Why Women are sluts and Men are players
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Classical Liberal
Which is what anybody who is not strange does.
The idea that having sex is no more meaningful than being served chips by a waiter is laughable.
The idea that having sex is no more meaningful than being served chips by a waiter is laughable.
And yet many people share my view. Sex isn't something romantic where angels play and flowers bloom as two lovers embrace, it's something fun to do with someone consenting. Simple. Why do people need to complicate it
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
And yet many people share my view. Sex isn't something romantic where angels play and flowers bloom as two lovers embrace, it's something fun to do with someone consenting. Simple. Why do people need to complicate it
So would you mind if your boyfriend had sex with another girl? I mean it is just sex after all.
Original post by Classical Liberal
So would you mind if your boyfriend had sex with another girl? I mean it is just sex after all.
I did say in a relationship you decide to make sex something more. However I don't care how many people he has or hasn't slept with before and neither does he, because we're not idiots
Original post by Classical Liberal
Fortunately I am neither 
Well you certainly seem misogynist and arrogant
Original post by Ultimate1
Mate rule number 1; never argue logically with feminists and in general with women [In general, most women can't comprehend logic although some, a small minority, can. Heck I'd even say now that most men running around on here, men whom they call the ''manginas'', also can't comprehend logical thinking].
PRSOM dayum I must have negged you on another thread too
Original post by SleepySheep
PRSOM dayum I must have negged you on another thread too
Well you and everyone against OP's stance have done exactly what I've said. Whereas OP has constructed his argument backed by simple Biology and I've provided studies everyone else have just provided emotionally fueled arguments. ie "zomg it's only sexorzzz omg"
Hence exactly why I said it's futile to argue with logic, the highest order of thinking, with women and manginas.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
The first two are the same for men I believe
Yes the drinking one affects both men and women but higher testosterone isn't a matter of concern for men; men should do everything to achieve a higher level of testosterone it is however bad for women.
and the last one, there is evidence women diagnosed with personality disorders are disproportionate due to social constructs, so men doing the same behavoir wouldn't be diagnosed because it's socially acceptable and that. But that's a whole different debate about psychiatric methods
Noted. Although I haven't seen anything about this. There's also evidence of women placing more emotional ties on sex as well from which one can conclude that women aren't hardwired to have a lot of partners.
Nice post - I think you're quite right. In my experience, people often have an aversion to believing people are biologically predisposed to behave in a certain way or hold certain attitudes, and they look for societal and cultural explanations. In fact, it's quite reasonable to see why these attitudes would naturally develop as a consequence of mating strategy (in what is essentially game theory).
Though I would describe myself as a feminist, it's essential that we keep a neutral mind towards potential explanations and go where the evidence takes us. But I would point out that there is not necessarily any logical inconsistency with the feminists' argument you mentioned, because although men like sex, they also like everyone else not to have sex with the people they have sex with. In this scenario, the goal is not only to maximise sex, but also to minimise the risk of others having sex with one's own partners, which could well produce the behavioural phenomena we see, where a man is respected for his increase in status, and a woman disliked for increasing another man's status.
Though I would describe myself as a feminist, it's essential that we keep a neutral mind towards potential explanations and go where the evidence takes us. But I would point out that there is not necessarily any logical inconsistency with the feminists' argument you mentioned, because although men like sex, they also like everyone else not to have sex with the people they have sex with. In this scenario, the goal is not only to maximise sex, but also to minimise the risk of others having sex with one's own partners, which could well produce the behavioural phenomena we see, where a man is respected for his increase in status, and a woman disliked for increasing another man's status.
I think it's partially because its men who have to 'chat up' women. Women just have to be 'chatted up'. It's men who make the effort and women who accept.
If this instinctive behaviour is so strong, then why aren't men more bitchy and competitive with each other?
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
Original post by pandabird
If this instinctive behaviour is so strong, then why aren't men more bitchy and competitive with each other?
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
I've noticed that, during the opening stages, the men does all the legwork and will compete with other men for a girls attention. Men often try and show each other up in front of attractive women, for example. However, once mutual attraction has been established then women seem to get far more jealous and way more competitive than men do. Possibly because women find men who are already pre-selected by women to be more attractive, whereas men find women who are already spoken for probably less attractive.
Original post by SleepySheep
PRSOM dayum I must have negged you on another thread too
He's correct though... I've learned this with my girlfriend. When we argue, even if there is absolutely no way she can be right then I still have not officially won the argument, even though I have it's worth nothing. She's right and that's the end of it. I have never 'officially' won an argument and I don't expect to. It's a lot simpler to let her believe she's right.
Original post by pandabird
If this instinctive behaviour is so strong, then why aren't men more bitchy and competitive with each other?
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
It is actually said to be the male who competes with other males for a partner, whilst the female chooses from a pool of available options. So according to what you have just said males have as much right to be 'notches to each other's as females.
Men are very competitive.
Have you seen how much men like sports and games compared to women? Have you noticed how men fight each and can be very confrontational?
A the female having the choice only works for short term sexual encounters. When the game is finding a long term partner females do not have as much choice. Lots of guys will have sex with girls they would not be seen dead with dating.
Original post by Classical Liberal
Men are very competitive.
Have you seen how much men like sports and games compared to women? Have you noticed how men fight each and can be very confrontational?
A the female having the choice only works for short term sexual encounters. When the game is finding a long term partner females do not have as much choice. Lots of guys will have sex with girls they would not be seen dead with dating.
Have you seen how much men like sports and games compared to women? Have you noticed how men fight each and can be very confrontational?
A the female having the choice only works for short term sexual encounters. When the game is finding a long term partner females do not have as much choice. Lots of guys will have sex with girls they would not be seen dead with dating.
No it doesn't, it works for dating as well. According to your beloved evolutionary theory it's all down to reproduction is it not? According to evolutionary principles, the man is the one who would seek the woman, and the woman would choose from her available options, regardless of the situation. They may have less choice but the male still seeks the female.
But wait, there's a lot more to it than that isn't it? It just perfectly highlights how reductionist the evolutionary theory can be, yes it lays an important foundation, but it can only partially account for behaviour.
Original post by uktotalgamer
He's correct though... I've learned this with my girlfriend. When we argue, even if there is absolutely no way she can be right then I still have not officially won the argument, even though I have it's worth nothing. She's right and that's the end of it. I have never 'officially' won an argument and I don't expect to. It's a lot simpler to let her believe she's right.
Give an example of these arguments? Of course you will believe you're right!
Original post by pandabird
No it doesn't, it works for dating as well. According to your beloved evolutionary theory it's all down to reproduction is it not? According to evolutionary principles, the man is the one who would seek the woman, and the woman would choose from her available options, regardless of the situation. They may have less choice but the male still seeks the female.
But wait, there's a lot more to it than that isn't it? It just perfectly highlights how reductionist the evolutionary theory can be, yes it lays an important foundation, but it can only partially account for behaviour.
But wait, there's a lot more to it than that isn't it? It just perfectly highlights how reductionist the evolutionary theory can be, yes it lays an important foundation, but it can only partially account for behaviour.
The male is happy to impregnate just about anything.
The male on the other hand is only willing to raise good quality offspring. The male will be more selective with a mate that he intends to raise children with.
It is perfectly consistent with the idea of parental investment. To impregnate a female the male has almost no practical limit. To raise a child the males parental investment is almost the same as the females. Therefore males and females will be just as selective for long term partners.
The optimal outcome for a male is to go around impregnating everything. And only raising the children of women of the highest value. That is why you see good looking guys shagging unattractive girls relative to them but never dating them.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Classical Liberal
The response to the strategy of women being impregnated by one man and using another man to raise the child leads to men responding with a strategy of avoiding women who have multipe sexual partners. Men are designed to be disgusted by promiscuous women just like they are designed to be disgusted by rancid food.
The response to the strategy of women being impregnated by one man and using another man to raise the child leads to men responding with a strategy of avoiding women who have multipe sexual partners. Men are designed to be disgusted by promiscuous women just like they are designed to be disgusted by rancid food.
Human response to rancid food is a physiological reaction to the gases and compounds that are released when food goes rotten, which we perceive as smelling putrid. It has an actual, observable effect on the central nervous system. Where is your evidence that men are 'designed' to be repulsed by promiscuous women in a way that even remotely resembles this?
Original post by Captain Haddock
Human response to rancid food is a physiological reaction to the gases and compounds that are released when food goes rotten, which we perceive as smelling putrid. It has an actual, observable effect on the central nervous system. Where is your evidence that men are 'designed' to be repulsed by promiscuous women in a way that even remotely resembles this?
It is an analogy. My point is that it is not a learnt behavior. It is instinctive.
Obviously that disposition towards being averse to promiscuous women can be increased by social pressure as well.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
