On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > this is quite logical, as women can > > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > > observation).
> > I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > > understanding.
> I didn't mean that it's (intentional) dishonesty, in fact I'm sure > it's generally not. It's just the limitations of the female mind.
Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally little tangible gain to the individual. Indeed, if you're trying to understand what or why someone is doing something, it is generally pointless to ask them, any more than one would ask a dog why it's barking and expect to receive a coherent answer.
> > It is often easier to quote, because otherwise I have to scroll up and > > down to see what point you were responding to. It also becomes hard to > > track the development of an argument over a series of posts.
> I know, but in this case quoting would be too long.
I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6 or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material), and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).
> > > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > > relative.
> > It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > > based on a comparison with the peer group.
> But how relative? One's perception of status does not change easily, I > think.
Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period of time.
> > > Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > > > would be considered of low status in the adult world
> > This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly > > related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
> What reasons, then, other than that I advance, explain it?
Well, what I would say is that a man's status, as reported by his own peer group at any particular time, is not necessarily the only factor a woman takes into account when choosing a partner. A young girl with personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has that give him low status.
> > > in agreement > > > with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> > Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > > age ladder.
> In other words, you pretty much agree here.
I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.
> > > 2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be > > > considered an independent variable.
> > I included that to control for factors which may influence a woman's > > willingness to have sex, independent of the quality or availability of > > potential partners - it would be false to say that either men or women > > are at all times wanting to have sex, and are wholly preoccupied with > > judging the quality of potential suitors and deciding whom to have sex > > with.
> My argument hardly assumed that, but OK.
I know, but I'm trying to cover my own arse here and make sure we understand each other.
> > > 3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read > > > enough experiences by women
> > With respect, popular publications and anecdotes are not generally a > > source from which one can derive universal principles about human > > behaviour.
> They're better than a priori reasoning. I am confident that the > difference does exist, and that's enough.
As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that, because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who starts to see everything as nails. After all, if a woman values commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does, because according to your argument, commitment gives her more bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.
> > > to know that these are true,
> > I'm not denying that women have sex with foreigners, but I'm afraid I > > don't accept that their reason for doing so is that, essentially, > > since foreign men are unlikely to commit, then the woman gains nothing > > by forgoing sex with him. Otherwise the foundation of this argument > > appears to be that women want to have sex with all and sundry (and > > that the only reason that they don't is for bargaining reasons).
> As stated, I assume that most women would want sex about as much as > men do if not for this sort of bargaining, yes. That does not mean > they'd jump into bed with anyone and more than all men would.
Evidence suggests that women, on average, don't in fact want as much sex as men. But on the other hand, they do tend to value intimacy and closeness to a greater degree. Insofar as they tend to avoid sex with men unwilling to commit, I'm willing to accept that. But as I say, I don't see how this explains what you claim is their greater inclination to have sex with foreign men. If foreign men are unwilling to commit in any circumstances, while at least some men at home are willing to commit, then one would expect women to avoid foreign men altogether.
> > > I'm sorry no > > > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > > > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
> > "Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without > > necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal > > support this observation lends to your argument.
> Then why would women leave the country for it if they can get the same > here?
That's really the question you need to answer, not me.
> > > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > > doesn't want them to be!
> > I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to > > be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required > > a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
> I meant her non-economic 'needs', which is what you were talking > about.
No, I said *economic* needs. As a result I'm afraid you've completely lost me here.
> > > 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > > > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > > > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > > > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
> > Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they > > usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as* > > rich. If I was asked to explain why such women choose such men, I'd > > probably refer to social-circles, personal interests, standards, > > morals, and life goals that they have in common.
> As would I. The question is why working women typically _do not_ do > the same in considering less wealthy men.
As I said, it will be partly to do with values, and partly to do with the personalities of such high-powered women (with the remainder due to bias in your anecdotal evidence of this effect, which I suspect is not nearly as pronounced as you claim). Many such women are unlikely to be seeking a meek, stay-at-home husband, and by the same token high- powered men are likely to be made uncomfortable by the role-reversal when they are out-earned by their women partners. The only acceptable relationship, then, is one between high-powered women and ever more high-powered men.
> > > 8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey > > > history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated > > > with looser sexual morals in general society?
> > No I'm not sure that is true. I certainly see no evidence that as > > morals become looser, the number of prostitutes goes down.
> Well, it's exactly what has happened in our society in the last > century!
> > If > > anything, as morals loosen, the line between cold economic gain on the > > one hand, and having sex for social reasons on the other hand, simply > > becomes more blurred.
> > Andrew Usher! I’m disappointed in your response.
> > Ste has taken exceptional time and patience in a careful examination > > and critique of your essay. If a well reasoned rebuttal is simply > > something that you’re going to challenge in order to defend your > > original position instead of refining it, he is wasting his time. > > Others here have also offered their opinions which you seem quick to > > reject. These people are providing their insight to weaknesses in your > > article. That is something to be thankful for. Is that article so > > precious that you will not revise or refine it?
> I did give a reasoned reply. Of course I'm not going to just back > down. I don't consider logical argument to be wasting one's time, > either.
> > In the same fashion, I’m not sure why you’ve objected to my entry in > > such a defensive and abusive manner. Your voyage of understanding has > > just begun. If used correctly, your experience here will be > > invaluable.
> Because you are being a dick.
> Andrew Usher
That may be your perception of me but I assure you it is not my intent and your claim is anything but objective.
On Nov 10, 2:38 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In the same fashion, I’m not sure why you’ve objected to my entry in > > > such a defensive and abusive manner. Your voyage of understanding has > > > just begun. If used correctly, your experience here will be > > > invaluable.
> > Because you are being a dick.
> That may be your perception of me but I assure you it is not my intent > and your claim is anything but objective.
If you've been told you're doing it and you keep doing it, then it's intentional. My claim is as objective as can be as I have no personal grudge against you and actually want to support you in your legal matter.
> On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > this is quite logical, as women can > > > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > > > observation).
> > > I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > > > understanding.
> > I didn't mean that it's (intentional) dishonesty, in fact I'm sure > > it's generally not. It's just the limitations of the female mind.
> Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally > little tangible gain to the individual.
It's easy for me, and I assume for you also. Do you really think there's no sex difference here? Remember too that I'm referring to certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be objective.
> I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a > result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6 > or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary > context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material), > and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done > separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the > next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).
OK. I usually have (at least) two windows open anyway when reading Usenet, and so for me reading the reply in one and referencing the original in the other would hardly take additional time. Do you have a different setup?
> > > > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > > > relative.
> > > It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > > > based on a comparison with the peer group.
> > But how relative? One's perception of status does not change easily, I > > think.
> Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period > of time.
Precisely, so it would not change suddendly in response to one's circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying that status alone can explain my points.
> > > > Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > > > > would be considered of low status in the adult world
> > > This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly > > > related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
> > What reasons, then, other than that I advance, explain it?
> Well, what I would say is that a man's status, as reported by his own > peer group at any particular time, is not necessarily the only factor > a woman takes into account when choosing a partner.
Right ...
> A young girl with > personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because > he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose > an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or > that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet > be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has > that give him low status.
While these are all possible, they seem uncomfortably ad hoc to me. Do (any) women really choose sexual partners for those reasons?
> > > > this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> > > Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > > > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > > > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > > > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > > > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > > > age ladder.
> > In other words, you pretty much agree here.
> I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.
Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their enforcement. In http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a... , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent with http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.
Most men's rights people want the laws to be enforced upon women as harshly as they currently are on men, which I find both silly and repugnant. I do not like to see injustice done to anyone, man or woman.
> As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be > more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is > that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that, > because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on > with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who > starts to see everything as nails.
This is how scientific thinking _works_. The more a theory can explain, the stronger (not weaker) it is. On the other hand, ad hoc statements that explain nothing but what they were invented to explain are very weak. My thesis is definitely not so: it was inspired by reasing an article (which I now know to have been exaggerated) about sexual activity in Antarctic bases. I conceived the idea shortly after reading that, and originally applied it to explain sex in 'confined' environments such as the aforementioned bases, the military, prisons, etc. Only later did I extend it to cover all these other examples, showing that it had predictive power.
> After all, if a woman values > commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does, > because according to your argument, commitment gives her more > bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek > out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say > "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.
This argument contains the premiss that women's sexual desires are entirely rational, which isn't even true of men. Of course they don't consciously reason this way, but it is essentially how their minds work.
> > As stated, I assume that most women would want sex about as much as > > men do if not for this sort of bargaining, yes. That does not mean > > they'd jump into bed with anyone any more than all men would.
> Evidence suggests that women, on average, don't in fact want as much > sex as men. But on the other hand, they do tend to value intimacy and > closeness to a greater degree. Insofar as they tend to avoid sex with > men unwilling to commit, I'm willing to accept that. But as I say, I > don't see how this explains what you claim is their greater > inclination to have sex with foreign men. If foreign men are unwilling > to commit in any circumstances, while at least some men at home are > willing to commit, then one would expect women to avoid foreign men > altogether.
But that clearly isn't so, which is a problem for your reasoning.
My explanation is that women do avoid sex with men unwilling to commit to the extent such commitment is reasonably possible. The fundamental reason to believe this is that women value both sex and commitment.
> > > > I'm sorry no > > > > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > > > > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
> > > "Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without > > > necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal > > > support this observation lends to your argument.
> > Then why would women leave the country for it if they can get the same > > here?
> That's really the question you need to answer, not me.
I gave my explanation above. On the other hand you haven't given one, even though you just acknowledged the phenomenon exists.
> > > > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > > > doesn't want them to be!
> > > I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to > > > be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required > > > a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
> > I meant her non-economic 'needs', which is what you were talking > > about.
> No, I said *economic* needs. As a result I'm afraid you've completely > lost me here.
You said
"women often need men to meet their economic needs. Where that is the case, women may well tend to choose men whose only attractive attribute is the ability to offer financial security. If that is the man's only useful attribute, and if the woman has other needs that are not met (such as intimacy, or if she is just bored at home all day), then the woman is likely to seek out other men ..."
> > > > 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > > > > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > > > > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > > > > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
> > > Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they > > > usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as*
>> Andrew Usher! I’m disappointed in your response.
>> Ste has taken exceptional time and patience in a careful examination >> and critique of your essay. If a well reasoned rebuttal is simply >> something that you’re going to challenge in order to defend your >> original position instead of refining it, he is wasting his time. >> Others here have also offered their opinions which you seem quick to >> reject. These people are providing their insight to weaknesses in your >> article. That is something to be thankful for. Is that article so >> precious that you will not revise or refine it?
> I did give a reasoned reply. Of course I'm not going to just back > down. I don't consider logical argument to be wasting one's time, > either.
>> In the same fashion, I’m not sure why you’ve objected to my entry in >> such a defensive and abusive manner. Your voyage of understanding has >> just begun. If used correctly, your experience here will be >> invaluable.
> Because you are being a dick.
At least that poster has one. You're still trying to find yours.
> On Nov 10, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > this is quite logical, as women can > > > > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > > > > observation).
> > > > I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > > > > understanding.
> > > I didn't mean that it's (intentional) dishonesty, in fact I'm sure > > > it's generally not. It's just the limitations of the female mind.
> > Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's > > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and > > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any > > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally > > little tangible gain to the individual.
> It's easy for me, and I assume for you also.
I wouldn't say it is easy at all, and what insights I do have are based on years of experience and learning.
> Do you really think > there's no sex difference here?
Most of any "sex difference" can be accounted for simply by circumstance and culture. What innate differences there are, are barely worth talking about.
> Remember too that I'm referring to > certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be > objective.
As I've said, asking people why they do certain things will generally yield about as much sense as asking a dog why it barks.
> > I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a > > result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6 > > or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary > > context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material), > > and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done > > separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the > > next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).
> OK. I usually have (at least) two windows open anyway when reading > Usenet, and so for me reading the reply in one and referencing the > original in the other would hardly take additional time. Do you have a > different setup?
I use Google. I often have more than one IE window open, but as I say I perceive it as a far greater hassle having to scroll, scan, and cross-reference between two separate posts in two separate windows, rather than having the context to a reply available inline with the reply - the difficulty with your method becomes especially pronounced when you're having to trace back through a number of previous replies.
> > > > > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > > > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > > > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > > > > relative.
> > > > It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > > > > based on a comparison with the peer group.
> > > But how relative? One's perception of status does not change easily, I > > > think.
> > Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for > > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of > > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period > > of time.
> Precisely, so it would not change suddendly in response to one's > circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying > that status alone can explain my points.
I don't really understand why not. Status is relative, but the context for a comparison extends through time as well as space.
> > A young girl with > > personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because > > he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose > > an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or > > that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet > > be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has > > that give him low status.
> While these are all possible, they seem uncomfortably ad hoc to me. Do > (any) women really choose sexual partners for those reasons?
Yes, I would say so. People prefer familiar personalities, especially if it reminds them of past pleasant relationships, and that can be a reason for a woman preferring someone similiar in personality to her father. Of course, some women may utterly hate their fathers, and so the effect will be the opposite.
And then, when you start adding in other factors, like insecurity, well then an older, low-status man may provide perceived emotional stability and security.
As I say, there is no simple rule for understanding human behaviour and relationships. Drives and preferences vary between people, and are highly contingent on an interplay between past experiences (which in turn often includes chance events) and personality styles.
> > > > > this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > > > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > > > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> > > > Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > > > > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > > > > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > > > > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > > > > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > > > > age ladder.
> > > In other words, you pretty much agree here.
> > I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.
> Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their > enforcement. Inhttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a... > , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said > a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent withhttp://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that > cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I > believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally > upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.
The problem is that making "individual judgments" about relationships is a process fraught with uncertainty, and it becomes especially difficult when you're expecting a court to make that judgment, courts which comprise utter strangers to both the parties and their community. The point about the AOC si that it removes the necessity to constantly monitor and judge such relationships, and it also removes the necessity of making judgments which would not fit well with the principles of a liberal society.
Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?
> Most men's rights people want the laws to be enforced upon women as > harshly as they currently are on men, which I find both silly and > repugnant. I do not like to see injustice done to anyone, man or > woman.
Indeed.
> > As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be > > more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is > > that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that, > > because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on > > with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who > > starts to see everything as nails.
> This is how scientific thinking _works_. The more a theory can > explain, the stronger (not weaker) it is. On the other hand, ad hoc > statements that explain nothing but what they were invented to explain > are very weak.
Indeed, the most trite and simplistic explanations will regularly fit a limited set of data.
> My thesis is definitely not so: it was inspired by > reasing an article (which I now know to have been exaggerated) about > sexual activity in Antarctic bases. I conceived the idea shortly after > reading that, and originally applied it to explain sex in 'confined' > environments such as the aforementioned bases, the military, prisons, > etc. Only later did I extend it to cover all these other examples, > showing that it had predictive power.
And what did go on in those Antarctic bases?
Incidentally, I was thinking earlier about this issue of bargaining with foreign men, and I've just now remembered the epiphany I had. I think most of what you've said is salvageable if, rather than saying they're looser with foreign men because the foreign men won't commit, it is more compelling to say that they're looser with foreign men because it will not affect their bargaining position back home (i.e. in the community to which they eventually intend to return, where maintaining a bargaining position is important for the long-term). Or to put it another way, it's not because foreign men are unwilling to commit (they may or may not), but because men back home (i.e. the sort of men the women want to be with long-term) will still be willing to commit on the same terms. The former account is your account, which says that there is nothing to be gained by forgoing the sex, whereas the latter account implies there is nothing to be lost by indulging in the sex. It's a subtle difference, but I think it makes all the difference (and the devil is always in the detail with these things).
> > After all, if a woman values > > commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does, > > because according to your argument, commitment gives her more > > bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek > > out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say > > "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.
> This argument contains the premiss that women's sexual
On Nov 12, 6:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's > > > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and > > > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any > > > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally > > > little tangible gain to the individual.
> > It's easy for me, and I assume for you also.
> I wouldn't say it is easy at all, and what insights I do have are > based on years of experience and learning.
Well, I don't know, I've never thought that I really know anything unless I can express it in explicit form, I think I am naturally philosophical about everything. You're rgiht, though, that it has 'little tangible gain' and that's why most people don't do it even when they could - and why, then, there is so much irrationality in the world.
> > Do you really think > > there's no sex difference here?
> Most of any "sex difference" can be accounted for simply by > circumstance and culture. What innate differences there are, are > barely worth talking about.
I think that's just wrong. We're discussing differences between men and women, right? If there's one thing that philosophers through the ages have agreed on, it's the mental inferiority of women. It's true of course that some of the differences are multiplied by culture, but what creates the cultur? It does not come from nothing; if (as is the case) our social norms expect women to be less rational, one may ask how that came about!
> > Remember too that I'm referring to > > certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be > > objective.
> As I've said, asking people why they do certain things will generally > yield about as much sense as asking a dog why it barks.
Are you saying people are no smarter than dogs? Introspection is a uniquely human ability, one for which the average man is considerably superior to the average women and I am considerably superior to the average man (though not perfect! - I know from experience).
> I use Google. I often have more than one IE window open, but as I say > I perceive it as a far greater hassle having to scroll, scan, and > cross-reference between two separate posts in two separate windows, > rather than having the context to a reply available inline with the > reply - the difficulty with your method becomes especially pronounced > when you're having to trace back through a number of previous replies.
What I can't understand is why conventions for this are so different on Usenet and on Web forums - I've complained on forums, too, about not being able to quote like on Usenet!
> > > Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for > > > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of > > > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period > > > of time.
> > Precisely, so it would not change suddenly in response to one's > > circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying > > that status alone can explain my points.
> I don't really understand why not. Status is relative, but the context > for a comparison extends through time as well as space.
Your point about status may be sound in reply to #1, but not for all of them. Once a woman has absorbed the norms of status in adult society, she should not be expected to abandon them suddenly while in a foreign country, in the military, etc.
> And then, when you start adding in other factors, like insecurity, > well then an older, low-status man may provide perceived emotional > stability and security.
Are you not saying, then, that that man is actually a better choice for her than a man of similar age?
> As I say, there is no simple rule for understanding human behaviour > and relationships. Drives and preferences vary between people, and are > highly contingent on an interplay between past experiences (which in > turn often includes chance events) and personality styles.
Obviously. But this does not affect our ability to make useful generalisations, any more than the random motion of individual air molecules prevents us from talking about the wind.
[about statutory rape laws]
> > Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their > > enforcement. In http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a... > > , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said > > a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent with http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that > > cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I > > believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally > > upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.
> The problem is that making "individual judgments" about relationships > is a process fraught with uncertainty, and it becomes especially > difficult when you're expecting a court to make that judgment,
True, which is why the courts should stay out of it as much as possible.
> courts > which comprise utter strangers to both the parties and their > community. The point about the AOC si that it removes the necessity to > constantly monitor and judge such relationships, and it also removes > the necessity of making judgments which would not fit well with the > principles of a liberal society.
And it fits with a liberal society to automatically jail these people?
> Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual > relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?
I think that it is arguable that the age ought to be higher for homosexuals, because of (for example) the additional chance that a straight boy will be psychologically damaged by a homosexual relationship.
> Incidentally, I was thinking earlier about this issue of bargaining > with foreign men, and I've just now remembered the epiphany I had. I > think most of what you've said is salvageable if, rather than saying > they're looser with foreign men because the foreign men won't commit, > it is more compelling to say that they're looser with foreign men > because it will not affect their bargaining position back home (i.e. > in the community to which they eventually intend to return, where > maintaining a bargaining position is important for the long-term). Or > to put it another way, it's not because foreign men are unwilling to > commit (they may or may not), but because men back home (i.e. the sort > of men the women want to be with long-term) will still be willing to > commit on the same terms. The former account is your account, which > says that there is nothing to be gained by forgoing the sex, whereas > the latter account implies there is nothing to be lost by indulging in > the sex. It's a subtle difference, but I think it makes all the > difference (and the devil is always in the detail with these things).
I think your explanation is nearly equivalent. The difference is that I argue that the women are protecting not only their own bargaining position, but that of all women. I wonder, though, to what extent women really do lose future bargaining power - perhaps it was more true in the past than today.
> > > After all, if a woman values > > > commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does, > > > because according to your argument, commitment gives her more > > > bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek > > > out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say > > > "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.
> > This argument contains the premiss that women's sexual desires are > > entirely rational, which isn't even true of men. Of course they don't > > consciously reason this way, but it is essentially how their minds > > work.
> All complex mechanisms appear irrational at first glance.
Precisely! Women's behavior may seem irrational, but it has patterns nonetheless. That's what I'm getting across.
> > My explanation is that women do avoid sex with men unwilling to commit > > to the extent such commitment is reasonably possible. The fundamental > > reason to believe this is that women value both sex and commitment.
> But therein lies the glaring inconsistency. If women want commitment > and sex, then going abroad (where, you say, the foreigners are > unwilling to commit) would be a ridiculous way to go about getting > what they wanted.
While women do want both commitment and sex, they don't necessarily want or need them _together_! When one is ruled out, they may still desire the other.
> > > > Then why would women leave the country for it if they can get the same > > > > here?
> > > That's really the question you need to answer, not me.
> > I gave my explanation above. On the other hand you haven't given one, > > even though you just acknowledged the phenomenon exists.
> Right from the start, I would have explained the phenomenon in terms > of the foreign culture allowing morals to be put to one side. I think > now I've been able to elaborate on that argument in my own mind, and > provide what may be a mutually acceptable explanation which draws from > both insights (i.e. my explanation above).
Alright, I think I see. Are we agreed now?
> What I was doing here though was putting to you the inconsistencies in > your own existing explanation.
Only apparent.
> > > > > > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > > > > > doesn't want them to be!
> > "women > > often need men to meet their economic needs. Where that is the case, > > women may well tend to choose men whose only attractive attribute is > > the ability to offer financial security. If that is the man's only > > useful attribute, and if the woman has other needs that are not met > > (such as intimacy, or if she is just bored at home all day), then the > > woman is
On 20 Nov, 01:41, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's > > > > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and > > > > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any > > > > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally > > > > little tangible gain to the individual.
> > > It's easy for me, and I assume for you also.
> > I wouldn't say it is easy at all, and what insights I do have are > > based on years of experience and learning.
> Well, I don't know, I've never thought that I really know anything > unless I can express it in explicit form,
That's a common refrain, especially from people who are formally educated. But it's clear that people do things all the time without being able to explain why, and make apparently sound decisions without being able to explain exactly how. It's not tenable to say that, because they cannot easily express their knowledge in language, that they do not know anything.
> I think I am naturally > philosophical about everything. You're rgiht, though, that it has > 'little tangible gain' and that's why most people don't do it even > when they could - and why, then, there is so much irrationality in the > world.
I disagree. Again it is a common refrain to hear how the world is irrational. As I've said, everything appears irrational when you don't understand it, and yet once you do understand it appears perfectly rational.
> > > Do you really think > > > there's no sex difference here?
> > Most of any "sex difference" can be accounted for simply by > > circumstance and culture. What innate differences there are, are > > barely worth talking about.
> I think that's just wrong. We're discussing differences between men > and women, right?
Yes.
> If there's one thing that philosophers through the > ages have agreed on, it's the mental inferiority of women. It's true > of course that some of the differences are multiplied by culture, but > what creates the cultur? It does not come from nothing; if (as is the > case) our social norms expect women to be less rational, one may ask > how that came about!
But what do you actually mean by "mentally inferior"? Or "rational"?
> > > Remember too that I'm referring to > > > certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be > > > objective.
> > As I've said, asking people why they do certain things will generally > > yield about as much sense as asking a dog why it barks.
> Are you saying people are no smarter than dogs?
No, people have considerably more complex behaviours than dogs, I'm saying that often many people have no more ability than dogs to explain why they do something. At best, people will be able to identify a stimulus, and they'll be able to describe their behaviour in response, but they often won't be able to explicitly explain *why* a particular stimulus triggers a particular behaviour.
> Introspection is a uniquely human ability,
I doubt it. You need only ask yourself what an introspective animal would look like, before you realise that either you wouldn't know an introspective animal if you saw one, or that "uniquely human" is included in the definition of "introspective" (and thus no animal could hope to meet the criteria of "introspective", because one of the necessary criteria for being introspective is that you're human).
> one for which the average man is considerably > superior to the average women
Again, I doubt it. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say women on average are far more atuned than men to their own psychology and other people's.
> and I am considerably superior to the > average man (though not perfect! - I know from experience).
Yes, because you have a fundamental interest in the subject and you put the effort in.
> > I use Google. I often have more than one IE window open, but as I say > > I perceive it as a far greater hassle having to scroll, scan, and > > cross-reference between two separate posts in two separate windows, > > rather than having the context to a reply available inline with the > > reply - the difficulty with your method becomes especially pronounced > > when you're having to trace back through a number of previous replies.
> What I can't understand is why conventions for this are so different > on Usenet and on Web forums - I've complained on forums, too, about > not being able to quote like on Usenet!
Indeed. I've definitely found over the years that automatic, in-line, incremented quotes are the only way to go if you're engaged in a discussion that lasts more than one or two posts. Otherwise it just becomes too difficult to keep track of all the points raised.
> > > > Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for > > > > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of > > > > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period > > > > of time.
> > > Precisely, so it would not change suddenly in response to one's > > > circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying > > > that status alone can explain my points.
> > I don't really understand why not. Status is relative, but the context > > for a comparison extends through time as well as space.
> Your point about status may be sound in reply to #1, but not for all > of them. Once a woman has absorbed the norms of status in adult > society, she should not be expected to abandon them suddenly while in > a foreign country, in the military, etc.
One would not expect her to abandon her norms on a two-week holiday, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But one point is that the changed context may mean norms from back home don't apply.
Furthermore, you should be wary of extrapolating from the behaviour of a small but conspicuous group. The observation that women who go on holiday tend to be free-and-easy with the locals, may be because *certain* women go on holiday precisely so that they can indulge more freely in behaviours that would be frowned upon back home. And whatever happens on holiday, they can return home with their reputation largely intact, whereas if back home they had brought home a new man every night, their local reputation would be forever in tatters.
> > And then, when you start adding in other factors, like insecurity, > > well then an older, low-status man may provide perceived emotional > > stability and security.
> Are you not saying, then, that that man is actually a better choice > for her than a man of similar age?
I'm not necessarily saying that, because it depends on the frame of reference for a "good choice".
> > As I say, there is no simple rule for understanding human behaviour > > and relationships. Drives and preferences vary between people, and are > > highly contingent on an interplay between past experiences (which in > > turn often includes chance events) and personality styles.
> Obviously. But this does not affect our ability to make useful > generalisations, any more than the random motion of individual air > molecules prevents us from talking about the wind.
Indeed, but there is a danger in over-generalising, and you should be careful to recognise when you're putting theoretical elegance above accuracy. Even aggregate measures of air flow will start to fall down if you contaminate the 'ideal air' on which the theory rests. And the point being that talking of (human) "individuals" is a bit like talking about "chemical compounds"; virtually nothing about its behaviour can be predicted unless you know what *type* of individual/ chemical compound you're dealing with.
> > > Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their > > > enforcement. Inhttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a... > > > , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said > > > a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent withhttp://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that > > > cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I > > > believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally > > > upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.
> > The problem is that making "individual judgments" about relationships > > is a process fraught with uncertainty, and it becomes especially > > difficult when you're expecting a court to make that judgment,
> True, which is why the courts should stay out of it as much as > possible.
They do, by simply deciding the case based on age.
> > courts > > which comprise utter strangers to both the parties and their > > community. The point about the AOC si that it removes the necessity to > > constantly monitor and judge such relationships, and it also removes > > the necessity of making judgments which would not fit well with the > > principles of a liberal society.
> And it fits with a liberal society to automatically jail these people?
Evidently it does. What wouldn't fit with well with liberal society is to start saying that a community is entitled to decide with whom a person does, and does not, have a relationship, and use the machinery of the state to enforce that decision.
> > Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual > > relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?
> I think that it is arguable that the age ought to be higher for > homosexuals, because of (for example) the additional chance that a > straight boy will be psychologically damaged by a homosexual > relationship.
Lol. You mean more psychologically damaging than being dragged through Crown court for it? And if a "straight boy" was really inclined to have a homosexual relationship against his own better judgment, then would the remote possibility of
...
the laughable nettiquette of "no top-posting" seems to show a slight reticence to actually refer to what was being dyscussed (typed) in brief; if it really was akin to a "conversation," then that should be enough to keep it going. as well, not endlessly quoting iterations makes the flow of reading it, anew, more tolerable.
thus: discussion that lasts more than one or two posts. Otherwise it just
On Nov 6, 2:40 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
Spoken like a true virgin! You need to go out and get laid. If you want to know why they are holding out on your - just ask! - You sado!
> be understood that: this process by which women decide is largely > unconscious, that the benefits stated are not necessarily financial, > and that they are not just obtainable from _that man_ they are > considering but from all men perceived to be in the same group.
> Examples of this principle's success are the following:
> 1. Young girls (middle school to high school age, but past puberty) > that are sexually active at all often have boyfriends the same age > that are not employed and supported by their parents (like all > children). Adult women generally would not consider a man that is > unemployed and supported by his parents, even if she is.
> Explanation: The 14-year-old girl has no realistic prospect of getting > a lover the same age that can support her, therefore does not get that > benefit by withholding sex. The adult woman does.
> 2. In confined environments women are more willing to have sex with > peers regardless of whether they would be suitable outside.
> The high likelihood of sex is, after all, why prisons (and similar) > are segregated. The military is not segregated now, and sex happens as > much as you could imagine. The high rate of pregnancies in the > military, especially the Navy, is not solely due to the benefits > offered to women that become pregnant as women rarely are willing to > have sex to achieve pregnancy when they would not otherwise desire sex > (if they were, child support would ruin men much more than it actually > does!).
> Explanation: The woman at that point has little to no possibility of > getting a more > suitable man, and therefore her sexual desires are satisfied with what > is available.
> 3. Women are sexually looser with travelers and foreigners than they > would be with men from home. For white women in the Western world, > this interacts with dogma against 'racism' to cause it to also include > men of other races.
> Explanation: Those men belong to a class that are not likely to commit > the same way as domestic men anyway, and therefore deny women the > benefits of withholding sex. Men of other races can be perceived to > belong to that class, because for almost all of human evolution, men > looking that different were foreigners.
> 4. Conversely, women traveling to another city, or more, to another > country, are more likely to have an affair there than to have one at > home.
> Explanation: The same, essentially. This is further augmented if the > women is already married or in a committed relationship at home (see > next).
> 5. Women that are married or in committed relationships, especially > after long enough to get over the stage of initial infatuation (a few > years), may have affairs with men that would never be considered as > partners were they single, such as, most evidently, men that are poor > or of a lower social class.
> Explanation: Being in a relationship that satisfies, at the moment, a > woman's financial demands, as well as being legally or emotionally > difficult to escape from, causes a woman not to perceive any benefit > by refraining from sex outside it.
> 6. The previous is especially true for women that are wealthy, and may > be true for independently wealthy women that are single.
> Explanation: Wealth reduces the incremental benefit obtainable from > any sexual relationship.
> 7. The previous does not usually apply to women working for a living: > no matter how much money they are making, they usually concentrate > exclusively on men making as much or more.
> Explanation: Working for a living causes one to _feel_ financially > insecure, no matter how much money one actually has.
> 8. The availability of prostitution in a society is negatively > correlated with men's ability to find normal sexual relationships that > are not prostitution.
> Explanation: Prostitution increases women's ability to withhold sex > and not have the man lose interest, because he can be satisfied that > way. Thus, the balance is tipped against men.
> 9. Women sometimes enter into sexual relationship with teenage boys, > despite having access to adult companionship. That the most notorious > cases involve school-teachers is a combination of such being more > newsworthy, more likely to be discovered, and those women simply > having the most access to men in that age range.
> Explanation: A combination of 5 and 1 (the male is seen as a member of > the group of teenage boys).
> 10. Women are more attracted, all else equal, to men that are already > getting more female attention, and in a relationship with them will > put up with poorer treatment than from an equivalent ordinary man.
> (Partial) Explanation: Such a man is going to have adequate sexual > satisfaction no matter what, so withholding sex from him will > typically avail less.
> I hope this list has been more convincing than my original post. You > may have the reaction that many of these points are 'obvious'. But I > am not discussing how well known they are, I am discussing WHY they > are.
I am sorry that it is taking so long to reply; you do raise many interesting points and it takes me some time to consider my replies. I am still thinking and should finish my next message soon.
Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed, recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and I do not think this problem beyond solution.
I have already suggested that my guaranteed income ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ) would effect this to some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
I am sorry that it is taking so long to reply; you do raise many interesting points and it takes me some time to consider my replies. I am still thinking and should finish my next message soon.
Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed, recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and I do not think this problem beyond solution.
I have already suggested that my guaranteed income ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ) would effect this to some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
On 26 Nov, 12:50, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> <snip>
> I am sorry that it is taking so long to reply; you do raise many > interesting points and it takes me some time to consider my replies. I > am still thinking and should finish my next message soon.
That's no problem at all.
> Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as > far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only > scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that > men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and > it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required > for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power > over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed, > recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and > I do not think this problem beyond solution.
I admire your idealism, but I suspect you fall down in the same way as feminists, in assuming that the problem is that the opposite sex have too much power.
> I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to > some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by > unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up with men at all! Lol.
On Nov 6, 2:40 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my cycle for a few days, for some reason*. The rest of the month I have to be put in the mood, and even then that doesn't work sometimes. I have never had sex with any man in order to gain anything. As a result, I have lived many years alone, and was chaste for about 10 of those years. I didn't miss it in the slightest. My friends have given sex to get a man, to get the bins put out, or because the man bought round a curry and they felt they owed him. They also had sex to conceive. Most of them talk of sex as if it is a chore, apart from those who have learned to orgasm (a minority). I never fancied anyone really, not even my first or second long-term partners. I didn't know I didn't really fancy them until I met someone I did really fancy, and now I like recreational sex for the first time ever. Before that I used to withhold it, not to get anything, but because unless I'm in the mood, having sex is like having a cervical smear test. Hope that helps.
Maria wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:40 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. >> It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more >> persuasive form below.
>> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to >> have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their >> perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my > cycle for a few days, for some reason*.
"That is also the time when the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak stimulates increased testosterone as well as estrogen production by the dominant follicle." (just before mid-cycle/ovulation).
So estrogen and androgen levels in women seem to vary a lot throughout the female cycle.
1. HART RD. Monthly rhythm of libido in married women. Br Med J 1960; 5178:1023-1024.
2. Morris NM, Udry JR, Khan-Dawood F, Dawood MY. Marital sex frequency and midcycle female testosterone. Arch Sex Behav 1987; 16(1):27-37.
3. Miller G, Tybur JM, Jordan BD. Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution and Human Behavior 2007; 28:375-381.
4. Cutler WB, Friedmann E, McCoy NL. Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in men. Arch Sex Behav 1998; 27(1):1-13.
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my cycle for a few days, for some reason*. The rest of the month I have to be put in the mood, and even then that doesn't work sometimes. I have never had sex with any man in order to gain anything. As a result, I have lived many years alone, and was chaste for about 10 of those years. I didn't miss it in the slightest. My friends have given sex to get a man, to get the bins put out, or because the man bought round a curry and they felt they owed him. They also had sex to conceive. Most of them talk of sex as if it is a chore, apart from those who have learned to orgasm (a minority). I never fancied anyone really, not even my first or second long-term partners. I didn't know I didn't really fancy them until I met someone I did really fancy, and now I like recreational sex for the first time ever. Before that I used to withhold it, not to get anything, but because unless I'm in the mood, having sex is like having a cervical smear test. Hope that helps.
David Bernier wrote: > Maria wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2:40 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. >>> It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more >>> persuasive form below.
>>> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to >>> have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their >>> perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
>> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my >> cycle for a few days, for some reason*.
> "That is also the time when the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak stimulates > increased testosterone as well as estrogen production by the dominant > follicle." (just before mid-cycle/ovulation).
> So estrogen and androgen levels in women seem to > vary a lot throughout the female cycle.
> 1. HART RD. Monthly rhythm of libido in married women. Br Med J 1960; > 5178:1023-1024.
> 2. Morris NM, Udry JR, Khan-Dawood F, Dawood MY. Marital sex frequency > and midcycle female testosterone. Arch Sex Behav 1987; 16(1):27-37.
> 3. Miller G, Tybur JM, Jordan BD. Ovulatory cycle effects on tip > earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution > and Human Behavior 2007; 28:375-381.
> 4. Cutler WB, Friedmann E, McCoy NL. Pheromonal influences on > sociosexual behavior in men. Arch Sex Behav 1998; 27(1):1-13.
> David Bernier
Thanks but I already knew that (hence the smily at the bottom of my post). Generally, the men I know have no idea why women are not always in the mood, while the women I know have no idea why men always seem to be up for it. Apart from people I met in India - those guys even knew when their wife was ovulating.
Maria wrote: > David Bernier wrote: >> Maria wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 2:40 am, Andrew Usher<k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. >>>> It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more >>>> persuasive form below.
>>>> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to >>>> have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their >>>> perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
>>> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my >>> cycle for a few days, for some reason*.
>> "That is also the time when the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak >> stimulates increased testosterone as well as estrogen production by >> the dominant follicle." (just before mid-cycle/ovulation).
>> So estrogen and androgen levels in women seem to >> vary a lot throughout the female cycle.
>> 1. HART RD. Monthly rhythm of libido in married women. Br Med J 1960; >> 5178:1023-1024.
>> 2. Morris NM, Udry JR, Khan-Dawood F, Dawood MY. Marital sex frequency >> and midcycle female testosterone. Arch Sex Behav 1987; 16(1):27-37.
>> 3. Miller G, Tybur JM, Jordan BD. Ovulatory cycle effects on tip >> earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution >> and Human Behavior 2007; 28:375-381.
>> 4. Cutler WB, Friedmann E, McCoy NL. Pheromonal influences on >> sociosexual behavior in men. Arch Sex Behav 1998; 27(1):1-13.
>> David Bernier
> Thanks but I already knew that (hence the smily at the bottom of my post). > Generally, the men I know have no idea why women are not always in the > mood, while the women I know have no idea why men always seem to be up > for it. > Apart from people I met in India - those guys even knew when their wife > was ovulating.
I didn't learn much about the female cycle in school. Maybe you know about the East German female athletes who took steroids, or whatever. I think they were bulked-up in terms of muscles, and perhaps had menstrual problems. I don't know if they became hairier, more aggressive, more in the mood, or otherwise.
Women with hirsutism are sometimes given Spironolactone. Wikipedia says that Spironolactone binds to androgen receptors in cells, preventing the androgen receptors from binding with dihydrotestosterone, a by-product of testosterone.
I had a brief look at the Wikipedia article on the androgen receptors:
It explains how testosterone and/or dihydrotestosterone binding there affects hair follicle growth (secondary male characteristics) and also the primary ones (spermatogenesis).
It doesn't say what effect, if any, testosterone/dihydrotestosterone binding has on the male brain .
On Nov 5, 6:40 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
jr writes> You don't have a clew. But take this to a psychology forum. It's not even sophomoric. Retarded juvenile. johnreed
On 27 Nov, 19:13, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:40 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > persuasive form below.
> jr writes> You don't have a clew. But take this to a psychology forum.
Perhaps when someone told him "they have lots of psychological problems on uk.pol.misc", he heard "they have lots of psychology problems on uk.pol.misc".
On Nov 26, 4:31 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as > > far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only > > scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that > > men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and > > it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required > > for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power > > over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed, > > recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and > > I do not think this problem beyond solution.
> I admire your idealism, but I suspect you fall down in the same way as > feminists, in assuming that the problem is that the opposite sex have > too much power.
> > I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to > > some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by > > unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
> I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up > with men at all! Lol.
I am confident that is not so; it is contrary to everything we have been talking about and women with such an income today are not likely to avoid men.
On Nov 26, 7:21 pm, Maria <i...@tajarts.co.uk> wrote:
> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my > cycle for a few days, for some reason*. The rest of the month I have > to be put in the mood, and even then that doesn't work sometimes. > I have never had sex with any man in order to gain anything. As a > result, I have lived many years alone, and was chaste for about 10 of > those years. I didn't miss it in the slightest. My friends have given > sex to get a man, to get the bins put out, or because the man bought > round a curry and they felt they owed him. They also had sex to > conceive. Most of them talk of sex as if it is a chore, apart from > those who have learned to orgasm (a minority).
While I acknowledge that women's sexual desire can be affected by physical factors and the menstrual cycle, I can't take your word that your own sexual desire is not affected by psychological factors. Of course you, being a woman, can't explain your own desires - it's difficult even for men to do so.
> I never fancied anyone really, not even my first or second long-term > partners. I didn't know I didn't really fancy them until I met someone > I did really fancy, and now I like recreational sex for the first time > ever.
On Nov 27, 6:28 am, Maria <fallingd...@holeinshoe.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks but I already knew that (hence the smily at the bottom of my post). > Generally, the men I know have no idea why women are not always in the > mood, while the women I know have no idea why men always seem to be up > for it.
It is hardly true that all women respond in the same way, even if you do.
