Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

heres what I'm thinking,
A major difference between men and women, in a western christian influenced culture.

Men can easily have a shag with no emotional meaning except for the job at hand, a kind of masterbation extension. Thus allowing, in the mans mind, an affair to mean nothing but giving the hand a rest (hey face it we never stop now do we?).

But most women require a meaning for the act, and it holds a deeper notion than a wank. Is this true do you think or am i being a bit mass meidia and over simplifying the idea for the purposed of my uneducated mind and mass appeal?

Or should I shut up and stop thinking,

(this question requires the internet quasi ego to be put to one side for a moment).



[damn i never get it right first time, at least thats what she always says]

Last edited by mori-man on 11-09-2001 at 05:55 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I find that discussions of genetic behaviour differences between boys and girls (i.e., behaviour patterns statistically observed that are supposed to be inherent and not social) degenerate into an argument contain one or all of the following people;

People who talk about their own personal behaviour while missing the point that it is about statistical trends, if at all (for example, some woman recounting their slutty ways, men describing their sexual saintliness).
People who confuse their belief in the equality of men and woman (i.e., a moral equality, an equality in 'worth') with the actions of nature.
Someone who knows about scientific studies in this area, but everyone ignores this person.
People with young children giving anecdotal evidence.
Fervent christians (of unpredictable opinion).

(And others)

I'm interested to see what happens, because it is an interesting debate. You can obviously form an argument in terms of evolutionary behaviour and long gestation as to why this might be the case. Of course you can probably find most sorts of sexual behaviour by pointing somewhere in the animal kingdom. You might believe that our behaviour is a result entirely of our early socialisation (as it is obviously this in at least part). You might argue the relative importance of learnt vs. inherent bahaviour patterns.

Hopefully it won't be an argument like the ones that I have seen and alluded to above. I particularly believe that introspection is a pretty weak tool in many cases.

Perhaps this thread will just die as people have argued this too many times before.

Last edited by Smug Git on 11-09-2001 at 09:47 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

Hmm, I suspect it will die.

Origins I am interested in, now I believe people voice a monogamous relationship as a natural consequence of needing a parent bond to ensure the survival of the child. Maybe the smaller amount of the offspring produced the larger the necessity of parent bonding, but this parent bonding would only need to last during the susceptible stage of a growing offspring.
I am wondering if this is up to the age of 7 years, hence the 7-year itch, I heard somewhere that a 7-year time span of bonding was observable in other animals or cultures, unfortunately I cannot remember.

Also the biological difference, the notion of 3 kinds of sperm, defensive, attacking and impregnating, suggesting in a biological term that having many different partners is not unnatural, but the biological tends to lapse behind, there are many a trace of unneeded and useless biological attributes in people.

Gene spreading, after all that's why we are here, to ensure we live forever.

Then there is the cultural ethics, is there a general similarity on the subject across all cultures, for instance, one where a need for increase in birth rate exists or one where there is a need to reduce the birthrate. Religion would come into this are i suspect.
Security, property, strength,

open.......

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10178

your first post is completely false and totally stereotypical.

it's like saying 'guys have alot of one night stands' ... well, who are these guys having one night stands with? for every guy who has a one night stand theres a girl having one too (the fag/dyke ratio may throw this off a bit though)

anyways, women are sluts, men are whores. it's built into our genes that way, theres nothing wrong with wanting to fuck, in fact thered be something wrong with not wantint to as that would be unnatural. the only difference is our society has evolved to frown on promiscuous females, so they tend to suppress their urges more as to not be known as the town whore.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

ahh but this is a point i said , in our christian influenced western world, the perception, does it hold true, not a natural uncultured state of being, You are being too personal about it, people lie in relationships no?, they promise security in order to get a fuck no?.
No i'm not seeing anyone right now.
OK which do you think would be better way of life and how could you go about convincing the opposed of that idea?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

there is the genetic vs rational ethical, which is right?, can you argue that we are not to balme for any of our actions or do you think everyone is responsible. Is this a gentic vs rational,

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Van Diemen's Land.
Posts: 3607

Crap I'm in the wrong thread.

I thought this was the 'desires for young boys' thread.

My bad.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

Yeah, smug is right (again).

Human nature is constantly framed in terms of nature vs nuture, which is sad because it starts the conversation off on the wrong foot. Research circles have long realized that it isn't one or the other, but both. Fortunately, this is slowly beginning to seep into the general public's awareness.

mori-man, you should never shut up and stop thinking. This is good stuff here.

It is foolish to construe human behavior as solely a result of evolutionary shaping or cultural environmental influence, but it is also foolish to fail to consider one or the other. Humans do have behavioral trends established by millions of years of biological evolution. We also have cognitive/ thought tendencies influenced by the same history. Part of this aspect of human nature involves influence bythe cultural environment, which has an evolutionary history all its own. Very quickly you can see how we have multiple interlocking layers of evolutionary algorithms and patterns that make clear cut prediction (and understanding!) very difficult if not ultimately impossible.

In the specific case here, there is a genetic tendency for men to spread their seed far and wide and women to be a bit more partial about who sows their field. There is also a long and rich cultural history that has influenced massive numbers of people on an (evolutionary) unprecedented scale. Considering the impact of writing and subsequent intensification of human settlement under shared cultural paradigms, it is easy to see how one entity (e.g. the Church) can have a deep lasting impact on cultural definitions of personhood and subtle expectations of behavior.

Idon't know if that really answered anything, but it's something.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: I don't fukn' know!
Posts: 5137

just shut up and fuck me

dont talk and ruin this for me.

and dont let the door hit you in the ass yer the way out!

punk!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18490

Dig me now, fuck me later. Sing it to the tune of "faggot, faggot, faggot."

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Lat: 43° 42' 0 N, Long: 79° 34' 0 W
Posts: 2820

Hmmm as a woman who's had two one night stands in the last couple of weeks, does that include me? Some girls are okay with the whole lack of commitment. It's easier that way. Besides, you can only really fuck your friends so many times :P

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10178

slutpants

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: anywhere but here
Posts: 4420

sex and violence all the way. thats all we think of isnt it????

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Bangor, ME
Posts: 10153

I seemed to have overlooked this thread.

topping it for the masses!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Veerheenyah
Posts: 3285

we were talking about something similar to this in one of my child psych class the other day. It's a nature vs. nurture type issue. This topic will forever be debated. Our class, being a fairly representative sampling of people, was pretty much split right down the middle on the topic.

The professor pointed to several studies as examples.

There were some that concluded that men are more "hind-brain" oriented. the hind-brain is basically the survival mechanism. It controls necessary urges. It tells you to eat when you are hungry, drink when you are thirsty, have sex in order to procreate and so on. Thus giving it a genetic basis and concluding that men are indeed more apt to have sex without as much emotional attachment.

Then there were also some that emphasised the environmental aspect of it. That it is more socially acceptable for men to behave in this way than it is for women. These studies emphasized that this does not mean that men ARE more promiscuous, just that they can more freely discuss their promiscuity. Whereas women who have had many partners generally tend either to keep it to themselves or lie.

For every arguement for heredity, there is an opposing one for environment. And Nute is certainly right that it has been shown that environment and genetics go hand in hand. For one specific genotype (genetic predisposition), there can be several hundred possible phenotypes (personality and behavioral outcomes), depending on the environment and society in which the child is raised.

I personally believe somewhere in between, that SOME women are unable to distinguish sex and love, due to their individual circumstances and possibly experiences that they have had in the past. To them sex=emotion. But, I believe this aspect of it is purely psychological and not in any way biological or genetic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

i'll go with the above and what Nute said, it is the complex compostion of culture and genes and environment, all play on each other i suspect.
So why so we suppose that we are the same and what is right and wrong.
I do it i know, but i try to see other views, and abolish my one sidedness.
And i would change now, to why do some women.....

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2451

I've seen this topic quite a few times and one question occurs to me.

We have this idea of evolution, that certain biological traits evolve for reasons of survival. In regards to the idea that the biological nature of sperm can indicate a biological tendency in males towards promiscuity:
Does this idea present itself historically? prehistorically?
Does it go back to the apes?

In my limited understanding of the development of humanity I can't recall anything about promiscuos males being normal in a human society. It always seemed to me that given the vulnerable natured of the human female when pregnant she would seek protection, and from the male side, well you can only protect so many. Seems like even tens of thousands of years ago monogamy would have been the likely option.

Is this a wrong understanding of ancient human civilization? If not then it seems to me there must be some other explination for the aggressive sperm than spreading around amonst many fems.

Just a thought.

-g

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: tokyo
Posts: 303

family?, hte need for extended family (which is no longer here) helped with the protection of the child, does anyone know when these small societies came about, when did we become pack animls?

Last edited by mori-man on 11-13-2001 at 08:01 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged