Options

Political Correctness and the Demonology of Modern Prejudice

1246713

Posts

  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    ...Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    I am a 22 year old male. Sexual frustration is a large part of my psychological being, my state of mind or whatever. Sometimes to the point where it dictates my actions (in minor ways). I don't feel this makes me a "genital-driven idiot", and I'm pretty sure it's common among males my age. That said most girls I have been with, when pressured, have admitted to being with more partners than I have.

    The point is, if there is a gap in sexual activity It's important we are aware of this, because it obviously creates problems (like prostitution, if we agree this is a problem).
    ege02 wrote:
    Look, the thing is, we are what we are today because of natural and sexual selection. If men today are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women, that means men with such genes were, at some point in our evolutionary history, at an advantage, either against environmental conditions or in mating. There simply is no other plausible explanation.

    When did we start to ignore cultural influences as plausible explanations for human behavior? It's obvious that genes have a large impact but I don't think anyone is saying we can ignore culture completely.

    Yann on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    What are you talking about? The mean has to be the same. Every unique heterosexual encounter involves one male partner and one female partner.

    If you posit that the female median is lower, then that must mean that there exists a section of the female population for which the mean is accordingly higher, which is to say that for every virgin there must be a slut taking up the slack.*

    Thus the statement that Men Have More Sex Than Women is clearly incorrect in at least one highly important way, and any extent to which it is true can easily be the result of social conditioning.

    *
    If you know what I mean.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Nurture: 1
    Nature: 0

    Eh?

    Prostitution I currently don't see a problem with at all. In a more perfect society, in my opinion, prostitution would be legal, safe and socially acceptable, or at least as acceptable as one night stands, etc. For both sexes, as well.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    If you look back through pretty much all of recorded history, you will pretty much see patriarchal society constantly trying to suppress and demonize female sexuality. But, you will also always see works that are subtly saying that this suppression is bullshit, and women have sex drives that put men's to shame.

    Hell, off of a piece of renaissance writing I have randomly lying about on my desk, Gargantua and Pantagruel, The third book, chapter 32, Rondibilis on cuckoldry as a natural appendage of wedlock.

    "My friend," Rondibilis went on, "the nature of woman partakes of the moon's in divers ways. Like the moon, she hides, sulks, restrains herself and dissimulates in her husband's presence. But no sooner is her out of the way than forthwith she takes every advantage, gives herself up to pleasure, wander here, rolls about there, lays aside her hypocrisies and shows herself in her true colors."

    Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I just remember an old, old saying,

    "One rooster* can sate 10 hens, but ten men aren't enough to satisfy one woman."

    I don't know the origin.

    *I think the actual phrase used the term "cock," but I wanted to avoid the confusion and giggles.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Women were originally the "sexual" ones, ege.

    Hell, there are biblical rules pertaining to how often you need to sex up your wife depending on your job, lest she become unsatisfied with the infrequent loving and have reason for complaint.

    This usually seems to have been borne out of the physical facts of the matter: i.e., that women can simply have sex for longer than men can.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Not only longer, but more frequently and later into their life.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    while I hate to agree with ege in this topic the fact that women benefit from the current education system should be shown by the fact that women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc but then that doesn't actually pay off, it's just a dickish thing to do.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc

    please cite your source

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    .....Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    This is really the big one though, isn't it. We are basically saying, through most of history, in all major cultures, there has been this huge social force suppressing female sexuality. What could possibly be the reason for this? What motive are we backing that statement with? I mean it doesn't seem to fit in with the "male ideal" of sexual promiscuity, rather the opposite.

    Yann on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc

    please cite your source

    That girls get better grades at school? That's like a universally known fact.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yann wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    .....Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    This is really the big one though, isn't it. We are basically saying, through most of history, in all major cultures, there has been this huge social force suppressing female sexuality. What could possibly be the reason for this? What motive are we backing that statement with? I mean it doesn't seem to fit in with the "male ideal" of sexual promiscuity, rather the opposite.

    Males have suppressed female sexuality for many reasons. They want to ensure that their children are their children for the purpose of lineage. If a woman has multiple partners, it is obvious who the mother is but it is not obvious who the father is.

    The sexual suppression is also a means of control. If they are off having sex, they aren't doing the dishes and minding the house and the kids of whatever.

    Additionally, no man wants to be made a cuckold. So, as long as the woman has sex with only the husband and no one else, then they are in the clear.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc

    please cite your source

    I wonder if it's only true over here. Oh well here is one link

    And this is "the" source, it's a source, but I've never heard anything to the contrary.(basically what Æthelred said)

    Here is another study of why more females than males apply for college

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Who the hell wants to be a cuckold?

    I could maybe see it working out for you if you were unfaithful yourself...

    "Well I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't done it yourself!"

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Nurture: 1
    Nature: 0

    Eh?

    Prostitution I currently don't see a problem with at all. In a more perfect society, in my opinion, prostitution would be legal, safe and socially acceptable, or at least as acceptable as one night stands, etc. For both sexes, as well.

    In Gilgamesh, prostitutes commanded respect.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc

    please cite your source

    That girls get better grades at school? That's like a universally known fact.

    Yeah, this would also be due to male and female gender stereotypes.

    Men are supposed to be loud, in charge, and strong. Class clowns are supposed to be guys. It's 'cool' for guys to be apathetic, etc.

    Women are supposed to be polite, quiet and studious. They are supposed to be respectful to the teacher. They are supposed to care, etc.

    Hmm, which one sounds more conducive to being a good student.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Yann wrote: »
    ege02 wrote:
    Look, the thing is, we are what we are today because of natural and sexual selection. If men today are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women, that means men with such genes were, at some point in our evolutionary history, at an advantage, either against environmental conditions or in mating. There simply is no other plausible explanation.

    When did we start to ignore cultural influences as plausible explanations for human behavior? It's obvious that genes have a large impact but I don't think anyone is saying we can ignore culture completely.

    When it comes to sexual matters, culture happens to be fairly uniform. Nowhere on Earth are old, wrinkled women perceived as more attractive than 20-year old women. No normal person considers extreme obesity attractive (lol windbit). There are traits that are considered universally attractive across all cultures: intelligence, good looks, health, confidence in males. Women all over the world generally prefer intelligent men over stupid men, healthy men over men who get sick often, etc.

    There have been some variations in human history in some cultures, I know that, but generally speaking cultural influences on mate selection have stayed within reasonable range of biological and evolutionary reasons for mate selection.
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    What are you talking about? The mean has to be the same. Every unique heterosexual encounter involves one male partner and one female partner.

    Yes, but the investments put in by either gender are nowhere near the same. It takes 2 minutes for a man to impregnate a woman, and then he can forget about her. She, on the other hand, is stuck with a baby for nine months at the very least. (this is ignoring modern birth control, because modern birth control has not existed long enough and is not wide-spread enough to affect evolution).

    Considering this, it quite asinine to suggest that women seek as many partners as men. They may want sex as often, or more, but the average number of partners is certainly less.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    women typically have better grades. And it's true that boys typically takes more of the teachers time by being noisier etc

    please cite your source

    That girls get better grades at school? That's like a universally known fact.

    Yeah, this would also be due to male and female gender stereotypes.

    Men are supposed to be loud, in charge, and strong. Class clowns are supposed to be guys. It's 'cool' for guys to be apathetic, etc.

    Women are supposed to be polite, quiet and studious. They are supposed to be respectful to the teacher. They are supposed to care, etc.

    Hmm, which one sounds more conducive to being a good student.
    Yes I quite agree, it's a bi product of the gender images but denying that this is infact a POSITIVE bi effect is not honest. Really that is my major beef with most of the feminist movement how it ignores the fact that being male is not in fact peachy and things like a large majority of criminals being males get no or very little attention. Of course it originated and is still for female rights and equity but if we're going for gender equity dealing with male criminality should be pretty damn high on the list.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Ege: You are COMPLETELY ignoring people marrying and producing offspring solely for class based or political reasons. Plus you are pretty retarded when it comes to knowing how many partners a woman may or may not desire.

    fjafjan:

    Yeah, many people fail to realize that patriarchal society has many, many downsides for the men, even though they are in the dominant position in the society.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    .....Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    The attempt by men to control women's sexuality is not to suppress their incredible sex drives or something, but rather to establish monopoly over them so as to ensure their genes will be the ones carried on, and not those of other males. The reason is natural male desire for dominance and ownership.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Yann wrote: »
    ege02 wrote:
    Look, the thing is, we are what we are today because of natural and sexual selection. If men today are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women, that means men with such genes were, at some point in our evolutionary history, at an advantage, either against environmental conditions or in mating. There simply is no other plausible explanation.

    When did we start to ignore cultural influences as plausible explanations for human behavior? It's obvious that genes have a large impact but I don't think anyone is saying we can ignore culture completely.

    When it comes to sexual matters, culture happens to be fairly uniform. Nowhere on Earth are old, wrinkled women perceived as more attractive than 20-year old women. No normal person considers extreme obesity attractive (lol windbit). There are traits that are considered universally attractive across all cultures: intelligence, good looks, health, confidence in males. Women all over the world generally prefer intelligent men over stupid men, healthy men over men who get sick often, etc.
    Except 'good looking' DOES infact vary, i would say typically the 'ideal woman' in ancient cultures tended to be alot shorter and fatter than the current female. As for confidence again a look at fairly recent history should show you wrong, when the 'ideal woman' was a quiet innocent virgin. Health yes, but then often the cultural "markers" tend to go into unhealthy behaviour, like with modern models who are really not very healthy at all.


    Yes, but the investments put in by either gender are nowhere near the same. It takes 2 minutes for a man to impregnate a woman, and then he can forget about her. She, on the other hand, is stuck with a baby for nine months at the very least. (this is ignoring modern birth control, because modern birth control has not existed long enough and is not wide-spread enough to affect evolution).
    Except you forget two things
    1 The females you are referring to are humans, so they're not retarded and can take meassures to reduce the probability of getting pregnant, even without contraceptions.
    2 That females can have sex while pregnant.
    Considering this, it quite asinine to suggest that women seek as many partners as men. They may want sex as often, or more, but the average number of partners is certainly less.
    Right, so we should just throw all that pesky 'evidence' or historical precedent out the window?
    I mean you can make evolution "logically" do more or less whatever, like "humans with more hands should be superior!" but your hypotheticals really aren't contributing much.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    What are you talking about? The mean has to be the same. Every unique heterosexual encounter involves one male partner and one female partner.

    Yes, but the investments put in by either gender are nowhere near the same. It takes 2 minutes for a man to impregnate a woman, and then he can forget about her. She, on the other hand, is stuck with a baby for nine months at the very least. (this is ignoring modern birth control, because modern birth control has not existed long enough and is not wide-spread enough to affect evolution).

    Considering this, it quite asinine to suggest that women seek as many partners as men. They may want sex as often, or more, but the average number of partners is certainly less.

    D:D:D:

    It is not physically possible for a man to have sex with a woman without a woman also having sex. Women must have as much (straight) sex as men.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    .....Basically, if women have such a lacking sex drive compared to men, then why has patriarchal society constantly felt the need to control and suppress women's sexuality?

    The attempt by men to control women's sexuality is not to suppress their incredible sex drives or something, but rather to establish monopoly over them so as to ensure their genes will be the ones carried on, and not those of other males. The reason is natural male desire for dominance and ownership.

    If women didn't have a noticeable sex drive then there would no reason for every patriarchal society to enact so many laws and make so much literature condemning female sexuality.

    If male sex drives were so much greater then female sex drives then the males should have no problem sexually satisfying their wives, thus leaving no real strong reason to condemn female sexuality so strongly.

    Remember, it wasn't females having sex outside of marriage that was condemned. It was females being remotely sexual creatures at all. Under the rules of chastity, women weren't supposed to desire sex, at all, ever. Not even that one time. They were only supposed to have sex with their husbands because their husbands wanted it, and to have children. Not because they wanted it or enjoyed it.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Ege: You are COMPLETELY ignoring people marrying and producing offspring solely for class based or political reasons.

    Why am I ignoring it? Social and political status are indications of power. Power means more stuff the male can provide for the female and her children. Therefore it is generally considered attractive. Nothing is being ignored here; it fits the pattern perfectly.
    Plus you are pretty retarded when it comes to knowing how many partners a woman may or may not desire.

    There has been no convincing cross-cultural and cross-historical evidence to suggest that the average woman has preferred as many sexual partners as the average male or more.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    [Yes I quite agree, it's a bi product of the gender images but denying that this is infact a POSITIVE bi effect is not honest. Really that is my major beef with most of the feminist movement how it ignores the fact that being male is not in fact peachy and things like a large majority of criminals being males get no or very little attention. Of course it originated and is still for female rights and equity but if we're going for gender equity dealing with male criminality should be pretty damn high on the list.

    fjafjan: your intentions are probably good, but don't go down this line of reasoning. Feminism exists to rectify women's lack of equality in many spheres - it's not feminism's job to help men out. If this sounds harsh, consider whether you think a gay rights group has an obligation to advocate for straight people, or whether a Mexican workers association has to go out of its way to support Asians.

    This doesn't mean feminism doesn't want genuine gender equality for both sexes, but don't expect feminists to spend lots of their time talking about male issues - there's enough female ones to sort through as it is..


    edit: Wait ege, you're saying that men prefer more sexual partners than women.. doesn't that mean that certain men get to have sex with lots of different women, whereas most have none at all? Otherwise the women would be sleeping with lots of men too.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Okay guys - math time!

    For each heterosexual sexual intercourse, there is a 1 woman : 1 man ratio.

    Let's say that there are 100 men and 100 women in an imaginary population. Now, on a given weekend, each man has sex once, because menfolks love the sexing, right? But half of the women are all, "nuh uh, I have a headache" because women are silly like that. So only 50 of the women sleep with the men. BUT they have twice as many men to sleep with, since they have to pick up the slack for the headachey women! So that's 100 men having sex x 1, plus 50 women having sex x 2. That's 100 sexual encounters for the men, and 100 for the women as well, or an average of 1 sexual encounter per person of either gender. The averages HAVE TO work out to be the same. Yay math!

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »

    There has been no convincing cross-cultural and cross-historical evidence to suggest that the average woman has preferred as many sexual partners as the average male or more.

    Do you have any idea what a cuckold is? It is a man who has had his wife cheated on him while they were married. Considering being made a cuckold is pretty much a constant fear of men throughout literature, (which implies at least more then one sexual partner) I'll have to say no here.

    Inquisitor on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    What are you talking about? The mean has to be the same. Every unique heterosexual encounter involves one male partner and one female partner.

    Yes, but the investments put in by either gender are nowhere near the same. It takes 2 minutes for a man to impregnate a woman, and then he can forget about her. She, on the other hand, is stuck with a baby for nine months at the very least. (this is ignoring modern birth control, because modern birth control has not existed long enough and is not wide-spread enough to affect evolution).

    Considering this, it quite asinine to suggest that women seek as many partners as men. They may want sex as often, or more, but the average number of partners is certainly less.

    D:D:D:

    It is not physically possible for a man to have sex with a woman without a woman also having sex. Women must have as much (straight) sex as men.

    Are you being dense on purpose?

    During a hundred day period, a man who goes and has sex with a hundred women has more partners than a woman who has sex with her boyfriend everyday for a hundred days.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Okay guys - math time!

    For each heterosexual sexual intercourse, there is a 1 woman : 1 man ratio.

    Let's say that there are 100 men and 100 women in an imaginary population. Now, on a given weekend, each man has sex once, because menfolks love the sexing, right? But half of the women are all, "nuh uh, I have a headache" because women are silly like that. So only 50 of the women sleep with the men. BUT they have twice as many men to sleep with, since they have to pick up the slack for the headachey women! So that's 100 men having sex x 1, plus 50 women having sex x 2. That's 100 sexual encounters for the men, and 100 for the women as well, or an average of 1 sexual encounter per person of either gender. The averages HAVE TO work out to be the same. Yay math!

    If you put that with ege's assertation that:
    There has been no convincing cross-cultural and cross-historical evidence to suggest that the average woman has preferred as many sexual partners as the average male or more.

    Then look at your stats - the women have twice as many partners as the men!

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Actually, its starting to become more obvious that women historically underreport sexual encounters, and men overreport them. Why exactly would you be so invested in the idea that men are hornier anyway? Would it be so terrible if they weren't actually the mindless genital-driven idiots many cultural narratives paint them as? Do you like being viewed that way?

    The question is, even when we compensate for women under-reporting and men over-reporting their sexual encounters - and don't get me wrong: I doubt neither - do the numbers come anywhere near close to each other? I strongly doubt it.

    What are you talking about? The mean has to be the same. Every unique heterosexual encounter involves one male partner and one female partner.

    Yes, but the investments put in by either gender are nowhere near the same. It takes 2 minutes for a man to impregnate a woman, and then he can forget about her. She, on the other hand, is stuck with a baby for nine months at the very least. (this is ignoring modern birth control, because modern birth control has not existed long enough and is not wide-spread enough to affect evolution).

    Considering this, it quite asinine to suggest that women seek as many partners as men. They may want sex as often, or more, but the average number of partners is certainly less.

    D:D:D:

    It is not physically possible for a man to have sex with a woman without a woman also having sex. Women must have as much (straight) sex as men.

    Are you being dense on purpose?

    During a hundred day period, a man who goes and has sex with a hundred women has more partners than a woman who has sex with her boyfriend everyday for a hundred days.

    The study was asking how many partners each person had had, which I said when I brought this up, so you fail.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    [Yes I quite agree, it's a bi product of the gender images but denying that this is infact a POSITIVE bi effect is not honest. Really that is my major beef with most of the feminist movement how it ignores the fact that being male is not in fact peachy and things like a large majority of criminals being males get no or very little attention. Of course it originated and is still for female rights and equity but if we're going for gender equity dealing with male criminality should be pretty damn high on the list.

    fjafjan: your intentions are probably good, but don't go down this line of reasoning. Feminism exists to rectify women's lack of equality in many spheres - it's not feminism's job to help men out. If this sounds harsh, consider whether you think a gay rights group has an obligation to advocate for straight people, or whether a Mexican workers association has to go out of its way to support Asians.

    This doesn't mean feminism doesn't want genuine gender equality for both sexes, but don't expect feminists to spend lots of their time talking about male issues - there's enough female ones to sort through as it is..
    Well as I wrote it might be that feminists are then concerned with female equity problems, fine, but then we do need some other group to bring attention to stuff like males to a far greater extent becoming criminals just as we did when less females were applying for college. Really there seems to be almost a complete vacuum of some kind of group like that which is not also some mysagonistic sexist bunch.

    fuck you firefox mysagony is too a word

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Are you being dense on purpose?

    During a hundred day period, a man who goes and has sex with a hundred women has more partners than a woman who has sex with her boyfriend everyday for a hundred days.

    Jesus. Are these "hundred women" just sleeping with that one guy for a one time burst of random sex? You haven't considered them in your figures at all.


    edit:
    fjafjan wrote:
    Really there seems to be almost a complete vacuum of some kind of group like that which is not also some mysagonistic sexist bunch.

    Basically, yeah. Any such group either quickly descends into "halp we're being oppressed" idiocy, or starts out that way. Fathers4Justice (UK) don't seem too bad from what I've read of them (silly stunts aside).

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Options
    DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Only half of them - the rest have zero sexual partners, don't forget. Remember the part where the AVERAGES must be the same - not the number of partners of any two particular individuals?

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Yann wrote: »
    ege02 wrote:
    Look, the thing is, we are what we are today because of natural and sexual selection. If men today are more sexually aroused by visual stimuli than women, that means men with such genes were, at some point in our evolutionary history, at an advantage, either against environmental conditions or in mating. There simply is no other plausible explanation.

    When did we start to ignore cultural influences as plausible explanations for human behavior? It's obvious that genes have a large impact but I don't think anyone is saying we can ignore culture completely.

    When it comes to sexual matters, culture happens to be fairly uniform. Nowhere on Earth are old, wrinkled women perceived as more attractive than 20-year old women. No normal person considers extreme obesity attractive (lol windbit). There are traits that are considered universally attractive across all cultures: intelligence, good looks, health, confidence in males. Women all over the world generally prefer intelligent men over stupid men, healthy men over men who get sick often, etc.
    Except 'good looking' DOES infact vary, i would say typically the 'ideal woman' in ancient cultures tended to be alot shorter and fatter than the current female. As for confidence again a look at fairly recent history should show you wrong, when the 'ideal woman' was a quiet innocent virgin. Health yes, but then often the cultural "markers" tend to go into unhealthy behaviour, like with modern models who are really not very healthy at all.

    The Times had an article a few months ago about a country having an obesity problem because fat is considered attractive there (it was one of those second page ones that are always interesting).

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    [Yes I quite agree, it's a bi product of the gender images but denying that this is infact a POSITIVE bi effect is not honest. Really that is my major beef with most of the feminist movement how it ignores the fact that being male is not in fact peachy and things like a large majority of criminals being males get no or very little attention. Of course it originated and is still for female rights and equity but if we're going for gender equity dealing with male criminality should be pretty damn high on the list.

    fjafjan: your intentions are probably good, but don't go down this line of reasoning. Feminism exists to rectify women's lack of equality in many spheres - it's not feminism's job to help men out. If this sounds harsh, consider whether you think a gay rights group has an obligation to advocate for straight people, or whether a Mexican workers association has to go out of its way to support Asians.

    This doesn't mean feminism doesn't want genuine gender equality for both sexes, but don't expect feminists to spend lots of their time talking about male issues - there's enough female ones to sort through as it is..
    Well as I wrote it might be that feminists are then concerned with female equity problems, fine, but then we do need some other group to bring attention to stuff like males to a far greater extent becoming criminals just as we did when less females were applying for college. Really there seems to be almost a complete vacuum of some kind of group like that which is not also some mysagonistic sexist bunch.

    fuck you firefox mysagony is too a word
    It's misogyny.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    [Yes I quite agree, it's a bi product of the gender images but denying that this is infact a POSITIVE bi effect is not honest. Really that is my major beef with most of the feminist movement how it ignores the fact that being male is not in fact peachy and things like a large majority of criminals being males get no or very little attention. Of course it originated and is still for female rights and equity but if we're going for gender equity dealing with male criminality should be pretty damn high on the list.

    fjafjan: your intentions are probably good, but don't go down this line of reasoning. Feminism exists to rectify women's lack of equality in many spheres - it's not feminism's job to help men out. If this sounds harsh, consider whether you think a gay rights group has an obligation to advocate for straight people, or whether a Mexican workers association has to go out of its way to support Asians.

    This doesn't mean feminism doesn't want genuine gender equality for both sexes, but don't expect feminists to spend lots of their time talking about male issues - there's enough female ones to sort through as it is..
    Well as I wrote it might be that feminists are then concerned with female equity problems, fine, but then we do need some other group to bring attention to stuff like males to a far greater extent becoming criminals just as we did when less females were applying for college. Really there seems to be almost a complete vacuum of some kind of group like that which is not also some misogynistic sexist bunch.

    fuck you firefox misogyny is too a word
    It's misogyny.
    I just googled it.
    Apparently google isn't a word either, nor is firefox.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I understand what you guys are saying about averages. Bad wording on my part.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    fjafjan wrote: »
    I just googled it.
    Apparently google isn't a word either, nor is firefox.
    Google is.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    fjafjanfjafjan Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    fjafjan wrote: »
    I just googled it.
    Apparently google isn't a word either, nor is firefox.
    Google is.
    for me it isn't.

    EDIT to prevent further pointlessnes: not even capitalized is it a word.

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Even capitalized?
    I must have added it.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.