| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/27/2001; 12:23 AM When a guy has sex with a lot of girls,he,is considered "macho"or something to that effect which , if I am putting this rightly, adds to a guy's sex appeal .When a girl has sex with a lot of guys she is known as a "slut" which is a derogatory term and she is "used" by the opposite sex.. Am I in illusioned state in thinking along this train of thought or does the above scenario duplicate itself in the real world?
RE: Question By: Evan on 12/26/2001; 10:15 PM Hmmm if i recall correctly this can be the case. I'm not going to fish out my sociology textbooks right now and look it up but I do believe that this sort of thing is due to role expectations. Society (or perhaps men are just randier than females) subtly encourages males to be more promiscuous than females. Its probably like how society very subtly tries to encourage males to succeed in math and sciences and discourages them in languages and vice versa for females. The study done showed that there was a correlation and that the people involved (primarily teachers) were not even aware of their bias.
RE: Question By: Brian Carnell on 12/26/2001; 10:36 PM At 09:31 PM 12/26/2001 -0500, Evan wrote: >Hmmm if i recall correctly this can be the case. I'm not going to fish >out my sociology textbooks right now and look it up but I do believe that >this sort of thing is due to role expectations. Society (or perhaps men >are just randier than females) subtly encourages males to be more >promiscuous than females. Its probably like how society very subtly tries >to encourage males to succeed in math and sciences and discourages them in >languages and vice versa for females. The study done showed that there was >a correlation and that the people involved (primarily teachers) were not >even aware of their bias. Natural selection provides very different sexual strategies for men and women. On the other hand, as mammalian species goes, homo sapiens tends to have a rather high degree of male parental involvement (and, of course, our intelligence and free will means that we can say "to hell with what my genes want").
RE: Question By: ScottN on 12/27/2001; 12:21 PM Brian's right. There's a sort of genetic imperative... In prehistoric times, it was best for a male to inseminate as many females as possible. For a female, it was best to attach herself to the strongest male available. This was a matter of species survival. No moral judgements. Nowadays, of course, these "genetic imperatives" are no longer necessary, but may be reflected in the attitudes discussed.
Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/27/2001; 2:03 PM Dear Scott, By prehistoric times I believe you mean many hundreds of years ago. But from the start of civilization, for example, Mohenjo-Daro, old Egypt or Mesopotamia, this has not been the case. Society has had many years to change itself, but it has still not rid itself of these traces. On the other hand if a female attaches herself to more than one male, she provokes fighting between them. The She likes me better than him situation arises and fighting commences, and the strongest male emerges. So its beneficial for the female to attach herself to more than one male. Is not that true? Yours sincerely, Zares Kurtoga
Re: Question By: Seth Dillingham on 12/27/2001; 2:22 PM On 12/27/2001 at 1:19 PM, Zares Kurtoga wrote: >On the other hand if a female attaches herself to more than one male, >she provokes fighting between them. The ìShe likes me better than >himî situation arises and fighting commences, and the strongest male >emerges. So itís beneficial for the female to attach herself to more >than one male. Is not that true? I think what you're referring to is when the female makes herself *available* to more than one male. She doesn't "attach herself" (usually) until a choice is made between the males. The same is true in all species. Seth
RE: Question By: Seth Dillingham on 12/27/2001; 2:30 PM On 12/27/2001 at 1:22 PM, Seth Dillingham wrote: >The same is true in all species. Hey, there's a sweeping generalization I can't back up. Let's just forget I said that, before any number of people jump all over me for it, OK? :-) Seth
Re: Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/27/2001; 2:40 PM Yes ..Forgive me for my inability of communicate
RE: Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/27/2001; 2:42 PM *Jumps on Seth's back*
Re: Question By: Brian Carnell on 12/27/2001; 2:57 PM At 01:19 PM 12/27/2001 -0500, Zares wrote: >By prehistoric times I believe you mean many hundreds of years ago. I think he meant hundreds of thousands of years ago (and even further back than that). >But from the start of civilization, for example, Mohenjo-Daro, old Egypt >or Mesopotamia, this has not been the case. Society has had many years to >change itself, but it has still not rid itself of these traces. The historic societies that you mention are extremely recent. You're not just going to wipe out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution with a few thousand years of civilization. Note that you are also making a moral argument -- it would be good if attitudes about sex were gender neutral -- without considering the possibility that as high minded as that may be, it might produce suboptimal civilizations. The fact that such cultural views and institutions continue to persist even in Western cultures might give some pause as to whether or not it would be a good thing to eliminate them entirely. > On the other hand if a female attaches herself to more than one male, > she provokes fighting between them. The "She likes me better than him" > situation arises and fighting commences, and the strongest male emerges. > So it's beneficial for the female to attach herself to more than one > male. Is not that true? No. The problem here is that human children require a very large investment of time and resources, which are obviously limited. So if a man wants to maximize the number of children or, alternatively, limit the total number of children but maximize his parental involvement to increase the likely success of his offspring, he needs to make sure that the child he his devoting his resources to is actually genetically related to him. If a woman is having *known* liasions with multiple men, it makes it very difficult to ascertain who the father is. As a result, there is a clear disincentive for any given man who might be the father to allot the time and resources. In some species -- including ours, unfortunately -- males have a tendency of killing offspring who are not biologically related to them. Talking with most of my male, single friends, for example, and dating a woman who already has a child is far less appealing than dating a woman who has not yet been a mother. On the other hand, again, we are not slaves to our genes. Especially in the U.S., there are lots of people who have been raised by stepfathers (though it would be interesting to know the percentage of men who become stepfathers who are not themselves already fathers). And, of course, many people in the developed world choose not to have any children at all which has to be the single most absurd thing they could possibly do, at least from their genes' point of view.
RE: Question By: Seth Dillingham on 12/27/2001; 3:03 PM On 12/27/2001 at 1:57 PM, Brian Carnell wrote: >it might produce suboptimal civilizations We're already so good at producing suboptimal civilizations that I'm not sure what this would matter. ;-)
RE: Question By: Sarah on 12/27/2001; 7:10 PM its round time theres a girl in this convo, the morals placed in society are mostly female-oriented and positive for the girl whether ppl realize it or not. notice how when the guy is 'using' the girl she doesnt need him, HE is USING her. AND the male needs the girls to get more girls, so wether a slut realizes it or not she is helping the male species, they need to be helped not the female. that was most difficult to type its hard for to express complicated thoughts on this much caffine but newho, peace
RE: Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/27/2001; 8:22 PM *All 6 feet 250 pounds of him*
RE: Question By: Sarah on 12/28/2001; 12:12 PM eh?
RE: Question By: Zares Kurtoga on 12/28/2001; 1:44 PM RSC (Random and Stupid Comment) Just like Stuart Skinner saying "Cows cannot swim" During Lord of the Rings.Hmmm @#!*
RE: Question By: Sarah on 12/29/2001; 3:05 PM ah i see....
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|