Why women are sluts and men are players.

[Malotis]

It seems to be a double standard in our society, and I must say I thoroughly dislike the idea of using any derogatory title to describe sexual behavior. However, to be fair the double standard is not entirely with out reason.

If a female at a school has slept with most of the males on campus, the first thing that comes to mind is wow, a female finding lots of male partners for the purpose of sex, I’m sure that must of been very difficult for her. However, if a male at a school has slept with most of the females on campus, then wow! The fact is that the male must have something pretty incredible to pull off such a feat. Be it looks, charm, or sophisticated intellect, if nothing else I would want to interview this man for the purpose of discovering the secret, for I’m assuming he knows or has something that I obviously do not.

Thus:
The female in question = slut, for virtually any woman has the capability to sleep with a lot of men… I mean, so long as she’s not morbidly obese or possess some other obvious unattractive deformity then she’s pretty much in the clear.
The male in question = player, for the task at hand is an art that not just any guy is necessarily able to pull off.

And it’s too bad. I’ve always felt that the chances of me getting laid would dramatically increase if negative social standards associated with promiscuous behavior simply did not exist. Sometimes I even try to communicate to females that these kinds of titles are degrading to women and that they should have the freedom to express their sexuality as they please, but needless to say I haven’t been very successful in this area.

If only I was given a nickel for every time I heard, “Please don’t think I’m a slut, I usually don’t do this with non-boy friends…” I mean come on now, is it really so necessary for females to repeatedly subject themselves to such derogatory labels?

[Vagrant]

Well, it's a matter of our mating strategies:

Studies indicate that 50% of men will say yes, without any question, if an attractive female walked up to them and asked for sex. When the same test was done with females and an attractive male, none of the women said yes.

So what you get is that attractive women can easily get men to sleep with her if she really wants. Whereas with men, it actually takes more effort, and can be considered rather impressive. Not to mention, men can have as many children as they have women. :p

I never call a girl a slut if she enjoys the act of sex -- that's entirely different. I'd call her a slut though, for being too promiscuous. That's dangerous. I'd also never use the term "player" for a guy either. I'd call him an idiot for being promiscuous. Promiscuity is incredibly irresponsible, especially with nearly 1/5th of the world's population having an STD.

Now if a guy had a harem... I might be less inclined to call him an idiot and be more impressed. >.>

[enfpchick]

Its simple. Men made the rules

[invicta]

Males have the burden of pursuit in our society, females are thought of as prizes to win. The double standard is purely social.

[Marcus]

The double standard is purely social.

Can you prove that scientifically?

[LionsPride]

I don't understand. How is having it easy or hard to find a partner related to being a slut?

I would presume that slut would imply a person (male or female) with little self worth that uses sex with multiple partners to make themselves feel better about themselves. Or, feels that sex is all they have to offer someone.

I do agree with the OP about the way slut is applied to women, often by women themselves, but rarely to men. I just think that the ability to get a partner does not actually define slut.

[invicta]

Can you prove that scientifically?

I like this question.

I think it might be better illustrated* anthropologically than scientifically. We tend to think that the social rules of Western civilization are "natural" to all humanity throughout history. There are cultures in which the women pursue the men, usually cultures in which there is less social stigma involving the abandonment of mothers and children by males.

*proof assumes the subject is entirely scientific, when it is in fact social and relational.

[Marcus]

I like this question.

I think it might be better illustrated* anthropologically than scientifically. We tend to think that the social rules of Western civilization are "natural" to all humanity throughout history. There are cultures in which the women pursue the men, usually cultures in which there is less social stigma involving the abandonment of mothers and children by males.

*proof assumes the subject is entirely scientific, when it is in fact social and relational.

But they might be the exceptions making the rule. There is a whole lot of theory about how sexual behavior is evolutionary. Culture can supersede instincts, but most of the time it might just follow them. Same goes for marriage. It can be viewed as a social construct following a biological one (monogamous behavior benefits the upbringing of offspring).

[rztrnc]

I'm a male and I'd be quite glad to be called a slut or any other derogatory word if, in exchange, I get to sleep with practically whichever woman I want, whenever I want. Hell, I'd get it tattooed on my forehead. I'd pay the security guards in all the buildings I frequent to yell "slut" whenever I pass through the door. And I would gladly go against any "social standards" if that was all I had to do to get laid.

[Tocsin]

It seems ironic that the reason women can get laid so easily is because most men are horny enough to screw anything with two holes between its hind legs, and yet, for some reason, it is women who earn the derisive term "slut" for this taking advantage of this situation.

I can't think of a derogatory term used exclusively for promiscuous men.

[LionsPride]

I can't think of a derogatory term used exclusively for promiscuous men.

I'd argue that slut is not exclusive to women. I have heard it used on men too. It's not as common, but always said in an equally derogatory term. Usually for a man who doesn't have any standards for the plethora of women he sleeps with. Those that would screw anything with a hole essentially.

[TheLastMohican]

It seems ironic that the reason women can get laid so easily is because most men are horny enough to screw anything with two holes between its hind legs, and yet, for some reason, it is women who earn the derisive term "slut" for this taking advantage of this situation.


...because it is.

[Karamazov]

Well, to quote the philosopher James Brown: "It's Man's World". That is, when observing the socio-evolution throughout history, on what the "fairer sex"'s place in that society is. In the Victorian age, for example, female members of the higher caste in England, ones who were "chaste" and "celibate", were a hot commodity for able bachelors aiming to bolster their standing.I think this pseudo- aesthetic chastity/prudery/chivalric notion of women filtered through American society and culture, partly from Britain.

I can understand the negative connotation, if its consistent, when someone assigns material value of their person for the sake of gaining material things. I even see the irresponsibility of promiscuity, and how detrimental it can be to ones health. However, the stigma is grossly disproportionate when the likes of Don Juan can get away with it; even attracting a certain mystique about him, whereas a Dona Juanita might just be a dog of the lowest order.

Ideally, these tangential rules should be applied to both men and women. Even more, why not just abandon such peripheral niceties in the first place?

[Vagrant]

I'd argue that slut is not exclusive to women. I have heard it used on men too. It's not as common, but always said in an equally derogatory term. Usually for a man who doesn't have any standards for the plethora of women he sleeps with. Those that would screw anything with a hole essentially.

Gigolo I think is the word.

Although I'm probably off.

[Sinequanon]

I do agree with the OP about the way slut is applied to women, often by women themselves, but rarely to men. I just think that the ability to get a partner does not actually define slut.
I think this gets at the crux of the issue. "Slut" is a term of judgment that women use against other women, as well. Outside of, say, a religious context, there is not generally a similar condemnation amongst men. Thus the problem, if one exists, isn't purely in the patriarchy, it also exists within whatever hierarchy women are creating for themselves.

[Karamazov]

Gigolo I think is the word.

Although I'm probably off.

Gigolo
1 : a man supported by a woman usually in return for his attentions 2 : a professional dancing partner or male escort

Slut
1chiefly British : a slovenly woman2 a: a promiscuous woman ; especially : prostitute b: a saucy girl : minx

The latter still bears a more negative definition. Being a gigolo sounds way more fun.

[bucolic_]

Think about it from the perspective of time spent to spread genes. Women must invest a lot more time and resources just to bear a child, men just need to impregnate a woman. Society at one time or another decided to start telling women that they need to be careful about who knocks them up. That's not to say it's fair, especially with the ubiquity of birth control, but I think that as an explanation it makes sense.

[braeden]

Its simple. Men made the rules

I disagree. When it comes to mating, men have to play by women's rules. This is simply caused by the disparity of the sexual needs; men want more sex. This causes situation where men try to get it, and women deside whether they give it or not (women are in position to choose). So men are players, because they play the game. Women just enforce the rules. This also means that men who get laid have achieved something. Same cannot be said for women.

The name calling issue has two dimensions:
1) Why do men call women sluts?
2) Why do women call other women sluts?

(I'm basing this on sexual market value theory.)

The first one can be explained by the disparity of the power. Women have sexual power over men, but not the other way around. Some men have e.g. economical power to compensate this, but not all men. Thus some have only one way to answer this disparity, let's call it punishing power. Basically, they lack the power to interest women, so they punish women who give sex to other men through name calling and social stigmatization. This increases the cost of giving sex for women. So, it's kind of retaliation effort. "If I'm not getting any, no one should!"

The second one is related to market value of women's sexuality. Because women's sexuality has value, women can trade it e.g. for men's attention and economical resources. There's kind of bidding contest going on among men who can get the girls. Now, if some women give "too easily" it also lowers the value other women can get from their sexuality. To clarify, why would men invest huge amount of time and money to impress those hard-to-get women if there are women who give it more easily? So by calling other women sluts, women try to (as did the men but for different reasons) sanctify this kind of behaviour and increase its cost.

[Alexander]

My thoughts are that men tend to pursue whereas women are passive. It’s what culture/biology demands.

[personal rant]
A women who would like to get to know you better would rather never see you again, than have to make any move in your direction.
[/personal rant]

Men typically want a large number of sexual partners and women a few. A man who sleeps with someone is accomplishing a goal whereas a woman who sleeps with someone is letting herself be seduced. Obviously not necessarily the case, but I think this is the general perception. I think this is why for men its positive, and women it’s negative.

I think for this to change women will have to stop acting like innocent flowers who never wanted a thing in their life. (If men changed nobody would ever hook up)

An interesting question, is a lesbian who sleeps with a lot of women still considered a slut?

[invicta]

But they might be the exceptions making the rule. There is a whole lot of theory about how sexual behavior is evolutionary. Culture can supersede instincts, but most of the time it might just follow them. Same goes for marriage. It can be viewed as a social construct following a biological one (monogamous behavior benefits the upbringing of offspring).

There is a whole lot of evolutionary theory regarding sexuality in very high vogue right now, I agree. I'm actually kind of bored with it, so I like to explore other parts of the whole that tend to be ignored under our current scientistic metaparadigm.

Biology is involved, for certain. Only women have babies. No arguing that. What happens socially as a result of this...well the word slut happens, for one. People gotta be up in each others business.

[TheLastMohican]

Think about it from the perspective of time spent to spread genes. Women must invest a lot more time and resources just to bear a child, men just need to impregnate a woman. Society at one time or another decided to start telling women that they need to be careful about who knocks them up. That's not to say it's fair, especially with the ubiquity of birth control, but I think that as an explanation it makes sense.

It's not just society. I think women have evolved to be particularly choosy, with good reason. A woman has a limited rate of reproduction: a maximum of one child every nine months, with extensive care of each child required even after the pregnancy is over. Therefore every time she has sex, she is risking a suspension of her reproductive abilities for a nine month period. A man, on the other hand, is able to keep reproducing even after impregnating several women, since his reproductive system is not carrying around the offspring. Therefore a man gets the best chances of producing good offspring if he has sex with many women (though he is choosy to at least some degree, to avoid particularly bad offspring), while a woman should ideally only have sex with a man who is likely to be better than any other man who might be available during the next nine months.

[invicta]

It's not just society. I think women have evolved to be particularly choosy, with good reason. A woman has a limited rate of reproduction: a maximum of one child every nine months, with extensive care of each child required even after the pregnancy is over. Therefore every time she has sex, she is risking a suspension of her reproductive abilities for a nine month period. A man, on the other hand, is able to keep reproducing even after impregnating several women, since his reproductive system is not carrying around the offspring. Therefore a man gets the best chances of producing good offspring if he has sex with many women (though he is choosy to at least some degree, to avoid particularly bad offspring), while a woman should ideally only have sex with a man who is likely to be better than any other man who might be available during the next nine months.

:cheesy:

All women are not baby crazy all the time. Seriously. I get a chuckle out of it when evolutionary theory supposes this. Many women may have been choosy because they did not want the life-threatening risk of pregnancy nonstop through the majority of their life span. Pregnancy and childbearing are not as much fun as they look.

Humans also evolved as social creatures--we use language and symbols to communicate. We can't divorce the social from the sexual if we are discussing evolution--they occur in the same creature.

[bucolic_]

It's not just society. I think women have evolved to be particularly choosy, with good reason. A woman has a limited rate of reproduction: a maximum of one child every nine months, with extensive care of each child required even after the pregnancy is over. Therefore every time she has sex, she is risking a suspension of her reproductive abilities for a nine month period. A man, on the other hand, is able to keep reproducing even after impregnating several women, since his reproductive system is not carrying around the offspring. Therefore a man gets the best chances of producing good offspring if he has sex with many women (though he is choosy to at least some degree, to avoid particularly bad offspring), while a woman should ideally only have sex with a man who is likely to be better than any other man who might be available during the next nine months.

Yep, no disagreements here.

[rara avis]

I don't consider myself particularly sanctimonious, but I definitely refer to and think of men as sluts when they sleep around indiscriminately &/or perfidiously and often enough that I would not want to sit next to them on the bus without a full body condom.

I don't know if that makes me a hero or a villain on this thread.

[bucolic_]

:cheesy:

All women are not baby crazy all the time. Seriously. I get a chuckle out of it when evolutionary theory supposes this. Many women may have been choosy because they did not want the life-threatening risk of pregnancy nonstop through the majority of their life span. Pregnancy and childbearing are not as much fun as they look.


I don't think this is what's being said necessarily, it has more to do with general sexual attitudes. We are capable of higher thought about our sexuality/childbirth, and deciding when we're going to actually procreate, but that doesn't change the fact that sexuality itself has evolved as a way of keeping our species alive.

[TheLastMohican]

I don't think this is what's being said necessarily, it has more to do with general sexual attitudes. We are capable of higher thought about our sexuality/childbirth, and deciding when we're going to actually procreate, but that doesn't change the fact that sexuality itself has evolved as a way of keeping our species alive.

+1
Invicta, you seem to have misinterpreted the post. I was explaining why the disparity exists between men's and women's attitudes towards choosing sexual partners, not saying that one sex or the other is obsessed with that aspect of life (though many people are).

[Futuremouse]

can't think of a derogatory term used exclusively for promiscuous men.

Player? Play-ah!?

the connotations of that are pretty repulsive to me. 'one who is skilled at a game'. coercing or psychologically manipulating a woman or girl into engaging in intercourse with you, and being labeled as one who is renown for doing just that isn't a compliment in any sense.

[Marcus]

Many women may have been choosy because they did not want the life-threatening risk of pregnancy nonstop through the majority of their life span. Pregnancy and childbearing are not as much fun as they look.
Reliable birth control is a relatively new invention.

Humans also evolved as social creatures--we use language and symbols to communicate. We can't divorce the social from the sexual if we are discussing evolution--they occur in the same creature.
Our emotions, like jealousy, are supposed to reflect our biological evolution more than our social evolution. For example, men are supposed to be more jealous about women giving sex to other men, while women are supposed to be more jealous about men giving resources to other women.

[Synamon]

It's not just society. I think women have evolved to be particularly choosy, with good reason. A woman has a limited rate of reproduction: a maximum of one child every nine months, with extensive care of each child required even after the pregnancy is over. Therefore every time she has sex, she is risking a suspension of her reproductive abilities for a nine month period. A man, on the other hand, is able to keep reproducing even after impregnating several women, since his reproductive system is not carrying around the offspring. Therefore a man gets the best chances of producing good offspring if he has sex with many women (though he is choosy to at least some degree, to avoid particularly bad offspring), while a woman should ideally only have sex with a man who is likely to be better than any other man who might be available during the next nine months.

Yeah, that's what flashes through my mind right before I have sex every time, NOT.

It's not about biology, it's about morals. Double standards reflect bias and represent hypocrisy. Using derogatory terms reflects badly on those who utter them in my opinion.

[TheLastMohican]

Yeah, that's what flashes through my mind right before I have sex every time, NOT.

Of course it doesn't "flash through your mind." That's what defines instinct. Try thinking deeply about why you find someone physically attractive. See what I mean?

It's not about biology, it's about morals. Double standards reflect bias and represent hypocrisy. Using derogatory terms reflects badly on those who utter them in my opinion.

No fair, you're trying to get us back on-topic! :p

[invicta]

It appears that I have not communicated well with the 'all women are not baby crazy 24/7 idea'.

It was supposed that women are choosy with sexual partners because they might have to stop being baby crazy long enough to bring a pregnancy to term. I suggested that the choosiness might have other biological and social reasons, one of those reasons being that pregnancy is more than a grunt in the night for women. Evolutionary, they would be choosy over whose sperm might be worth the risk of death.

I get it that we need to reproduce. There would be no evolution without it.

What interests me more, though, is how our social and sexual natures work together, which is the topic of this thread.

[Kisai]

Its simple. Men made the rules

If men really got to make the rules, heterosexual mating rituals would mirror homosexual male mating rituals, i.e. both males and females would be putting out at the drop of a hat.

[Marcus]

It's not about biology, it's about morals. Double standards reflect bias and represent hypocrisy. Using derogatory terms reflects badly on those who utter them in my opinion.

It clearly has a moral dimension, but it does not disclose that the double standard has biological origins.

[changos]

Males have the burden of pursuit in our society, females are thought of as prizes to win. The double standard is purely social.
I truly believe there must be something similar in us than there is in nature. We go "hunting", girls don't need it.

Scientifically speaking, the animal world makes THE FEMALE to be the one that gives the signal (by smell, behavior, hormones, pheromones!!!). I think it works the same way with us. In fact, the vanity of the human makes us try to explode this world we still don't understand to get more partners. So, that makes us ALL "sluts".

A human triggers the mechanism, other humans react, we are programmed to do so.

[Kisai]

It clearly has a moral dimension, but it does not disclose that the double standard has biological origins.

Just like "men should throw their lives away in wars" is a double standard that has biological origins.

[PHS Philip]

Either you've all read the selfish gene, or half of you are Dawkins messing with the rest of us.





PHS Philip added to this post, 1 minutes and 46 seconds later...

Yeah, that's what flashes through my mind right before I have sex every time, NOT.

It's not about biology, it's about morals. Double standards reflect bias and represent hypocrisy. Using derogatory terms reflects badly on those who utter them in my opinion.

No one's saying it's right. They're just saying why it is. Evolved this way does not mean should be this way.

[bucolic_]

It appears that I have not communicated well with the 'all women are not baby crazy 24/7 idea'.

It was supposed that women are choosy with sexual partners because they might have to stop being baby crazy long enough to bring a pregnancy to term. I suggested that the choosiness might have other biological and social reasons, one of those reasons being that pregnancy is more than a grunt in the night for women. Evolutionary, they would be choosy over whose sperm might be worth the risk of death.

I get it that we need to reproduce. There would be no evolution without it.

What interests me more, though, is how our social and sexual natures work together, which is the topic of this thread.

Right, that makes more sense, but it's not altogether different than what I was trying to get at in my original post, which is that women have to invest more to reproduce.

[Marcus]

Just like "men should throw their lives away in wars" is a double standard that has biological origins.

I don't get this one. Why would wars have a biological origin?

[ElstonGunn]

I just assumed that it was because, speaking in broad sociological terms, women play defense. It's generally up to the woman to decide if sex takes place or not. If she has a lot of sex, that implies that a lot of men meet her requirements (which could imply low standards or lots of high-quality men). If a man has a lot of sex, that implies that he meets a lot of women's standards (implying either a lot of women with low standards, or him being high quality in a lot of women's eyes.).

[Kisai]

I don't get this one. Why would wars have a biological origin?

The expenditure of men's lives has a biological origin.

Let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women. You send out the women to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, your tribe is screwed because you have a birthrate, at most of 5 children.

Now let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women, You send the men out to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, you're still going to have 100 or less birthrate and 5 guys who can't believe how lucky they are.

[Marcus]

Next year, you're still going to have 100 or less birthrate and 5 guys who can't believe how lucky they are.

This shows how war is just the interest of the ruling elite. BTW, I lose my genetic continuity if I die in a war, so I don't think it would be an evolutionary advantage to sacrifice myself for people unrelated to me.

[PHS Philip]

This shows how war is just the interest of the ruling elite. BTW, I lose my genetic continuity if I die in a war, so I don't think it would be an evolutionary advantage to sacrifice myself for people unrelated to me.

Tribes tend to be closely related. Your genes don't give a crap about your survival if they get passed on in 8 others because you die.

[Kisai]

This shows how war is just the interest of the ruling elite. BTW, I lose my genetic continuity if I die in a war, so I don't think it would be an evolutionary advantage to sacrifice myself for people unrelated to me.

You are in error. If the ruling elite loses the war, it is in the best interest of the other side to wipe out your bloodline. Whereas if you're just a soldier named Joe Shmoe, they don't really care if you've fought against their soldiers or not.

[TheLastMohican]

It was supposed that women are choosy with sexual partners because they might have to stop being baby crazy long enough to bring a pregnancy to term. I suggested that the choosiness might have other biological and social reasons, one of those reasons being that pregnancy is more than a grunt in the night for women. Evolutionary, they would be choosy over whose sperm might be worth the risk of death.


The risk of death is a consideration too, albeit minor compared to what I had mentioned. It is the same idea anyway. I don't know exactly what you mean by "baby crazy." It's not about sexual desire; it's about the risk of being impregnated by a man genetically inferior to the next one who appears, who will then be unable to impregnate the already-pregnant woman. It is advantageous to be extremely discriminating in order to be able to reproduce with the elite few, of whom one might meet a only several during one's lifetime. Biologically a woman cannot have more than 20 or so cycles of reproduction, while a man can have hundreds, all with different women.

Either you've all read the selfish gene, or half of you are Dawkins messing with the rest of us.


I haven't read (much of) The Selfish Gene yet, so I am forced to ask for clarification. :thinking:

[Sinequanon]

The expenditure of men's lives has a biological origin.

Let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women. You send out the women to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, your tribe is screwed because you have a birthrate, at most of 5 children.

Now let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women, You send the men out to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, you're still going to have 100 or less birthrate and 5 guys who can't believe how lucky they are.
Yeah but then you have significantly less biodiversity, and, unless those men had mutations that make them particularly apt to not getting blown up or stabbed (which is unlikely), have weakened the gene pool. We humans are always screwing up that whole natural selection thing. ;)

[TheLastMohican]

Your genes don't give a crap about your survival if they get passed on in 8 others because you die.

Yes, our genes are ruthless. ;) They'll even program some insects and spiders to die soon after reproducing, because after that point they no longer serve the genes' purposes!

[Marcus]

You are in error. If the ruling elite loses the war, it is in the best interest of the other side to wipe out your bloodline. Whereas if you're just a soldier named Joe Shmoe, they don't really care if you've fought against their soldiers or not.

Not really. It's quite rare to see mass genocide after a lost war.

[PHS Philip]

I haven't read (much of) The Selfish Gene yet, so I am forced to ask for clarification. :thinking:

(sorry for going a bit off topic here)

He has several chapters about how mating strategies develop between the sexes, why females will choose much more carefully, etc.

[Marcus]

Tribes tend to be closely related. Your genes don't give a crap about your survival if they get passed on in 8 others because you die.

This is questionable. I think I am much more motivated to pass my own genes than to preserve the genes of my relatives. You'd always choose your own son over your brother's.

[errrzarrr]

I don't get this one. Why would wars have a biological origin?

Read Robert Maltus (an economist) and how does the populations grow against how the resources we consume grow. It will show you why war is justified (from the evolutionary context) and why should we use birth control methods to avoid chaos, social crisis, starvation, population's sickness and therefore the war.

It will show you about the origins of religions and why in those times they used the human sacrifice ( in the days of starvation and crisis the gods talks to the king or the king's priest for human sacrifice so that town and family have great blessings , but that sacrifice is never ever a king's son or priest's son, but a son from the common-poor-ignorant people)

[Kisai]

Not really. It's quite rare to see mass genocide after a lost war.


Not mass genocide, just taking out the rulers and anyone else who could claim heritage to the throne. If mass genocide was more common, then soldiers would fight to the last tooth and nail and war would be even more spectacularly bloody.

[errrzarrr]

I just assumed that it was because, speaking in broad sociological terms, women play defense. It's generally up to the woman to decide if sex takes place or not. If she has a lot of sex, that implies that a lot of men meet her requirements (which could imply low standards or lots of high-quality men). If a man has a lot of sex, that implies that he meets a lot of women's standards (implying either a lot of women with low standards, or him being high quality in a lot of women's eyes.).

Wow, I like this one. Never seen it from that perspective.

[bucolic_]

(sorry for going a bit off topic here)

He has several chapters about how mating strategies develop between the sexes, why females will choose much more carefully, etc.

I've never read it.

This is questionable. I think I am much more motivated to pass my own genes than to preserve the genes of my relatives. You'd always choose your own son over your brother's.

But are you more willing to pass on your brother's genes, or the genes of some guy a few miles away?

[Marcus]

Read Robert Maltus (an economist) and how does the populations grow against how the resources we consume grow. It will show you why war is justified (from the evolutionary context) and why should we use birth control methods to avoid chaos, social crisis, starvation, population's sickness and therefore the war.

It will show you about the origins of religions and why in those times they used the human sacrifice ( in the days of starvation and crisis the gods talks to the king or the king's priest for human sacrifice so that town and family have great blessings , but that sacrifice is never ever a king's son or priest's son, but a son from the common-poor-ignorant people)

What you write seems to be more the product of cultural/social evolution than a biological one. I don't have an instinct for human sacrifice.

[PHS Philip]

This is questionable. I think I am much more motivated to pass my own genes than to preserve the genes of my relatives. You'd always choose your own son over your brother's.

Because you are more closely related to your son, so he is more likely to have any individual one of your genes.

Say your sisters have, between them, 6 sons and daughters. (Sisters because evolutionarily speaking you can be more sure of females' children than males'). Would you die to save those 6 children?

Each has 1/4 of your genetic material.

What about to save your three sisters? Each has 1/2 of your genetic material.

As you get farther from yourself, your willingness goes down because 1) less genetic material is shared, and 2) you can be less sure of the relation.

[Marcus]

But are you more willing to pass on your brother's genes, or the genes of some guy a few miles away?

I'd rather send my brother's wife to war than myself.

[errrzarrr]

The expenditure of men's lives has a biological origin.

Let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women. You send out the women to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, your tribe is screwed because you have a birthrate, at most of 5 children.

Now let's say you have a tribe of 100 men and 100 women, You send the men out to war. Only 5 come back. Next year, you're still going to have 100 or less birthrate and 5 guys who can't believe how lucky they are.

hey this one is brilliant too!

[PHS Philip]

I'd rather send my brother's wife to war than myself.

Would you rather send your brother or your sister? Your son or your daughter? Your mother or your father?

[Marcus]

Because you are more closely related to your son, so he is more likely to have any individual one of your genes.

Say your sisters have, between them, 6 sons and daughters. (Sisters because evolutionarily speaking you can be more sure of females' children than males'). Would you die to save those 6 children?

Each has 1/4 of your genetic material.

What about to save your three sisters? Each has 1/2 of your genetic material.

I think it's more of a morale question here, with a lot of social pressure included. The tribe might force me to sacrifice myself, but it's not my interest, but theirs.

Would you rather send your brother or your sister? Your son or your daughter? Your mother or your father?

I wouldn't send my son/daughter/wife. I cannot judge the rest purely on biological basis.

[PHS Philip]

I think it's more of a morale question here, with a lot of social pressure included. The tribe might force me to sacrifice myself, but it's not my interest, but theirs.

But why would the tribe force all the men, not all the women?

Most people, and most species, will sacrifice themselves roughly along the lines of what shared genetic material % would predict.





PHS Philip added to this post, 1 minutes and 5 seconds later...

I wouldn't send my son/daughter/wife. I cannot judge the rest purely on biological basis.

I'm not asking about what you would do on a biological basis. I'm asking what you would do based on how you would actually react.

[Marcus]

I'm not asking about what you would do on a biological basis. I'm asking what you would do based on how you would actually react.

I'd have to be in the situation to feel my emotions. I cannot predict them rationally.

But why would the tribe force all the men, not all the women?

Probably because women are more important for the upbringing of children than men. It's for the protection of already existing offspring. Again this is a complex decision. The tribe doesn't feel emotions, only the individuals do. If I'd the option, I'd leave the tribe with my close family.

[errrzarrr]

This shows how war is just the interest of the ruling elite.

Yes, as you said. War is just the interest of the ruling elite and that's where old religions come from, to maintain under control and happyness great masses of people.

BTW, I lose my genetic continuity if I die in a war, so I don't think it would be an evolutionary advantage to sacrifice myself for people unrelated to me.

But still if one people dies in a war that one individual is fighting for the greater good, for the community (remember we are social animals) and remember that the one that carries your child is the woman (supposing you already have a pregnant one at home), so she is the one that can't die.

And from other perspective: Remember about the Survival of the fittest, In any war many die and a few return with life, those that died are the weakest (that means that they was a dead-weight for the evolution of the group, so, for nature, it is 'fair' that they die, that's nature. for nature, dedicating food/resources to the weaks makes no sense) and those that returned are the strongest, the fittest, the ones that deserves passing their genes to the next generation, and the resources available are now dedicated to them and their offspring. That's nature.

[Marcus]

Remember about the Survival of the fittest, In any war many die and a few return with life, those that died are the weakest.

Yes, the socially weakest go to war. The strongest can remain home.

[errrzarrr]

What you write seems to be more the product of cultural/social evolution than a biological one. I don't have an instinct for human sacrifice.
Sure you do. Every healthy human (and animal) have it. It is in the core, the sub-conscious. When you see your son in danger and your woman (with your baby in her hands or womb) your inner warrior (or whatever they call it) just clicks and you fight to save your family. Did you see that movie with Denzel Washington, John Q. He is able to die, literally, so his son get a new heart?
"Today a father is not going to bury his son. Today the son is going to bury the father."





errrzarrr added to this post, 3 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Yes, the socially weakest go to war. The strongest can remain home.

Yes i agree on that. I'm sure that happens.

[LionsPride]

Taking this back to the discussion of slut, I'm not entirely convinced it has biological implications. Women are not 100% monogamous creatures. It is not unheard of in the animal kingdom that you sleep with the best genes and marry the best supporter. A good example is the infidelity seen in blue birds. To add to that there are groups of apes where sex with multiple partners is part of tribal bonding and groups where it is not. Generally humans are felt to be somewhere in the middle of this range.

"Slut" to me is used to maintain the social requirements that women should be chaste. Much like using the phrase "ball buster" to make women who wish to climb the professional ladder looked on as unfavourable. The insults are designed to drive behaviour, behaviour deemed fit in the 1950's, and not the other way around. In the 20's these sorts of behaviours were not so taboo*. Something happened in the 30's, 40's and 50's that really stifled both male and female roles in North America and I think we are still recovering

*I say taboo in that they were talked about rather than shushed, but not that the behaviours were common for women...

[invicta]

The risk of death is a consideration too, albeit minor compared to what I had mentioned. It is the same idea anyway. I don't know exactly what you mean by "baby crazy." It's not about sexual desire; it's about the risk of being impregnated by a man genetically inferior to the next one who appears, who will then be unable to impregnate the already-pregnant woman. It is advantageous to be extremely discriminating in order to be able to reproduce with the elite few, of whom one might meet a only several during one's lifetime. Biologically a woman cannot have more than 20 or so cycles of reproduction, while a man can have hundreds, all with different women.


Yes, the sexual costs are much higher for women. Human childbearing is more risky than for any other mammal, it is not a minor concern. Human babies have far larger heads, proportionally, than other animals. Our brains are large. This makes childbearing difficult, and many women and babies did die in earlier eras.

I also think that the evolution of humans as social creatures is often not given the level of consideration given to humans as reproductive creatures. In mating, communication is highly advantageous to both sexes, and communities would never have formed were it not for social structures.

I don't think that the derogation of women for sexual expression is anywhere near as much a biological or evolutionary occurance as it is a social one. The recognition of the biological disparity in the sexual equation has led to a number of differing social attitudes regarding sexuality. Celebrating men's prowess and derogating women's sexuality is only one example of this.

It still makes me laugh when some theorists theorize that women are constantly wishing themselves pregnant. It's just not a part of my experience.

[OrrDavey]

If you don't believe in evolution please just skip my post.

I look at it from an game theory perspective for human evolution.

Worst outcome: If both genders have sex very selectively, humans don't exist after a handful of generations.

Middle outcome: If both genders have sexy very loosely, there is no logic at all for reproducing - the outcome is just random.

Best outcome: If only one gender has sex very selectively, there is at least some reasoning behind what genes get passed on to future generations. Women happen to be the selective gender.

-

Of course none of this crap matters nowadays as the instinctive things that girls look for in good mates really don't mean too much - I mean really, why should sticking your chest out further help attract girls, yet it does? Then again, according to Kurt Vonnegut, smart people are going to be the end of the human race.

And this is just my theory and I don't really want to debate it, so if you disagree please know that I won't reply.

[Vagrant]

If you don't believe in evolution please just skip my post.

I look at it from an game theory perspective for human evolution.

Worst outcome: If both genders have sex very selectively, humans don't exist after a handful of generations.

Middle outcome: If both genders have sexy very loosely, there is no logic at all for reproducing - the outcome is just random.

Best outcome: If only one gender has sex very selectively, there is at least some reasoning behind what genes get passed on to future generations. Women happen to be the selective gender.

-

Of course none of this crap matters nowadays as the instinctive things that girls look for in good mates really don't mean too much - I mean really, why should sticking your chest out further help attract girls, yet it does? Then again, according to Kurt Vonnegut, smart people are going to be the end of the human race.

And this is just my theory and I don't really want to debate it, so if you disagree please know that I won't reply.

Evolutionarily, there is no evidence that suggests that either gender has real "selecting" power.

As far as sexual dimorphism in humans goes, it's pretty insignificant compared to a lot of other animals. In ducks, for example, the whole feather pattern is different, size is significantly different, and habits are significantly different between the genders.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._humans

Most of these differences aren't very big. That suggests that both genders have had equal choosing power, historically. Usually with other animals, you see much more distinct differences between genders with one gender being more selective than the other.

[Antares]

I'd argue that slut is not exclusive to women. I have heard it used on men too. It's not as common, but always said in an equally derogatory term. Usually for a man who doesn't have any standards for the plethora of women he sleeps with. Those that would screw anything with a hole essentially.

Man-whore? Don't know how common this is, but I've seen it used.

[Marcus]

If you don't believe in evolution please just skip my post.

I look at it from an game theory perspective for human evolution.

Worst outcome: If both genders have sex very selectively, humans don't exist after a handful of generations.

Middle outcome: If both genders have sexy very loosely, there is no logic at all for reproducing - the outcome is just random.

Best outcome: If only one gender has sex very selectively, there is at least some reasoning behind what genes get passed on to future generations. Women happen to be the selective gender.


And what of selectiveness is not (only) connected to gender? For example, INTJs are quite selective, regardless of gender.

[tp6626]

Haven't read the rest of this thread, but my perception is that it is about the stereotypes of the person who views the issue like that. It's more conservative for people to think along the lines of the thread title, and liberal to think outside of that context. And the roots of these stances are another topic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[blueback]

I'd argue that slut is not exclusive to women. I have heard it used on men too. It's not as common, but always said in an equally derogatory term. Usually for a man who doesn't have any standards for the plethora of women he sleeps with. Those that would screw anything with a hole essentially.
I've called guys sluts and for the same reason I've called girls sluts.

The word is appropriate when the person in question uses sex as a way to get attention. I've known guys who put a lot of effort into trying to meet women, and usually hang out with the hot ones for most of the night, but never seem to go home with the hot ones. They always settle for a less-than-hot one because it is more important for them to get something, some sort of attention, than to get the right sort of attention. That is the same thing girls are doing when they sleep with guys because it's the only way they can think of to get guys to pay attention to them, even though it's the wrong sort of attention.

The way I see it, a player is a person (male or female) who enjoys TRYING to get members of the opposite sex to sleep with them. They are unaffected when they are rejected, and take "dry spells" in stride, because they are satisfied by simply trying. A player doesn't value the attention, only the right sort of attention; in this case from a desirable member of the opposite sex, rather than ANY member of the opposite sex. Girls are players too, when you think about it this way.

[radames]

Why are we afraid to admit we selectively relate to monkeys when it is obvious they aren't picky with their sexual partners and hardly fight?

Which human decided he or she would be better than us to judge sexual acts? I am sure cures for these stds would come a lot faster if people were more unified instead of fighting all of the time. Yet, primal instincts say that we must kill to survive right? No surviving off of fruits, plants, or natural food, only meat. We have to have our blood. Animals screw each other to eventually eat each other, we are no different. How aggressive is someone after sex? How destructive? How about animals? What if it were the answer and these diseases were only a decoy, or an intimidation factor to the solution hiding in the unity that could be created, the minds made as one, geniuses working together in perfect synergy. We all know what happens when multiple people harmoniously do one task. It is a "piece of cake" and hardly a challenge.

These are my thoughts. I don't have excessive amounts of sex. I am another "joe schmoe" yet I have ideas and know it is usually tougher for one person to do things rather than a group. It usually takes a bunch of unified minds to really bring about amazing things. We hardly see our capability at the moment. Oh, geniuses have found some amazing things but there are far greater things out there, in my opinion.

Why aren't their locks or complex codes, or "firewalls" protecting sexual organs to ensure only the right "pieces of the puzzle" have sex? Sure, this can be compared to many things yet it is something to think about in determining why we are so damn worried?

Lets have some sex dammit! lol

*Deflating back to reality . . . *

[LiamWolf]

Deju Vu; I read this one on MyYearbook. I will tell you the same as I told the people there. I have watched and studied, and it turns out the stereotyping for "Whores" comes from females. Jealousy takes control of them when a guy they like decides to go out with some "other girl". I'm just speculating that the "Whores" you are talking about are in school; If not I'll continue anyway because a nickname like that will stick with you for life.

A female (generalizing for the win) will often blow things out of proportion. So maybe the "Other Girl" just kissed this guy, but the "Jealous Girl" will believe that she slept with him. She will run and tell her friends that the female had slept with the male, and this is where it gets really fun.

Before I continue do you remember that game where one kid would say something, you would have to pass it down the line and by the time it got to the end it would be something completely different? Well that often happens here.

Say the female started the rumor that "Other Girl" slept with guy; This rumor starts getting passed around to other students and it starts changing.

"'Other Girl" slept with guy"
"'Other Girl" went all out"
"Did you hear that 'Other Girl' likes sex" "No, she's a whore!" "I agree"
"I heard that 'Whore' fucked a member of the football team" "I heard she slept with all of them"
"That 'Whore' loves cock, and she's slept with almost every guy in school" "That 'Slut'"

Two Hours Later.....

"That sluts a whore and she loves taking a big cock; I heard she gets it from her mother." and all the males start asking her out; Jjust so they can sleep with her.

Now how would this effect a person later in life? Nicknames normally stick around, and it only takes one person to put it back into effect.

Say this female went into the bosses office and he tried to hit on her, invited her to dinner and she accepted. Speculation happens again, this time it could be a male or female starting. "She's going to fuck him to get ahead" "I agree shes a 'WHORE'"

This can be used in many different environments, and with many different topics. So if you hate someone and want to manipulate a group of people; Try it out, Start a rumor.

[Lucid]

First of all, people on this board throw around terms like evolution and biology and give these things as reasons for a variety of behaviors in humans. However, since most of us are not biologists or behaviorists and my (very limited) research into these things has shown that most of the assumptions that we laypeople make about evolution and biology are incorrect. Unless you're a scientist who has studied this field, you should shut up about whether a certain behavior or trait is evolutionary or biological in origen. Much more of our behavior is dictated by social norms and how we are raised than by anything psyiological.

Secondly, to say "women do blah and men do blah because it's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint" is actually really unscientific and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You are bad INTJs and are all in danger of having your INTJ cards revoked. This means you'll have to be an ESFX, whose unscinentific approach to things and whose tendency to say asinine things such as "It's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint" makes them frustrating for we rational, scientific types to deal with.

Thirdly, "manwhore", "he-ho" and even "slut" are all terms which can be used to describe promiscuous males. Whatever the (stupid and unscientific) reasons for the social double standard, it seems to be changing slowly. Which is something that both males and females should be happy about, since it means that we can all have more sex if we want to.

That is all.

[LionsPride]

If a female at a school has slept with most of the males on campus, the first thing that comes to mind is wow, a female finding lots of male partners for the purpose of sex, I’m sure that must of been very difficult for her. However, if a male at a school has slept with most of the females on campus, then wow! The fact is that the male must have something pretty incredible to pull off such a feat. Be it looks, charm, or sophisticated intellect, if nothing else I would want to interview this man for the purpose of discovering the secret, for I’m assuming he knows or has something that I obviously do not.


You want the secret to sleeping with lots of women? Put getting laid ahead of all other criteria. Ahead of obesity, disease, wealth, status, self esteem, intelligence, age and all else. It does not take any sophistication or 'skillz' to get laid, even for men. I know a guy who does this. For him, getting sex is more important than who he has sex with. Sure he will nail a hot chick if he can get one, but if they aren't biting, he moves on down the line and down the scale until he finds one that does. He takes home a girl every night he goes out and he gets laid all the time, but trust me it's nothing worth interviewing about. He'll just tell you sex is more important than standards. His friends call him a slut.


I've known guys who put a lot of effort into trying to meet women, and usually hang out with the hot ones for most of the night, but never seem to go home with the hot ones. They always settle for a less-than-hot one because it is more important for them to get something, some sort of attention, than to get the right sort of attention.

Yep, that's a slut, as I use the phrase. But, slut is an insult, not a technical term. While I think the above is a more true use of the insult as the activity is generally unhealthy, the term is still an insult and can be applied with the intent to do harm to a person. I think women, who have a tendency to make themselves feel better by insulting others around them, are more prone to apply the word to other women which is why it gets applied in all sorts of outrageous ways.

[PeterIMC]

It seems to be a double standard in our society, and I must say I thoroughly dislike the idea of using any derogatory title to describe sexual behavior. However, to be fair the double standard is not entirely with out reason.

If a female at a school has slept with most of the males on campus, the first thing that comes to mind is wow, a female finding lots of male partners for the purpose of sex, I’m sure that must of been very difficult for her. However, if a male at a school has slept with most of the females on campus, then wow! The fact is that the male must have something pretty incredible to pull off such a feat. Be it looks, charm, or sophisticated intellect, if nothing else I would want to interview this man for the purpose of discovering the secret, for I’m assuming he knows or has something that I obviously do not.

Thus:
The female in question = slut, for virtually any woman has the capability to sleep with a lot of men… I mean, so long as she’s not morbidly obese or possess some other obvious unattractive deformity then she’s pretty much in the clear.
The male in question = player, for the task at hand is an art that not just any guy is necessarily able to pull off.

And it’s too bad. I’ve always felt that the chances of me getting laid would dramatically increase if negative social standards associated with promiscuous behavior simply did not exist. Sometimes I even try to communicate to females that these kinds of titles are degrading to women and that they should have the freedom to express their sexuality as they please, but needless to say I haven’t been very successful in this area.

If only I was given a nickel for every time I heard, “Please don’t think I’m a slut, I usually don’t do this with non-boy friends…” I mean come on now, is it really so necessary for females to repeatedly subject themselves to such derogatory labels?

Your post is full of contradictions. "Every time you heard...... " and "I’ve always felt that the chances of me getting laid would dramatically increase" Doesn't sound like you have that many nickels.

Trying to explain lack of success by blaming it on society.....

If you actually did interview a bunch of "players" it's unlikely you'll find any direct similarities. There is an underlying reason for some men to be more successful than the rest of them.

It's all about power. The more power a man has, or seems to have (because it doesn't have to be real) the more women will be interested in him.

Power is a very generic word and can mean lots of things of course.

Interesting thing is that if you look at successful men like celebrities, you'll find that women want to have sex with them and men want to be around them. Both for the same reason: Increase their status. Both women and men will have an increased self esteem if a very successful man is willing to spend time with them. The obvious ways of course are that with women that's sexual and with men that's through friendship.

But this doesn't mean that every woman wants to sleep with a celebrity, nor does it mean that every man wants to be friends with a celebrity. Everybody has other things that they want to associate them selves with. Celebrities are just an obvious example. But if you are for example into green stuff, you´re more likely to be impressed by somebody that has achieved greatness in some environmental project.


Any man that wants to blame some outside reason for not being able to get laid will always be in that situation. Self confidence is an absolute requirement to increase your attractiveness. Really doesn't matter if you´re good looking or not.

Being an INTJ you should have a high self confidence naturally, but I think self confidence is not a generic thing. If you´re very confident about your self in one area, you may be a lot less confident in another area. If you consider women to be a specific area, then you´re in trouble.

What works best is to just not care. Don't try to please a woman with what you think she wants to hear. Just tell her what you want to tell and sooner or later you'll end up talking to one that loves to hear what ever you have to say.

By the way, I'm no player myself. The whole concept of "getting a woman" just to get laid is a waste of time to me. When I was a teenager that seemed to be the goal of some of my friends when we went out and I was always looking at that like: Losers! (though I never told them that of course.)

[OrrDavey]

Alright then, Lucid.

You aren't allowed to have any opinions regarding the economy or financial issues. Obviously economic theories are set in stone and anyone that doesn't conform to the textbooks way of thinking about these ideas are just illogical morons. I mean, my professor said so! And shit, while we're at it, you aren't allowed to have your own opinions on anything except the ones that you have studied a lot!

Doesn't sound so reasonable to me.

[blueback]

Hey! Are you sure you should have an opinion about who should have opinions and on what? Have you studied opinionology for at least 5 years? Have you publised? Have you attended any conferences? If not, then you're not qualified to have an opinion on who can have opinions.

[Vagrant]

Unless you're a scientist who has studied this field, you should shut up about whether a certain behavior or trait is evolutionary or biological in origen.

Secondly, to say "women do blah and men do blah because it's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint" is actually really unscientific and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.Oooh, oooh, meeee!

*majoring in Biology*

And yes, sometimes people on this board don't know what they're talking about when it comes to biology (I'm not trying to insult anybody when I say that). The case of players versus sluts is not biological in origin, it's historical/social. The sexual dimorphism between men and women indicates a relative equality in selective power. Which would suggest a social construct.

You aren't allowed to have any opinions regarding the economy or financial issues. Obviously economic theories are set in stone and anyone that doesn't conform to the textbooks way of thinking about these ideas are just illogical morons. I mean, my professor said so! And shit, while we're at it, you aren't allowed to have your own opinions on anything except the ones that you have studied a lot!

Doesn't sound so reasonable to me.I don't think she's trying to be rude OrrDavey. It's just she's pointing out that more often than not, somebody who has not studied biology extensively, and is not active in the field tends to make assumptions that have either been proven wrong or has strong evidence against it. Because it's still an evolving field, new evidence comes up everyday. The field of genetics literally doubles in information every 1.5 years (which would mean after 3 years in uni, at most I could have 1/4th of all knowledge about genetics).

I'm in my third year at university, and I'm still learning more about biology. I find that when I argue for evolution against anybody who doesn't have a background in biology, they make a lot of assumptions simply because they lack the knowledge. If they had the index of knowledge from studying, they might not be so opposed to evolution or natural selection.

Now, that's not to say you're wrong postulating that there's a biological basis behind this phenomenon -- usually with most social constructs, there is some kind of biological reason. But in this case, the social construct is not very strongly related to biology, but moreso to history.

[Marcus]

The sexual dimorphism between men and women indicates a relative equality in selective power. Which would suggest a social construct.

Is this scientific now, or just an opinion? In case the former, it would be nice to back it up with some arguments.

[Lucid]

Alright then, Lucid.

You aren't allowed to have any opinions regarding the economy or financial issues. Obviously economic theories are set in stone and anyone that doesn't conform to the textbooks way of thinking about these ideas are just illogical morons. I mean, my professor said so! And shit, while we're at it, you aren't allowed to have your own opinions on anything except the ones that you have studied a lot!

Doesn't sound so reasonable to me.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion. But realize that it is an opinion and not scientific fact. Relating your opinion to science is one way to give it the appearance of credibility. However, with regard to evolution, biology and behavior, many of the things people say about these things and many of the ways people use these sciences to justify their opinions are gross misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the sciences. It's like saying that it's obvious that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us. From an uninformed perspective, these observations seem to be correct, but as we all now know, when one has a little more information and looks into these things a little more scientifically they are actually completely wrong.

You don't have to be a mechanic to know whether or not your car starts, but it's another thing entirely to say things like, "The reason women who are promiscuous are looked down upon and men who are promiscuous are respected has its roots in biology and evolution." It's a rather ignorant statement. For one thing, evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive (and a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference), for another social standards about which genders can have many sexual partners have varied over time and between cultures.

By the way, what you just tried to do is commonly known as a straw man argument (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and it is a logical fallacy.

I don't think she's trying to be rude OrrDavey. It's just she's pointing out that more often than not, somebody who has not studied biology extensively, and is not active in the field tends to make assumptions that have either been proven wrong or has strong evidence against it. Because it's still an evolving field, new evidence comes up everyday. The field of genetics literally doubles in information every 1.5 years (which would mean after 3 years in uni, at most I could have 1/4th of all knowledge about genetics).

Yes, exactly. Thank you. I certainly wasn't trying to insult anybody, merely point out that what seems to be the case to people who don't know very much more than the bare bones of a subject has often been proved wrong by the people who study it for a living and that I think we laypeople should be more careful when we make these kinds of statements about fields that you really have to have a lot of schooling and experience to fully understand, and which are discovering new things all the time. Especially since much of what we're discovering is completely unintuitive and seems to go against so much of our "natural" or "traditional" wisdom.

[Vagrant]

Is this scientific now, or just an opinion? In case the former, it would be nice to back it up with some arguments.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._humans

While this is indeed an opinion (I will not deny that), it is based on the evidence I am aware of. From my understanding most species that experience strong sexual dimorphism (moose, ducks, etc) usually have a female with strong selective power. With humans, our sexual dimorphism isn't as strong, and is relatively balanced -- males are slightly bigger and stronger, but women have ridiculously sized breasts compared to other species. Which looks roughly equal in terms of dimorphism. Which to me would suggest equal selective power.

Like I said though, it is an opinion/extrapolation based on the knowledge I have.

[Marcus]

"The reason women who are promiscuous are looked down upon and men who are promiscuous are respected has its roots in biology and evolution" is a really ignorant statement. For one thing, evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive (and a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference), for another social standards about which genders can have many sexual partners have varied over time and between cultures.

Your argument does not preclude the that it can have an evolutionary origin.

[Lucid]

Your argument does not discloses that it can have an evolutionary origin.

Are you trying to say that my argument does not discount the possibility that it might have an evolutionary origen? If so then you are correct. It was not intended to. Anything is possible. But since the current double standard has not been constant throughout human history, it's far more likely that it is a social construct. In addition, if we look to animals, many are sexually promicsous across gender lines. Some animals have mating habits which are designed to account for this. In some cases it has been theorized that sexual promiscuity on the part of females (in non-human animals) keeps the species stronger, since only extremely healthy males with very active sperm will be able to fertalize an egg.

[Marcus]

From my understanding most species that experience strong sexual dimorphism (moose, ducks, etc) usually have a female with strong selective power. With humans, our sexual dimorphism isn't as strong, and is relatively balanced -- males are slightly bigger and stronger, but women have ridiculously sized breasts compared to other species. Which looks roughly equal in terms of dimorphism. Which to me would suggest equal selective power.

It's far from being a strong scientific argument. I don't feel that our arguments were less grounded.

Are you trying to say that my argument does not discount the possibility that it might have an evolutionary origen?

That was my point.

[Vagrant]

It's far from being a strong scientific argument. I don't feel that our arguments were less grounded.

As I said, extrapolation based on the knowledge I have.

[Lucid]

That was my point.

Yes, that's why I was asking. Your wording was rather unclear to me. No offense meant, the fault may have been mine.

[Marcus]

Yes, that's why I was asking. Your wording was rather unclear to me. No offense meant, the fault may have been mine.

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker.

[OrrDavey]

First of all, in your initial post, you did pretty much just say, "Your idea is wrong and you don't have enough knowledge in biology to make a statement like that."

I never cited any scientific sources. In fact, that only word I used was "evolution". This gives it the appearance of having scientific credibility? Really? If you ever make a post and you include the word "economy" should I be able to shut down whatever you have to say on that basis alone?

And lets be real here, what I wrote isn't even close to being impossible. Maybe most of the cultures that had both promiscuous males and females already disappeared for the exact reason I listed. Or maybe it was because of disease. Do we even know the social norms of humans from over 6000 years ago? I am a little skeptical of the normal answer that it mostly a social thing - which I have heard time and time again. I have a different idea on the subject.

I hear all of the time from people, "I think the cost of health care will go down and be more affordable to Americans if we adopt a universal health care system." This causes me to roll my eyes - as I know a lot about the issue and disagree with what they say - but I never tell them they are wrong and should not make statements like that. If I discuss their idea at all, I never attack the person, I try to present some of the ideas that I have formed my own opinions from.

Also, economics is a lot like biology in that it is a relatively new field of study. Who really knows, they might actually end up being right about universal health care. I don't think they will be, but I sure won't tell them they aren't allowed to spread their ideas because they haven't been studying economics for years.

What is the logical fallacy called where instead of discussing the person's idea you discuss their credentials. Sorry I don't remember the technical term for this - I took my intro writing class a long time ago.

"I think white bread is healthier than wheat bread."

"Uhm, I am sorry, that is not true. You don't have enough experience or background in nutrition to know this, so please don't make statements like that."

[Lucid]

First of all, in your initial post, you did pretty much just say, "Your idea is wrong and you don't have enough knowledge in biology to make a statement like that."

I never cited any scientific sources. In fact, that only word I used was "evolution". This gives it the appearance of having scientific credibility? Really? If you ever make a post and you include the word "economy" should I be able to shut down whatever you have to say on that basis alone?

And lets be real here, what I wrote isn't even close to being impossible. Maybe most of the cultures that had both promiscuous males and females already disappeared for the exact reason I listed. Or maybe it was because of disease. Do we even know the social norms of humans from over 6000 years ago? I am a little skeptical of the normal answer that it mostly a social thing - which I have heard time and time again. I have a different idea on the subject.

I hear all of the time from people, "I think the cost of health care will go down and be more affordable to Americans if we adopt a universal health care system." This causes me to roll my eyes - as I know a lot about the issue and disagree with what they say - but I never tell them they are wrong and should not make statements like that. If I discuss their idea at all, I never attack the person, I try to present some of the ideas that I have formed my own opinions from.

Also, economics is a lot like biology in that it is a relatively new field of study. Who really knows, they might actually end up being right about universal health care. I don't think they will be, but I sure won't tell them they aren't allowed to spread their ideas because they haven't been studying economics for years.

What is the logical fallacy called where instead of discussing the person's idea you discuss their credentials. Sorry I don't remember the technical term for this - I took my intro writing class a long time ago.

"I think white bread is healthier than wheat bread."

"Uhm, I am sorry, that is not true. You don't have enough experience or background in nutrition to know this, so please don't make statements like that."

If you're trying to say that it's a scientific fact that promiscuity among women is looked down upon for evolutionary reasons then you don't have enough knowledge in the necessary fields to make a statement like that. If you're trying to say that it's possible it has roots in biology and evolution, I wouldn't disagree that it's possible, although I don't think this is the case. But I'm not an expert in these fields either, so it's possible that either of us is wrong.

I certainly didn't mean to attack you and apologize if it seems that I did. You may not tell people that they're wrong if you think they are, but I do. Sorry if you have a problem with this.

I think the logical fallacy you're thinking of is the appeal to authority (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and it's only a logical fallacy in some situations. If you're asking about a logical fallacy where telling a layperson that they don't understand something as well as an expert and that his or her conclusions are therefore suspect.... I don't think that's a fallacy. At least not one that I know of, but I don't know them all off hand.

You're still not understanding (or maybe not acknowledging) my point. There's a difference between an opinion and a scientific fact. You can certainly express any opinion you want, but science is something very different and if you're trying to use science to reinforce your opinion you need to have a better idea of what you're talking about than most people do with regard to evolution and biology.

You seem to have been very offended by my questioning that your knowledge of evolution or biology is the justification for your opinion that you seem to think it is. I'm sorry to have offended you. Often I post things that are intended to be funny, but end up offending people and if that was the case then the fault is mine.
But I'm still not trying to tell you that you can't have the opinion you do. Just that it doesn't seem to be as based in science as you seem (from your posts) to think it is. That's all. Calm down. It's ok. I'm not rallying the villagers to come invade your castle with torches or pitchforks. I said that the social convention was stupid, not that you are stupid. In fact, my post and comments about people citing evolution and biology was not directed at you specifically (or at anyone specifically), but sort of everyone in general. So I'm not sure why you thought I was attacking you personally.

[OrrDavey]

If you're trying to say that it's possible it has roots in biology and evolution, I wouldn't disagree that it's possible, although I don't think this is the case.

I was saying that it is a possibility - one that I personally believe - that women evolved to pick their mates more selectively than males. This doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being looked down upon or anything like that. The look down upon part could come from a large number of other possibilities - as a completely random idea, maybe this stigma comes from the fact that human beings are often made uncomfortable by things that are different from normal.

You tell people they are "wrong" about something when that thing is far from having a definite answer? And did I present my ideas as scientific fact? I didn't cite any sources or anything like that.

I am not offended, I am just genuinely surprised by how close minded you came off as.

[Lucid]

I was saying that it is a possibility - one that I personally believe - that women evolved to pick their mates more selectively than males. This doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being looked down upon or anything like that. The look down upon part could come from a large number of other possibilities - as a completely random idea, maybe this stigma comes from the fact that human beings are often made uncomfortable by things that are different from normal.

You tell people they are "wrong" about something when that thing is far from having a definite answer? And did I present my ideas as scientific fact? I didn't cite any sources or anything like that.

I am not offended, I am just genuinely surprised by how close minded you came off as.

First of all, people on this board throw around terms like evolution and biology and give these things as reasons for a variety of behaviors in humans. However, since most of us are not biologists or behaviorists and my (very limited) research into these things has shown that most of the assumptions that we laypeople make about evolution and biology are incorrect. Unless you're a scientist who has studied this field, you should shut up about whether a certain behavior or trait is evolutionary or biological in origen. Much more of our behavior is dictated by social norms and how we are raised than by anything psyiological.

Secondly, to say "women do blah and men do blah because it's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint" is actually really unscientific and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. You are bad INTJs and are all in danger of having your INTJ cards revoked. This means you'll have to be an ESFX, whose unscinentific approach to things and whose tendency to say asinine things such as "It's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint" makes them frustrating for we rational, scientific types to deal with.

Thirdly, "manwhore", "he-ho" and even "slut" are all terms which can be used to describe promiscuous males. Whatever the (stupid and unscientific) reasons for the social double standard, it seems to be changing slowly. Which is something that both males and females should be happy about, since it means that we can all have more sex if we want to.

That is all.

I don't think I said you were wrong. I said that the fact that women are looked down upon for behavior that men are congratulated for was stupid and unscientific. I said that often the things we laypeople see as obvious (such as a flat earth) are incorrect when looked at scientifically and I said that most people are not qualified to make determinations about biological or evolutionary reasons for social behavior.

If you weren't saying that there is a biological or evolutionary reason for the double standard then what are you concerned about? You're taking things that I was directing to no one in particular to be directed at you and to be intended to insult you. Until I specifically started quoting your posts in mine, I was not speaking directly to or about you.

You have read more into my posts than there actually was. You are freaking out over nothing. Please stop.

[Marcus]

Anything is possible. But since the current double standard has not been constant throughout human history, it's far more likely that it is a social construct.
I don't think it should necessarily reflect that. We should examine throughly under what circumstances were there different social constructs. My theory is that those were rare exceptions.

In addition, if we look to animals, many are sexually promicsous across gender lines. Some animals have mating habits which are designed to account for this. In some cases it has been theorized that sexual promiscuity on the part of females (in non-human animals) keeps the species stronger, since only extremely healthy males with very active sperm will be able to fertalize an egg.

That's the case for lions, but it's not the case for humans. As I see, this argument rather strengthens my point of view. I mean that I don't know about sperm competition in case of humans.

Also, for humans the main drive is not to get fertilized by the healthiest male, but to rise the healthiest children possible. As child rising requires an extreme amount of investment, monogamous behavior (or the facade of it) gives a clear advantage for females.

[rahdam]

Fighting on the internet is like running in the special olympics...Ill leave the punchline to you ;)

[Lucid]

I don't think it should necessarily reflect that. We should examine throughly under what circumstances were there different social constructs. My theory is that those were rare exceptions.

That's the case for lions, but it's not the case for humans. As I see, this argument rather strengthens my point of view. I mean that I don't know about sperm competition in case of humans.

Also, for humans the main drive is not to get fertilized by the healthiest male, but to rise the healthiest children possible. As child rising requires an extreme amount of investment, monogamous behavior (or the facade of it) gives a clear advantage for females.

I'm not talking about humans. My example was only about some non-human animals and that there's really no one evolutionarily "correct" way for males and females to copulate. I'm not even actually trying to get involved in this debate, only to point out that none of us (or very few of us) are experts on evolution or biology and that scientific investigation often yields surprisingly different results than what is generally accepted to be obvious through casual observation. So while there's lots of things about your argument I could disagree with, I'll settle for continuing to try to clarify my own point, which has been widely misunderstood. This may be due to lack of initial clarity on my part, but from my perspective it seems that more is being read into my initial post than there actually was.

[Kisai]

Fighting on the internet is like running in the special olympics...Ill leave the punchline to you ;)

Everyone falls flat on their face every 2 meters and still thinks they're winning?

[thod]

If you're trying to say that it's a scientific fact that promiscuity among women is looked down upon for evolutionary reasons then you don't have enough knowledge in the necessary fields to make a statement like that. If you're trying to say that it's possible it has roots in biology and evolution, I wouldn't disagree that it's possible, although I don't think this is the case. But I'm not an expert in these fields either, so it's possible that either of us is wrong.


You don't have to spend your days studying the subject to read scientific journals. I accept what they say in such as being the current belief since such publications are subject to peer review.

Why wouldn't a female be choosy? After all once pregnant she spends 9 months carrying her mates offspring and subsequent years raising it. Thus she would want to ensure she has best obtainable mate. By contrast males invest almost nothing in mating. It is in their interest to impregnate even third rate females. In the 9 months the first is occupied he could have impregnated 100 others.

The fact that males are bigger than females shows that during history it was males doing the choosing, or rather competing through combat. In all mammals that I can think of where the male is larger this is so. Think of stags or lions. It is my opinion that this is an evolutionary mechanism. Males show greater variation in almost every aspect than females. This means that there will always be some fitter than the rest. These will go on to father more than their fair share of offspring. Thus the primary mechanism of evolution comes through the male line. By contrast every female was pregnant throughout her adult life, due to males willingness to impregnate, meaning all produced equal quantities of offspring.

Our ancestors certainly didn't think about these things in these terms. A female may well have mated with a high status male in order to receive his favor. She would however not be beyond cheating and mating with others too. This could be to obtain favors from both males or because she perceived the lower status male as somehow fitter.

The problem for males is and always has been getting cuckooed. He has no way of knowing if any given child is his. If it is not then he has no interest in assisting the female to raise it. If it isn't his then his optimal path would be to do as lions do and kill it in order to encourage the female to mate again (human women get upset at this though). Thus in order to encourage him to assist her she has to convince him that is his child. This is harder to do if he has observed her mating with many others. Thus she has to cheat without him knowing about it. By contrast his cheating does not have such a direct effect in that the other impregnated female may be able to convince some hapless male to be a cuckoo and raise the child.

The ancient greeks used to think in terms of seeds and soil. Thus they took a paternal view unlike modern genetics. If you plant an acorn you get an oak, or an apple pip, an apple tree. The soil that you plant in does not effect the type of tree, only the seed. They saw men providing the seed and the woman as the soil.

[rahdam]

Everyone falls flat on their face every 2 meters and still thinks they're winning?

Even if you win, you're still retarded!

note: not my original creation, but a keeper.

[blueback]

I don't think I said you were wrong. I said that the fact that women are looked down upon for behavior that men are congratulated for was stupid and unscientific.

Then you should have no problem with me telling you that assuming that women are looked down upon and men are congratulated for promiscuity is unscientific. Do you have some research to back that up? Some data points, maybe? Or are you just basing that conclusion on your general impression of things?

In my experience the opinions are much wider than you claim they are. But, I don't have any rigorous surveys to back that up, so I don't claim I am right. If you're going to call someone else out on their cognitive errors it would make sense to first purge your post of the same cognitive error.

...most people are not qualified to make determinations about biological or evolutionary reasons for social behavior.

Why not? It doesn't take much to "make determinations." A little evidence, a little logic, and BAM: a determination.

There is a world of difference between a person stating their opinion on a subject in a public forum, the point of which is specifically to debate opinions, and a person forcing other people to live as if their opinion was the truth. No one here is making anyone else to anything, so lighten up. We are here to "make determinations" and then discuss them. If we all restricted ourselves to only expressing opinions on subjects we had majored in this forum wouldn't exist.

You are freaking out over nothing. Please stop.

Yeah. It must be really tough to deal with a string of text.
Especially when the string of text included the phrase "I am not offended."
I mean, I can totally see how that can be interpreted as a freak out. It's obvious. <-sarcasm

However, on the subject, it seems logical to me to take a particular mating strategy and imagine it being applied over millions of years to see if it makes any sense. Does it seem like it would be helpful or harmful? That is a perfectly logical conclusion to make and is one that people can easily debate with little emperical evidence.

For example, if you imagine a long history of men (and women) making wome feel bad for sleeping around, it is not hard to imagine how that would turn out. Because men cannot be sure whether or not the child a woman bears is theirs, it makes perfect sense that they would make a habit out of reducing the likelihood that a woman would sleep with anyone other than themselves any way possible. Now, the specific mechanism can vary and still acheive the same outcome. So when you say that the mechanism of making women feel bad when they let it be known that they slept with a lot of men hasn't always been a part of human history that is only slightly related to the point. The real issue is whether or not the outcome of that makes sense on an evolutionary scale, and I think it does. The question of men being encouraged to sleep around can also be analyzed the same way. Because men can't be sure a child is theirs, it makes sense for men to get other women pregnant and let other men raise their children. Not as a rule, but as a sort of side-strategy, because it does have the potential to fail or backfire. Of course, these two strategies are directly opposed to each other. Nature never promised us to make things easy.

[Lucid]

Then you should have no problem with me telling you that assuming that women are looked down upon and men are congratulated for promiscuity is unscientific. Do you have some research to back that up? Some data points, maybe? Or are you just basing that conclusion on your general impression of things?

Um... it was what the OP was saying. I'm not claiming that it's always the case. In fact, I said I thought such attitudes were changing. And at no point did I say that it was the only attitude around.

I'd respond to the rest of your post, but you don't seem to have read mine or, if you did then you completely misinterpreted them, which seems to be a common problem between the two of us.

With respect, I really have no interest in engaging you in any kind of argument or debate. Experience has taught me that it's pointless since we seem to have an inability to communicate to eachother effectively.

[Follow]

There is more than one element at work here. If the social elements were in direct violation of our evolutionary (or biological) tendencies, then the social norms would have been rejected before they ever became the rituals we see today. We all have obvious biological urges and those come into play when we play the mating ritual, including the use of derogatory terms like "slut."

If you examine the use of the word "slut," I think you'll find that it is almost always used as a derogatory by women, not so much by men (unless he's talking about his ex). When a woman calls another woman a "slut" she is being insulting, when a man uses the same word, it usually means he's in the mood and he's going to make a pass. So those on this thread who have said "it's a man's world" for the explanation seem to be way off the mark, in my mind, as to who is holding the women down in this case.

[Vagrant]

Also, economics is a lot like biology in that it is a relatively new field of study.Ah erm ehh...

Not really. :P

Some of the specifics in biology, maybe, like genetics, and evolutionary biology. But biology as a general study is not all that new -- most of it starts around the renaissance (or rather, restarts, because the Romans had pretty good medical knowledge).

That said though, we are primarily discussing evolutionary bio, which is relatively new as far as science goes.

Yay semantics.

Fighting on the internet is like running in the special olympics...Ill leave the punchline to youYou win and yaaaaaaaaaaaaay you won.

Why wouldn't a female be choosy? After all once pregnant she spends 9 months carrying her mates offspring and subsequent years raising it. Thus she would want to ensure she has best obtainable mate. By contrast males invest almost nothing in mating. It is in their interest to impregnate even third rate females. In the 9 months the first is occupied he could have impregnated 100 others.What you're suggesting is that a male would (and should) abandon his child -- this is typically not observed in mammals of high intelligence. There is a biological incentive for the male to stick around -- the offspring (and the woman) has a much higher chance of surviving if the father sticks around and helps raise him. In high intelligence species, nurture is massive.

While certainly it is his prerogative to impregnate as many females as possible, it's also his prerogative to make sure his children survive.

So both are in his interest -- monogamy, and polygamy. Social pressures favor monogamy though, as a man who went around impregnating women and abandoning them might find himself stoned to death by other pissed off men or women.

The fact that males are bigger than females shows that during history it was males doing the choosing, or rather competing through combat. In all mammals that I can think of where the male is larger this is so. Think of stags or lions.You're a tad bit off.

The males are not making the choice. THEY ARE COMPETING FOR THE FEMALES. The females select the winner as their mate. It appears the males are making the choice, because they are the most active one in this endeavor, but the females choose the successful one.

This occurs in almost every species where the females choose the successful males -- the males are typically larger than women. In species where the role is reversed (there's a species of waterfowl where the male is the home maker), the women are bigger than the men (and compete for the men). In that case, the men are the ones with the selective power.

By contrast every female was pregnant throughout her adult life, due to males willingness to impregnate, meaning all produced equal quantities of offspring.In humans, this behavior would be less observed for multiple reasons:



Resource scarcity. If you don't have the resources, you don't have children.
Seasonal problems. Having a child in winter is likely to result in its death. Carrying a child in winter is also a danger.
Childbirth deaths. Thanks to our gargantuan heads and relatively small hips, human women are much more likely to die in childbirth than a lot of other mammals.
Nursing. It's been proven that women who are nursing children are much slower to be ready to have another child than women who are not nursing.

Thus having children is a calculated risk -- for both the man and the woman. As a result, women weren't eternally pregnant, and the decision would be made rather consciously.

A female may well have mated with a high status male in order to receive his favor. She would however not be beyond cheating and mating with others too. This could be to obtain favors from both males or because she perceived the lower status male as somehow fitter.You know the reason why you typically find a lot of attractive women around rich men? It's because 1/10th of a rich man can be considered better than a whole poor man.

Cheating is usually done only if the females observe better genetics in the other male. Not to obtain favors. Being in possession of vast quantities of money suggests good genes. As does being buff. However, sticking with somebody who has money has a better long-term payoff than somebody who's buff. Since both money and buff can be seen as "fit" the women will typically pick the male with money.

[errrzarrr]

@Lucid:
Ma'am I think it is all about evolution and survival. Heck, even cultural and social behavior itself is commanded by the survival instinct.

(ehrm, and no, I don't have a degree on Biology or do documentaries for Discovery Channel. Is just what i think)

[Lucid]

@Lucid:
Ma'am I think it is all about evolution and survival. Heck, even cultural and social behavior itself is commanded by the survival instinct.

(ehrm, and no, I don't have a degree on Biology or do documentaries for Discovery Channel. Is just what i think)

You don't need a degree to have an opinion. :)

I think to some extent cultural and social behavior is affected by survival, but I don't think it's the only factor. Actually, I'll go one further and say that I don't think it's been much of a factor for the last couple thousand years. But again, that's just what I think.

[ElstonGunn]

If we're just throwing opinions out there, then my thought is that it's the result of several similar instances of individual self-induced brainwashing, just like everything else.

[Gekko]

I think the term "slut" more refer's to the submissive rather than the actual act of sex. To men a woman opening her legs is the same as a dog rolling onto its back infront of other dogs to show submission. Now a dog that rolls onto its back for every dog would be a coward and a woman that opens her legs for alot of guys is a slut since she has no self worth

I think this is also a massive reason why so many males cheat when married. For a women, she can party in her teens and 20's and 30's and get laid every night by multiple men if she wanted because its easy for her, but then when she gets older, she wants to find that "nice guy" usually a guy she would ignore in the club when she was handing out sex lol, but still, they get married and she has had her fun and ready to settle down.

Now the male, we feel that our sexual need is never met because besides those lucky Brad Pitt type people, getting a woman is a constant battle in our teen's and 20's. So what happens is that after we get married and in our 30's and 40's, all of a sudden, we are making really good money, we have the nice car, the house and suits, and the tables turn where women are actually attracted to the "normal (non brad pitt looking) guys" that have security and the confidence of years in the real world.

Honestly, deep down most men are not the dog's women label us all as. All most men really want is a little bloody attention. Just every now and then a woman coming up and buying us normal guys a drink would be nice! :) Until that starts to happen, men of the world will just keep flocking to Thailand and Mexico where women contest for the man's attention.

[NephilimAzrael]

Here Here Gekko.. Thank you for that post.

[blueback]

With respect, I really have no interest in engaging you in any kind of argument or debate. Experience has taught me that it's pointless since we seem to have an inability to communicate to eachother effectively.

Okay. I think you give up too easily, but okay. I'm still going to point out when you're wrong.

Now the male, we feel that our sexual need is never met...

Depends on the guy. I think that while most guys wouldn't turn down more sex, they are satisfied with what they're getting. Very few guys actually think that the only reason to be alive is to get laid. Most have other goals.

Honestly, deep down most men are not the dog's women label us all as. All most men really want is a little bloody attention.

Men don't become dogs because they want attention, but because of what they do to get it.

Just every now and then a woman coming up and buying us normal guys a drink would be nice! :) Until that starts to happen, men of the world will just keep flocking to Thailand and Mexico where women contest for the man's attention.

. . .cuz Thailand and Mexico are model examples of successful societies. If I have to put up with a bit more difficulty in getting girls, so that I can live in a place like America, I'll do it. If we have to become more like Thailand or Mexico to get women to buy us drinks I just don't think it's worth it. Hell, if the two are inversely correlated it would probably be worth discouraging women from buying us drinks. Maybe there's a relationship between how hard men have to work to impress women and how successful the country they live in is?

[Gekko]

Okay. I think you give up too easily, but okay. I'm still going to point out when you're wrong.

Depends on the guy. I think that while most guys wouldn't turn down more sex, they are satisfied with what they're getting. Very few guys actually think that the only reason to be alive is to get laid. Most have other goals.

Men don't become dogs because they want attention, but because of what they do to get it.

. . .cuz Thailand and Mexico are model examples of successful societies. If I have to put up with a bit more difficulty in getting girls, so that I can live in a place like America, I'll do it. If we have to become more like Thailand or Mexico to get women to buy us drinks I just don't think it's worth it. Hell, if the two are inversely correlated it would probably be worth discouraging women from buying us drinks. Maybe there's a relationship between how hard men have to work to impress women and how successful the country they live in is?

I don't think so. It doesn't matter if a man's goal is to be president or to live off welfare. The only time any man's sexual need is filled/empty is directly after sex.. even then some men still need more. That isn't my point tho, I think alot of men cheat not because of sex but actually more of an emotional reason. The office girl or friend of the wife etc because that woman treats the man like all men desire... like Kings. I'm not talking about a slut that will just hurl herself at some married guy, I mean the woman that takes interest in the man's hobbies and engages him in conversations which allow him to "prove" himself.

So what men do make them dog's.... and women that sleep around are sluts... isn't that the topic of this thread?

Have you actually been to Thailand? What do you class as a good society? How many gun deaths in USA was there last year? How many people in jails? What is the ratio of broken marriages between USA and Thailand? Its all relative. You missed the point of why people go to those places. Women require flowers and rings and romance during the year, just because men don't complain about it doesn't mean they wouldn't like a woman to do something special for them. ( and to the women reading, that doesn't mean buying your man some flowers lol, think of something that will make him feel good)

[Follow]

I think the term "slut" more refer's to the submissive rather than the actual act of sex. To men a woman opening her legs is the same as a dog rolling onto its back infront of other dogs to show submission. Now a dog that rolls onto its back for every dog would be a coward and a woman that opens her legs for alot of guys is a slut since she has no self worth

I think this is also a massive reason why so many males cheat when married. For a women, she can party in her teens and 20's and 30's and get laid every night by multiple men if she wanted because its easy for her, but then when she gets older, she wants to find that "nice guy" usually a guy she would ignore in the club when she was handing out sex lol, but still, they get married and she has had her fun and ready to settle down.

Now the male, we feel that our sexual need is never met because besides those lucky Brad Pitt type people, getting a woman is a constant battle in our teen's and 20's. So what happens is that after we get married and in our 30's and 40's, all of a sudden, we are making really good money, we have the nice car, the house and suits, and the tables turn where women are actually attracted to the "normal (non brad pitt looking) guys" that have security and the confidence of years in the real world.

Honestly, deep down most men are not the dog's women label us all as. All most men really want is a little bloody attention. Just every now and then a woman coming up and buying us normal guys a drink would be nice! :) Until that starts to happen, men of the world will just keep flocking to Thailand and Mexico where women contest for the man's attention.

Just to get this straight; you're saying that when a woman has sex she is submitting to a man? And that submission is a sign of weakness and low self worth? Does this apply to both promiscuous and monogamous women? Or does any woman who has any kind of sex give up her self worth in doing so? If not, what's the difference?

You're also implying that males cheat in marriage almost as if it's an exclusive club. Is that right? Do you believe that there are no (or even very few) women who cheat later in life?

And finally, that when a man is seeking the same sort of sexual gratification as a "slut" that he is just seeking attention and should be understood for it? While a woman doing the same is basically a just a self-depreciating slut?

From my reading of your post, it seems to me that you are operating under some very poor assumptions to say the least.

[schwartzie]

Ah erm ehh...
The males... ARE COMPETING FOR THE FEMALES. The females select the winner as their mate. It appears the males are making the choice, because they are the most active one in this endeavor, but the females choose the successful one....
...You know the reason why you typically find a lot of attractive women around rich men? It's because 1/10th of a rich man can be considered better than a whole poor man.


If I remember my evolutionary biology, the theory is that, the greater the disparity in the male competition between winners and losers, the more likely the society is to be polygamous and the smaller the women, because women also have to compete harder, and are mated off at younger ages to the rarer well-to-do males. Women unable to mate young can get stuck with one of the dreadful poor men, and have to share his miserable lot.

The more egalitarian and democratic the male competition, (with a smaller gap between rich and poor males,) the larger, more grown up the young women are before they are set to baby-makin', and the more likely that each male can have one female and vice versa.

And on the main topic, slut vs player:

The premise is a bit dated. Like it's 1980 again. These labels only matter to really young people, teenagers. But, even so, the grownups here recognize the labels and respond emotionally to them.
Bleah. Our values are still shaped by high school culture. That sucks.

[Lucid]

Okay. I think you give up too easily, but okay. I'm still going to point out when you're wrong.

When you think I'm wrong. :)

And give up too easily?? We've been doing this particular little song and dance for about a year now. In internet terms, that's forever! ;)

And if you don't respond to what I'm actually saying then it's a waste of my time, your time, and everyone else who tries to read and follow our conversation. You even misunderstand my posts on the rare occasions that you agree with me, which is what finally made me decide that you actually weren't doing it on purpose.

So do your thing, but if communication is impossible then I don't really see the point.

The premise is a bit dated. Like it's 1980 again. These labels only matter to really young people, teenagers. But, even so, the grownups here recognize the labels and respond emotionally to them.
Bleah. Our values are still shaped by high school culture. That sucks.

You know, now that you mention it I don't think it's been an issue I've heard much about since high school either. Maybe its not that these views are changing, maybe for most adults they've already changed except for the very young and most of us grow out of it.

[blueback]

When you think I'm wrong. :)

Granted.

And give up too easily?? We've been doing this particular little song and dance for about a year now. In internet terms, that's forever! ;)

I don't think the time in between counts.

And if you don't respond to what I'm actually saying then it's a waste of my time, your time, and everyone else who tries to read and follow our conversation. You even misunderstand my posts on the rare occasions that you agree with me, which is what finally made me decide that you actually weren't doing it on purpose.

So do your thing, but if communication is impossible then I don't really see the point.

Wow, you're good at complaining.

Since you bothered to respond you must care at least a little bit about setting the record straight but, apparently, you don't care enough to ACTUALLY set the record straight. You just seem to want to make sure that everyone knows that you aren't giving up because you have to, but because you want to.

If you have a problem with my reasoning then either correct me or drop the issue. Telling everyone that you know I'm wrong, but can't be motivated to do any more than simply point that out and move on, is what wastes people's time.

I make the effort to ensure that every single time I post I include something relevant to the topic and, IMHO, useful. When I tell someone they're wrong I also explain WHY they are wrong. To do less than that, but not nothing, is just soothing your own ruffled feathers.


Anywho, I agree that people generally seem to grow out of childish activities. The hard thing to put up with is the people who don't do it fast enough. However, I think that's more of a symptom than a cause. I think that using terms like "slut" is a lazy way of expressing oneself. It's not really a specific word, as evidenced by this whole discussion, it's far more of an emotional word. People seem to use it when they want to feel, or make someone else feel, a certain way. It is language which appeals to negative emotions.

I don't like it when people do that. It's fine to appeal to positive emotions, but using language specifically tailored to generate hurt feelings is generally unjustifiable. Instead people should think about their feelings enough to express them when they are appropriate and suppress them when they aren't. For example, if a woman feels threatened by another woman she shouldn't call her a slut, she should do one of any number of positive things. She could work harder on herself so that she has more to offer; she could try to get the other girl to back off voluntarily; she could even (Lord forbid) simply bite her tongue and find something else to do.

[Lucid]

Wow, you're good at complaining.

Since you bothered to respond you must care at least a little bit about setting the record straight but, apparently, you don't care enough to ACTUALLY set the record straight. You just seem to want to make sure that everyone knows that you aren't giving up because you have to, but because you want to.

If you have a problem with my reasoning then either correct me or drop the issue. Telling everyone that you know I'm wrong, but can't be motivated to do any more than simply point that out and move on, is what wastes people's time.

That's the thing, after months of trying to put things in a way that you'll understand and clarifying over and over and over again I've decided that we just can't communicate. You're actually doing it again now. There comes a point where banging your head into the same wall repeatedly just gets old and pointless. I reached that point back in, what? April? And we started in last November? I think I've given you ample effort and opportunity. Certainly more than most members of this community (to their credit).

Anyway, I'm not wasting anymore time with this and we're all off-topic now anyway.

[errrzarrr]

You don't need a degree to have an opinion. :)

I think to some extent cultural and social behavior is affected by survival, but I don't think it's the only factor.

Yes. You can be sure that cultural and social behavior is affected by survival and sure it is not the only factor.


Actually, I'll go one further and say that I don't think it's been much of a factor for the last couple thousand years. But again, that's just what I think.

No way. Sure it has been a factor for the las thousand years, it is important even today.

and By the way, I will ask you somethening similar to what you asked us: Do you have a degree/studies/experience in Sociology or Folklor Studies so you can make statements that easy about Cultures/Societies?

[Lucid]

Yes. You can be sure that cultural and social behavior is affected by survival and sure it is not the only factor.



No way. Sure it has been a factor for the las thousand years, it is important even today.

and By the way, I will ask you somethening similar to what you asked us: Do you have a degree/studies/experience in Sociology or Folklor Studies so you can make statements that easy about Cultures/Societies?

You're also misunderstanding my post. I've already explained it at length and addressed the difference (albiet breifly) in the post you're actually responding to. I'm not telling people that they need to be experts to make guesses or to have opinions. Just that saying "It's obvious from an evolutionary standpoint that blah blah blah" is a bad idea, since science is always telling us that what we think of as "obvious" about the world is often wront. And that it's especially a bad idea to do this if you're a layperson in the subjects being discussed.

To answer your question though, I have taken several classes in sociology, psychology, philosophy and world history in college. This doesn't make me an expert, but it is a reliable source of some basic information. And in this particular subject all I'm really trying to say is that we should be careful when we throw around things like evolution and biology as reasons for unequal treatment.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, I'm not ssaying that only experts can have opinions, just that we should realize that we who are not experts are making, at best, uneducated guesses and should maybe make sure that we are representing our opinions as such.

But knowing a little about the principle of evolution, applying that principle in an unscientific way to some observable human behavior and not doing any kind of scientific tests doesn't make for a sound theory. That's all I'm trying to say. That maybe we should be a little less certain when we talk about these things, since most of us aren't conducting the kind of experiments or doing the kind of science to make any theories on these matters credible, whichever side of the argument you come down on. And that this is especially true when it comes to using these things to justify any kind of unequal treatment of a group of people.

[PeterIMC]

The males are not making the choice. THEY ARE COMPETING FOR THE FEMALES. The females select the winner as their mate. It appears the males are making the choice, because they are the most active one in this endeavor, but the females choose the successful one.


That's how many men look at it I think, and they´re all wrong. (in my opinion of course.)

Many men compete to be better than the other men. But the most attractive guy is the one that doesn't compete at all.... His focus is not on being better than the others, his focus is on making he sure he has what he wants. If another guy is in his way, he'll try to get him out of the way, but not because he wants to compete, but because that miserable loser that thinks he can compete with him is just in his way.

You're atractive because you can take care of yourself. If you can take care of your self, you can also take care of a family. That's very attractive to every woman.

Obviously, young men have to prove this through physical power because they don't have much else to show off with. When older, the physical becomes less important and financial power becomes more important.

And also obviously, younger women are interested in other things than older women. (though money is always interesting,.. ;) )

[Vagrant]

That's how many men look at it I think, and they´re all wrong. (in my opinion of course.)

Many men compete to be better than the other men. But the most attractive guy is the one that doesn't compete at all.... His focus is not on being better than the others, his focus is on making he sure he has what he wants. If another guy is in his way, he'll try to get him out of the way, but not because he wants to compete, but because that miserable loser that thinks he can compete with him is just in his way.

You're atractive because you can take care of yourself. If you can take care of your self, you can also take care of a family. That's very attractive to every woman.

Obviously, young men have to prove this through physical power because they don't have much else to show off with. When older, the physical becomes less important and financial power becomes more important.

And also obviously, younger women are interested in other things than older women. (though money is always interesting,.. ;) )

Your point is meandering all over the place, and isn't much of a point at all.

If you're looking at humans, all men compete for women's attention, just not as in overt ways as the rest of the animal kingdom.

However, we weren't talking about humans -- I was talking about other species where there is large sexual dimorphism.

[tp6626]

I wish this thread would die down. The title actually annoys me a little. I don't like seeing it in the new posts window. Just my personal opinion though.