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 19
    More: Interesting, ecology and evolutionary biology, Cate Edwards, armed police, sexual promiscuity, National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, genetic testing, scientific methods  
•       •       •

6365 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2012 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-28 04:24:46 PM
2 votes:

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 03:33:22 PM
2 votes:

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 12:30:46 PM
2 votes:

farkeruk: Men are more promiscuous because of our reproductive equipment.


It's a little more complicated than that.

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.

Each transaction amounted to a male buying a "share" in a woman's eventual pregnancy. A male could either give small amounts of surplus food to many females in exchange for sporadic sex with a number of mates, or might try to monopolize a single female, giving her lots of food in exchange for most of her sex (and ultimately providing more childcare later on).

Conversely, a female could have sex with many males in exchange for a number of small gifts, or could link up with a single male, offering a higher chance of paternity in exchange for a lot of his food and support.

Which strategy worked best probably varied according to the situation. In a very dangerous environment where males died regularly, for example, it might be detrimental for a woman to rely on only one male for surplus food during her pregnancy and later on for assistance in childcare--she would want as many males in her tribe as possible to have some stake in her successful reproduction. In situations where males die or become disabled less frequently, it might be more worthwhile for her to offer a higher chance of paternity to a single (or a very few) males in exchange for more enthusiastic support.

Both strategies (for each of males and females) probably persist today.
2012-06-28 12:26:17 PM
2 votes:
Women are just as likely to enter into a sexual relationship as a man. The difference is the expectation of a positive and pleasurable sexual experience. It seems much easier for man to find pleasure in sex, simply having it is enough. Not so for women. A quickee in the bathroom with a stranger will relieve my sexual desires, I will 100% be able to get off. Her, not so much.
2012-06-28 05:47:23 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:41 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-28 02:53:48 PM
1 votes:

stonicus: Telos: farkeruk: Telos: Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with a woman's ability to get laid any time she wants just by walking into a bar wearing a slutty outfit.

But the question is... why can a woman walk into a bar alone on a Friday night wearing something that says "sexually available", will get bought drinks and hit on multiple times, but a man won't? Maybe not alpha males, but if you want sex, you can get it.

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.

No, it's that for a man to have a positive, pleasurable sexual experience, he just needs a wet hole for a few minutes. Why would a woman want to get all dressed up just to go out and give some guy a thrill if she isn't going to get a positive experience as well? A 5 minutes quickee is good for a man, not a woman.


90% of the pleasure in sex is in the person's head. If a women thinks a 5 minute quickie is going to be hot, it will be for her. A woman will NOT think a 5 minute quickie is hot if she thinks only sluts would do such a thing, because she'll be worried that she's a slut.
2012-06-28 02:31:14 PM
1 votes:

Telos: farkeruk: Telos: Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with a woman's ability to get laid any time she wants just by walking into a bar wearing a slutty outfit.

But the question is... why can a woman walk into a bar alone on a Friday night wearing something that says "sexually available", will get bought drinks and hit on multiple times, but a man won't? Maybe not alpha males, but if you want sex, you can get it.

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.


No, it's that for a man to have a positive, pleasurable sexual experience, he just needs a wet hole for a few minutes. Why would a woman want to get all dressed up just to go out and give some guy a thrill if she isn't going to get a positive experience as well? A 5 minutes quickee is good for a man, not a woman.
2012-06-28 02:23:53 PM
1 votes:

farkeruk: Telos: Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with a woman's ability to get laid any time she wants just by walking into a bar wearing a slutty outfit.

But the question is... why can a woman walk into a bar alone on a Friday night wearing something that says "sexually available", will get bought drinks and hit on multiple times, but a man won't? Maybe not alpha males, but if you want sex, you can get it.


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.
2012-06-28 01:56:34 PM
1 votes:

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.


Nope. The thing of buying women gifts isn't a direct exchange for sex - it's about demonstrating your ability as a provider. It's why some women get hot for guys with nice cars. It's not about the car, it's that you clearly have lots of excess income, and the minute you're married, they won't want you spending a penny on a new car.

Well, except meals out. That's about getting a reasonable amount of booze into your date.
2012-06-28 12:41:31 PM
1 votes:

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




Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing to do with a woman's ability to get laid any time she wants just by walking into a bar wearing a slutty outfit.
2012-06-28 12:31:16 PM
1 votes:
Amazing that people believed a study about fruitflies told us ANY truths about human sexuality? Maybe they thought it was written by Batman and out of respect had to believe it instead of Bateman.
2012-06-28 12:17:47 PM
1 votes:
www.usmagazine.com

Normal heterosexual guy? Tell me for one second you wouldn't tap that even though you're married and you love your wife. Hell, my wife would think I was gay if I didn't say I'd eat that ass like a carnival snow cone.
2012-06-28 12:04:13 PM
1 votes:
Count the number of female escort ads. Count the number of male escort ads. Compare the difference.

Men are more promiscuous because of our reproductive equipment. We can reproduce something like 100 times a year, while women can only reproduce once. In terms of passing on our genes, there is some benefit in nailing lots of women.

If a woman nails a guy that she considers as low-grade breeding material, that's her womb occupied by low-grade breeding material for 9 months, that some suitable guy can't then put his genes into. A guy can nail a slut in a bar and 3 days later, nail his wife and get both of them pregnant. Nailing the slut has little effect on his evolutionary advantages.

Now, some women are sluts, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're at an evolutionary advantage for doing so.
2012-06-28 11:45:00 AM
1 votes:

PJ-: Marriage was invented by some scrawny dude who couldn't compete with the Alpha males when it came to reproduction.


Or, marriage was invented by some alpha male and/or female, enabling them to control access to sex within their tribe, and allowing them to reward supporters while marginalizing competitors.

Controlling access to sex is a pretty good way of exerting power, historically.
2012-06-28 11:43:56 AM
1 votes:

protectyourlimbs: Then why do women in a group start to all sync their cycles after awhile... I counter with the males are meant to have a group of women all at once a la my lion/lionesses study...


So he's supposed to boink them all on the same day of every month?

Doesn't work for me.
PJ-
2012-06-28 11:30:53 AM
1 votes:
Marriage was invented by some scrawny dude who couldn't compete with the Alpha males when it came to reproduction.
2012-06-28 11:22:09 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

I ignore focus groups.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report