Are western societies customized on women needs?

[herbert_quain]

I am going to write a number of facts I found in books and articles (if anybody thinks any of these data is incorrect please do not hesitate to provide the source where there is different data).


I think we are experiencing a biblical flood of estrogen which is drowning the world.
Yes I literally mean drowning.
Do you know that every time you drink a beer, you introduce a good amount of estrogen in your body and you damp significantly your production of testosterone (if you are a man)?
This happens with most alcoholic drinks, but beer is one of the worst.
Modern days American men have on average 25% less testosterone than 30 years ago (although this can not be related necessarily to alcohol consumption because people were drinking also back then)

Groups where alcohol is banned allow polygamy (Islam, Mormons).

About monogamy most men are natural polygamous that's why 70% of married men cheat on their wives at least once.
After all forbidding polygamist marriages is a restriction of free choices of adults like forbidding homosexual marriages.


On this planet there are at least 800 millions of people suffering from chronic hunger and it is tragic.
There is another form of widespread "hunger" though, less dramatic luckily, but it still has quite a big impact on people life.
How many people (mostly men) suffer from chronic sex crave, because their sexual life do not match their biological need.
In western nations men live in a society where there is a constant sexual pressure under the rule: sex sells everything.
Men are programmed to have sex with any attractive woman around them, this is simply biology, the effect of testosterone and a natural sexual drive.
nowadays this abstinence is compensated with surrogates, like pornography and prostitution.... and drinking alcohol.

In the previous century the psychologist Freud wrote that sexual repression is the cause of all neurosis and alienation of men in modern societies.

Few men are luckier.

40% of gay men had 500 male sexual partners or more. Many famous actors, singers, sport men and other celebrities have hundreds if not thousands of sexual partners.

Differently from the majority of men they have the opportunity to satisfy their biological need.

While women main biological need is to get kids, most of women do get kids.





Sure, power in modern society is till a man thing, most of high rank politicians, top managers, business men, and people of power in general are still men.

But they are elites. While I am talking about average men and average women.
Average men do not belong to any elite.


During evolution language was developed by women. Women have two language centers in their brain, men only one.
Women are in general more talkative than men and they expect a men to talk a lot to them during courtship.

We live in a world where if you can talk well (politician, lawyer, actor, business man, show man, womanizer) you can get everywhere, while if you are simply smart but
not good in talking you usually don't go very far.


Most teachers, especially in primary school are women.
Young boys are exposed to female authorities in the first stages of their life, (even more if they live with a single mother) which they mostly direct towards
woman values.

What do you think about these facts?

 

[Jennywocky]

I am going to write a number of facts I found in books and articles (if anybody thinks any of these data is incorrect please do not hesitate to provide the source where there is different data).

In the pursuit of fairness, why not list your sources first?

 

[Frankie]

I agree with some of the facts here, but I don't really see how men drinking beer is customized to women's needs. Men invented beer (largely), men consume more beer than women (generally), drinking beer is seen as a manly thing to do. The ingredients in beer just happened to have an effect on men that reduces testosterone levels. This only shows correlation and not really causation. Do you mind explaining why you think this is caused by women's need?

 

[Haim]

Just want to say.
Deciding who will be the fathers of the next generation is a great power.
You need to consider what most of men and women want and is accepted/pushed by society(most important men to men and women to women),if more and more potential men want to be politicians then that what will be.
I do not mean women are naturally less fitted or something like that but(only for my point theoretically) these that want to have less potential .

Did someone called statistics a fact?

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Groups where alcohol is banned allow polygamy (Islam, Mormons).

Mormons don't allow polygamy.

"...the practice is banned in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy

 

[Sinny91]

I've been reading 'Buffy Studies' lately, and here are some samples of the discorse on female and masculine sexual engergies etc, touching upon womens role's within society over the last few centuries, and present day female empowerment etc.

It's about Power - Gender Dynamics in BtVS
http://www.allaboutspike.com/gender.html

Why Drussila's More Interesting than Buffy:
http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage13_14/Diehl.htm

"Every Night I save You" - Buffy, Spike, Sex and Redemption
http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage5/wilcox.htm

 

[Brontosaurie]

In the pursuit of fairness, why not list your sources first?

i did a google for you on some of the claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualities:_A_Study_of_Diversity_Among_Men_and_Women

^ about the 500 gay partners thing

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15166654

^ about the beer testosterone thing

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9041858

^ a little something about sex differences in language (not supporting the exact claim, but the gist of it)

regarding the sexual needs, it makes perfect sense that men would naturally be more inclined toward promiscuity and women more selective. it's quite a complex thing to study though; especially if one is hell-bent on the idea of "societal influence" as a metaphysical entity. but the topic is discussed here including source links to statistical surveys, if you're interested. http://io9.com/5977668/do-men-really-have-higher-sex-drives-than-women

you really think a worthwhile discussion requires scientific proof? why couldn't you give some charity and entertain the idea? it's not arse-derived bollocks or an evil agenda, it just happens to challenge some assumptions in feminist ideology (such as: "women are always the victims" and "there are no socio-politically relevant sex differences") while simultaneously not being proven beyond any doubt.

anyway, alcohol sucks. real drugs should be legalized immediately. there are no excuses. i think this is the most important factor.

 

[TheManBeyond]

sure, starting with Sinny91 attacks at michael obama, damn her for that, period.
women are about competition, once you proved them something they'll ask you for more, and more. nothing satysfies this self worship i among other forms of lives, surely it is the begining of the beautiness wars and how they'll shape evolution. I can see future documetaries on how men physics evolved in a certain way to adapt the non stoping scalating needs of women. or perhaps nature will be wise and simple reduce the number of females in planet earth.
the only needed extintion.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I can see future documetaries on how men physics evolved in a certain way to adapt the non stoping scalating needs of women.

it already exists.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/?_r=0

females have been privileged and protected because their sexual commodity is more scarce and thus they are intrinsically valuable. men, on the other hand, have needed to perform extraneous auxiliary tasks in order to be valuable, thus putting them under more evolutionary pressure. it's not a dichotomy, but a distinctive asymmetry.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The flood is quite literal: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8897.abstract

*actually reads OP now *

 

[Sinny91]

sure, starting with Sinny91 attacks at michael obama, damn her for that, period.
women are about competition, once you proved them something they'll ask you for more, and more. nothing satysfies this self worship i among other forms of lives, surely it is the begining of the beautiness wars and how they'll shape evolution. I can see future documetaries on how men physics evolved in a certain way to adapt the non stoping scalating needs of women. or perhaps nature will be wise and simple reduce the number of females in planet earth.
the only needed extintion.

The title of that thread is 'Troll Post'.
What's your excuse for your diatribe?

 

[Sixup]

OP you talk about average male/female. But then the average male and female in western society is fat dumb and probably a net drag on the world.

Maybe the solution is to not let yourself be average in the things that truly matter (IMO: health, competence, knowledge, independence, family, self respect, probably a couple others I can't think of right now). The rest will fall into place.

 

[Rook]

It saddens me to see the death of intellectuality and well thought out and substantiated arguments when discussing controversial issues.

This forum has become too conventionally western, popular culture and biases are seeping in.

OP, do not state yer personal opinions as facts.
Do not assume what transpires in the life of one male human is the norm for all of them.

Some of what you state may be correct, but in the end my studies of my fellow humans have shown me that gender means little, the whole argument that seems to have engulfed the internet and popular media is overblown and sensationalist.

There are men who abstain from sexual intercourse their whole lives, there are women who consciously choose not to have children and never do.

Diversify your observations, travel to another country and see if yer constructed reality rings true there as well.

I have observed tourists on these streets, mostly chinese and european.

Some are led by an older matriarch, some are led by the fast walking youth, some have the female walking in the front with the husband pushing a baby from behind, and vice versa.

Humans are complex.
Their social structures are complex.
They do not define these by simple gender roles, no, it's more organic, more situational.


I have seen a female ufc fighter from my native country that would no doubt break my arms and trounce me well in a fight.
I have also seen an older male too afraid to wade over a shallow stream, living in fear of pathogens flitting about the air.
This is how humans have always been, there are always people like this who defy popular preconceptions and public opinions on what gender entails.
These humans are more numerous than you would think.

There is no norm, simply trends that come and go.
Sadly, opinions and suppositions reign supreme within our species, beacuse they are easier to grasp onto and believe as supreme truths.

 

[Pyropyro]

It really befuddles me why people are way too occupied with sex. Do we really need to measure men by the number of scratches in their bedposts?

 

[Brontosaurie]

It saddens me to see the death of intellectuality and well thought out and substantiated arguments when discussing controversial issues.

This forum has become too conventionally western, popular culture and biases are seeping in.

OP, do not state yer personal opinions as facts.
Do not assume what transpires in the life of one male human is the norm for all of them.

Some of what you state may be correct, but in the end my studies of my fellow humans have shown me that gender means little, the whole argument that seems to have engulfed the internet and popular media is overblown and sensationalist.

There are men who abstain from sexual intercourse their whole lives, there are women who consciously choose not to have children and never do.

Diversify your observations, travel to another country and see if yer constructed reality rings true there as well.

I have observed tourists on these streets, mostly chinese and european.

Some are led by an older matriarch, some are led by the fast walking youth, some have the female walking in the front with the husband pushing a baby from behind, and vice versa.

Humans are complex.
Their social structures are complex.
They do not define these by simple gender roles, no, it's more organic, more situational.


I have seen a female ufc fighter from my native country that would no doubt break my arms and trounce me well in a fight.
I have also seen an older male too afraid to wade over a shallow stream, living in fear of pathogens flitting about the air.
This is how humans have always been, there are always people like this who defy popular preconceptions and public opinions on what gender entails.
These humans are more numerous than you would think.

There is no norm, simply trends that come and go.
Sadly, opinions and suppositions reign supreme within our species, beacuse they are easier to grasp onto and believe as supreme truths.

this post is severely hypocritical and dishonest. and way longer than its content warrants. to be frank, i'm slightly disgusted by your attitude here.

nowhere does the OP deny cultural or situational factors. you're denying the influence of biology though. the lopsided biased reductionism is on you.

you're telling OP not to state personal opinions as facts - nevermind that there are scientific sources available for most of the proposed facts - and yet then you go on to proclaim your own personal anecdotes as evidence.

so yeah no, you're wrong. very.

 

[Pyropyro]

you really think a worthwhile discussion requires scientific proof? why couldn't you give some charity and entertain the idea?

Well OP did state that their claims are "facts" so I think it's okay to ask for references to back said claims. The subject, which just happens to be related to feminism and thus rustled a few jimmies, is only secondary. I remembered talking with Yellow about ET life and linked various refs to support my claims.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think it's because there's a rise in population density.

Females tend to do better in a crowded social setting, though in the long run, males tend to pull through if they're sharp enough. So basically what I mean is that, because there's more density, it seems, as for now, or at least on the surface, females are 'ruling' more due to the female's innate ability to thrive in sociality. But it's more often the case that males are at the true helm . If you compare males from the countryside/rural areas, which has a lower population density, with those from the urban, which have higher ones, you can easily observe the difference. Males are a lot more alpha and down to earth there, not that self-conscious.

As for polygamy, the simple reason why it's looked down upon, (or at least for me) is that it devalues women. A culture arises where women become property and where females are tailored from a young age to become one, if polygamy were to be legally recognized. A polygamous relationship cannot last, or in the end it devalues the female because the women will have to consider other females within the relationship structure. It's not at all harmonious or reasonable to maintain in the long run. That old playboy guy in the playboy mansion is a good example. The playmates and their 'confession' stories are pretty interesting; manipulation, power struggle, etc. In the end it's probable that one female will become the alpha in that relationship. Others would be just be considered concubines, though not legally or in talk/practicality.

I'd say, in the end, western societies are tailored for males too much. Therefore a small rise in female power scares the bejesus out of them. But then sometimes females get it too much into their heads, which is somewhat of a problem sometimes. (looking at you, feminists).

 

[Brontosaurie]

Well OP did state that their claims are "facts" so I think it's okay to ask for references to back said claims. The subject, which just happens to be related to feminism and thus rustled a few jimmies, is only secondary. I remembered talking with Yellow about ET life and linked various refs to support my claims.

of course it's okay, but i'm also fairly confident in the assessment that Jennywocky asked for sources not because the statements were that improbable or strange, but because of rustled jimmies. my impression is that asking for sources instead of engaging in a speculative discussion is rather uncharacteristic and shows a bias.

 

[The Gopher]

Yes I completely agree. More males should adopt and bring out their innate bisexuality. This solves all issues with sexuality and drive as the heavy beer and alcohol drinkers can become the less dominate more effeminate partners.

Spoiler

 

[Rook]

this post is severely hypocritical and dishonest. and way longer than its content warrants. to be frank, i'm slightly disgusted by your attitude here.

nowhere does the OP deny cultural or situational factors. you're denying the influence of biology though. the lopsided biased reductionism is on you.

you're telling OP not to state personal opinions as facts - nevermind that there are scientific sources available for most of the proposed facts - and yet then you go on to proclaim your own personal anecdotes as evidence.

so yeah no, you're wrong. very.

: )

That was a hypocritical rant, aye.
But it's not very wrong, simply severely opinionated and unsubstantiated by proper sources or whatnot, and strays from the topic quite drunkenly.
I have no idea what I tried to say with that post though, which makes it quite the study piece.

Interestingly I think that's the first time I commented on this whole gender thing that seems to fixate everyone of late.... it continues to bore me, so I will go to no further trouble unmuddling my words or trying to understand the importance of the issue at hand.

Yer sociological circle jerk may continue as before.
Coffee is required.

 

[Pyropyro]

Yes I completely agree. More males should adopt and bring out their innate bisexuality. This solves all issues with sexuality and drive as the heavy beer and alcohol drinkers can become the less dominate more effeminate partners.

Spoiler

*Invites Gopher over for a couple drinks and to discuss uh... innate things*

 

[onesteptwostep]

The flood is quite literal: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8897.abstract

holy shat.

 

[Yellow]

Um.. what?

I'll just take a chunk of this, and do my part.

Humans aren't monogamous. Women aren't. Men aren't. If we were monogamous, we'd never cheat. Monogamous animals mate for life, and that's it. Women cheat and men cheat. Women are often sexually dissatisfied. Men are often sexually dissatisfied. Women try to secure sole rights to a mate, and men try to secure sole rights to a mate because men can be jealous, and women can be jealous.

But regardless, it's pretty silly to conclude that the monogamous dictates of undeniably male-dominated religions can be blamed on a "flood" of estrogen.

 

[Elliott roger]

I would have to say that this estrogen flood kind of complements this other theory I have been toying with regarding the feminization of society and power imbalance.

 

[herbert_quain]

Um.. what?

I'll just take a chunk of this, and do my part.

Humans aren't monogamous. Women aren't. Men aren't. If we were monogamous, we'd never cheat. Monogamous animals mate for life, and that's it. Women cheat and men cheat. Women are often sexually dissatisfied. Men are often sexually dissatisfied. Women try to secure sole rights to a mate, and men try to secure sole rights to a mate because men can be jealous, and women can be jealous.

But regardless, it's pretty silly to conclude that the monogamous dictates of undeniably male-dominated religions can be blamed on a "flood" of estrogen.

So basically you state the men and women are the same.
You see if you stick with the facts you will see that women are more demanding in their choice for a partner and tend to cheat far less than men (yes there are women who cheat a lot, but they are a minority).
And the women who want to have a lot of sexual partners, can do it very easily.
This is not the case for most of men.

 

[herbert_quain]

I agree with some of the facts here, but I don't really see how men drinking beer is customized to women's needs. Men invented beer (largely), men consume more beer than women (generally), drinking beer is seen as a manly thing to do. The ingredients in beer just happened to have an effect on men that reduces testosterone levels. This only shows correlation and not really causation. Do you mind explaining why you think this is caused by women's need?

Beer does two things (among others) damping testosterone and introducing estrogen (this two things are separated phenomena). This reduces sexual drive of men and can make them to live better in a society where their sexual biological needs are for the most part repressed and denied.

 

[INTPWolf]

In the modern world we live in testosterone driven acts are generally looked down upon, fighting and violence just isn't like it used to be. So looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, we don't need as much testosterone any more.

anyway, alcohol sucks. real drugs should be legalized immediately. there are no excuses. i think this is the most important factor.

Hahaha yes

 

[_whispers_]

So basically you state the men and women are the same.
You see if you stick with the facts you will see that women are more demanding in their choice for a partner and tend to cheat far less than men (yes there are women who cheat a lot, but they are a minority).
And the women who want to have a lot of sexual partners, can do it very easily.
This is not the case for most of men.

I looked up some statistics and the numbers don't seem that drastically different to me, especially considering that infidelity carries more risk for women than for men. Also attitudes towards women sleeping around are still more negative then towards men.

Basically 10% - 15% of married women and 20% - 25% of married men cheat . Also 57% of men and 54% of women say they have cheated at some point in their lives. All of the other information that I found seemed to be a repeat of those numbers or a close variation. I wish there was some background on those statistics and the fact that those are just the numbers that the participants have reported is important. However I don't have the time to hunt down the journals and research.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#Infidelity
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/22/how-common-is-cheating-infidelity-really/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

About women being more picky with their partners that's just one theory. The opposite is also true - that women can benefit from having multiple partners. There are a few days during the menstrual cycle when the female is most fertile. This is when her sexual desire and attractiveness are higher. Having multiple partners in that window of time would increase the likelihood of producing a genetically better offspring. Add to that that the amount of men and women reporting cheating is almost the same (57% and 54%). Wouldn't that mean that female biological needs are also being repressed when girls are being taught that it's wrong to have multiple partners and they should get married?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_promiscuity#Evolution

 

[herbert_quain]

I looked up some statistics and the numbers don't seem that drastically different to me, especially considering that infidelity carries more risk for women than for men. Also attitudes towards women sleeping around are still more negative then towards men.

Basically 10% - 15% of married women and 20% - 25% of married men cheat . Also 57% of men and 54% of women say they have cheated at some point in their lives. All of the other information that I found seemed to be a repeat of those numbers or a close variation. I wish there was some background on those statistics and the fact that those are just the numbers that the participants have reported is important. However I don't have the time to hunt down the journals and research.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#Infidelity
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/22/how-common-is-cheating-infidelity-really/
http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

About women being more picky with their partners that's just one theory. The opposite is also true - that women can benefit from having multiple partners. There are a few days during the menstrual cycle when the female is most fertile. This is when her sexual desire and attractiveness are higher. Having multiple partners in that window of time would increase the likelihood of producing a genetically better offspring. Add to that that the amount of men and women reporting cheating is almost the same (57% and 54%). Wouldn't that mean that female biological needs are also being repressed when girls are being taught that it's wrong to have multiple partners and they should get married?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_promiscuity#Evolution

Are you another woman who want to prove that men and women are the same? This is surprising to me.
Yes also women get sexually repressed growing up by moral preaching.
But here I am not talking about moral preaching, the sexual repression I am talking about is the one that disregards moral preaching.
Most men have no possibilities to sleep with hundreds of random women, and so they are unable to match their sexual needs.
Most women can sleep with as many sexual partners as they want.

If you found some study which say women cheat as much as men, this doesn't change much.
The kind of cheating that match men sexual needs is Tiger Woods or John Kennedy kind of cheating, not just an affair, but fooling around with hundreds of women.
It is scientifically proved that women on average have a lesser sexual drive than men, if women disregard moral preaching can easily get all the sex they need. Most men can't.

 

[Sinny91]

Rook, I didn't see anything wrong with your post, and I'd advise you not to apologise; It was no less opinionated than the OP (which was obviously more bigoted, IMO)

In regards to the arguments which you are all attempting to discuss, they are all addressed in the articles I posted which are reasonably acedemic (there's a debate as to 'how acedemic), they draw their info from gender study scholars throughout the last 3 centuries..

As usual, tangible information is once again over-looked on this forum, and replaced in it's stead with ego battles.

Sigh.

 

[_whispers_]

Are you another woman who want to prove that men and women are the same? This is surprising to me.
Yes also women get sexually repressed growing up by moral preaching.
But here I am not talking about moral preaching, the sexual repression I am talking about is the one that disregards moral preaching.
Most men have no possibilities to sleep with hundreds of random women, and so they are unable to match their sexual needs.
Most women can sleep with as many sexual partners as they want.

If you found some study which say women cheat as much as men, this doesn't change much.
The kind of cheating that match men sexual needs is Tiger Woods or John Kennedy kind of cheating, not just an affair, but fooling around with hundreds of women.
It is scientifically proved that women on average have a lesser sexual drive than men, if women disregard moral preaching can easily get all the sex they need. Most men can't.

I don't see anything surprising in either position. But to answer you question - I like the idea of women having higher standards and not sleeping with the first guy they see. That doesn't mean that I can't entertain the theory of women being just as inclined towards promiscuity as men are.

A lot of the arguments I see are based on the premise that women invest a lot of time, energy and resources into the offspring so they are more picky. Men aren't as invested, so they sleep around. Bronto requested an open minded discussion. So I proposed a theory that says that it's beneficial for women to be promiscuous. Instead of taking a look at it you disregarded it even though it's actually beneficial for you as well. If more women are free of moral judgement and can act on their instincts wouldn't that mean more opportunities for men to satisfy their sexual drive?

As a matter of fact isn't your question "Are western societies customized on women needs?" Isn't moral a part of society? Or are we discussing just biology and I was mislead by your title?

If we are talking about biology then your point of view isn't going to get us anywhere. Lets agree that men and women are indeed different, lets agree that women really are more picky, because they are more invested in the offspring. Then it's simple biology that women can't mate with guys that are below their genetic requirements and all the action would go to Tiger Woods and John Kennedy. Women just can't fight their biology.

@Sinny91: Academic articles that use Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Ok, I'll read it

 

[The Gopher]

Are you another woman who want to prove that men and women are the same?

It seemed more that he (or she) was trying to prove that woman would be more likely to cheat and have sex if not for society. Also maybe I miss-read but it seemed you asked for sources then completely ignored them. That said I firmly believe you can find sources to backup any statement.

Most men have no possibilities to sleep with hundreds of random women, and so they are unable to match their sexual needs.

Completely incorrect. I could get you 20 a month unless you were literally the "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame". Admittedly one of those 20 might look like the hunchback of notre-dame but that's beside the point. Also if you truly were average you would be able to get one a night. You would have to pay for it but I assume you would have a job if you are average.

Now you probably don't want that. You don't want to sleep with hundreds of random women you want to sleep with hundreds of women better than you or the same as you. In-fact you may not even want that as you could still pay for women better than you. Honestly you probably at the end of the day don't even want to sleep with hundreds of women (the reality of it kinda sucks long term, if it doesn't you probably aren't doing it right) you just think you do.

See some part of this comes down to value. Wanting to be valued *cough* loved *cough* is something quite a number of people want in various different ways. That's why calling someone a slut is demeaning (one of the reasons) because it implies the person is not valuable. Now a guy that hundreds of "valued" women want to sleep with is obviously "highly valued" as such.

It seems you have trouble being average or below average in some aspects. Because of this you have made everyone but the elite average however you made yourself the baseline for average. So unless you are elite everyone else is only as good as you and that makes any failure normal. While sure there is a biological drive to a certain extent I think you are focusing too much on "oh there is this huge drive with no way to fulfill it because other people suck and this is the cause of all my problems".

So the tl;dr version would be it's easy for almost any person of any gender to have sex with hundreds of people as long as your standards are adjusted correctly. The reason you won't accept this answer is because your standards are too high because you have self worth issues and instead of improving yourself to try and improve to the point you can match your ridiculous standards you instead moan about how the world is against you lowering yourself further.

//EndpretendRBstyledpsychologistsegment

No but seriously become a bi-sexual. Do you have any reasons not to do this? That will fulfill your biological needs anyway. If 40% of gay guys have over 500 partners then those are good odds.

 

[herbert_quain]

I don't see anything surprising in either position. But to answer you question - I like the idea of women having higher standards and not sleeping with the first guy they see. That doesn't mean that I can't entertain the theory of women being just as inclined towards promiscuity as men are.

A lot of the arguments I see are based on the premise that women invest a lot of time, energy and resources into the offspring so they are more picky. Men aren't as invested, so they sleep around. Bronto requested an open minded discussion. So I proposed a theory that says that it's beneficial for women to be promiscuous. Instead of taking a look at it you disregarded it even though it's actually beneficial for you as well. If more women are free of moral judgement and can act on their instincts wouldn't that mean more opportunities for men to satisfy their sexual drive?

As a matter of fact isn't your question "Are western societies customized on women needs?" Isn't moral a part of society? Or are we discussing just biology and I was mislead by your title?

If we are talking about biology then your point of view isn't going to get us anywhere. Lets agree that men and women are indeed different, lets agree that women really are more picky, because they are more invested in the offspring. Then it's simple biology that women can't mate with guys that are below their genetic requirements and all the action would go to Tiger Woods and John Kennedy. Women just can't fight their biology.

@Sinny91: Academic articles that use Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Ok, I'll read it

I am not sure what is your point now and how is different from mine (if it is at all). I am talking about both biology (common to all humans) and societies (very different from each other). In many places on the Earth women are not free to chose their romantic and/or sexual partners, while in others are not supposed to be strictly monogamous and especially where there is not a strong social hierarchy they are less picky.

From what you say it sounds you agree that in western societies women are privileged compared to men, they can express their choice freely and they get they biological needs satisfied while this is not quite the case for most of men (this is not the case everywhere on this planet).

PS there was another point about language at the end of my post which apparently nobody cared too much about

 

[herbert_quain]

No but seriously become a bi-sexual. Do you have any reasons not to do this? That will fulfill your biological needs anyway.

Yes I have very good reasons. I am not biologically set for that. Better you try hooking up with somebody else

 

[_whispers_]

You are talking about biology, but you are not willing to discuss it.

I said that I like the idea of women being picky, but I can't say that I honestly believe they are. I see plenty of people sleeping around and plenty waiting for true love, some even saving themselves for marriage (both men and women). What I believe is that the truth about both men's and women's biological needs is somewhere in between the two extremes of insatiable sexual appetite and one so low it almost doesn't exist. At the end of the day I don't consider it my business as long as everyone has the freedom to act on their needs/desires without harming others.

If you want to discuss society then why do you ignore moral? Also yes, there are places on Earth like that, do you want to discuss those places as well or just western society? Because if we are discussing societies where women can't choose their partner those aren't places where women can satisfy their biological needs as you put it. Those are places where women are married as children, can't get divorce and even if raped can be convicted of adultery and killed.

No, I don't think women are privileged. What made you think that? If men really are the horndogs you portray them to be and if women really don't have the sexual drive to respond then things are as balanced as they can be. If we allow men to act on their insatiable appetite on women that don't want them then that's rape.

What I do think is that both men and women in western society can pursue the relationships they want (be it long term or one night stands). How success they are is entirely different matter. Gopher put it really well, I agree with him and won't repeat it.

The idea that women speak more than men is just another stereotype.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/women-talk-more-than-men/

 

[The Gopher]

Yes I have very good reasons. I am not biologically set for that. Better you try hooking up with somebody else

It doesn't matter if you are biologically set for it or not it's something that can be developed. I'm afraid I'm far too busy drowning in 500 men and 1 female to have time for you even if you wanted to. What I am looking for is a psychological experiment victim err participant.

 

[Brontosaurie]

probably The Gopher is about 1/1000 as serious about this topic as OP.

 

[The Gopher]

probably The Gopher is about 1/1000 as serious about this topic as OP.

Hmm probably a little more serious than that. If you are never serious you can't have fun.

 

[Frankie]

Beer does two things (among others) damping testosterone and introducing estrogen (this two things are separated phenomena). This reduces sexual drive of men and can make them to live better in a society where their sexual biological needs are for the most part repressed and denied.

And this effeminization men is tailored to fit women's needs? I still don't get how?

 

[Frankie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

 

[herbert_quain]

No, I don't think women are privileged. What made you think that? If men really are the horndogs you portray them to be and if women really don't have the sexual drive to respond then things are as balanced as they can be. If we allow men to act on their insatiable appetite on women that don't want them then that's rape.

Exactly things are as balanced as they can be! And still they are highly unbalanced .


Rape is a very interesting point. Why dont men simply rape women. In some circumstances they do. At the end of WWII when Russia occupied Germany, Russian soldiers raped any German woman they could put their hands on.
And this was not an exception, in most wars there are wispread rapes.

In peaceful time, men do not rape too much, for many reasons. They should give up society to do that, the order of society, their family, their job, their security, the safety of their mothers/sisters/ daughters (according to the rule " I dont rape your sister and you dont rape mine") and also because of moral imprinting.
But there are some countries like India, South Africa or Kenya where rapes are much more common than in western countries , especially in slums. In some African slums 25% of young women or more are raped (this significantly contributes to the spread of HIV in Africa).
On a personal level I am against rape and any kind of violence.

What I do think is that both men and women in western society can pursue the relationships they want (be it long term or one night stands). How success they are is entirely different matter. Gopher put it really well, I agree with him and won't repeat it.

Why do you think that? I know so many men disappointed by their romantic/ sexual life because of lack of relationships they wished for. Why do guys use so much porn, and prostitution is such a lucrative industry?

And this effeminization men is tailored to fit women's needs? I still don't get how?

The more you drink the more you decrease your sex drive, the more you adapt to a society where there is no space for a normal man sex drive, and there is space for a close to optimal environment for women.

 

[_whispers_]

Exactly things are as balanced as they can be! And still they are highly unbalanced .

So what do you think would improve the situation for both genders?

Rape is a very interesting point. Why dont men simply rape women. In some circumstances they do. At the end of WWII when Russia occupied Germany, Russian soldiers raped any German woman they could put their hands on.
And this was not an exception, in most wars there are wispread rapes.

In peaceful time, men do not rape too much, for many reasons. They should give up society to do that, the order of society, their family, their job, their security, the safety of their mothers/sisters/ daughters (according to the rule " I dont rape your sister and you dont rape mine") and also because of moral imprinting.
But there are some countries like India, South Africa or Kenya where rapes are much more common than in western countries , especially in slums. In some African slums 25% of young women or more are raped (this significantly contributes to the spread of HIV in Africa).
On a personal level I am against rape and any kind of violence.

Up until this point I haven't asked for any sources, but I'm asking you to source yourself on why men rape. I admit I haven't actively researched the topic, but from what I've read there hasn't been any conclusive research.

Why do you think that? I know so many men disappointed by their romantic/ sexual life because of lack of relationships they wished for. Why do guys use so much porn, and prostitution is such a lucrative industry?

Ok, saying "I know 10 guys that aren't happy with their relationships, so society only cares about women." is no proof at all. It doesn't matter how overblown the topic is in the media and how sensational it is. I don't know any guys that are unhappy with their love lives. I only know women that are unhappy. Does that mean that society only caters to men?

 

[Sixup]

If you believe a healthy normal woman's sex drive is less than a healthy normal male... well I'm sorry for you.

 

[herbert_quain]

here a link about Africa
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266786836_Aspects_of_rape_culture_in_Kenya_slums


here about WWII in Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

of course you can find a plethora of newspapers and scientific articles on google if you need more

So what do you think would improve the situation for both genders?

I am not sure actually. Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years in groups of few dozens of people, where everybody was necessary to everybody else for survival. And casual sex among everybody was quite common, like it is now for our very close relatives the Bonobos in Africa.
Bonobos are called the hippies of the jungle, maybe the hippy movement was a good answer to this issue (going back to the origin). But for some reason it faded away.

Now we live in societies with millions of people and the natural system can not work any longer. Most of people are just strangers for each others, there is a strong social hierarchy, the world is ruled by finance and chase of status, many people feel alienated for one reason or another.

Ok, saying "I know 10 guys that aren't happy with their relationships, so society only cares about women." is no proof at all. It doesn't matter how overblown the topic is in the media and how sensational it is. I don't know any guys that are unhappy with their love lives. I only know women that are unhappy. Does that mean that society only caters to men?

Guys are mostly unhappy for their sexual life (they just need more sex), I have heard women are frequently disappointed with their love life.
Sex is a basic need that rose in evolution much earlier than romantic love.
It is in the first layer in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
while love is in the third layer. Also this says women are somewhat luckier.

 

[Yellow]

It's funny you mentioned bonobos. You do realize that though the males are larger, their societies are female-lead? Both genders have equal sex drive, and as far as we can tell, every member is bisexual. The only taboo pairings are mother-son, and if known to them, father-daughter. The males even get erections at the sight of food because they know they are required to put out before they can eat.

But that brings up the point that most matriarchal cultures that we've discovered were freely polyamorous. I'm sure I don't need to spell out why.

Also, I'm no mathematician, but even assuming your every claim about the repression of men's sexuality is true, no men want their fellows to have that kind of sexual freedom. Anyone who had thought it through would want it applied to themselves exclusively.

Otherwise, we would have 2.5 billion (of age) men doing hundreds of women a year. But there are only 2.5 (of age) women. If each sexually active man between 18 and death was having sex with, say, 100 women a year, that's means all the women between 18 and death are having an average of 100 partners a year too. I don't think most men relish the idea of spending their whole lives at the end of the train.

So with that in mind, and again, seeing as the discouragement of a woman's sexuality is a throw-back from a male-heavy moral system, I would argue that the associated claim regarding the repression of male sexuality cannot be cast upon the "estrogen" of society, but rather, your "fellow man".

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I wonder, are bonobo males less ambitious or less powerful due to having their sexual needs over-satiated?

Using pleasure and short term reward seems to be an effective way of controlling the societies for more than one species.

If so eunuchs stand on top of the ladder.

 

[Rook]

Eunuchs are the ideal.
Historical instances exist where they were greatly valued for their political guile and military discipline.

The history of china is filled with eunuchs who did things right.
A few instances are recalled where large portions of an army were eunuchs...think these were primarily in china and the middle east.

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/eunuchs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Notable_eunuchs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Bing

 

[Pyropyro]

I wonder, are bonobo males less ambitious or less powerful due to having their sexual needs over-satiated?

Using pleasure and short term reward seems to be an effective way of controlling the societies for more than one species.

If so eunuchs stand on top of the ladder.

Uh they do hunt other monkeys. They're not exactly hippies and are also prone to violence like their relatives.

Anyways, what fascinates me though is that chimpanzee hunting groups are usually composed of males while bonobo hunting groups are composed of both males and females.

Oh BTW, just a disclaimer for bonobos in general:

It would be wrong, however, to characterize bonobo communities as coexisting peaceably, since half of encounters do involve aggression of some sort (Kano 1992). Chimpanzees were observed for more than 15 years and thousands of observer-hours, including many intercommunity encounters, before lethal aggression was seen. We should therefore not assume that lethal or injurious intercommunity aggression never occurs among bonobos.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Thanks Pyro, the articles helped me draw a few hypothetical parallels for future research.

 

[herbert_quain]

It's funny you mentioned bonobos. You do realize that though the males are larger, their societies are female-lead? Both genders have equal sex drive, and as far as we can tell, every member is bisexual. The only taboo pairings are mother-son, and if known to them, father-daughter. The males even get erections at the sight of food because they know they are required to put out before they can eat.

But that brings up the point that most matriarchal cultures that we've discovered were freely polyamorous. I'm sure I don't need to spell out why.

Yes I do realize that. And as you say female bonobos have the same sex drive of males or at least they keep up with the sex need of males. This is a quite big difference with humans, at least in our societies.

Also, I'm no mathematician, but even assuming your every claim about the repression of men's sexuality is true, no men want their fellows to have that kind of sexual freedom. Anyone who had thought it through would want it applied to themselves exclusively.

Really? where did you hear that?
And what about the freely polyamorous matriarchal cultures you were talking about?

So with that in mind, and again, seeing as the discouragement of a woman's sexuality is a throw-back from a male-heavy moral system, I would argue that the associated claim regarding the repression of male sexuality cannot be cast upon the "estrogen" of society, but rather, your "fellow man".

There used to be a lot of morality for sure in both genders. But I am sure that if women would decide to move to polyamorous sexuality which involves most of men (like in the matriarchal societies you were talking about) I can hardly imagine how most men could have any objection about it.