Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Study from the 1940's that claimed men are hard-wired to be promiscuous is found to be flawed because their flies weren't adequately monitored   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, ecology and evolutionary biology, Cate Edwards, armed police, sexual promiscuity, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, genetic testing, scientific methods  
•       •       •

6385 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2012 at 11:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-28 03:15:45 PM  

tortilla burger: LoneWolf343: I question the vigor of your method.

Perhaps you mean rigor and not vigor.

/or not?


Yeah, I meant rigor.

/d'oh!
 
2012-06-28 03:33:22 PM  

Telos: farkeruk: Telos: Actually, that isn't the question. The question is why don't women do that more often.

It's not that women don't want sex. It's not even that women never want anonymous sex.

It's that society tells women very plainly, and very often that if they have sex they are a bad person.

Actually, it's not "society". It's other women. And it's about being a loser in the same way that guys are insulted by being called a wanker.

I'll agree that other women can be even more vicious, but it really is society in general. Father's definitely tell their daughter's to avoid sex. Men in general DO act disdainful of "sluts." Christianity all but demonizes sex.

The message women get growing up is: Sex is bad, sinful and dirty. If you have sex without a commitment you've let some man take advantage of you. If you enjoy sex you're a slut.

Then message men get growing up is: Sex is bad, but you're expected to get as much of it as you can before a woman traps you.

For instance: I had to watch the last season of Desperate Housewives with my g/f, and the one woman went through a crisis that made her turn into a "bad person." How did they show this? She started sleeping with random men every night.


I can see how this sort of thing comes about... it has to pander to the lowest common denominator, which is usually people who can't understand anything beyond "don't do it cuz I said do". The reality is, the consequences for sex are vastly greater for women than for men. They can get knocked up. And in the end, it's easier to just say "don't do it" than to try to explain the nuances of finding a proper man to breed with.
 
2012-06-28 03:44:31 PM  

stonicus: Telos: farkeruk: Telos: Actually, that isn't the question. The question is why don't women do that more often.

It's not that women don't want sex. It's not even that women never want anonymous sex.

It's that society tells women very plainly, and very often that if they have sex they are a bad person.

Actually, it's not "society". It's other women. And it's about being a loser in the same way that guys are insulted by being called a wanker.

I'll agree that other women can be even more vicious, but it really is society in general. Father's definitely tell their daughter's to avoid sex. Men in general DO act disdainful of "sluts." Christianity all but demonizes sex.

The message women get growing up is: Sex is bad, sinful and dirty. If you have sex without a commitment you've let some man take advantage of you. If you enjoy sex you're a slut.

Then message men get growing up is: Sex is bad, but you're expected to get as much of it as you can before a woman traps you.

For instance: I had to watch the last season of Desperate Housewives with my g/f, and the one woman went through a crisis that made her turn into a "bad person." How did they show this? She started sleeping with random men every night.

I can see how this sort of thing comes about... it has to pander to the lowest common denominator, which is usually people who can't understand anything beyond "don't do it cuz I said do". The reality is, the consequences for sex are vastly greater for women than for men. They can get knocked up. And in the end, it's easier to just say "don't do it" than to try to explain the nuances of finding a proper man to breed with.


Again, I'm going back to religion on this one. Condoms have existed since ancient Egypt, and the pill has been around for generations. It would be even easier to just say here's your pill, take it every day until you want kids... and use a condom when you have sex just in case and to prevent STDs.

Instead, you have Church groups promoting abstinence because sex is bad... leaving girls even more likely to get knocked up because they want sex but only have bad information.
 
2012-06-28 04:09:09 PM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 04:24:46 PM  

Telos: Again, I'm going back to religion on this one. Condoms have existed since ancient Egypt, and the pill has been around for generations. It would be even easier to just say here's your pill, take it every day until you want kids... and use a condom when you have sex just in case and to prevent STDs.

Instead, you have Church groups promoting abstinence because sex is bad... leaving girls even more likely to get knocked up because they want sex but only have bad information.


Let's consider 5 things different between today and in the days of the pharoahs:-

1. Reliable contraception. Sheep's bladders were not reliable. No pill. Realistically, both came around about 50-60 years ago.
2. Safe abortion. If (1) failed, you didn't have an option back then.
3. Home technology. Women couldn't go to work. Work as cooking and cleaning.
4. Welfare state. Even if you get pregnant the state will look after you.
5. Wealthier. We're rich enough to feed another man's child.

Pre-marital abstinence in the 19th century for girls wasn't about religion, it was about doing the sensible thing. People talked about girls being "ruined" and it wasn't far from the truth. You got pregnant without a husband and you would be relying on charitable support to even live. Girls were chaperoned to ensure that no-one saw them out alone, for they might be screwing someone and that might mean they might be pregnant and so no-one would marry them.

Pre-marital abstinence makes no sense today and is unrealistic. Most of those 14 year old girls are going to be getting it doggy style by the time they are 19.
 
2012-06-28 04:42:04 PM  

farkeruk: Pre-marital abstinence makes no sense today and is unrealistic. Most of those 14 year old girls are going to be getting it doggy style by the time they are 19.


Go on...
 
2012-06-28 04:56:00 PM  

farkeruk: for they might be screwing someone and that might mean


Here's the thing... we're talking about whether or not women want to have sex. If this was the fear back then, then it's because women wanted to have meaningless sex so society did it's best to scare them away from it.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

In fact, take a look at this article: http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/s/sex-and-sexuality-19th-century /

I found a couple things interesting.

1) The victorian ideal for MEN was to be sexually abstinent, as this preserved their energy and enabled them to be succesful. Clearly, this didn't take.

2) Prostitution was just beginning to be seen as bad, and this was because a prostitute had a measure of independence that other women could not achieve.

I'm not sure how relevant all of that is, but I found it interesting. Especially the prostitution part... it's not about protecting women for risk, or even the morality of sex. It's about making sure women were dependent on men.
 
2012-06-28 05:47:23 PM  

WelldeadLink: Chthonic Echoes: In the prehistoric milieu, before marriage existed, men and women probably operated an ongoing sexual economy. Males gave women gifts (of food) and women reciprocated with sex, with only a small chance of a successful pregnancy with each copulation.

Just how old ARE you?


This any better?:

Back in cave-man days, when chicks and dudes didn't get hitched, there was this whole game-theory-thing going on where a dude would give a chick food and the chick would get it on because, like, food. The hitch is that rugrat-to-foot-of-pipe-laid ratio was way low.

Since a dude didn't know for sure which runts were his, his best bet was to give away a lot of food and lay a lot of pipe. Trick is that he could do the deed with one best girl a lot, or get it on just a little with a load of chicks. The one way, he's pretty sure the kid's gonna be his. Other way, less sure, but maybe--just maybe--he has more than one.

Now a chick is in a similar position, but it's not so much about chances of having a rugrat--she's totally gonna pop one of those suckers out sooner or later, no question that it's hers or not. Problem is whether she's gonna survive, since she needs more food while she's knocked up, and then has to nurse the little farker afterward. Chicks don't dig starvation. Dude's gonna keep on giving her food if he thinks there's a good chance the rugrat's his, and the amount'll have to do with how certain he is. So, she can totally do it with a lot of dudes, who'll each help her out a little, 'cuz who knows? Small investment, might be theirs. Or she can be all into a single dude, like, "Kid's yours. Cough up." Which he'll likely be all over.

Benefit to either strategy--straight arrow or loosey-goosey--changes depending on what else is going down. Dude likely to get gnawed on by something and die bloody? Better for a chick not to risk being left high-and-dry all lonely and preggers and hungry. Nice and safe out there with nothing but chipmunks in the woods? Banking on one dude doesn't seem all bad.

Moral of the story is that guys and gals are both hella into sex, and that being easy and being picky both have their good days and bad days--both strategies (and in between) are still rattling around in our genes.
 
2012-06-28 08:31:08 PM  
No secret that men are genetically programmed to do as many women as possible and the only reason we even make an attempt to be monogomous is because are compassionate blokes. Women fall in love, and the man, so averse to breaking her heart and making her cry, packs it away.....for a while.
 
2012-06-28 08:35:16 PM  

farkeruk:

Pre-marital abstinence makes no sense today and is unrealistic. Most of those 14 year old girls are going to be getting it doggy style by the time they are 19 15.


These days.
 
2012-06-28 09:27:24 PM  
Humans're also not supposed to shave, bathe as regularly as we do, live to be 80, or have things like antibiotics. But we do. BECAUSE HUMANS AND ANIMALS ARE DIFFERENT.

/always hated the "evolution" argument for promiscuity
//wanna fark lots? Go nuts, but don't judge people who want to be monogamous
 
2012-06-29 03:10:28 AM  

farkeruk: Count the number of female escort ads. Count the number of male escort ads. Compare the difference.


Then control for the massive confounding factor that is millennia of cultural conditioning telling women they should be ashamed for wanting sex without anywhere near the same social pressure applied to men.

Good luck with that, by the way.
 
2012-06-29 09:37:13 AM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-29 11:11:05 AM  

Solid Muldoon: [i165.photobucket.com image 240x342]


Awesome. A picture of the sexiest woman in England.
 
2012-06-29 12:16:34 PM  

Fano: Solid Muldoon: [i165.photobucket.com image 240x342]

Awesome. A picture of the sexiest woman in England.


www.topnews.in

Hello.

images.tvrage.com

How's it hanging, guv?

greenobles.com

Fancy a bit of 'ow's yer father?

images.wikia.com

Pull the other one...

www.pajiba.com

...it's got flippin' bells on.
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report