EsourceR
Bluelighter
...because men are humping machines and we don't all want to be the mattresses? is this a trick question lol
Last edited:
-
-
SLR Moderators: Senior Staff
The Official "Secrets to Women" thread
- Thread starter PhorIndicator
- Start date
...because men are humping machines and we don't all want to be the mattresses? is this a trick question lol
calcabrina
Bluelighter
EsourceR said:because men are humping machines and we don't all want to be the mattresses? is this a trick question lol
dear god that's a good answer
Fallen1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
PhorIndicator: Great post.
Calcabrina: Because as society so frequently tells us, men don't withhold sex. The assumption is that men will sleep with most females they know at the drop of a shirt, and that females are more discerning. I can think of a great many examples to counter this, and yet on the whole I havent quite made up my mind.
Secondly, I think there should be a very wide dividing line placed here between the attractive and the not-so-attractive. The assumption you are using, that "they" are in control of the bargaining chip, only applies to the attractive. A bargaining chip is only a bargaining chip if other people want it. I think a lot of people forget about the less-than-attractive women because no-one wants to sleep with them. In short: the theory is that attractive women are the gatekeepers of sex because the supply is much more limited than the demand. Whether ugly women are still the gatekeepers of sex is a moot point, because they are ugly and so no-one cares.
Calcabrina: Because as society so frequently tells us, men don't withhold sex. The assumption is that men will sleep with most females they know at the drop of a shirt, and that females are more discerning. I can think of a great many examples to counter this, and yet on the whole I havent quite made up my mind.
Secondly, I think there should be a very wide dividing line placed here between the attractive and the not-so-attractive. The assumption you are using, that "they" are in control of the bargaining chip, only applies to the attractive. A bargaining chip is only a bargaining chip if other people want it. I think a lot of people forget about the less-than-attractive women because no-one wants to sleep with them. In short: the theory is that attractive women are the gatekeepers of sex because the supply is much more limited than the demand. Whether ugly women are still the gatekeepers of sex is a moot point, because they are ugly and so no-one cares.
glitterbizkit
Bluelighter
Re: Re: never lie
NOW you're talking, Phorindicator!!!
I definitely agree on the feeling safe part. Are you as good at analysing what men want because I'd really appreciate a post like this one ^^ but about the opposite sex instead
First of all... most of us have been brought up with the idea that we're not supposed to be as slutty as men. I mean what's the worst thing you can call a girl? A whore, a slut, a tramp, all to do with openly enjoying sex as much as most men do. Of course things are changing, thank god for that, and society is more accepting of women that like sex and are not afraid to show it. But to a certain degree (not speaking for all women or men here), women are more picky about sex. It's not just physical, it's not just to whether the guy is hot or not... but we have to feel a certain amount of security when we're with the guy. I know that I wouldn't sleep with someone who had no respect for me. I'd have to feel comfortable with the person. But I think it's mostly about the fact that most of us have grown up with the idea that men are supposed to be the pursuers, and if we give it up too easy, we're 'sluts'.
NOW you're talking, Phorindicator!!!
PhorIndicator said:
I definitely agree on the feeling safe part. Are you as good at analysing what men want because I'd really appreciate a post like this one ^^ but about the opposite sex instead
First of all... most of us have been brought up with the idea that we're not supposed to be as slutty as men. I mean what's the worst thing you can call a girl? A whore, a slut, a tramp, all to do with openly enjoying sex as much as most men do. Of course things are changing, thank god for that, and society is more accepting of women that like sex and are not afraid to show it. But to a certain degree (not speaking for all women or men here), women are more picky about sex. It's not just physical, it's not just to whether the guy is hot or not... but we have to feel a certain amount of security when we're with the guy. I know that I wouldn't sleep with someone who had no respect for me. I'd have to feel comfortable with the person. But I think it's mostly about the fact that most of us have grown up with the idea that men are supposed to be the pursuers, and if we give it up too easy, we're 'sluts'.
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
calcabrina said:
Good question, one I have asked myself before.
The reason is actually a biological one. Women and men are very similar in many ways, but are also different in others. That's one reason people ask the question or say humorously "Who can ever understand women?"
The reason is that women have a different "nature" than men. For example, our survival traits. Men's defense mechanisms he employs in order to survive are strength, speed, and intelligence. I am not saying women are not intelligent - I am just saying intelligence is a survival trait for men. Women's survival traits are the beauty of their youth, which is in many ways a way for them to survive. They are appealing to the opposite sex, and therefore have a certain degree of power over them; but more importantly, they are NEEDED and desired by men. Which helps assure their survival. If women were unattractive or not appealing to men and men had no motivation to procreate, women would probably die out. Likewise, if women did not desire men/mating/bearing a child men would die out. Also, another one fo woman's defense mechanisms is their cleverness; their ability to read between the lines better. I think most people would agree that women are in general more emotionally intelligent that men. I remember talking with one of my ex-girlfriends, and after she would ask how my day was or something, I might say something like "Oh, it was good. Went to work. That's about it." She will not say "Oh thats good".... she might say somehting like "well what's wrong" - because she sees through my words and understands the mood I am in and that something else is really going on. That was a mediocre example but I hope you get the idea.I
I am getting a little off topic, but I just wrote that paragraph in order to illustrate what I mean by "nature." Another example of this nature ia the simple fact that women seem more inclined towards keeping up their appearances, while men seem more inclined to want to play outside, roughly, or go do physical labor, etc. You get the point I hope. I am trying hard to not make any stereotypical comments that might offend someone and remain as objective as possible.
Ok, so now that you know what I mean by "nature", I can answer your question. Biologically, man's nature (his sexual nature) is to mate with as many females as is possible to proliferate the species. Since a male does not have to bear a child, but must find a mate to bear his child, he is more likely to have a child if he mates with as many women as possible. The more women he mates with, the more babies will be born and the species would be proliferated that myuch more. Now this is deeply instinctual stuff. As old as time itself. Keep in mind, I am answering part of this question from a BIOLOGICAL standpont - at least for the time being. I might get into the psychology later.
But to summarize the sexual nature of a man, a man basically wants to fuck as many girls as he possibly can. That is why his sex drive is so strong. And a man's sex life is also more important than a woman's as far as being in a relationship, too. I mean, I agree with you that females want to fuck as bad as guys.... but that statement does not exactly cover every aspect of what is actually happening. I mean, I think we all know that men tend to be hornier more than women. Women may be horny too, but they have more self-control over their horniness. It is in their nature. Also (just as a sidenote - women tend to get hornier and hornier over time - like as they're being romanced by a guy - as in like a locomotive... it starts a little slow, but an hour later its full steam ahead
) I guess the reciprocal exmaple for this in a man's case would be - hmmm... a man is like a train with an infinite amount of gas always in motion. heh... mean are always to a degree horny)Now, to explain women's nature a little more in-depth in relation to their sexual nature. Like I have said before, women's natural instinct is to seek "alpha" males - that is males who exhibit certain characteristics that demonstrate that they are a good mating partner to father a child and be able to support that child, to be successful in the world, to support a family, etc... Oh, one more sidenote- obviously guys and girls aren't aware of this sort of stuff cognitively... this is biological. So women look for these characteristics. That is why women are "choosy" when it comes to having a sex. Women are horny (at least after a certain age or level of experience), but what they are really seeking is ONE guy to mate with, and mate with on a regular basis. She doesn't want to fuck a bunch of guys instinctually because she doesn't want 10 different kids with ten different fathers. It just would not work that way.
SOCIETY would not work that way. Now, because of this, women have chosen MARRIAGE as the solution to this problem. By the institution of marriage, men are bound to one woman to raise a family and contribute to society, etc. Whether or not we realize, marriage (or the idea of a single monogamous relationship) is vital in our society and a product of our natures.
Basically, men and women are two diverse yet complimentary strategies for procreation and proliferation of the species. Thus, they must be different in certain ways.
NOW - to answer your question, the reason women are in control of the bargaining chip in the sense that they decide the rules of the dating and mating game and they choose their partner from the beginning is because THEY are the ones who must bear the child and give birth to it. Therefore they are, in essence, waiting for a man to come along that proves himself worthy of mating. That's why guys "make the first move." Thats why its up to guys to initiate conversation and "hit" on girls. Basically, the guys has to "sell" himself to the girl - to prove to her he is unique and worth being with.
So it is just the nature of men and women that determines why women hold this "bargaining chip." it is part of our strategy as humans are the women to decide the mate and the species to go on.
(By the way, although guys initiate the first contact, usually, this is not when the "trabce of romance", as I like to call it, actually begins. Non-verbal contact is where it begins. FOr exmaple, eye contact. Girls makes eye contact with guys and vice-versa to signal interest - and if a girl shows interested eye contact, it is a sub-concsious invitation to the guy to come over and approach her. This is just one example of the non-verbal communication that goes on between men and women, but I just want to illustrate that women actually ARE the ones who make the rules of the game, ultimately.)
I hope I answered your question. Let me know if you have anymore - or anyone for that matter. I am enjoying this thread.
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
Re: Re: Re: never lie
Hey calcabrina - look - straight from the horses's mouth
:D
glitterbizkit said:
Hey calcabrina - look - straight from the horses's mouth
:D
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
Re: Re: Re: never lie
Glitterbizkit - Ironically, in discussing women, I have actually gone into the psychology of guys to a certain degree. For example, my little paragraph on the "nice guy" I wrote a few posts above. However, I do agree, I have not really gotten into men alll that much, but I certainly wouldn't mind. What, specifically, would you like to know? What questions do you have?
Oh and P.S. - I really enjoy your responses so far - I usually agree with them; they are insightful and honest. You seem to be very self-aware.
glitterbizkit said:
I definitely agree on the feeling safe part. Are you as good at analysing what men want because I'd really appreciate a post like this one ^^ but about the opposite sex instead
Glitterbizkit - Ironically, in discussing women, I have actually gone into the psychology of guys to a certain degree. For example, my little paragraph on the "nice guy" I wrote a few posts above. However, I do agree, I have not really gotten into men alll that much, but I certainly wouldn't mind. What, specifically, would you like to know? What questions do you have?
Oh and P.S. - I really enjoy your responses so far - I usually agree with them; they are insightful and honest. You seem to be very self-aware.
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
The 'men want to fuck lots of women while women just want to settle down with one man' theory is outdated and debunked -- I will link the other thread that deals with this topic later so you can read more.
Women have a FAR greater investment in their offspring than men do. However, I believe that women having more control over sex is much more socialized than anything else -- and is not the typical human scenario.
There is probably some truth in this though.
Women have a FAR greater investment in their offspring than men do. However, I believe that women having more control over sex is much more socialized than anything else -- and is not the typical human scenario.
Black Octagon
Bluelighter
This thread is getting very interesting indeed.
PhorIndicator, you're making some excellent points. However, while I accept your ultimate conclusion that women hold the 'bargaining chip' with sex I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the premises you use to get there.
Your argument that men want to fuck as many women as possible and that women only want to be with one man works in a certain cultural and temporal context, but not all. So we need to be careful about applying this kind of gender construction across time and space.
I personally agree with earlier posts that the central feature is less the desire of either sex to reproduce, and more the desire simply to fuck and attain an intimate and fulfilling relationship. Although our species appear on the face of it to simply reproduce in ever-greater numbers where habitats allow it (like most other species), recent cultural changes, specifically in the west, are pouring cold water on this "we're just animals with clothes" way of thinking.
Consider, for example, the fact that fertility rates are decreasing in key areas of the world, especially Western Europe and to a lesser extent Australia. My knowledge of the US is less nuanced but I've heard that the trend is similar if you ignore the deep south. For a while demographers were writing this off as a temporary and negligible glitch after the 1960s baby boomer generation. But it's now 2005 and the trend doesn't seem to be reversing. A broad consensus is emerging in some sociological circles that this trend is actually the product of changed cultural values. The argument is that in our age of late capitalism, 'old fashioned' values such as family are being continually debased to those of consumerism, income and self-actualisation (the process whereby a superficial sense of identity is constructed via commodity accummulation).
Sorry for the tangent. But my point is that there are increasing numbers of people (male and female alike) placing priority mainly on securing a well-paying job, owning a house and buying as much superfluous crap as possible. I can't tell you how many highly attractive and assertive women I know who are starting to push their thirties and have absolutely no desire whatsoever to ever have kids. They care much more about their careers.
They do have partners, but in many cases the extent of their relationship is that the two live together and are not bound by so old-fashioned an institution as marriage, though this does not mean that they are not close.
Phew. So, my point is that although women do hold the bargaining chip for sex, it's more because of the more close-to-home psychology of being desired so much by men, rather than because of reproductive reasons. Although we are indeed animals, so much of our psychology is premised on our deep-seated sense of being members of a race that is 'above' animals and above nature itself. This attitude manifested most significantly in the west, where it thereby came to dominate our (much more important) sense of being part of nature.
So while what you've described is probably our natural and perhaps ideal condition, it gets complicated by the specific kind of culture western peoples in general (and i stress in general) have come to experience.
PhorIndicator, you're making some excellent points. However, while I accept your ultimate conclusion that women hold the 'bargaining chip' with sex I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the premises you use to get there.
Your argument that men want to fuck as many women as possible and that women only want to be with one man works in a certain cultural and temporal context, but not all. So we need to be careful about applying this kind of gender construction across time and space.
I personally agree with earlier posts that the central feature is less the desire of either sex to reproduce, and more the desire simply to fuck and attain an intimate and fulfilling relationship. Although our species appear on the face of it to simply reproduce in ever-greater numbers where habitats allow it (like most other species), recent cultural changes, specifically in the west, are pouring cold water on this "we're just animals with clothes" way of thinking.
Consider, for example, the fact that fertility rates are decreasing in key areas of the world, especially Western Europe and to a lesser extent Australia. My knowledge of the US is less nuanced but I've heard that the trend is similar if you ignore the deep south. For a while demographers were writing this off as a temporary and negligible glitch after the 1960s baby boomer generation. But it's now 2005 and the trend doesn't seem to be reversing. A broad consensus is emerging in some sociological circles that this trend is actually the product of changed cultural values. The argument is that in our age of late capitalism, 'old fashioned' values such as family are being continually debased to those of consumerism, income and self-actualisation (the process whereby a superficial sense of identity is constructed via commodity accummulation).
Sorry for the tangent. But my point is that there are increasing numbers of people (male and female alike) placing priority mainly on securing a well-paying job, owning a house and buying as much superfluous crap as possible. I can't tell you how many highly attractive and assertive women I know who are starting to push their thirties and have absolutely no desire whatsoever to ever have kids. They care much more about their careers.
They do have partners, but in many cases the extent of their relationship is that the two live together and are not bound by so old-fashioned an institution as marriage, though this does not mean that they are not close.
Phew. So, my point is that although women do hold the bargaining chip for sex, it's more because of the more close-to-home psychology of being desired so much by men, rather than because of reproductive reasons. Although we are indeed animals, so much of our psychology is premised on our deep-seated sense of being members of a race that is 'above' animals and above nature itself. This attitude manifested most significantly in the west, where it thereby came to dominate our (much more important) sense of being part of nature.
So while what you've described is probably our natural and perhaps ideal condition, it gets complicated by the specific kind of culture western peoples in general (and i stress in general) have come to experience.
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
fairnymph said:
Debunked? Exactly how is it debunked? Whether it is outdated, in my opinion, is irrelevant. If it can be disproven, then perhaps its "outdatedness" , if in fact it is outdated, WOULD be relevant.
But I do not understand how you can deny the logic behind it...
Men have plenty of sperm to spread around so our strategy involves attempting tin inseminate as many females as we possibly can until we drop dead. Sheer chance will then assure that some of them will survive and prosper and become world leaders or professional athletes, and the more and varied the females that we can inseminate the greater our chances of successfully spreading our genes around become. Society doesn't like our biological strategy anymore. They feel its corrupt and have instituted marriage, or a monogamous relationship, to put a stop to it.
Women, on the other hand, faced with the daunting task of actually REARING the children produced in their bodies, need to find a male of some character who is willing to provide resources and protection for her brood over a long period of time. And, unlike other mammals, women don't know exactly when they go into heat (estrus) either, so they need to husband a male (or secure a male who will remain with them for a long period of time) to inseminate them on a regular basis in order to stand a good chance of becoming pregnant. Society admires and honors the female reproductive strategy. They feel it's righteous and have promoted marriage, or a long-term monogamous relationship, to promote it.
Fairnymph, I am not describing a "theory." I am describing the actual, BIOLOGICAL strategies for reproduction within our species. Which is all that "maleness" and "femaleness" really represent in nature, you know...... two diverse yet complimentary strategies for reproduction.
I mean I am talking about INSTINCTUAL differences between males and females. This is the reason our species can continue to survive.
I mean, let's assume what you referred to as "the outdated and debunked theory" is incorrect.... Let's suppose women wanted to fuck as as many guys as they could and guys would only search out a single woman with which to have sex with? Guys would be getting random women pregnant left and right and all these women would have children which they would then be forced to rear on their own, without the help of a man. Because, hey, their goal would be to fuck as many guys as they can, right? And if the guy is seeking a monogamous relationship, then the reality would end up being that one man would be the father of multiple childrem but still be compelled to choose one wife to help raise and provide for the children...... I mean, it just doesn't make sense that way. It's just NOT how the world works.
I think you said my theory was "debunked and outdated" because you do not enjoy thinking that guys naturally wna tot fuck more women and women only want one man, because you adovate a women having sex with many men, or perhaps you think women should be able to ... Lol.. I don't know.. if you don't think women have the biological, instinctual impulse to seek one partner then I don't know what alrtnative theory there possibly could be. If a woman wanted multiple men as partners, there would be many fathers to different children and I mean,.... shit, I don't use puns often, but I will in this case.....civilization and society would be one big CLUSTERFUCK. Lol.
Anyways, I don't think you understood what I was saying in my post earlier. Perhaps you did not understand it fully. I am giving the purely biological motivations present in the nature of males and females that provide the most logical and beneficial means of reproduction and furthering ther existence of the human species.
I would thoroughly enjoy seeing an alternative to this theory.
I think perhaps you were saying the "theory" was outdated or debunked because you were interpreting it on a psychological level..... i.e. "Well, I am a female, and I dont want to only have one mate." But that's not the point. The point is these are our INTRINSIC natures... we may not be aware of them at a cognitive level, but that does not negate their reality.
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
Also, FairNymph, read my post. I never SAID women have more control over sex than guys do. All I said was, women determines the RULES of the dating game. That's why I illustrated my point by showing how it is up to the guy to make the first move, and also that women make a very quick judgement about who they would potentially fuck and who they wouldn't upon meeting a guy.
Fallen1 brought up a good point earlier, too, which I have not as of yet addressed. He brought up the issue of attraction - the fact that un-attractive women have less of a bargaining chip than attractive ones. He is absolutely right, and I have plenty to say about the subject, as well as the man's reciprocal to the "unattractive, fat chick." (His reciprocal is the pussy ass nice guy - the guy women shit on and view as an extremely poor choice to husband their child. However, I just typed a pretty long post, so I am going to wait a bit. Also, I am interested to see what FairNymph will say in response to my post. Because I myself am having difficulty thinking of any kind of response whatsoever. And I don't mea that arrogantly, either - I just simply can't. lol
Fallen1 brought up a good point earlier, too, which I have not as of yet addressed. He brought up the issue of attraction - the fact that un-attractive women have less of a bargaining chip than attractive ones. He is absolutely right, and I have plenty to say about the subject, as well as the man's reciprocal to the "unattractive, fat chick." (His reciprocal is the pussy ass nice guy - the guy women shit on and view as an extremely poor choice to husband their child. However, I just typed a pretty long post, so I am going to wait a bit. Also, I am interested to see what FairNymph will say in response to my post. Because I myself am having difficulty thinking of any kind of response whatsoever. And I don't mea that arrogantly, either - I just simply can't. lol
Strawberry_lovemuffin
Bluelighter
There are a certain subset of women - say, like fairnymph and myself - who do not relate to the stereotype of "women holding the bargaining chip"... at least not in our current relationships. We don't get sex as much as we want.... or indeed, hardly at all.... and it's a little dissillusioning, I guess you could say. That doesn't mean I don't *generally* agree with the theory that women withhold and men want to fuck, it may even be a biological thing... but when you are faced with real evidence in the contrary it tends to change your mind a little
(by the way neither of us are the 'fat ugly chick' either :D ... but I wonder if perhaps this phenonemon is contained to long-term couplings)
(by the way neither of us are the 'fat ugly chick' either :D ... but I wonder if perhaps this phenonemon is contained to long-term couplings)
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
Yes, I know neither of you are unattractive. Perhaps the phrase "holding the bargaining chip" it too vague. What I mean by that is, women have something men want, and it is up to the man to get it - but he has to play by the woman's rules of how to get it. Thats why guys who dont know how to talk to women dont get laid, thats why a rapist is certainly not playing by the rules, thats why if you just walked up to a chick and said "nice shoes. wanna fuck?" - you would have very poor results.
You said stereotype of "holding the bargaining chip." When i used that phrase, I did not even mean it as a stereotype. I meant it as a fact. has my explanation helped clear anything up or do I need to clarify more?
You said stereotype of "holding the bargaining chip." When i used that phrase, I did not even mean it as a stereotype. I meant it as a fact. has my explanation helped clear anything up or do I need to clarify more?
Strawberry_lovemuffin
Bluelighter
PhorIndicator said:
I think maybe we are talking about different circumstances. In the general "play" of initial mating, yes, certainly... it is a FACT that women, particularly attractive women, hold the bargaining chip. It's an undeniable and solid fact.
However once you get deeper into the intracacies of a long-term relationship, women lose their bargaining chip by means of becoming too familiar, too "same old". Conquered. Done.
Perhaps men only have limited attention spans
? (but this topic has been done to death here in SLR... sorry to drag it into that territory again)
PhorIndicator
Bluelighter
No no I absolutely agree. And that's what I should have clarified earlier - I thought about going into how the dynamics most certainly change after a relationship is underway - I was referring exclusively to the initial phase of attraction, the initial mating phase, where women (attractive, sometimes not all that attractive hehe) hold the bargaining chip.
Although in response to your comment about men having limited attention spans... I might attricute that to man's biological nature to want to bone as many as possible in order to reproduce more effectively... although of course this is not cognitive, I stress again, it is instinctual and not conscious.
Also, I have not seen any threads here in SLR that have gone into quite the detail this one has. Correct me if I am wrong.
Although in response to your comment about men having limited attention spans... I might attricute that to man's biological nature to want to bone as many as possible in order to reproduce more effectively... although of course this is not cognitive, I stress again, it is instinctual and not conscious.
Also, I have not seen any threads here in SLR that have gone into quite the detail this one has. Correct me if I am wrong.
Strawberry_lovemuffin
Bluelighter
^ This one is my favourite about men losing interest:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81968&highlight=Gentlemen (best title EVAR )
But there's been so many more...
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183010&highlight=bored
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198459&highlight=bored
that's just a quick search
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81968&highlight=Gentlemen (best title EVAR
)But there's been so many more...
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=183010&highlight=bored
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198459&highlight=bored
that's just a quick search
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
No, you aren't. You are describing old theories that have since been disproven (debunked = disproven). That was my point.
I find it highly insulting, as a biologist, when people claim such crap is 'biology'. It once was, but people once though the earth was flat, too.
Feel free to defend your theory all you like, but that doesn't make it biology, and it certainly doesn't make it accurate or right.
Sure, you can word it that way. Control/determine rules/whatever. Like I said, I agree, but I think it's because of socialization, not any innnate biological drive.
fairnymph
Ex-Bluelighter
Here is the relevant thread on this topic that I referred to earlier (with the oh so brilliant and agreeable Fallen1 arguing your standpoint):
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthre...=25&highlight=everyone is a slut&pagenumber=1
If you want more info in a more concise/coherent form, I can dredge up old lecture notes and put something together for you.
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthre...=25&highlight=everyone is a slut&pagenumber=1
If you want more info in a more concise/coherent form, I can dredge up old lecture notes and put something together for you.
Black Octagon
Bluelighter
I think fairnymph is actually making a very good point, albeit in a slightly aggressive way 8)
To use an exceedingly banal example, imagine if we do go back to the primate era as wizekrak suggests, then in that kind of socio-cultural context, all a man has to do to get sex is physically force himself on a woman. in the context of here and now, that kind of behaviour called rape and is taboo. Moreover, there are powerful structural forces such as 'law and order' to enforce the taboo. The point is that whether the primate male raped out of desire to 'reproduce' (as PhorIndicator seems to believe) or merely to get off (as I would argue), the point is that he can only pull off such an act with impunity in a specifically primate context. I referred to more recent contexts in my last post. As these contexts change over time, other ways of achieving sex become morally normalised (or so paraphrase fairnymph, male/female stakes in the bargaining chip for sex are in flux relative to 'socialisation.')
So while it may be true that at this point in time, in certain areas of the world, certain females are the ones with the most power to 'mete out' sex at their discretion, it is NOT for 'biological' reasons. To accept such an explanation is to further entrench unnecessary gender stereotypes and thereby hold back the necessary process of social evolution.
To use an exceedingly banal example, imagine if we do go back to the primate era as wizekrak suggests, then in that kind of socio-cultural context, all a man has to do to get sex is physically force himself on a woman. in the context of here and now, that kind of behaviour called rape and is taboo. Moreover, there are powerful structural forces such as 'law and order' to enforce the taboo. The point is that whether the primate male raped out of desire to 'reproduce' (as PhorIndicator seems to believe) or merely to get off (as I would argue), the point is that he can only pull off such an act with impunity in a specifically primate context. I referred to more recent contexts in my last post. As these contexts change over time, other ways of achieving sex become morally normalised (or so paraphrase fairnymph, male/female stakes in the bargaining chip for sex are in flux relative to 'socialisation.')
So while it may be true that at this point in time, in certain areas of the world, certain females are the ones with the most power to 'mete out' sex at their discretion, it is NOT for 'biological' reasons. To accept such an explanation is to further entrench unnecessary gender stereotypes and thereby hold back the necessary process of social evolution.