sexual competition
- Thread starter Xev
- Start date
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Xev:
There are no "rules!" There is only taboo and non-taboo.
Of course it does. Men being able to hold down a woman and get off on it, means that they feel superior. Now a days, you've got men that like to be held down by women and get off on it. The only difference between now and then is that women have more control now than they did then. Am I making sense or am I to drunk to understand?
There are no "rules!" There is only taboo and non-taboo.
Of course it does. Men being able to hold down a woman and get off on it, means that they feel superior. Now a days, you've got men that like to be held down by women and get off on it. The only difference between now and then is that women have more control now than they did then. Am I making sense or am I to drunk to understand?
Ahhh I see xev, I suppose it's a matter of perspective, I was thinking of the actual "wrestle" that is intercourse, which men always win.
But if you start getting into the dominant member being the one in control of who gets off when, then I suppose it can go either way, and is actually often the female.
I think if I was a girl I'd need to think like that to justify the act.
But you never see the tough inmate angrily grinding his ass into the wimpy inmate's crotch. The "bitch" is always the weaker one.
I still think being penetrated is inherently "losery" in some ways. But there are more ways to look at it I suppose, if you look hard enough.
But if you start getting into the dominant member being the one in control of who gets off when, then I suppose it can go either way, and is actually often the female.
I think if I was a girl I'd need to think like that to justify the act.
But you never see the tough inmate angrily grinding his ass into the wimpy inmate's crotch. The "bitch" is always the weaker one.
I still think being penetrated is inherently "losery" in some ways. But there are more ways to look at it I suppose, if you look hard enough.
Dr Lou Natic:
My question is whether the perspective is even a valid construct. I'm aware that my take on people's interactions is odd and inclined towards the interpretation of conflict. I know that there is more subtlety involved.
On the other hand, I think most people are pansies and that I'm substantially right.
Shut up, I hate you. Do you have any idea how boring masturbation gets?
I guess what I'm saying...is that having sex is like moshing. It's about conflict and aggression, but not necessarily about dominence. The people who think it is are like the uptight assholes who stake out territory in the pit, and the people who are like me - they're like the ones letting the music guide them and trusting their spikes to take care of the uptight alpha males.
There's a lot of camaraderie in sex.
But most people are at a Justin Timberlake concert and swaying along to the music.
Coffee:
And you're the guy drunk on Jaeger and yelling at the shitty opening band.
My question is whether the perspective is even a valid construct. I'm aware that my take on people's interactions is odd and inclined towards the interpretation of conflict. I know that there is more subtlety involved.
On the other hand, I think most people are pansies and that I'm substantially right.
Shut up, I hate you. Do you have any idea how boring masturbation gets?
I guess what I'm saying...is that having sex is like moshing. It's about conflict and aggression, but not necessarily about dominence. The people who think it is are like the uptight assholes who stake out territory in the pit, and the people who are like me - they're like the ones letting the music guide them and trusting their spikes to take care of the uptight alpha males.
There's a lot of camaraderie in sex.
But most people are at a Justin Timberlake concert and swaying along to the music.
Coffee:
And you're the guy drunk on Jaeger and yelling at the shitty opening band.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Xev:
Yep. That be me. Of course, I don't do Jaeger anymore. I kinda called my friends girlfriend a stupid bitch and meant it. I hate people in general, she shouldn't of been offended.
Yep. That be me. Of course, I don't do Jaeger anymore. I kinda called my friends girlfriend a stupid bitch and meant it. I hate people in general, she shouldn't of been offended.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Hate doesn't lead people to kill, love does. Example: As an American I love freedom, so I'm willing to kill anyone for it.
I myself have never heard of that book.
If you are interested in somebody, that person has power over you.
If that person is interested in you, you have power over that person. Therefore, you loose respect for that person.
Some people look at the whole issue as a competition.
How can you be interested in somebody, and still have power over that person?
Simple.
If you are interested in somebody, that person has power over you.
If that person is interested in you, you have power over that person. Therefore, you loose respect for that person.
Some people look at the whole issue as a competition.
How can you be interested in somebody, and still have power over that person?
Simple.
Xev said:
I don't think this applies to just "PBWOWWHCH". Most people I know are like this to a greater or lesser degree. I think the psychology runs something as follows (though I don't think most people consider it so explicitly).
We all want the best we can get. So if you're so into me, you must think I'm a rung or two up from you. Well, if that's true, then why should I be into you? I might as well go one rung up myself! And so it goes.
I think this really does come down to evolution. Sex is reproductively advantageous for men under most circumstances: nothing to lose, everything to gain. For women, it's only advantageous under particular circumstances: cf. that the guys' genes are worth investing 9 months + 15 years in propagating, and that he's likely to stick around to help. No wonder we're programmed to see sex as a victory for the man.
Yes. Why isn't this convincing?
Last edited:
Dr Lou Natic said:
I think we only have this point of view because women in most societies have the submissive role in the first place. No doubt if women were the penetrators during intercourse, men would be seen as invulnerable, engulfing fortresses while women would be considered weak, exposed supplicants.
Probably you'd enjoy being slightly dominated, as many (most?) women do. And yes, you'd be looking for guys who deserved it, also as many (most?) women do.
hypatia:
Because armchair evolutionary psychology is the sport of retards.
We are? I don't and never have. But see below.
It is just another case of man's imposition of arbitrary standards upon the great universe beyond him. There is no real reason for it, other than it gives easy explanations and supports a certain social order.
I never said they weren't. I have the lowest opinion of "most people" and would not be suprised to hear another way in which they are pathetic.
Go misogyny. Other women are embarassing or a threat to you, aren't they?
But let's talk about what Dr. Lou Natic would be like if he was female. I think he'd be a 36C and have long blonde hair....
Because armchair evolutionary psychology is the sport of retards.
We are? I don't and never have. But see below.
It is just another case of man's imposition of arbitrary standards upon the great universe beyond him. There is no real reason for it, other than it gives easy explanations and supports a certain social order.
I never said they weren't. I have the lowest opinion of "most people" and would not be suprised to hear another way in which they are pathetic.
Go misogyny. Other women are embarassing or a threat to you, aren't they?
But let's talk about what Dr. Lou Natic would be like if he was female. I think he'd be a 36C and have long blonde hair....
Xev said:
I think it can frequently be carried too far, but many of its predictions fit observed behavior quite well.
Also, your blanket dismissal isn't really an answer to why you feel the explanation is unconvincing in this specific case.
With six billion humans, there will always be some who don't fit the mold. But nevertheless, this has been the dominant view in Western culture (as well as others) for a long time, and has only recently begun to be challenged.
That's fine, but it means that if you exclude all people who have this 'want-what-I-can't-have' mindset de facto, you won't have an enormous range of choice for sex partners. Perhaps that's what your amour's friends were trying to tell you, in a somewhat ham-fisted way.
Goodness no, dear. Why would you think that? I consider myself a feminist, and my closest friends have always been women. My judgements about what women want (in their personal, as distinct from professional, lives) mostly derive from my discussions with these close friends, as well as with other women on various online fora.
You may well be 'not like that,' but that doesn't mean anything about women in general.
You do seem to have been threatened, or at least offended, by my post. I'm sorry if that is the case. I meant only to share an opinion based on my own experiences. If you have evidence or arguments to refute, I will gladly hear them.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Nope. Whole nations can disappear for all I care. But right now I'd settle for the death of George Lucas.
NYT bestseller is often an awfully boring read. Mainly because, to be a bestseller, the book has to be sold to the general masses. And, if you're a thinking human, you're not one of the general mass.
That book is pathetic for pathetic.
Ghm. A friend of mine has one of those how-to-get-a-guy books. She said it helped a lot. So.... I flipped through it.... I borowed it.... It was a good book. Not because it said how to figure out what guy you want, etc, but because it gave insight into human nature. It classified people into personality groups and listed signs that can be used for interpretation. It also spelled out how to give signs of affection to different groups and to loved guys in general (that's not about cuddling etc.) To me, the home-grown idiot, that book was helpful in making contact with people.
Perhaps that's what the alienated people of the big city need: a book that spells out how to interact coherently.
That book is pathetic for pathetic.
Ghm. A friend of mine has one of those how-to-get-a-guy books. She said it helped a lot. So.... I flipped through it.... I borowed it.... It was a good book. Not because it said how to figure out what guy you want, etc, but because it gave insight into human nature. It classified people into personality groups and listed signs that can be used for interpretation. It also spelled out how to give signs of affection to different groups and to loved guys in general (that's not about cuddling etc.) To me, the home-grown idiot, that book was helpful in making contact with people.
Perhaps that's what the alienated people of the big city need: a book that spells out how to interact coherently.
whitewolf:
Isn't that so? Besides Harry Potter, I don't think there's one NYT bestseller that I've read and enjoyed or even wanted to read.
I'm a lucky bibliophile in that I live in a town with several of it's own printing presses. Besides that the stores are stocked with the obscure - I'd go batshit if I had to live in some hellhole where Waldenbooks was my only source of nutrition.
I don't think it has anything really to do with city life.
Coffee:
Don't I owe you the head of a certain conservative commentater?
hypatia:
That's not the issue. I only respect something like that when it's being discussed by scientists trained in the field. Biology takes years of specialized training, and I am not a biologist.
In the hands of the amatuer, evolutionary psychology is simply a playtime - people do x because y used to benefit them. It's fine for a scientist with access and knowledge of statistical analysis, the history of a species and so on, but in a layman it's just embarasssing.
Your point being....?
I'm not insulting you. I understand where you're coming from.
Anyways it's rather queer to slur a group you claim to respect. "I love blacks, even though they are lazy thieves"
But I used to be the same way, which is why I asked your motives. We have a horrid double standard when it comes to women - say a man likes a woman who is aggressive and vibrant. Well that's because he likes challenge. But if a woman seeks the same qualities in a man, it's because she wants him to be stronger than her. So on and so forth.
I think Nietzsche said it - "hidden under every woman's respect for herself there is a hidden contempt, for women"
That means nothing.
Only in the midst of trying to maintain a good buzz before I hit the bars. I fail to see anything in my post saying I was offended.
Now this is curious and rather amusing. How can I have 'evidence' when I'm just pontificating about some book I noticed and my annoying as hell acquaintances? This is what's so bloody annoying about you wannabe-amatuer scientists - lacking a real lab or subject of research you misapply the techniques of the lab.
Isn't that so? Besides Harry Potter, I don't think there's one NYT bestseller that I've read and enjoyed or even wanted to read.
I'm a lucky bibliophile in that I live in a town with several of it's own printing presses. Besides that the stores are stocked with the obscure - I'd go batshit if I had to live in some hellhole where Waldenbooks was my only source of nutrition.
I don't think it has anything really to do with city life.
Coffee:
Don't I owe you the head of a certain conservative commentater?
hypatia:
That's not the issue. I only respect something like that when it's being discussed by scientists trained in the field. Biology takes years of specialized training, and I am not a biologist.
In the hands of the amatuer, evolutionary psychology is simply a playtime - people do x because y used to benefit them. It's fine for a scientist with access and knowledge of statistical analysis, the history of a species and so on, but in a layman it's just embarasssing.
Your point being....?
I'm not insulting you. I understand where you're coming from.
Anyways it's rather queer to slur a group you claim to respect. "I love blacks, even though they are lazy thieves"
But I used to be the same way, which is why I asked your motives. We have a horrid double standard when it comes to women - say a man likes a woman who is aggressive and vibrant. Well that's because he likes challenge. But if a woman seeks the same qualities in a man, it's because she wants him to be stronger than her. So on and so forth.
I think Nietzsche said it - "hidden under every woman's respect for herself there is a hidden contempt, for women"
That means nothing.
Only in the midst of trying to maintain a good buzz before I hit the bars. I fail to see anything in my post saying I was offended.
Now this is curious and rather amusing. How can I have 'evidence' when I'm just pontificating about some book I noticed and my annoying as hell acquaintances? This is what's so bloody annoying about you wannabe-amatuer scientists - lacking a real lab or subject of research you misapply the techniques of the lab.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Xev:
Indeed. I sharpened my pike months ago in anticipation that you would bring me that head. Mutilated or not, I still want it.
Indeed. I sharpened my pike months ago in anticipation that you would bring me that head. Mutilated or not, I still want it.
Xev said:
But don't we all have the right to follow things that are interesting to us? I don't think evolutionary psychology is invalid merely because laymen find it interesting. I do think that it is often too easy to construct just-so stories; but on the other hand, there is plenty of good observational, and much experimental, evidence to support the existence of an evolutionary basis for animal (and human) behavior.
(And by the way, I am a biologist - or at least well on my way to becoming one.)
Well, your original post was bemoaning the fact that people use and respond to a technique you despise. I was just pointing out that the options are (grossly speaking) either to give in to the technique or restrict one's romantic interests to the population of people who don't respond to it. But I guess you knew that already.
But why do you think it's a slur to state that many women prefer the man to be the dominant party in certain aspects of the relationship? I don't see that as insulting. It's just a statement of what I've seen. If you have noticed otherwise among your social circle, that is fine and equally valid.
Well, it was a response to your mischaracterization of me as a misogynist. Which, I repeat, I really don't think I am.
Then I misread you. Sorry, again. It's always difficult to read others' states of mind without the benefit of nonverbal cues.
Well, I wouldn't call myself an amateur, as I am paid to do the research I do. (Grad school in the life sciences comes funded.) I don't have my degree yet, but you'll probably be able to call me Dr Hypatia in a little over a year. However, admittedly my research has no direct connection to evolutionary psychology.
But anyway, I don't see why the careful observational techniques of ethnologists and zoologists can't be applied to human behavior. It seems perfectly legitimate to me to say, "I've observed X behavior among humans, and I draw Y conclusions." You don't need a lab for that, and you can take my word that it's way more fun than running Western blots all day.