Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


male/female sexual compatibility

Consistently, when I'm on this site, the most viewed subject is relationships and dating. I think most people would concede that nearly everyone is driven by some desire for companionship or physically gratifying relations. But, most of the people on this site are probably plagued, if you will, by the accompanying desire to try to rationalize these impulses and relationship dynamics.

For the purposes of this thought exercise, let's apply some of the observations of gender dynamics found amongst the anti-feminist supporters. Just for giggles.

An oversimplification might be: men act as providers, women reciprocate with sex. Men provide some material gain, women provide sexual gain.

Let's try to consider the idea that there are two possible objectives within sexual pursuits: sexual gratification and the family dynamic.

You decide that you want to connect with someone. Maybe you've considered why you might want this, maybe you haven't but, you find some motivation within yourself to try to meet people.

If you're a man, what are you looking for? You start looking for a mate to whom you're attracted. And, for whatever you deem to be attractive, you're either looking for a sexual payoff or, you're looking for a life partner. The "life partner" will also be a sexual payoff but, more importantly, the "life partner" is a candidate for a stable relationship. Let's say, a mother to your children.

Let's take a woman, now. You start looking for a mate to whom you're attracted. And, same scenario: you're either looking for a sexual payoff or, you're looking for a life partner. The "life partner" is also a sexual payoff but, the "life partner" is a potential father to your children.

If you're a woman looking for a sexual payoff, the most brightly colored peacock gets your attention. You're looking for the pretty boy. Aesthetic pleasure and physical attraction are sufficient criteria. And, the pretty boy is going to be the more feminine, being truly "pretty."

If you're a man looking for the sexual payoff, you're looking for the most obvious display of fertility or, the most opportune sexual partner. And, physical attributes of youth and health are the things that imply fertility.

Now, if you're looking for a "life partner," what are you looking for? You're looking for someone who's advantageous. In some regard, you're looking for someone who's advantageous. If you're looking for someone to share interests, someone to be a friend and, a life-long companion, you're seeking some kind of emotional security and, let's say this is a socially contorted product of the desire for the stable basis of the family unit. So, whether you think you want children or you don't, if you want a relationship, you're looking for the family dynamic. If you know that you DO want children, as a man, you will look for the woman who is seemingly fertile and nurturing. If you know that you DO want children, as a woman, you will look for the man who is strong. And, even if you don't know that you want children but, you're looking for a relationship, you're looking to imitate the family dynamic, you will still, maybe sub-consciously, look for these same traits. So, when relationships start to hit rough spots and, people fall out of love, an argument could be made to say that people lose their appeal when men start to seem weak and women start to seem harsh. But, the relationship dynamic is largely a utilitarian commitment. You have to work at making it work. I know, that's no big surprise to anyone who has been in a relationship.

The point to this thread, though, is consideration for the gender interactions that make it work. Operating under the assumption that the previous statements can be validated, what considerations could we make of the other gender to oil the inner-workings of male/female sexual dynamics? Women and men don't communicate the same way, they don't have the same emotional responses and, the assertive male/submissive female dynamic is complex because, it does not necessarily imply subservience.

So, as a man, what do you do when you want to make your female partner happy but, your willingness to please is interpreted as indecisiveness or as a lack of confidence? And, as a woman, how do you separate yourself from the emotional tendencies, characteristic of femininity, to appear confident without being seen as cold?

I know that these questions are presented in the context of a very specific bias but, I'm asking people to entertain this as a hypothetical exercise. If this, then....

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has been discussed and discussed again. What new insights are you trying to provide?

If not, then what is the point? There is plenty of research detailing this subject. You could google it and find so much.

Redundant thread is redundant.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the research done on this subject, for all of the effort people have put forth time and again rehashing sexual dynamics and, with this model of the male/female relationship having withstood time, why do relationships consistently succumb to failures in spite of the understandings we should have of the subject?

Is there a solution where we can capitalize off of the rational understanding of sexual dynamics, being clinical to a point that's not really socially acceptable, and still formulate a code of conduct that accommodates the gender differences of emotional response for the moments when we can't be utilitarian?

---------- Post added 03-03-2013 at 09:18 PM ----------

I guess I'm curious about whether or not you can describe human mating interactions with a fairly tailored framework for prediction. But, I'm only interested, for the time being, in looking at really traditional gender roles. Something potentially a little more brazen than main-stream social sciences and, something more widely encompassing than restricting observations to only things like physiological emotional response.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now