The Truth About Women

Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex
by Robin Baker

Less than 1 percent of sperm is actually designed to fertilize an egg (the rest are there to block other men's sperm), and that 4 to 10 percent of all children born to married couples are in fact the offspring of other men, usually of higher socioeconomic status, with whom the mother had a short-term relationship.

Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive.

Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to.

They are interested in how other people view him--how many people want to be around him, how other people interact with him and whether their interactions convey that he is special and amazing. They want him to be extremely outgoing and aggressive, they want him to demonstrate his status over other people by dominating them in various non-violent ways.

A woman's attraction to a man is a function of her jealousy at the thought of another woman having that man. She doesn't care who he actually is or EXACTLY what he looks like physically, she only cares about the VALUE of the life he has constructed around himself.

A woman basically is a greedy materialistic prostitute. Although that sounds vulgar, it's true. She trades her physical self to buy into the success a man has created for himself.

Discuss.

Also, even though Baker explained that it was not his intention nor belief that Sperm Wars contains sexist views (p. xxiv), some very controversial ideas are sure to offend some and anger others. One primary example involves Baker's position on sexual aggression within relationships, from "rough-and-tumble sex play" to forced intercourse. Baker makes few distinctions between these two types of aggression and attributes both to female testing of male partners' strength and ability to overcome her resistance. "To test this [ability], she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test" (p. 223). Baker notes that "n species such as humans that form long-term relationships, rough-and-tumble sexual behavior is most important during early stages of courtship. Once a woman has tested a man's ability to force himself on her, she need not do it often thereafter" (pp. 223-224). I do not even have to elaborate on the ideological problem many readers would have with this perspective. Empirically, data are needed to support such an interpretation of the reproductive "function" of sexual aggression (playful or otherwise) within couples.

Chumly wrote:

She is quite likely to not only interrupt me, but to opine without weighing the views, and then simply order me about.

It can be amusing/endearing or irritating/distancing dependent on circumstance.

Chumly? I bet your wife never brings you a dull moment! She sounds like someone that would be fun to be around.

Everyone's jumping all over him for this, but a lot of it rings true. People make decisions with logic AND emotion. Initial attraction is NOT based on logic, it's purely emotional.

In the animal kingdom, females mate with the alpha males to ensure strong offspring. You women can kick and scream until your faces turn purple, but this carries over to humans as well.

Especially with uncommonly beautiful women, who have their pick of the litter.

I will say his last point is way off-base. Women aren't greedy prostitutes any more than men can't look past tits & and an ass.

Chai wrote:

crawfish and explain away all you want hawkeye, that is one mofo misogynistic statement.

If you can control your wife, you can control a nation.

Maybe that's why we've had so few good leaders, us pesky wimmens are harder to herd than cats.

Last time I checked "misogyny" was a gender specific word. Considering my argument was directed towards both genders you are not allowed to haul the term misogyny in to describe my statement. We went through this in the other thread but clearly you did not understand. If you want to object to my argument on grounds that sticks to logic and standard definitions of words feel free to do so in the other thread, it is not relevant here however.

Also, even though Baker explained that it was not his intention nor belief that Sperm Wars contains sexist views (p. xxiv), some very controversial ideas are sure to offend some and anger others. One primary example involves Baker's position on sexual aggression within relationships, from "rough-and-tumble sex play" to forced intercourse. Baker makes few distinctions between these two types of aggression and attributes both to female testing of male partners' strength and ability to overcome her resistance. "To test this [ability], she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test" (p. 223). Baker notes that "n species such as humans that form long-term relationships, rough-and-tumble sexual behavior is most important during early stages of courtship. Once a woman has tested a man's ability to force himself on her, she need not do it often thereafter" (pp. 223-224). I do not even have to elaborate on the ideological problem many readers would have with this perspective. Empirically, data are needed to support such an interpretation of the reproductive "function" of sexual aggression (playful or otherwise) within couples.

Chumly wrote:

Also, even though Baker explained that it was not his intention nor belief that Sperm Wars contains sexist views (p. xxiv), some very controversial ideas are sure to offend some and anger others. One primary example involves Baker's position on sexual aggression within relationships, from "rough-and-tumble sex play" to forced intercourse. Baker makes few distinctions between these two types of aggression and attributes both to female testing of male partners' strength and ability to overcome her resistance. "To test this [ability], she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test" (p. 223). Baker notes that "n species such as humans that form long-term relationships, rough-and-tumble sexual behavior is most important during early stages of courtship. Once a woman has tested a man's ability to force himself on her, she need not do it often thereafter" (pp. 223-224). I do not even have to elaborate on the ideological problem many readers would have with this perspective. Empirically, data are needed to support such an interpretation of the reproductive "function" of sexual aggression (playful or otherwise) within couples.

YEP, though some choose to continue the practice long into the relationship as part of a program to stimulate passion.

Ultimately, in discussing most phenomena, Baker relies on a sort of anthropomorphic presentation of men's and women's bodies. That is, he translates an ultimate reproductive advantage associated with certain sexual behaviors into a kind of hidden agenda on the part of men's and women's bodies. At times, human bodies are presented as sort of having minds of their own, which frequently result in a "conflict between the conscious brain and the subconscious body" (p. 109). Baker starts with the assumption that "whenever the body is intent upon a particular course of action, it generates an urge to perform that action" (pp. 166-167) and concludes that most of the strategies shown by men and women in relation to ejaculation and orgasm are subconscious--orchestrated by the body via sequences of mood, libido, and sensitivity to stimulation. Indeed, most of the behavior described in this book is similarly subconscious, the product of genetic programming rather than cerebral rationalization. (p. 199)

Social scientists more concerned with conscious processes and social forces may be somewhat uncomfortable with these basic assumptions upon which Sperm Wars is based. In a general sense, there is a problem of teleology as Baker frequently seems to jump from the existence of a sexual behavior to its ultimate reproductive function (consequence) to an inherent motivation on the part of the individual engaging in the behavior.

Despite a lack of psychological underpinning and some politically incorrect views, Sperm Wars truly is a revolutionary look at human sexual behavior. Rather than attempting to explain only certain aspects of sexual behavior, or isolated sexual phenomena, Baker bites off large pieces in his attempt to explain human sexuality. From routine sexual functioning, to extradyadic sex, to fantasies and erotica, to masturbation and wet dreams, Baker weaves empirical findings, evolutionary theory, speculation, and narrative illustration into a very readable account. The academic who reads Sperm Wars will not likely swallow everything whole, but I can guarantee that the experience will forever alter how the reader views human sexual behavior.

Women are not actually attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, and some are better than others aesthetically speaking, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly ugly or outrageously attractive.

Women are attracted to status, money, how much a man smiles and laughs, how many friends and resources a man has, how full a man's life is--how many "cool," "exciting" and prestigious things he is doing or connected to.

They are interested in how other people view him--how many people want to be around him, how other people interact with him and whether their interactions convey that he is special and amazing. They want him to be extremely outgoing and aggressive, they want him to demonstrate his status over other people by dominating them in various non-violent ways.

A woman's attraction to a man is a function of her jealousy at the thought of another woman having that man. She doesn't care who he actually is or EXACTLY what he looks like physically, she only cares about the VALUE of the life he has constructed around himself.

A woman basically is a greedy materialistic prostitute. Although that sounds vulgar, it's true. She trades her physical self to buy into the success a man has created for himself.

Discuss.

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Everyone's jumping all over him for this, but a lot of it rings true. People make decisions with logic AND emotion. Initial attraction is NOT based on logic, it's purely emotional.

In the animal kingdom, females mate with the alpha males to ensure strong offspring. You women can kick and scream until your faces turn purple, but this carries over to humans as well.

Especially with uncommonly beautiful women, who have their pick of the litter.

I will say his last point is way off-base. Women aren't greedy prostitutes any more than men can't look past tits & and an ass.

Inferior women pick based upon what the male has, superior pick based upon who he is, his character, his intelligence, his heart. The superior man will be more successful in life, will attain stuff and status, but she will usually have judged him long before he got there, or if she met him later in life she puts what he has somewhat aside while judging him. The trophy wife goes against this, but that arrangement is somewhat rare.

We are talking about a youngster here, he should not be looking for a woman who cares what he has at the moment. He should be looking for one who sees in him the qualities of a superior man, the traits that will bring success in life. Obviously he has been meeting the wrong ones.

Slappy, where the hells ya been...

and what's up wit Kicky?

RH

Female groupies in particular have a long-standing reputation of being available sexually to celebrities, rappers, pop stars, rock stars, professional athletes, politicians, and other public figures regardless of the fact that the objects of their obsession may already be married, have children, or otherwise already in a committed relationship.[citation needed] There are other male-dominated professions and occupations that attract groupies as well, such as law enforcement and firefighters (especially after 9/11),[1] the military (these women are sometimes referred to as "Allotment Annies", "debs", and "badge bunnies" hence the sentiment "I love a man in a uniform," camp followers, or EIBs [Everyone In the Barracks]),[2] preachers and ministers. Even convicted criminals sometimes have followers - see hybristophilia. A specialised sub-type was generated when the profession of astronaut came into being. Certain groupies in Houston and Cocoa Beach have bragged about seducing "all the original seven" and/or "all the moon-walkers". In the nature of things, these claims are unverifiable.

In the book Hammer of the Gods (Stephen Davis, 1985), Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant is quoted making a distinction between fans who wanted a brief sexual encounter with a musician, and "groupies" who adopted a musician for the duration of the tour, acting as a surrogate girlfriend or mother, often taking care of the musician's valuables, drugs, wardrobe, and social life. The GTOs (Girls Together Outrageously) who were associated with Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention and other late 60s and 70s stars, and the Plaster Casters are probably the best known groupies of this type. They are sometime referred to as "road wives."