Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do men ever get jealous that women can get laid so easily? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For those of you who think women didn't evolve to be highly sexual, read this:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...gy-perspective

    It essentially tells you men and women are quite similar in sexual desire and wanting 'variety' as it were. In fact, when it comes to long term relationships and the correspondent 'loss' of a desire for sex in a marriage (a common stereotype with women) that may be because they want variety:

    "women evolutionarily would have had nearly as much to gain from multiple partners as men, so desire for sex is probably much more similar than previously thought.

    What seems to be different is that while men in long-term monogamous relationships report that they long for variety, their interest in sex (with their partner) remains roughly constant – they still want sex with their wives/partners. Women, however, appear to lose interest in sex in monogamous partnerships. In the past, this was interpreted as confirmation of women’s lower libido and the result of having already “gotten what they wanted” = marriage.

    In light of recent research, it seems that women have not lost interest in sex; they have just lost interest in sex with their long-term partners. They carry the evolutionary baggage of a time when seeking new partners would have given them a fitness advantage, especially as they approach the end of their reproductive lives."


    What seems to be the difference comes from the intense evolutionary pressure to control female infidelity, and this gives off the appearance of women having less interest in sex:

    "As I said before, there is intense evolutionary pressure for males to control paternity, particularly in monogamously breeding species. A variety of strategies are used to combat female infidelity in animals – mate-guarding being the most common.

    Although anthropology is not my area, it seems to me that from an evolutionary perspective, culture gives humans the unique opportunity to take advantage of a different strategy. If you can effectively intervene with cultural rules and expectations and thus control the decision-making process involved in female choice, i.e., control whether desire leads to sex, you essentially get control of reproduction. And who controls paternity controls the world!

    Put another way, if you have a culture that convinces women that 1) they are less interested in sex (than men) and 2) they are more interested in monogamy, then you create a situation whereby women learn to ignore or disregard their own physical arousal, particularly in situations that are deemed inappropriate. Of course, other cultural mechanisms work to reinforce this through slut shaming and even physical punishment, but surely the psychological strategy would be the most effective because women internalize it so completely."



    Oh... and uh, there's a reason why the penis head is shaped the way it is... not because men have a lot of sex with different partners, but because women do. The penis evolved that way to essentially clean/get rid of as much of the semen from the woman's previous partner as possible, in order to have the best chance of his sperm being successful.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    He does, clearly.
    Yes he does. Hence why I said he's conforming to those traditional gender roles and stereotypes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Unfortunately, many misunderstood me. Above, someone is claiming that it was important for men to satisfy the woman with whom he was having sex. That is absolutely false.
    Ok but then

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Today it is, because most people have sex for pleasure and not reproduction.
    So you just contradicted yourself.

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Anyway, I am a mathematics student, not an evolutionary biologists.
    So...why'd you bring it up then, my nine? *scratches head*

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Bye now, I am turning this ****ty computer off.
    Ta :erm: lol
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by Danz123)
    For those of you who think women didn't evolve to be highly sexual, read this:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...gy-perspective

    It essentially tells you men and women are quite similar in sexual desire and wanting 'variety' as it were. In fact, when it comes to long term relationships and the correspondent 'loss' of a desire for sex in a marriage (a common stereotype with women) that may be because they want variety:

    "women evolutionarily would have had nearly as much to gain from multiple partners as men, so desire for sex is probably much more similar than previously thought.

    What seems to be different is that while men in long-term monogamous relationships report that they long for variety, their interest in sex (with their partner) remains roughly constant – they still want sex with their wives/partners. Women, however, appear to lose interest in sex in monogamous partnerships. In the past, this was interpreted as confirmation of women’s lower libido and the result of having already “gotten what they wanted” = marriage.

    In light of recent research, it seems that women have not lost interest in sex; they have just lost interest in sex with their long-term partners. They carry the evolutionary baggage of a time when seeking new partners would have given them a fitness advantage, especially as they approach the end of their reproductive lives."

    What seems to be the difference comes from the intense evolutionary pressure to control female infidelity, and this gives off the appearance of women having less interest in sex:

    "As I said before, there is intense evolutionary pressure for males to control paternity, particularly in monogamously breeding species. A variety of strategies are used to combat female infidelity in animals – mate-guarding being the most common.

    Although anthropology is not my area, it seems to me that from an evolutionary perspective, culture gives humans the unique opportunity to take advantage of a different strategy. If you can effectively intervene with cultural rules and expectations and thus control the decision-making process involved in female choice, i.e., control whether desire leads to sex, you essentially get control of reproduction. And who controls paternity controls the world!

    Put another way, if you have a culture that convinces women that 1) they are less interested in sex (than men) and 2) they are more interested in monogamy, then you create a situation whereby women learn to ignore or disregard their own physical arousal, particularly in situations that are deemed inappropriate. Of course, other cultural mechanisms work to reinforce this through slut shaming and even physical punishment, but surely the psychological strategy would be the most effective because women internalize it so completely."


    Oh... and uh, there's a reason why the penis head is shaped the way it is... not because men have a lot of sex with different partners, but because women do. The penis evolved that way to essentially clean/get rid of as much of the semen from the woman's previous partner as possible, in order to have the best chance of his sperm being successful.
    I'm glad you took the time to research this. This is a much better response than others'. I never wanted to start an argument: I merely wanted to make a point. This is a decent, factual article. One thing I doubt, though, is this:
    "women evolutionarily would have had nearly as much to gain from multiple partners as men". This is doesn't make sense: when a man passes on his seed, he has lost virtually nothing (maybe 2 minutes of his life and a bit of energy), but a woman has to invest a lot of her resources for at least 9 months at a time. A good book on this topic is the selfish gene by Dawkins. Read it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I'm glad you took the time to research this. This is a much better response than others'. I never wanted to start an argument: I merely wanted to make a point. This is a decent, factual article. One thing I doubt, though, is this:
    "women evolutionarily would have had nearly as much to gain from multiple partners as men". This is doesn't make sense: when a man passes on his seed, he has lost virtually nothing (maybe 2 minutes of his life and a bit of energy), but a woman has to invest a lot of her resources for at least 9 months at a time. A good book on this topic is the selfish gene by Dawkins. Read it.
    That would be overly simplistic. Yes, it is a vital point when it comes to the costly business of giving birth to and raising a child. But one needs to look at this holistically, and that point doesn't paint the entire picture of evolutionary strategy. I'll let the article make my point for me:

    "Humans are a rather extreme example of this because human babies are extraordinarily energetically costly to raise when you consider both their relative helplessness at birth and prolonged childhood.

    The implications of this are twofold. In most monogamously breeding species that have been studied, animals adopt a mixed strategy of social monogamy without pure sexual monogamy. That is, both males and females engage in discreet copulations outside the socially monogamous relationship to defray the cost of missed mating opportunities. Secondly, because a male raising another male’s child means complete reproductive failure, the evolutionary cost of having a cheating wife is far greater than having a cheating husband"
    .

    This reiterates my point earlier on controlling female infidelity. A woman, in a long term relationship with a husband who provides, would actually be acting in accordance with evolutionary strategy if she slept around. She could get her husband to raise both their kid and the kids she has with the other guys. This is a clear, undeniable win for her. The only person who loses out is the husband/provider. As stated, a man raising another man's child is reproductive failure, so it's in HIS best interests to deter her from sleeping around, and it would be in HER best interests (so long as she has him by her side at least in the early years) TO sleep around.
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by Danz123)
    That would be overly simplistic. Yes, it is a vital point when it comes to the costly business of giving birth to and raising a child. But one needs to look at this holistically, and that point doesn't paint the entire picture of evolutionary strategy. I'll let the article make my point for me:

    "Humans are a rather extreme example of this because human babies are extraordinarily energetically costly to raise when you consider both their relative helplessness at birth and prolonged childhood.

    The implications of this are twofold. In most monogamously breeding species that have been studied, animals adopt a mixed strategy of social monogamy without pure sexual monogamy. That is, both males and females engage in discreet copulations outside the socially monogamous relationship to defray the cost of missed mating opportunities. Secondly, because a male raising another male’s child means complete reproductive failure, the evolutionary cost of having a cheating wife is far greater than having a cheating husband".

    This reiterates my point earlier on controlling female infidelity. A woman, in a long term relationship with a husband who provides, would actually be acting in accordance with evolutionary strategy if she slept around. She could get her husband to raise both their kid and the kids she has with the other guys. This is a clear, undeniable win for her. The only person who loses out is the husband/provider. As stated, a man raising another man's child is reproductive failure, so it's in HIS best interests to deter her from sleeping around, and it would be in HER best interests (so long as she has him by her side at least in the early years) TO sleep around.
    I agree. What is true evolutionary doesn't necessarily apply today, though, and I am shocked how my initial point (that all men can come during sex, with which I still stand obviously) exploded so much.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I agree. What is true evolutionary doesn't necessarily apply today, though, and I am shocked how my initial point (that all men can come during sex, with which I still stand obviously) exploded so much.
    You're right, it doesn't, but of course if we got into why we have the drives we do and whether they're evolutionarily beneficial, well there you have it. haha xD
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I agree. What is true evolutionary doesn't necessarily apply today, though, and I am shocked how my initial point (that all men can come during sex, with which I still stand obviously) exploded so much.
    Well actually it wasn't your initial point that exploded, it was all you other stupid points that apparently supported your initial point.
    • #2
    #2

    please make this post the last one. Thread stops here.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    **** yourself back to the kitchen you wh*re. EVERYTHING I SAID WAS FACTUAL, why is that beyond you!!!!!?????
    Firstly I'm not a whore. Secondly I'm not going to any kitchen and thirdly it wasn't all factual. And lastly, your disgusting, why would anyone want to sleep with you anyway with such a dirty mouth you have. Go wash it out with soap.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    please make this post the last one. Thread stops here.
    So you call me a whore then the thread ends...lol okay -_-
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Firstly I'm not a whore. Secondly I'm not going to any kitchen and thirdly it wasn't all factual. And lastly, your disgusting, why would anyone want to sleep with you anyway with such a dirty mouth you have. Go wash it out with soap.
    *you're
    PROVE ME WRONG.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    *you're
    PROVE ME WRONG.
    Lmao the fact that you actually have the audacity to correct my spelling right now. You are so disgusting. How dare you speak to me like that? You don't even know me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    *you're
    PROVE ME WRONG.
    Why are you getting so aggressive? You're so pathetic, I'm actually laughing at you. :lol:
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Lmao the fact that you actually have the audacity to correct my spelling right now. You are so disgusting. How dare you speak to me like that? You don't even know me.
    you still have not shown me where I was being factually INCORRECT, CAN YOU??????
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    you still have not shown me where I was being factually INCORRECT, CAN YOU??????
    You have still not told me why I am a whore? What because I challenged your argument. You pathetic. Simply pathetic. Also hasn't Dan proved it enough that your information wasn't all factual.Also just because you are clearly stupid, no history is completely factual, it's impossible.
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    You have still not told me why I am a whore? What because I challenged your argument. You pathetic. Simply pathetic. Also hasn't Dan proved it enough that your information wasn't all factual.Also just because you are clearly stupid, no history is completely factual, it's impossible.
    Dan never disproved me, he merely added to my point.

    LET'S STOP THIS KAY???
    ___________________
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Dan never disproved me, he merely added to my point.

    LET'S STOP THIS KAY???
    ___________________
    Don't really care what Dan said.

    How about you apologise for being disgusting?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I'm currently in a relationship but if I was single I know that I could have sex with different guys as often as I want to. I personally never wanted to and don't see much accomplishment in this as I find casual sex to be empty for me personally. But I see a lot of slut-shaming on here and I wondered if some of these guys are just sexually frustrated and taking it out on women that actually can get laid. The thing is if these guys got even a fraction of the opportunities man women get they would gulp it right up and be over the moon.

    What do you think?
    This reminds me of when I was in school and the feminazi teacher tried ti imply that men were more promiscuous than women, until I pointed out "who are the men being promiscuous with?" (cant be by themselves can it??

    Who are the "different guys" in your post? arnt they equally as privileged as you??
    • #2
    #2

    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Don't really care what Dan said.

    How about you apologise for being disgusting?
    Sorry.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 23, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.