"Men and women are Different"

So you think women are promiscuous and just hiding?

Also, why is this phenomenon of standards global? It exists in every country in the world from Iran to Brazil to England to the US. If it's just social pressure why would that pattern be repeated everywhere? Why is there no country where promiscuous women aren't attacked?

 

I feel the need to interject here, sorry. The current state of evolutionary biology does not state that women are biologically monogamous, but rather hypergamous. That is, they pair-bond serially, and continue to seek taller, richer, stronger mates.

Hence the whole golddigger; date jerks/complain to nice friendzoned, sexually amorphous guy; and "acting like a bitch" phenomenon (testing for good genes)...which also seems culturally universal.

The only difference between Iran and the West, is that in the latter women can claim to be equal and yet not be. Equal pay without equal work, equal authority without equal responsibility, etc.

-------------

I believe Sex at Dawn (I will get around to it, but I've read some peer-reviewed literature that was written in response to its central argument) puts emphasis on bonobos.

Bonobos seem to engage in sperm competition more than chimps. Female chimps, though not in fact monogamous, are socially monogamous. The alpha male guards its harem of females, etc. whereas beta males run in packs, often attacking the alpha males, and coercing females into submission so that they can copulate with them in the short window when the alpha male fails to mate guard.

In other primates, male-male inequality is even more extreme. 5% of males (silverback gorillas, etc.), inseminating 95% of females. Males being extremely disposable in the evolutionary sense.

From the reviews I've read, Sex at Dawns takes a look at testes size, copulation calls in the female (which SAD speculates might be a call for more partners), penis shape (supposedly to scoop out sperm from other males), and the controversial existence of 'killer sperm', which attack sperm of different genetic codes.

But, a lot of the controversial evidence in SAD is taken as gospel truth, but, more importantly, humans are closer to chimps than bonobos, genetically.

Basically, the more sexual dimorphism there is (as in primates and tournament vs. pair-bonded species, where male/female differences reach their peak), the choosier the female is, and the more aggressively promiscuous the male is. Also, the most aggressive and competitive males are among each other.

But, choosier in this case, does not mean monogamous. Female primates essentially have 3 different reproductive strategies:

a) sperm competition (bonobos);

b) sexual selection (choosing the alpha male in chimps, and gorillas);

c) mating in exchange for resources (as in orangs).

All three seem apparent in human females. The fact is that, by and large, human females simply do not make themselves sexually available to all and sundry as human males do. Culture is a response to that, rather than its cause.

 

Cherea, you seem like the most erudite person in this discussion.

Can you elaborate on what you see as women's innate behavior? (You seem disgruntled by it)

Are women like me genetic mutants? Are we rare?

 

I'm disgruntled by feminism which is mostly the work of male bureaucrats working under the aegis of state machinery.

The whole thing about women who think they can have a free hot meal without putting out, or to make as much money in a part time job as miners who log in 12 hour shifts, or who feel entitled to their husband's life savings without breaking their nails doing housechores, or to as many seats in Congress without running as much as men, etc. Or, even more pathetic, entitled to monogamy from men, of all people...all of that is just the tip of the iceberg. They are just symptoms of a much larger problem.

Women's innate behavior is one of submission to men. There is no reason for me to be disgruntled by that if it's actual submission rather than manipulation of a victim status. It's no skin off my ass.

Mutation happens all the time, to every individual, at some level or another. I don't want this to sound like babies with two heads, or who look like frogs.

They are simply minor genetic accidents, and some of them are more adaptable; others might scrap you out of the gene pool. It may well be that, with the level of technology we have nowadays, women who are non-monogamous have become more adaptable than monogamous ones.

Monogamy in women was definitely closely tied to a dangerous environment in which they would not have survived gestation without a male protector and provider.

Well, things are safer now. Women can choose not to have babies, and work enough to be fully independent of men.

But can, doesn't mean will.

What would you say?

 

I'd say it's extremely rare. I have looked around for likeminded women. I found a meetup group called DCBiWomen but they were all prudes. They had naked pool parties but it was just people standing around naked putting body paint on each other, no action. I found stripperweb but that was just women in the industry giving tips on how to make more money off of custies. I was looking for other sluts and was disappointed with the result.

Sluts are rare. But it is our rarity value that makes us loved by men. Men love sluts. It's mostly other women who do the slut shaming according to Dr. Drew.

Sometimes it's hard being a slut when you reflect on the slut shaming which is also done by men. But there is no price too high to pay for self-ownership.

 

You got it.

Well, no woman who goes dutch, returns my calls, and gives me my space ever had problems getting in my pants at least once. lol!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSkapYp8djQ"]How to fix feminism - YouTube

 

Cherea, there are many men who want monogamous relationships and some women who don't. What say you?

 

yes, you are mutants

 

I say we must distinguish between social monogamy and actual monogamy. Factor in the known statistics of cheating and extra-marital affairs. Could you then make the same argument?

Wanting a girlfriend/wife < wanting monogamy

ETA: I've failed to meet these women who supposedly don't want monogamy, my whole life. It's the proverbial unicorn: everyone talks about it, but they are never around.

 

^^ First of all, women cheat.

Secondly, are you suggesting that men want sex and love and women just want love? That men want casual sex and later monogamy but women just want monogamy?

After all, I do agree with you that I have never met a woman who is as promiscuous as I am. My bff has only slept with about 15 people and had only a couple of one night stands. And it was mostly do to drugs which I don't do. My other girlfriend/acquaintance has sex but she's a lesbian. It's very hard to find these women who don't want relationships just sex. (Although I do see some of them at my swinger parties, women who while they may be married, apparently sleep around). Like I said, DCBiwomen is prude central, with the naked pool parties where everyone just stands around naked, no pussy eating. In fact you're not allowed to cruise. DCBiMen doesn't exist. It's just guys on a message board saying "my wife is out of town, who wants to suck my dick?"

 

Its not really that hard to work out, just that you might not want to know the answers anyway.

First of all, the type of girl you are talking about, concerned primarily with sex, never bothering with marriage or kids. Besides work and the odd family commitment, is just going to spend the remaining time with guys she wants. Why would she bother with other females?, they will just get in the way. Thats why you never meet them, you are female. Also after a certain amount of experience is going to know straight away which guys to bother with and how to get them, and not bother with the rest. Not actually the type thats going to sit at a bar and wait for guys to approach her.

Secondly the guys you really want. You've only got like 3 seconds and that initial look. Stand there and play with your hair and you are just going to be a pain in the arse. Turn your nose up head to the side, you are just a goldigger or hunting for a husband, that "keep it lean keep em keen" category. Purse lips with any "he's so cute" look and straight into the "Oh, I really want to have a babeeeeee" category. Stare down at your feet and you are going to be too shy to do anything.

You have to stare at them like they stare at girls, either that 1000 yard stare thing, or squint like its a hot summers day and you ar staring at the sun or like when Wile E Coyote gets an anvil dropped on his head and his eyes pop out and spin around.

But you have to chase them, they are used to that 1%, that dont bother with any games, get them alone and stick their hands down their pants whilst their eyes are burning like its a hot summers day

 

I never said they don't. Mathematically, men need a woman to cheat with. You're not seeing the shades of gray. This simple-minded dichotomy between sex and love is for amateurs.

I did not say women were monogamous. Again, they are hypergamous/serially monogamous. They move up the ladder toward taller, stronger, richer.

Secondly, get the L word out of my screen, pleeeeeeeeease. It literally means nothing. It's a cliche.

I think I was pretty clear about what men want. They want the arm candy, someone to impress their buddies with, someone to help clean the house, someone to chip in toward paying rent when they can, and a buffer between themselves and their nagging family members at family functions.

Aaaand, they want the dirtiest whore they can find on the side because you know wifey doesn't cut it. And if she did, she'd never be wifey in the first place.

And the dirty whore, you ask. What about them? Well, they are just out there being battered by their jealous pimps.

Again, social monogamy < actual monogamy.

 

'Theoretically' women need to be polygamous, as they physically outnumber men, so 1:1 monogamy is not technically feasible without lots of them remaining "Old Maid Virgins". Plus women have a longer average life span than men, which increases the men / women ratio.

 

This is pretty good.

There is also additional evidence of women being turned on by different kinds of males depending on which part of their cycle they're in.

Finally, that women can have intercourse continuously whereas men are mostly one-offers.

 

It was even worse in South America. I believe it was in Peru where a tribe was found that routinely practiced random, public sex. Unfortunately, they were also into cannibalism, so the government eventually had to eradicate it as a functioning tribe.

What he knows about truly promiscuous women could comfortably fit inside a thimble. I'm not convinced that he knows anyone who fits that description. He repeats things from books that support his assumptions.

:nopity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rztAvYAxlVE"]YouTube

 

Unfortunately, there's so much religious influence throughout most of S. America nowadays that it's difficult to get girls to do anything that they might be branded as being "unholy" for. That means good luck getting involved in a public orgy there today

 

What do you mean by that?

 

That's weird. I heard that Latinos were very sexual people, guys and girls. I thought Brazil was a very sexual place, but I guess it just has a lot of prostitutes. Have you ever been there?

 

Yes, I've been there . I think Cherea lives there, so he can probably provide a much more detailed insight.