Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT

material girl wrote:

-You say the multiple partner thing is about pregnancy and having lots of fathers for the child. I dont think guys nowadays have sex solely to have children, they do it purely for enjoyment..

Sorry if I mis-stated that....I meant in Prehistoric times...

material girl wrote:

I for one would sleep with a hell of alot more people if it could be promised that I wouldnt be called names and wasnt made to feel bad about it.

ALL MALES TAKE NOTE! ME TOO (well, if I were younger, that is)!!!

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Dong-a line.

Best name yet!

0 Replies

BorisKitten wrote:

material girl wrote:
I for one would sleep with a hell of alot more people if it could be promised that I wouldnt be called names and wasnt made to feel bad about it.

ALL MALES TAKE NOTE! ME TOO

Well, there you go, thats why those bad names were brought in. To keep the lid on the pot. Perhaps thats it: men are just better versed in the politics of labelling than women. (Except on the A2K politics forum, of course <evil grin>)

0 Replies

But there's the whole aspect of it being in the women's best interest not to be seen as sluts, too. "Who, us? We don't sleep around. And to prove we don't we shall shun anyone who does. Harlot! [sotto: geez, be more discreet, will ya?]"

0 Replies

Exactly!!

eg
A guy is interested in me
I am interested in him
Things happen, back in say, 2001(as I believe that was the last time I did anything saucy that people know about)

This is then found out by certain people
This is then documented for future embarresment/control by certain people and i will be called names no matter if they know i did anything with him or not.

Therefore the only way I can proove Im not a slut,whore etc is to not do anything saucy ever again in my life.
Yes, prooving Im not a slut but also making me miserable and causing the certain people to be triumphant in their control and cruelness.
Grrrrrr!!!!

Oh, rant rave!!
I just want to meet nice guys and have the chance to see if there is any chance of a 'relationship' no matter over what length of time it lasts.Prefereably more than a couple of weeks tho.

Sadly there is no one to fancy at the mo.

Can youimagine living a life where you dont care what people think about you?Bliss.

0 Replies

Aren't women unconsciously looking for good sperm/genes. I tend to not believe that caveman and our ancestors sat around thinking about the probability of getting pregnant. it was based more on instinct. unconsciously men want to fukc everything in sight, and woman want to be impregnated only by the good sperm.

Now over time, we've evolved. Well only women have. Cause us men still want to fukc everything in sight. women look for good sperm not always in a male who is superior physically, they look to men who can provide for their children financially. so basically rich people are the new unconsciously attractive studs.

in reality none of this works anymore, because it's no longer survival of the fittest. Everybody lives and has kids. Almost all genes are passed on. Your offspring would live based on your instincts being correct. If they were wrong in picking a good partner to have kids with, your offspring would die or not reproduce.

0 Replies

Thoughts on the many male partner/gangbang terminology:

The chowchow line
A conglomerate affair
A heterogeneous mix
An assortment of mixed nuts
Loving the motley crew (not the band)
A multifarious Miss

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

BorisKitten wrote:
material girl wrote:
I for one would sleep with a hell of alot more people if it could be promised that I wouldnt be called names and wasnt made to feel bad about it.

ALL MALES TAKE NOTE! ME TOO

Well, there you go, thats why those bad names were brought in. To keep the lid on the pot. Perhaps thats it: men are just better versed in the politics of labelling than women. (Except on the A2K politics forum, of course <evil grin>)

I thought it was interesting that the only positive terms (or at least neutral ones) came from outside the US & UK. Is it possible that no one in these countries can even think of a non-negative term for a promiscuous female?

Haven't heard from any Australians yet, have we?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

But there's the whole aspect of it being in the women's best interest not to be seen as sluts, too. "Who, us? We don't sleep around. And to prove we don't we shall shun anyone who does. Harlot! [sotto: geez, be more discreet, will ya?]"

Soz is SO SMART. I do believe women are just as guilty as men, when it comes to this name-calling...perhaps even more so!

Also you (Sozobe) brought up a point about generalizing always being a dangerous move, and you're right. Of course, were it not for generalizing about male/female differences, I'd never have been prompted to start this thread.

In thinking about it, I believe generalizing is part of our human nature: we identify, name, classify, generalize, and theorize (roughly in that order). We just can't help it, and we like it.

I think if we spent more time discussing human traits rather than male/female ones, our time would be much more well spent. To me, male/female differences are trivial, compared to our similarities.

0 Replies

Tenoch wrote:

I tend to not believe that caveman and our ancestors sat around thinking about the probability of getting pregnant. it was based more on instinct. unconsciously men want to fukc everything in sight, and woman want to be impregnated only by the good sperm.

Sorry if I gave the impression anybody ever gave a second thought to pregnancy. I don't think they did.

I also think both men and women want to f!ck everything in sight. The point of this thread, to me, is that there is little difference, by nature, in our sexual desires.

0 Replies

Material Girl, were there more males or females in the people who criticized you?

0 Replies

Re: Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT

BorisKitten wrote:

First, I don't think it was necessarily true that females made a secret of multiple engagements. I base this partly on the fact that it's unlikely a single male will bring a female to orgasm, especially in the presumably "rough & tumble" sex of our ancestors. She may be MADE for multiple partners in succession.

Two comments on this. 1) Based on my casual reading of Margaret Mead, especially her Sex and Temperament: In Three Primitive Societies, there is a lot of variation between the mating rituals of so-called primitive cultures. Given that our ancestors spent much of their evolutionary history in similarly primitive cultures, I don't think you can make such sweeping generalizations about their sex life.

2) Female orgasms and frequent sex don't seem to be so important for procreation at all, judging by the observation that most other mammal species don't seem to have evolved them. Primates like us are almost unique in their frequency of ovulation and sexual intercourse. Our zoologists' best guess is that sex has taken over social functions beyond procreation for us . You can observe similar functions among humanity's closest relatives: The Bonobos use sex as a means of conflict mitigation, the Chimpanzees, I think, as a means of domination. Anyway, I don't think female orgasms will tell you a lot about procreation.

BorisKitten wrote:

Second, if females are "made" for monogamy, why do sperm compete and kill one another?

This thread is the first time that I hear they do. Given the epidemic propagation of bogus facts about sex out there, I suspect this might be an urban legend. Would you mind citing your source for this? But even assuming that it's true, this feature doesn't always have to be necessary to be useful in a statistical sense -- only often enough to be worth evolving and keeping. If that cost is low enough, it might be useful even if only few women are promiscuous.

BorisKitten wrote:

Third, we do not even know if our ancestors were aware of the concept of fatherhood.

Indeed we don't. But, again judging by my casual eading of Mead, people from industrial societies frequently substitute stupid, condescending prejudices for the knowledge they don't have about primitive societies -- often to the point that the 'primitives' make fun of us. I wouldn't bet my theory on our ancestors' ignorance of concepts like fatherhood.

BorisKitten wrote:

I think what's important to me here is to question our assumption that it is males' nature to wander and females' nature to seek a single mate. To me, there is very little real evidence to support this assumption.

I don't know much evidence either. But I'm not an expert in the field, and I haven't looked very hard for such evidence. How hard have you looked?

0 Replies

Boriskitten-Always guys.
Im going back to my teenage years(Im 29)There were a few guys who made comments and made me feel bad about liking someone, which is completely ironic as they all tried it on with me at one time or another(and didnt succeed).
This is going back so many years but the comments still effect me.

Its odd as I really thought about things a while back.The guys Ive 'known'(they can be counted on less than one hand)were all nice to me but the guys that tried it on with me/used me were all sh*ts and called me names.
How does that work!!I thought it would be the other way around.

Ive ranted and raved about this next bit before on other threads.
I havnt been touched for 2 years, yet a supposed male friend (who unsuccessfully tried it on with me)completely out of the blue called me a slapper a few months back!!! What did I do to deserve that?
Its another thing obviously effecting me badly and I dont seem to be able to get over it.
Also one of these guys when I was a teenager said I 'put on a certain smile' when I talk to guys.This I took as an criticism(as he is that type of guy).Its something Ive never forgotton so if I even smile now I try and stifle it or feel bad/conscious of it.

Re previous posts-

Why should men OR women feel guilty about having sex?

I think women call other women nasty names because they are jealous.
Guys do it to be nasty and because they are trying to proove to their guy friends it was just sex and they dont really like the girl they shagged.Or just to be nasty.

Dont people know that nasty comments can really effect people.They may just say it once but it can resound in someones head for years.

Ive had my rant and raving session for the day.Grrrrrr!!!

0 Replies

Thomas, I'm not sure whether your contention is that males DO tend to wander & females tend to seek a single mate? In either case, what I'm trying to do is question & Really Think About an assumption which has been used as support for a great deal of males' inappropriate behavior.

The real question is, does supporting this assumption help in trying to end the so-called "War of the Sexes?"

My point: males & females are a great deal more similar in our behaviors than we are are dissimilar. If we can recognize this & remember it, we will understand one another much better.

0 Replies

Rock on Borriskitten!!Are you male or female btw?

This will take forever.I dont see the undoing of years worth of suppression will be undone quickly.

I reckon we are exactly the same, its just the 'pregnancy being frowned upon outside of marriage' aspect that has changed the way women act because we cannot get away with having sex and blokes can.

I can only picture women being frowned upon for being pregnant and unwed from about 1600 onwards.I wonder what changed in society to make this happen.

Guys dont like to see girls acting like they do.

0 Replies

BorisKitten wrote:

Thomas, I'm not sure whether your contention is that males DO tend to wander & females tend to seek a single mate?

At this point, I don't have a contention. I think it's an interesting question, and that socio-biologists have a plausible-sounding theory about it. This theory predicts that the average man is more promiscuous than the average woman. But science has buried thousands of plausible-sounding theories that turned out to be false. So I'd like to learn how the prediction has been tested so far, and what the results were. Right now, I have no contentions about the subject I feel confident enough about to defend here. Hence, I am mostly reacting to yours.

BorisKitten wrote:

The real question is, does supporting this assumption help in trying to end the so-called "War of the Sexes?"

About this question, I do have a contention I feel confident about: There is no "war of the sexes" for us to end. This war is a fiction that sells books and keeps TV talking heads employed. I can't observe anything close to it in the reality of my life, and I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Here's an article about sperm competition (interesting first sentence in terms of this discussion):

Quote:

Scientists know that females of most species are promiscuous, Pitnick said, and tend to have a specialised storage organ where sperm from different males compete in the race to fertilise an egg.

In this most recent study, Pitnick and colleagues used various strains of a different species of fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, to study the relationship between sperm size, size of female sperm-storage organs and successful fertilisation.

They found that the sperm of all males competed equally inside females with short sperm-storage organs. But the bigger the female's storage organ, the greater the advantage of males with longer sperm.

"This means that the length of the sperm-storage organ is a mechanism for dictating female choice among potential sires of her offspring," Pitnick said.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s722372.htm

0 Replies

BorisKitten wrote:

The real question is, does supporting this assumption help in trying to end the so-called "War of the Sexes?"

Quote:
About this question, I do have a contention I feel confident about: There is no "war of the sexes" for us to end. This war is a fiction that sells books and keeps TV talking heads employed. I can't observe anything close to it in the reality of my life, and I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.

Here's what makes me so sad....I hardly know any women who would agree there is no "War of the Sexes."

Another generalization (I just can't stop!): males are much more likely to believe Feminism has succeeded in its goals, and is thus a moot point.

And the saddest of all: I think Feminism's success is limited much more by what women have done (and are doing) than by what men have done.

I've hated to even mention "Feminism," as most folk think Feminists hate men....I most certainly don't! After all, I've chosen to live with one for the rest of my life.

I say it's women's fault if Feminism has not reached its goals due to behaviors I see in young women today....don't even get me started there; and watching the name-calling (and bitter anger, and waste of time) between women who work and women who don't work. As far as this Kitten is concerned, we (women) blew it.

Again, this is a gigantic generalization and thus is of limited use. If we're going to generalize, I must add I think individuals are a great deal more different from each other than men/women are from each other. But maybe I'm relatively alone in that opinion(?)

I'm female, BTW, 43, & married.

Thanks again for your thoughtful & insightful comments, Thomas.

EDITed to fix quotes....not perfect, but good enough.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

Boriskitten-Always guys.
Im going back to my teenage years(Im 29)There were a few guys who made comments and made me feel bad about liking someone, which is completely ironic as they all tried it on with me at one time or another(and didnt succeed).
This is going back so many years but the comments still effect me.

Its odd as I really thought about things a while back.The guys Ive 'known'(they can be counted on less than one hand)were all nice to me but the guys that tried it on with me/used me were all sh*ts and called me names.
How does that work!!I thought it would be the other way around.

Wow! I can only guess they're name-calling out of simple bitterness. I'm not sure you have the same expression in the UK: "consider the source," meaning when people criticize you, they're often doing it out of some weakness of their own. Weak, frightened people are often more viscious than strong, confident people.

Quote:

Ive ranted and raved about this next bit before on other threads.
I havnt been touched for 2 years, yet a supposed male friend (who unsuccessfully tried it on with me)completely out of the blue called me a slapper a few months back!!! What did I do to deserve that?
Its another thing obviously effecting me badly and I dont seem to be able to get over it.

Laughing, as we don't have the term "slapper," (that I know of) in the US, but I can understand what it means immediately!

I hope you dropped this supposed friend like a hot potato.

I think a US female would be more likely (oh, generalizing AGAIN) to move to a new place and do her best to forget idiots like these guys. My advice is: leave them behind. Another old, somewhat useful saw: "Living well is the best revenge." Don't let tiny angry people make you the least bit unhappy!

And as for changing things, all I can do is one small bit, and hope it will someday be the pebble that starts the landslide. Not that I think it will work, mind you, but I feel better trying than not trying.

0 Replies

Thanks, Sozobe, for looking that up. I wasn't going to bother, as it seemed Thomas had already stated it could be one of those "carry-along" traits anyway. Personally I can't imagine anything sperm do being a not-very-useful trait....properties of sperm & eggs are just too important to the survival of the species.

0 Replies

Men wander and women want a single partner....NOT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know