? You probably are more likely to have sex if that's the only thing on your mind and you tunnel vision on it. Persistence and all.
It doesn't make sense to me why women would evolve to take advantage of this... or whatever.
I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts, anyone understand what I'm getting at?
I dunno if this has been brought up yet. But has anyone considered perhaps that maybe men evolved this way to help them pass on their DNA? You probably are more likely to have sex if that's the only thing on your mind and you tunnel vision on it. Persistence and all.
It doesn't make sense to me why women would evolve to take advantage of this... or whatever.
I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts, anyone understand what I'm getting at?
Basically the idea that men become time-impatient at the notion that they have the opportunity to have sex?
This would really be hardly surprising. Though it's also not really what the study shows - it actually shows that sex along with other drives makes people time impatient if satiation is dangled in front of them but not given.
I think the real problem I'm having is the lack of an attempt to find the same phenomenon in women - but again, it's a marketing study, no one wants to prove anything too grand in doing that (alternatively, it's just easier to write a paper with a positive result).
So, there IS a statue of limitations for saying ridiculously inappropriate and insensitive things?
As someone who dislikes ege for a myriad of things even I can do better than that. Saying something stupid a year or two ago doesn't invalidate his current views.
So, there IS a statue of limitations for saying ridiculously inappropriate and insensitive things?
As someone who dislikes ege for a myriad of things even I can do better than that. Saying something stupid a year or two ago doesn't invalidate his current views.
Well I am in no way qualified to interpret this study. It's interesting to note though that in the study they point out that you get basically the same effects with many other types of stimulus anyway. The reason it doesn't work in women predictably explained by the fact that women are generally known not to respond to visual sexual stimulus (swap it with something more general - like the smell of chocolate for example, and you get the same effect).
It's actually reasonably written as far as I can tell, so in fact my ad hom once again proves itself pretty worthless
Actually there was a study a while back that revealed that women and men are equally aroused by exposed skin. Like, they get the same amount of pleasure from looking at half-naked men, as men do from looking at women in bikinis.
I don't remember where I saw the study though.
omg really?! How bizaaaaaare! Its almost like women are the same species as men!
So, there IS a statue of limitations for saying ridiculously inappropriate and insensitive things?
As someone who dislikes ege for a myriad of things even I can do better than that. Saying something stupid a year or two ago doesn't invalidate his current views.
Aw come on, you know you love me.
It doesn't help that there is a user with that whole rape-doesn't-hurt exchange in his signature, beautifully animated, even. That's where I first saw it. It inspired me to search for it, so that I may better immerse myself in the hilarity. I didn't find it though.
God: Adam, I have good news and bad news for you.
Adam: Well, tell me the good news first.
God: I gave you a brain and a penis.
Adam: Thats great! What is the bad news??
God: I only gave you enough blood to use one of them at a time.
This is actually pretty interesting. Turns out there is a scientific basis for one of the most common stereotypes in modern culture. People often joke about how that beer commercial with hot women in it won't make anyone buy that beer, or having semi-naked women in bikinis to showcase that new concept car won't sell it. But turns out it helps... a lot. Perhaps you should wear a bikini before arguing with your boyfriend? Hmmm....
In fact, studies have shown that sexy ads don’t really make men remember the product. We’re so lasered in on the sexy stuff, we don’t care what brand of beer it is, or how long it takes the car to go from zero to 60.
So no Ege, I don't think that wearing a bikini in order to obtain attention for any nonsex purpose would be a good idea
I only skimmed so I'm not sure if this was covered, but "sexual manipulation" is widely used in bonobos (close ancestors of chimps). Both sexes do it, to opposite and same sex partners.
There was also a recent study, reported in the NYT, that female chimps call out when they want to attract males for sex, but they're actually subtly manipulating their sexual partners by spreading out their calling times beyond their actual period of fertility. The reason for this is that male chimps will often kill their mating partner's existing children if the kids aren't there's, so by spreading out the mating call the females make the males less certain as to whether or not they are the fathers.
So: lay off of ege. There is precedent for evolved primate behaviors based around taking advantage of sexual impulses.
I didn't read many posts other than the OP but these "tests" seem ridiculous to me.
How can you say aroused men would rather get instant gratification rather than more payout over time? I think it's more of a personality issue than male/female/arousal. How may of the people that win the lottery actually take the payout? I'd say less than 10% EASY. I think our nature today is to get it and get it now. Not just because I saw some nipples through a bikini, but because I'd rather have my dollar now so I can use it. It just seems like a dumb test to me.
As for the second part it's a stupid loaded test. If you really want to check how aroused men answer questions when they are aroused then don't ask them questions about sex. Of course almost anyone will answer yes to most of those questions. If you really want to see how they think get them aroused and ask them about helping a homeless guy get some food or changing the tire on an old ladies car for her. "Hey I can see you want to have sex, so would you do it right now if you could with a man and a woman in a threesome?" "Der.... yeah!"
Just seems stupid to me. And who really cares what a man thinks when he's aroused. I'll tell you right now what he thinks. He needs to get some or otherwise "relieve" himself however he can. Rocket science this ain't.
I only skimmed so I'm not sure if this was covered, but "sexual manipulation" is widely used in bonobos (close ancestors of chimps). Both sexes do it, to opposite and same sex partners.
There was also a recent study, reported in the NYT, that female chimps call out when they want to attract males for sex, but they're actually subtly manipulating their sexual partners by spreading out their calling times beyond their actual period of fertility. The reason for this is that male chimps will often kill their mating partner's existing children if the kids aren't there's, so by spreading out the mating call the females make the males less certain as to whether or not they are the fathers.
So: lay off of ege. There is precedent for evolved primate behaviors based around taking advantage of sexual impulses.
I think we need some kind of a definition for what sexual manipulation is, for the purposes of this thread, because what you describe doesn't sound at all like what I thought Ege meant.
I only skimmed so I'm not sure if this was covered, but "sexual manipulation" is widely used in bonobos (close ancestors of chimps). Both sexes do it, to opposite and same sex partners.
There was also a recent study, reported in the NYT, that female chimps call out when they want to attract males for sex, but they're actually subtly manipulating their sexual partners by spreading out their calling times beyond their actual period of fertility. The reason for this is that male chimps will often kill their mating partner's existing children if the kids aren't there's, so by spreading out the mating call the females make the males less certain as to whether or not they are the fathers.
So: lay off of ege. There is precedent for evolved primate behaviors based around taking advantage of sexual impulses.
The problem isn't that we don't think sexual manipulation doesn't exist. The problem is that this study does fuck all to prove it. They never put in a non sex related control nor even seemed to consider whether or not other enjoyable activities would have the same effect.
Btw ege, it is appropriate to read the study you are citing, because rest assured I will:
It is appropriate to acknowledge the limitations of the present study. First, our samples
were composed of young male students, which poses problems for generalization across
populations. Indeed, prior research with female participants failed to find similar effects (Wilson
and Daly 2004).
I can't be fucked finding that reference too though, I need to get back to study. You do it ege.
In any case, the study discusses the mood factor: previous studies showed no effect of mood. Again, the references are in there. I was planning to have a look at them myself but again, back to study.
Most of the objections I had were discussed as limitations of the study.
My only real problem is they had no group experiencing non sexual picture that were still known to produce happy mood. They just did a covariate adjustment for the affects of mood. Pretty lazy.
The conclusions he makes, and the conclusions the reporter makes are like two different worlds. The reporter is a newsflash happy idiot. Other than a couple of logic leaps here and there, the actual experimenter at least tried to account for factors, even if I disagree with how he did it. So he's not that bad.
Might is a very different word from "does". Might does NOT imply causation.
In the end though, Ege read the bloody studies you cite you twit. I found this on google in about five seconds.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Well I am in no way qualified to interpret this study. It's interesting to note though that in the study they point out that you get basically the same effects with many other types of stimulus anyway. The reason it doesn't work in women predictably explained by the fact that women are generally known not to respond to visual sexual stimulus (swap it with something more general - like the smell of chocolate for example, and you get the same effect).
It's actually reasonably written as far as I can tell, so in fact my ad hom once again proves itself pretty worthless
Actually there was a study a while back that revealed that women and men are equally aroused by exposed skin. Like, they get the same amount of pleasure from looking at half-naked men, as men do from looking at women in bikinis.
I don't remember where I saw the study though.
omg really?! How bizaaaaaare! Its almost like women are the same species as men!
I don't know what you're implying with that, because there are many, many studies that show a great amount of difference in how men and women react to certain stimuli and behave in certain situations.
God: Adam, I have good news and bad news for you.
Adam: Well, tell me the good news first.
God: I gave you a brain and a penis.
Adam: Thats great! What is the bad news??
God: I only gave you enough blood to use one of them at a time.
=END OF THREAD=
Look, is the blood thing even true? I keep hearing it everywhere spoken as if it is fact. I thought it was just an expression. Does the human body really hold so little blood that arousal will make you lightheaded? My penis is not big enough to do that.
God: Adam, I have good news and bad news for you.
Adam: Well, tell me the good news first.
God: I gave you a brain and a penis.
Adam: Thats great! What is the bad news??
God: I only gave you enough blood to use one of them at a time.
=END OF THREAD=
Look, is the blood thing even true? I keep hearing it everywhere spoken as if it is fact. I thought it was just an expression. Does the human body really hold so little blood that arousal will make you lightheaded? My penis is not big enough to do that.
Oh my god, is it just me?
I don't know some guy earlier talked about some chick smiled at him and he passed out like some lame anime boy so maybe it's true.
Well I am in no way qualified to interpret this study. It's interesting to note though that in the study they point out that you get basically the same effects with many other types of stimulus anyway. The reason it doesn't work in women predictably explained by the fact that women are generally known not to respond to visual sexual stimulus (swap it with something more general - like the smell of chocolate for example, and you get the same effect).
It's actually reasonably written as far as I can tell, so in fact my ad hom once again proves itself pretty worthless
Actually there was a study a while back that revealed that women and men are equally aroused by exposed skin. Like, they get the same amount of pleasure from looking at half-naked men, as men do from looking at women in bikinis.
I don't remember where I saw the study though.
omg really?! How bizaaaaaare! Its almost like women are the same species as men!
I don't know what you're implying with that, because there are many, many studies that show a great amount of difference in how men and women react to certain stimuli and behave in certain situations.
No, you're yet again posting as if you're amazed that women don't need to be bribed with emotional stroking or shiny things to enjoy men. I don't know why you do this. Its bewildering.
Posts
edit: and I realize I just sounded sickeningly holier-than-thou. Ew. But still.
You should stop looking at boobs while posting.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Ninjas!
It doesn't make sense to me why women would evolve to take advantage of this... or whatever.
I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts, anyone understand what I'm getting at?
This would really be hardly surprising. Though it's also not really what the study shows - it actually shows that sex along with other drives makes people time impatient if satiation is dangled in front of them but not given.
I think the real problem I'm having is the lack of an attempt to find the same phenomenon in women - but again, it's a marketing study, no one wants to prove anything too grand in doing that (alternatively, it's just easier to write a paper with a positive result).
If you like that, try reading The Tale of Kamar al Zaman in 1001 Nights. She dresses up as her husband and rules a sultanate for years.
Aw come on, you know you love me.
omg really?! How bizaaaaaare! Its almost like women are the same species as men!
It doesn't help that there is a user with that whole rape-doesn't-hurt exchange in his signature, beautifully animated, even. That's where I first saw it. It inspired me to search for it, so that I may better immerse myself in the hilarity. I didn't find it though.
God: Adam, I have good news and bad news for you.
Adam: Well, tell me the good news first.
God: I gave you a brain and a penis.
Adam: Thats great! What is the bad news??
God: I only gave you enough blood to use one of them at a time.
=END OF THREAD=
So no Ege, I don't think that wearing a bikini in order to obtain attention for any nonsex purpose would be a good idea
There was also a recent study, reported in the NYT, that female chimps call out when they want to attract males for sex, but they're actually subtly manipulating their sexual partners by spreading out their calling times beyond their actual period of fertility. The reason for this is that male chimps will often kill their mating partner's existing children if the kids aren't there's, so by spreading out the mating call the females make the males less certain as to whether or not they are the fathers.
So: lay off of ege. There is precedent for evolved primate behaviors based around taking advantage of sexual impulses.
ege just picked a study that doesn't relate to much of anything sexual besides the word "bikini" being in the title.
How can you say aroused men would rather get instant gratification rather than more payout over time? I think it's more of a personality issue than male/female/arousal. How may of the people that win the lottery actually take the payout? I'd say less than 10% EASY. I think our nature today is to get it and get it now. Not just because I saw some nipples through a bikini, but because I'd rather have my dollar now so I can use it. It just seems like a dumb test to me.
As for the second part it's a stupid loaded test. If you really want to check how aroused men answer questions when they are aroused then don't ask them questions about sex. Of course almost anyone will answer yes to most of those questions. If you really want to see how they think get them aroused and ask them about helping a homeless guy get some food or changing the tire on an old ladies car for her. "Hey I can see you want to have sex, so would you do it right now if you could with a man and a woman in a threesome?" "Der.... yeah!"
Just seems stupid to me. And who really cares what a man thinks when he's aroused. I'll tell you right now what he thinks. He needs to get some or otherwise "relieve" himself however he can. Rocket science this ain't.
I think we need some kind of a definition for what sexual manipulation is, for the purposes of this thread, because what you describe doesn't sound at all like what I thought Ege meant.
Cos I can't find the linked study or the reference. Granted it's late at night but I'd like to see the studies methods and procedure.
If the source isn't linked to, this article is analogous to a random post on the internet.
edit: Nevermind I found the title. Just wasn't looking hard enough, I skimmed the intro.
I'll see if I can find it.
Here it is:
http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/eng/tew/academic/mo/pdf_publicaties/marketing/MO_0704.pdf
Having a look at it.
Btw ege, it is appropriate to read the study you are citing, because rest assured I will:
It is appropriate to acknowledge the limitations of the present study. First, our samples
were composed of young male students, which poses problems for generalization across
populations. Indeed, prior research with female participants failed to find similar effects (Wilson
and Daly 2004).
I can't be fucked finding that reference too though, I need to get back to study. You do it ege.
In any case, the study discusses the mood factor: previous studies showed no effect of mood. Again, the references are in there. I was planning to have a look at them myself but again, back to study.
Most of the objections I had were discussed as limitations of the study.
My only real problem is they had no group experiencing non sexual picture that were still known to produce happy mood. They just did a covariate adjustment for the affects of mood. Pretty lazy.
The conclusions he makes, and the conclusions the reporter makes are like two different worlds. The reporter is a newsflash happy idiot. Other than a couple of logic leaps here and there, the actual experimenter at least tried to account for factors, even if I disagree with how he did it. So he's not that bad.
Might is a very different word from "does". Might does NOT imply causation.
In the end though, Ege read the bloody studies you cite you twit. I found this on google in about five seconds.
Regarding women evolving to be manipulative, there answer is no (no evidence here at least) BUT:
women did evolve to be good looking
women did evolve to become intellegent (same as men and arguably intertwined)
maybe the more intelligent ones used their charms more effectively, thus the goodlooking&intelligent genes gain advantage....with SEXY results! :P
And you, my friend, should read the whole thread, because everything you said I have addressed.
Telling you to read the study is something that obviously needs to be repeated anyway.
I don't know what you're implying with that, because there are many, many studies that show a great amount of difference in how men and women react to certain stimuli and behave in certain situations.
Yes, but you need to read the thread before posting.
Ideally.
Ege, read the studies before you post a thread. Can we call a tie and stop now.
Look, is the blood thing even true? I keep hearing it everywhere spoken as if it is fact. I thought it was just an expression. Does the human body really hold so little blood that arousal will make you lightheaded? My penis is not big enough to do that.
Oh my god, is it just me?
Also, some of us were unconscious.
I knew it! She said it wasn't true. She lied.
That's it, the wedding is off.
I don't know some guy earlier talked about some chick smiled at him and he passed out like some lame anime boy so maybe it's true.
Or maybe he's anemic
No, you're yet again posting as if you're amazed that women don't need to be bribed with emotional stroking or shiny things to enjoy men. I don't know why you do this. Its bewildering.