[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The 5-7 number is a bit older (late 1980s?). I imagine it's a bit higher, now, although not much.

I imagine it probably also varies by country.

EDIT: Brief googling has revealed that for those actually able to list the names of their partners, the average is closer to 9 nowadays.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Needs to? I can name several instances where this is clearly false. Granted it isn't the best circumstance, but that's the difference between "is" and "ought".

Show me a human society where men don't traditionally help raise children - or at least provide for them. IF men truly didn't help raise children - or contribute in any way outside of sex, you would see something like what you see in other social creatures where the males don't do anything but have sex with the females. In those species, the two sexes live separately. Such as deer, whales, and elephants, where males and females live apart except during mating. You don't see that, though - you see both males and females living in the same society to raise children. Usually, the cultural expectation is that males will help, if not directly, then at least financially, raise children.

	How, pray tell, do human societies where the woman is expected not to enjoy sex (or, indeed cannot enjoy it) survive?

Because the female actually does enjoy sex? Although, yes, there are cultures were males essentially capture women and force them into sex. That doesn't negate the fact that female sexual pleasure exist, and that it likely arose because females who enjoy sex are more likely to pass on their genes than those that don't. You are essentially saying that something can not evolve if you can name an instant where it is no longer used. It'd be like saying penguins couldn't have possibly evolved to live in cold climates since some of them now live in Florida zoos. It may be true that IF such societies became the norm, many human female could stop enjoying sex since it wasn't be selected for - but it still says nothing about past reasons for evolutionary pleasure.

	I'm pretty sure scientists know that female animals do orgasm (pigs come to mind as sows are supposed to have especially long ones), but it is also probably true that animal reproduction is more the result of instinct and hormones than pleasure.

Do you know what the end results of those "instincts and hormones" are? What the animal itself is experiencing? Emotions. An animal runs away from a threat due to the instinct of survival and hormones produced in its brain. The animal actually feels fear. Fear is the instinct and the result of the hormones produced. Likewise, sex can be describe as an instinct and the result of hormones. What the animal actually feels as a result of those hormones is pleasure.

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sure, I knew all this. That still doesn't answer my question: where does the popular narrative live? How is it conveyed?

Religion is still a huge influence to a lot of people - and a culture doesn't just shake off the trappings of religion because people stop going to Church. The male is still the "hunter" - he is expected to ask the female out because a female will not ask a man out herself - she is too coy. The female who sleeps with "too" many men is the slut, the male is a "player." Her reputation will suffer more than his. In movies and other media, the sexually adventurous female is the "new" female, the exception. People fret over their daughter or girls or professional women in general wearing "too" skimpy of clothing - the father telling his daughter she looks like a whore and needs to change is a popular narrative. You don't see anything near that for males. Instead, the male who wears too little clothing is to be laughed at - no one fears he will get raped or appear "slutty" for his choice in clothing. You see penises drawn on bathroom walls and dick jokes everywhere - much rarer is the drawing of a vagina or jokes about female sexuality. When you do, it's usually shunted through male sexuality. An interesting exercise is to take every sex joke you see and reverse the sexes. Another exercise (I saw this in a book once) - imagine a bedroom with a male in it. Standing at the door is a long line of beautiful females waiting to have sex with him. Everyone is smiling and pleasant looking. Now imagine the same, but the sexes reversed. Is it the same scene?

As for the claim that male cats must force females into sex and this somehow means only the strongest males win -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
out this video of cats having sex. The females don't seem to be trying very hard to get away.

[Distance]

What's the difference between a slut and a stud?

[CrudeHypothesis]

	"Why I orgasmed in an MRI"

Fetish for machines?

[Latro]

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

Religion is still a huge influence to a lot of people - and a culture doesn't just shake off the trappings of religion because people stop going to Church. The male is still the "hunter" - he is expected to ask the female out because a female will not ask a man out herself - she is too coy. The female who sleeps with "too" many men is the slut, the male is a "player." Her reputation will suffer more than his. In movies and other media, the sexually adventurous female is the "new" female, the exception. People fret over their daughter or girls or professional women in general wearing "too" skimpy of clothing - the father telling his daughter she looks like a whore and needs to change is a popular narrative. You don't see anything near that for males. Instead, the male who wears too little clothing is to be laughed at - no one fears he will get raped or appear "slutty" for his choice in clothing. You see penises drawn on bathroom walls and dick jokes everywhere - much rarer is the drawing of a vagina or jokes about female sexuality. When you do, it's usually shunted through male sexuality. An interesting exercise is to take every sex joke you see and reverse the sexes. Another exercise (I saw this in a book once) - imagine a bedroom with a male in it. Standing at the door is a long line of beautiful females waiting to have sex with him. Everyone is smiling and pleasant looking. Now imagine the same, but the sexes reversed. Is it the same scene? As for the claim that male cats must force females into sex and this somehow means only the strongest males win - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. out this video of cats having sex. The females don't seem to be trying very hard to get away.

You're still echoing what the narrative is instead of where it lives.

[Merak]

In regards to the stereotype thing, it is definitely not as prevalent as in the past. Here, in mid-west U.S., 2012, I don't see a lot of it, especially in the younger generation. Men who "get around" are looked upon in the same manner as women.

True, the stigma still exists. When people comment on such a situation, there is more... energy in it when discussing women. The difference between uck, and UCK!--subtle, but still there.

And actually, Distance, I'd say it is not so much that "slut" is not a bad term anymore, but "stud" has fallen to the same level. I use quotations, because I don't hear the term stud a whole lot, unless as a joke. Men are referred to as sluts.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Merak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And actually, Distance, I'd say it is not so much that "slut" is not a bad term anymore, but "stud" has fallen to the same level. I use quotations, because I don't hear the term stud a whole lot, unless as a joke. Men are referred to as sluts.

How successful is PUA throughout the Internet audience?

[Merak]

I don't understand.

[Distance]

How many guys have embraced PUA tactics, who frequent the Internet, even on INTJf? PUA is the acronym for Pick Up Artist where success is measured by how many women men can sleep with. How can you say that stud has been downgraded if men continue looking up to and emulating other men who have high numbers?

[Merak]

Poor wording on my part.

My point is this: Of all the feminist speakers I've heard, the common example thrown out is the slut vs. stud comparison. It is always assumed that when men hear of another's conquest, we all rush over and clap him on the back. "Way to bag one dem bitches! You STUD" Or something.

I've never seen anything remotely close. From my own experience, men are referred to in the same way as women--just being sluts. I never hear the word stud outside of it being used as humor.

As for this PUA deal, I'm hesitant to use that as a measure of a stereotype. I think the internet, in general, has a way of skewing what is common practice in any situation.

Anywho, I'd rather not have this thread de-railed into a huge PUA debate as seems to happen on INTJf. I was just pointing out that in my part of the world, the stereotype doesn't seem to have nearly as much strength as supposed. I recognize there is still a distinction between the sexes, but not nearly as defined as I've been told.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How many guys have embraced PUA tactics, who frequent the Internet, even on INTJf? PUA is the acronym for Pick Up Artist where success is measured by how many women men can sleep with. How can you say that stud has been downgraded if men continue looking up to and emulating other men who have high numbers?

I wonder how much of this is actually caused by the "conventional narrative" in the first place. Thought experiment: a guy who has a lot of experiences getting rejected quickly, or getting friendzoned after a little while, while he never gets approached, turns to whatever other technique he can find to try and get some success. He may not actually want a whole LOT of success, but instead figures that he can probably get a little bit of success using the techniques that apparently others use to get a lot of success.

Maybe we wouldn't have PUA douchebaggery if our culture wasn't so silly about this stuff.

[Distance]

No doubt the gap is narrowing, of which I'm quite thankful for and not because I fall under any of the categories. What I'd like to see is that women view sex as something healthy where there's no shame or guilt in the enjoyment of it so if there's any kind of attempted shaming by externalities like organised religion or some other archaic, creaking expectation/person, that women will just throw up their middle fingers and relax and enjoy their orgasms.

[what yeah okay]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What's the difference between a slut and a stud?

It's harder for an average looking male to sleep with a multitude of attractive women than vice versa.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by what yeah okay To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's harder for an average looking male to sleep with a multitude of attractive women than vice versa.

And this is a big deal? Stop and think about it. How is it a big deal? Is it a big deal being able to eat 40 chicken mcnuggets at one sitting without vomiting?

Don't people have better things to do than to fuck up something as natural as sexual enjoyment?

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, I think the bias is that women usually bear the larger burden in the potential consequences of sex. Certainly this was true before the 1960s, and remains true to a lesser extent today.

I can somewhat agree with this. Certainly, religious views play a part (contraception was (and still is somewhat (i love nested parenthesis)) disdained in some Christian sects) in shaping what's socially acceptable.

As birth control standards have changed, so too have standards concerning proper sexual behavior. I think women still bear the greater burden in reproductive consequences, if only for physiological reasons, but birth control gives more control over related circumstances.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How, pray tell, do human societies where the woman is expected not to enjoy sex (or, indeed cannot enjoy it) survive?

Rape. Indoctrination about woman's "duty" to please a man. Etc.

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The 5-7 number is a bit older (late 1980s?). I imagine it's a bit higher, now, although not much.

Somebody said 9 above, and i've recently heard 10. Not terribly higher, but definitely above the 5-7 range.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What's the difference between a slut and a stud?

The penis.

Or, depending on who you ask, double standards in gender expectations.

I tend to think it's the latter.

[titi monkey]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...I can see that being disturbing for a number of different reasons. I don't think it is especially repressive to consider some levels of promiscuity to be excessive...Certainly a new sex partner each hour is excessive. A new one each day is too, and personally I'd say each week is too (this one may be a little controversial?)

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...but I wouldn't want to have sex with a virgin. At the same time, I wouldn't want to have sex with someone that has had sex with 30 men. (I'm 21, so the women in question would be roughly in the range of 18-25.)

May I ask what those reasons would be? Incompatible libido, risk of social diseases, lack of trust, physical issues?

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	May I ask what those reasons would be? Incompatible libido, risk of social diseases, lack of trust, physical issues?

The virgin one I'm just shallow: I'd prefer to have someone who has some idea of what she likes and (less importantly, IMO) of what I might like.

The 30 guys one it really depends on the person. In most cases I think such a girl would not have a personality that would appeal to me. I consider sex to be a component of a relationship, and would fairly strongly prefer that my SO feel the same way. If I encountered someone who did appeal to me but had had 30 sex partners...I'm not sure how I would feel about that. I suppose it would depend on other specifics, for example maybe they had a string of casual flings in years past and aren't interested in that anymore or something.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're still echoing what the narrative is instead of where it lives.

I did, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough or something. It lives in the movies you see, the books you read. In the gossip that goes on between people in the workplace and in school. You see it in the popularity of the "pick-up artist." Ads on the TV. In the conversations parents give to their children. In the way women dress v. men. I actually already gave several of these examples (the female in a skimpy bathing suit v. the male). Again, here's a little experiment, start switching the gender in everything you see, and see if it makes a difference in your (or others) perception. Instead of Beauty and the Beast - Handsome and the Beast. Bridesmaids wasn't as popular a movie as was Hangover despite being pretty much the same movie. Imagine Old School being about average-looking 35 year old women running a sorority while sexy boys wrestle in pudding. Compare the number of penises drawn on bathroom walls to vaginas. And I think I'm repeating myself, here.

Apparently,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
of women lie about the number of partners they have had to make the number smaller to potential male lovers. That tells me that female sexuality is not quite as open or accepted as male sexuality.

I admit that things are changing, the narrative is slowly changing, but it's still not gone. And there are examples of males being portrayed as sexy, but not nearly at the prevalence of females.

Edit: Just came across this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
about the challenges faced to get condom cases for women on the market, largely because people deemed them "too risque" for the average woman to carry around.

[Fishism]

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're still echoing what the narrative is instead of where it lives.

I think the narrative is rooted in evolutionary biology and the value difference between the limited number of eggs the female has versus the constant renewable resource that is male sperm. I think the "quality vs. quantity" explanation trumps any and all social constructs we place on it.

The female has a bigger biological cost to pregnancy, so her risk/benefit to the event is more complicated. Therefore, she's choosing better genetics, better lovers and her orgasms are the result of these good choices. I remember watching a "Science of Sex" episode that said that when a woman has an orgasm, her uterus flips, essentially tossing semen deeper into her body, closer to where the eggs are.

Our ability to control birthrates through medication (withdrawal, rhythm method have been around for ages) is only a very recent blip on our history, so humans are still hardwired to more primal biological values (egg trumps sperm).

So, loosely translated, "Stud" equals "Good job dude, you mastered quantity" and "Slut" equals "How dare you be so cavalier with your valuable eggs and biological risk?"

If it's to be just a simple value judgement (egg > sperm, female orgasm and it's rarity > than frequent male orgasm) then maybe it's simplicity is what's so.......confusing.

[thod]

The female may have a cost in pregnancy, yet she is sure that it is hers. The man has a far longer period spent in raising a child. Thus he must be very sure that it is his. Until recently, males had no way to determine this. Thus to avoid be cuckolded, his best strategy is to reject the issue of 'sluts'. Thus the optimal female strategy is to convince the male that she is not a slut so he will stick around to take care of it. The best male strategy is to impregnate many females and have her convince other males to care for them.

[Latro]

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

I think the narrative is rooted in evolutionary biology and the value difference between the limited number of eggs the female has versus the constant renewable resource that is male sperm. I think the "quality vs. quantity" explanation trumps any and all social constructs we place on it. The female has a bigger biological cost to pregnancy, so her risk/benefit to the event is more complicated. Therefore, she's choosing better genetics, better lovers and her orgasms are the result of these good choices. I remember watching a "Science of Sex" episode that said that when a woman has an orgasm, her uterus flips, essentially tossing semen deeper into her body, closer to where the eggs are. Our ability to control birthrates through medication (withdrawal, rhythm method have been around for ages) is only a very recent blip on our history, so humans are still hardwired to more primal biological values (egg trumps sperm). So, loosely translated, "Stud" equals "Good job dude, you mastered quantity" and "Slut" equals "How dare you be so cavalier with your valuable eggs and biological risk?" If it's to be just a simple value judgement (egg > sperm, female orgasm and it's rarity > than frequent male orgasm) then maybe it's simplicity is what's so.......confusing.

I don't think evo psych actually holds any water, to be frank. Culture has such a marked effect on us and is so completely dissociated from biology that I don't see how evo psych really could hold any water. Arguably this is what the conventional narrative was built on, with the foundation now completely gone, but I doubt it's that simple either.

@ Storm: noted. My main question now is how does an adolescent (or younger...) wind up internalizing these things? A lot of that stuff is rather adult-only.

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

The female may have a cost in pregnancy, yet she is sure that it is hers. The man has a far longer period spent in raising a child. Thus he must be very sure that it is his. Until recently, males had no way to determine this. Thus to avoid be cuckolded, his best strategy is to reject the issue of 'sluts'. Thus the optimal female strategy is to convince the male that she is not a slut so he will stick around to take care of it. The best male strategy is to impregnate many females and have her convince other males to care for them.

The adultery issue is an interesting one, but I don't think your conclusions about it are correct. In particular, we would all be "bad boys" who would fuck and run if your male conclusion were correct, and yet we are apparently hardwired for the most part to care for our children, even as males.

[Polymath20]

	don't think evo psych actually holds any water, to be frank. Culture has such a marked effect on us and is so completely dissociated from biology that I don't see how evo psych really could hold any water. Arguably this is what the conventional narrative was built on, with the foundation now completely gone, but I doubt it's that simple either.

There is so much wrong with this argument. I will deign to illuminate only one big reason that you are so wrong.

Human behavior and thoughts (psychology) guide society. Behavior and thoughts are slaves to biology. Why do you fuck? Cause you get horny. Why are you horny? Hormones and biology (and genetics!). Why are you a social animal? What impact has social behavior had on evolution? Why is all this important?

	The adultery issue is an interesting one, but I don't think your conclusions about it are correct. In particular, we would all be "bad boys" who would fuck and run if your male conclusion were correct, and yet we are apparently hardwired for the most part to care for our children, even as males.

Some are and some aren't. There's actually a particular genetic variant related to infidelity in males. Why would this be advantageous? Why would such a gene exist? What advantages have prevented it from dying out? This is evolutionary psychology. Of course, when you apply it to birds, it's just biology and evolution.

Men, like women, can take multiple reproductive strategies. Some men are sluts. They sleep around, and it's in their nature. The hope is that they impregnate some women and that those women will raise a child without their input. It's a shot in the dark strategy. Opportunistic. Obviously, the woman will have to do most of the work. This does not preclude the woman having another male help raise the child, though.

Mr. Nice Guy who doesn't cheat and is helpful and brings home the bread might not be Mr. Alpha Male. Alpha Male, in this case, is just a genetically superior mate - stronger, healthier, better immune system... etcetera. Well, Hot Chick and Mr. Nice Guy are raising a family but Hot Chick also sleeps around and has probably bore some children from other men. In this way, she can maximize the genetic value of her offspring while also ensuring they have the input of a father. Humans still do this today, but it's more organized. It's called step-children.

Not every man cheats, and not every woman cheats. Both behaviors exist as a spectrum. Slutty men have certain advantages and disadvantages. Slutty women have certain advantages and disadvantages. The study of this is evolutionary psychology.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is so much wrong with this argument. I will deign to illuminate only one big reason that you are so wrong. Human behavior and thoughts (psychology) guide society. Behavior and thoughts are slaves to biology. Why do you fuck? Cause you get horny. Why are you horny? Hormones and biology (and genetics!). Why are you a social animal? What impact has social behavior had on evolution? Why is all this important?

...I'm not stupid. I was being vague, which was probably the problem. Yes, biology at the end of the day drives our behavior. And yet we've seen extremely marked changes in our behavior over the course of a time scale which is insignificant in comparison to the evolutionary time scale. Indeed there are marked behavioral changes within a single generation. If we were truly slaves to biology entirely, we could not have made such changes. I do not object to saying that biology influences our behavior. I do not even object to saying that technically speaking biology governs our behavior, that consciousness does not actually exist, etc. What I object to is saying that "naive biology", claims based on naive notions like those in the post I quoted, governs our behavior. Or in short, we're freaking COMPLICATED, and evo psych tries to claim that we aren't.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some are and some aren't. There's actually a particular genetic variant related to infidelity in males. Why would this be advantageous? Why would such a gene exist? What advantages have prevented it from dying out? This is evolutionary psychology. Of course, when you apply it to birds, it's just biology and evolution.

What exactly does it mean for a gene to be related to a complex behavior, even in simple animals? I wouldn't claim that this is as simple as biology and evolution even in birds. It's closer to it in birds, in particular because you don't have the issue of what is or at least looks like sentience. But it isn't quite there, because even in birds you have more complex behaviors that you can't isolate genetically. I'd claim that this happens pretty much whenever a species has a significant social structure.

Men, like women, can take multiple reproductive strategies. Some men are sluts. They sleep around, and it's in their nature. The hope is that they impregnate some women and that those women will raise a child without their input. It's a shot in the dark strategy. Opportunistic. Obviously, the woman will have to do most of the work. This does not preclude the woman having another male help raise the child, though.

The conventional evo psych argument is that it's in the nature of men to sleep around in the first place. I was objecting to this sort of argument to begin with.

Mr. Nice Guy who doesn't cheat and is helpful and brings home the bread might not be Mr. Alpha Male. Alpha Male, in this case, is just a genetically superior mate - stronger, healthier, better immune system... etcetera. Well, Hot Chick and Mr. Nice Guy are raising a family but Hot Chick also sleeps around and has probably bore some children from other men. In this way, she can maximize the genetic value of her offspring while also ensuring they have the input of a father. Humans still do this today, but it's more organized. It's called step-children.

First off: step-children in modern society don't emerge via "Hot Chick has a one night stand with Alpha Male. Hot Chick has child A whose father is Alpha Male. Hot Chick meets Nice Guy. Hot Chick gets Nice Guy to raise child A."

Regardless, "genetically superior" is a problem now. Our wiring works like that to some degree still, in the way that physical attraction works, but it isn't actually all that important anymore. The reason is that very few individuals are so maladapted that they couldn't successfully pass on their genes if they tried. At the micro-level, sperm/egg donation is sufficient for this, but that isn't present enough at the macro-level to be sufficient.

Instead at the macro-level it's just that we live a lot longer than we used to. Even if we have some pretty marked deficiencies in our immune system, medicine circumvents them to the point that very few children will die before they are old enough to reproduce, at least in countries which are not in abject poverty. So they reach the stage of sexual selection, and then they have decades ahead of them to successfully find a mate if they so desire; and then counter to biological intuition a significant fraction of them DON'T desire to find a mate and raise children at all.

[kazzamunga]

oh, this makes more sense now. when i read the title i thought someone had involuntarily orgasmed due to some strange phenomenon of magnetics.

[Polymath20]

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

...I'm not stupid. I was being vague, which was probably the problem. Yes, biology at the end of the day drives our behavior. And yet we've seen extremely marked changes in our behavior over the course of a time scale which is insignificant in comparison to the evolutionary time scale. Indeed there are marked behavioral changes within a single generation. If we were truly slaves to biology entirely, we could not have made such changes. I do not object to saying that biology influences our behavior. I do not even object to saying that technically speaking biology governs our behavior, that consciousness does not actually exist, etc. What I object to is saying that "naive biology", claims based on naive notions like those in the post I quoted, governs our behavior. Or in short, we're freaking COMPLICATED, and evo psych tries to claim that we aren't. I'll get to the other part of your post when I have more time.

Personally I do think that psychology is more of a humanity than a science - however I think it is important to look at biology/evolution and use that to understand behavior/thoughts.

For instance, take Freudian theory of ego - what would be the purpose of ego? Why has this trait emerged from our biology? Making an observation about human behavior and thought is great, but if you don't understand why it's there, what created it, then your knowledge is incomplete.