sexual competition

[Dr Lou Natic]

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.

Too bad it has nothing to do with biology. Well, only in the same way everything does, a perfectly trained biologist is only slighty more likely to be able to give you insight on the topic than a layman. And that's only because they're generally slightly more intelligent.
Only an understanding of natural history, animal behaviour, a general understanding of natural selection and competent lateral thinking ablities are required for someone to be as much of an expert as anyone on the planet.
I was trained by the great sir david attenborough, some loser in a white coat testing the reactions of enzymes won't have shit on me. Unless they work towards understanding the subject in their spare time, and worship david attenborough.
In a way you're giving evolutionary psychology too much credit by even assuming they would teach it in universities.

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.

But laymen are free to do "schitzo-analyses" without suffering ridicule?
Loser does x because loser is a loser?
Well, I suppose it would be more embarrassing coming from an expert than a layman so carry on.

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....

Have I been drunkenly private messaging you my stats again?
I mean, you seem to be implying I am the kind of person who does that and yet it's obviousy no where to be seen on sciforums.
I guess I just mustn't be able to remember.
Sorry, you shouldn't play so hard to get, I can't stand it.
I just wanna bite your impenetrable ass.

 

[Xev]

This is getting boring.

hypatia:

But don't we all have the right to follow things that are interesting to us? I

Obviously we don't, as any of the people in prison can tell you.

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.

Well yeah. Why would I want sex with men I despise? Women are bred to be selective about the men they choose sex with, a baby is a seven to ten year expenditure.

I don't see that as insulting.

Yay postfeminism. Most students of the matter would see you as trying to justify traditional sexual politics - I don't really care, personally I think misogyny is funny as a van full o' retards, but that's what it's generally seen as.
I mean at the end of the day, you're implying that women are an inferiour group of people. Now, obviously I resent the implication somewhat - although it's accurate enough. Still we are unfair to women.

Then I misread you. Sorry, again. It's always difficult to read others' states of mind without the benefit of nonverbal cues.

Why on earth do you care? See this is why misogyny is funny (and accurate). The average man wouldn't care if I was insulted or not. The average woman would care, and be a whiny pussy.

But anyway, I don't see why the careful observational techniques of ethnologists and zoologists can't be applied to human behavior.

I never said they shouldn't.
It's called sociology. And it is annoying as a room full of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers when amatuers indulge in it.

Lou:

But laymen are free to do "schitzo-analyses" without suffering ridicule?

Define laymen.
But no, they can be ridiculed. In fact, it would excite me ever so much if you did ridicule me.

Have I been drunkenly private messaging you my stats again?

You have indeed, "Linda". Want to tell me about your high, curvy legs some more?

I just wanna bite your impenetrable ass.

Don't play tough, you know you're a big girly-man inside. Now put on my panties.

 

[Roman]

Why would I want sex with men I despise?

Dominance.
I've wanted to fuck women who I hate, for the dominance.
Do you only mosh with friends, then?
For me, the pit's appeal has always been its anonymity.
I can always punch a friend and get away with it, but rarely a stranger.

 

[hypatia]

Yay postfeminism. Most students of the matter would see you as trying to justify traditional sexual politics - I don't really care, personally I think misogyny is funny as a van full o' retards, but that's what it's generally seen as.
I mean at the end of the day, you're implying that women are an inferiour group of people. Now, obviously I resent the implication somewhat - although it's accurate enough. Still we are unfair to women.

No, I maintain that that is a biased reading of what I said. Just because many women prefer a dominant partner does not mean that women are inferior.

1) Sexually dominant does not mean superior, except in the narrowest sense in which it's a tautology anyway.

2) A statement of sexual preference implies little to nothing about ability in any area.

3) What does 'superior ability' mean anyway? On average, women and men have different strengths and abilities, but the curves overlap a great deal. I really don't think there is any kind of single scale along which you can line people up and claim to rank them in terms of 'overall superiority.' That's just silly.

Why on earth do you care? See this is why misogyny is funny (and accurate). The average man wouldn't care if I was insulted or not. The average woman would care, and be a whiny pussy.

I can't claim to care much, of course (or I would have been less frank with my opening statement). On the other hand, I like to be polite when I can. Perhaps women are more polite than men on average. Then again, maybe they're not. What does any of this have to do with being a "whiny pussy"?

I think it's you who are putting negative value judgements on my neutral statements. You think that sexual submissiveness and politeness are negative traits, and thereby read me as a misogynist.

 

[Xev]

Roman:
Hating and despising are different, no?

hypatia:

No, I maintain that that is a biased reading of what I said. Just because many women prefer a dominant partner does not mean that women are inferior.

Yes it would. Wanting to be ruled is not a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness. The weak are inferior to the strong. Q.E.D.
Your observation is wrong, further to my note it is offensive. Further to your being unamusing, it's not even funny-offensive.

And over-concern is not the same thing as politeness.

 

[Roman]

Xev:
For me, the words aren't different enough to bother differentiating.
Hate's just a broader, simpler expression of the same things.

 

[hypatia]

Wanting to be ruled is not a sign of strength. It is a sign of weakness. The weak are inferior to the strong. Q.E.D.

You have a very black-and-white view of the world. I suspect you are rather young. Also, anyone who has ever engaged in non-vanilla sexual play knows that it is not the dom who is actually running the show.

But that is a sidebar. Again, there is a distinction between what goes on in people's personal relationships and what goes on in the outside world. Behavior in one milieu does not necessarily (and should not, IMHO) translate to the other.

Your observation is wrong, further to my note it is offensive. Further to your being unamusing, it's not even funny-offensive.

Well dear, I'm not here for the purpose of your amusement. I am here for the purpose of my own, which you seem to be fulfilling quite nicely. At least, I'm entertained.

And you do seem to be rather easily offended, despite your claims to the contrary.

And over-concern is not the same thing as politeness.

That's as may be. Still, I see no reason to allow this to degenerate into emotional fist-waving, do you?

 

[pixel]

Alas, I haven't yet had a chance to read every post in this thread as I'm merely looking for ways to distract myself from the pile of work I should be doing... But I'll get back it all in a bit. In the meantime...

Xev:

Watch Annie Hall, even if you hate Woody Allen.

You are waaaaaaaaaay too smart not to be intimidating, sister. I honestly think men generally want a sexpot who can also cradle them through life -- you know, take care of them, look out for them, <i>represent</i> them... So here's what I think. If you don't look after the way you look, do, because men are mostly idiots. And if you really dig this guy, let him know you're actually on his side, because he probably figures you can rip him to shreds if you wanted to. I'm not saying this is the magic formula, of course -- but if you're willing to expend a scrap of energy on him, then I really think this kind of thing increases the odds.

And for those of you doing the Groucho Marx man position of "I don't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member" thing (ie if you want me *that* bad, I don't want you), let me tell you about something awesome I've witnessed. My friend "C" was all bonkers over this guy, and none of us thought she had a chance in hell of ever snagging him because he was clearly trying to brush her off and she was throwing herself all over him like a spaz for a long time and totally being a drama queen. Well, yada yada yada they are now married with two kids and loads of money and a big house, and she wasn't even pregnant when they got married. I'm still kinda stunned myself, actually. I didn't think it EVER worked like that. What the fuck do you know.

 

[pixel]

Oh and by the way... I have never felt inferior to a man but I do sometimes like to be dominated. It's just a primitive reversion, I guess. But I just don't think it's a reflection of weakness in me, and people who insist it is, have no clue.

Sometimes I just want to feel like a "girl" -- because it's fun, it's comforting -- without compromising my sense of self-worth at all. The idea of having the upper hand, not having to wear a skirt, not having to be soft and warm ... please, I KNOW I don't have to be a "girl" that way. But hell, what a bore it can be to feel like "the man".

 

[Xev]

hypatia:

You have a very black-and-white view of the world. I suspect you are rather young.

What, and that's a bad thing? No sagging, no wrinkles.
No, my view of the world is hardly black and white. You see women in some traditional light, as pallid weaklings wanting to fall into the arms of a man who dominates them. That's black and white. I see women as people interacting with men as humans do with each other, through love and stratagem, cunning and stupidity. You see that women prefer strength - and you place the most negative construction on it, as if the preference for strength is a sign of weakness. As if strength comes in one form, for that matter.
Growing up in rural Michigan I saw that many times. There's the macho asshole with his ford f-250 and his little girlfriend who seems so demure. But you get to know them and you realize that she's got him eating out of her hand.

Also, anyone who has ever engaged in non-vanilla sexual play knows that it is not the dom who is actually running the show.

I've played chess and I've played with toy dinosaurs, but when I try playing with sex the pieces get all sticky.
Whatever the rest of that means.

But that is a sidebar. Again, there is a distinction between what goes on in people's personal relationships and what goes on in the outside world.

Personal relationships have no relevence to the world? Du-hoi?

Behavior in one milieu does not necessarily (and should not, IMHO) translate to the other.

So I beat my children and pay my taxes, I'm cool?

Well dear, I'm not here for the purpose of your amusement.

Yes you are.

pixel:

You are waaaaaaaaaay too smart not to be intimidating, sister.

Aww shit, now I'm blushing.

And if you really dig this guy, let him know you're actually on his side, because he probably figures you can rip him to shreds if you wanted to.

You know, I think that's part of why he likes me.
But smartness - being well read, writing decently, cleverness - none of that really helps with men. Shit, when I was really clever I was shit with men, guys would come up to me and I'd hold my matrix algebra books up like a sheild. You know why? Because I spent substantially more time devoted to 'book learnin' ' and lost perspective. I was in awe of men (whom I was attracted to) and lost the ability to really interact with them.
Later on I became friends with uber-geek men, who had the same lack of perspective. They were in awe of women.

I don't consider myself that intelligent, but great intelligence is quite a handicap when it comes to social ability.

Sometimes I just want to feel like a "girl" -- because it's fun, it's comforting -- without compromising my sense of self-worth at all. The idea of having the upper hand, not having to wear a skirt, not having to be soft and warm ... please, I KNOW I don't have to be a "girl" that way. But hell, what a bore it can be to feel like "the man".

*Smiles*
You are confusing control and gender role, I think. But what is so odd to think that you can wear a skirt while not having to, be warm to a person without being typed as feminine? Gender roles are a strict dichotomy -- being is not a dichotomy at all.
The issue is whether or not you have control of this.
Hell, I love skirts.

 

[pixel]

hypatia: What, and that's a bad thing? No sagging, no wrinkles.

HEY! I have no sagging, no wrinkles!

Growing up in rural Michigan I saw that many times. There's the macho asshole with his ford f-250 and his little girlfriend who seems so demure. But you get to know them and you realize that she's got him eating out of her hand.

So true. And so pathetic. Poor, stupid men.

You know, I think that's part of why he likes me. But smartness - being well read, writing decently, cleverness - none of that really helps with men.

I dunno. I think smart men like smart women, really. I think they harbor secret contempt for bubble-gum types, even if these guys go ape-shit over them when there's a chance in hell of bedding them.

Shit, when I was really clever I was shit with men, guys would come up to me and I'd hold my matrix algebra books up like a sheild. You know why? Because I spent substantially more time devoted to 'book learnin' ' and lost perspective. I was in awe of men (whom I was attracted to) and lost the ability to really interact with them.

That's interesting. When I was "at my smartest", I felt my most powerful around men. Ah who the f*ck knows -- I'm too stupid lately to figure it out. And I have fewer men at my feet too, incidentally. I'm sure there's a connection. Har har.

Later on I became friends with uber-geek men, who had the same lack of perspective. They were in awe of women. I don't consider myself that intelligent, but great intelligence is quite a handicap when it comes to social ability.

But then there are the not-so-bright who are totally socially inept as well. Would you rather go out with a simple spaz, or a smart one? I think most of the world would go with the latter, quite honestly. Intelligence is very attractive -- at least in my circles.

 

[hypatia]

You see women in some traditional light, as pallid weaklings wanting to fall into the arms of a man who dominates them.

I certainly do not. That is, once again, your (over)interpretation of my neutral statement.

You see that women prefer strength - and you place the most negative construction on it, as if the preference for strength is a sign of weakness. As if strength comes in one form, for that matter.

Actually I think it was you who said that. But I'm glad you've come around.

Growing up in rural Michigan I saw that many times. There's the macho asshole with his ford f-250 and his little girlfriend who seems so demure. But you get to know them and you realize that she's got him eating out of her hand.

Exactly.

Anyway, enough. This has been fun, but I'm off to bed.

 

[whitewolf]

The amount of weak women is equal to the amount of strong women, and same goes for men. I agree, we should treat each other as equal humans. But weakness of a woman is more obvious than that of a man and women are therefore more annoying.
This morning, on the train, a lady landed in front of me. She wasted no moment, immediately opening a sacred pouch and taking out various small items: a mirror, a pencil, a palette, a brush. She looked into the mirror and grimaced at herself: what if she squints so? and if she bites her lip so? and if she smiles like this and turns like that? The face must be fully covered without a milimeter of naked skin sticking out. What an ugly visage, I thought. After she finishes her morning subway routine, she will touch her face up many times through the day, triumphantly grimacing into the mirror. Then, in the evening, she will meet a pretty boy. She will thoroughly rub off her mask against him, incessantly looking into her face and grimacing: what if she opens her eyes so? bites her lower lip? sucks her upper lip? Too many women are like that. I wonder if she read of such behavior in a book. I'm reincarnation of Queen Victoria, the one who instilled the Victorian era. Sure, there are thinking women, but hte exceptions are quite few.

The irony of the human being the social animal and constantly needing to be told how to act is too great. I never lived outside a big city. I've always been told that, in the suburbs, people know each other well and socialize more. This is not a modern phenomena. In 1920s, Listerine started advertizing by insisting that using the product will win attention from the opposite sex: "She bags the bouquets, but never a beau" or something along the lines of that.

 

[pixel]

Some women are too much that way, I agree. But I think there are also lots of women who just take enough care of their looks that others don't treat them like shit -- and that's not THEIR fault. (And anyway, is it a bad thing to be a little vain?)

I don't know why exactly, but I go through phases where I feel like being a total girl and so I put more into how I look, and I swear that people treat me better, including my significant other, and I feel a bit better. When I go through my "f*ck the world; take me as I am"-looking phase, people tend to either disregard me, speak condescendingly, or cut me less slack. (Including, and often especially, other women.)

And men -- phuh! My man is so completely obvious. He's basically a jerk to me when I "let go of my looks", and it seems he doesn't even know it's happening. Several of my former bosses (males) have actually gotten angry with me and said things like, "What's the matter with you?? You used to wear skirts and put makeup on... Now you're always wearing baggy clothes and running shoes... Are you on drugs?" Of course, I flipped the hell out on them, so they eventually shut up, but they weren't very warm with me until I moved back into a "girly" phase.

Bah -- it's all biology. I don't hate anybody for not being able to rise above it. If yer simple, yer simple.

 

[Bad Christian]

What about the fact that a woman is in a biologically more submissive, dependent position? She has to bear the child, biologically, and she is more insecure and vulnerable.

The insecurity and the need for loyalty that she feels is an expression of that biological wariness.

 

[Xerxes]

(can't wait for xevs response)

 

[whitewolf]

What about the fact that a woman is in a biologically more submissive, dependent position

Fact? No, fiction. Keep living in your fantasy world, I don't mind, just keep it quiet.

She has to bear the child, biologically, and she is more insecure and vulnerable.

She has to bear the child, biologically, therefore she is more secure and nurturing.

The insecurity and the need for loyalty that she feels is an expression of that biological wariness.

The seeming insecurity and need for loyalty are in fact a sign of responsibility for the life she will carry inside her and sustain for two decades after the birth. A woman knows that being a single parent will be hard on both her and her child and may leave permanent scars. That's why she does her best to ensure a stable, lasting family. Responsibility. A woman knows that pregnancy is physically straining, especially for the last month or two. She knows she will be unable to go anywhere away from the child for a few months after birth. Many men don't know that. That is men's ignorance, carelessness, and lack of love, not women's weakness.

 

[Xev]

" What about the fact that a woman is in a biologically more submissive, dependent position"

"You shall create a higher body, a first movement, a self-propelled wheel - you shall create a creator"
-F.W Nietzsche

Perhaps I don't see weakness in childbearing. Much sacrifice and pain, but there's great honor in making that sacrifice, in taking that pain in order for one's race to live on.
Dependance? Yes, but not on the man. Submission? On the contrary, bearing a child is a great show of strength.

hypatia:
I love how you reach an impasse and try to flip the dialectic. Whatever.

pixel:

I dunno. I think smart men like smart women, really. I think they harbor secret contempt for bubble-gum types, even if these guys go ape-shit over them when there's a chance in hell of bedding them.

I agree.

That's interesting. When I was "at my smartest", I felt my most powerful around men. Ah who the f*ck knows -- I'm too stupid lately to figure it out. And I have fewer men at my feet too, incidentally. I'm sure there's a connection. Har har.

Really? These days I'm stupid, I don't even read much besides cheap horror novels and postmodern philosophy, I drink like a fish, men love me. When I was younger and smarter they had nowhere near that reaction. Which I can't blame them for.

 

[whitewolf]

One time, I "was myself," like they advise, on a date with an insignificant other. I scared the flying hell out of him, being the demanding unmannered guest that I can be; I went through his frige 3-4 times in search of food, without asking, and landed on the couch beside him with a butter stick and a spoon. I asked for bread, he said no. I had the most fun ever.

I grow smarter lately, and guys love that. I guess it's an age thing.

 

[pixel]

(...) I agree.

Really? These days I'm stupid, I don't even read much besides cheap horror novels and postmodern philosophy, I drink like a fish, men love me. When I was younger and smarter they had nowhere near that reaction. Which I can't blame them for.

Well, but now I'm thinking you have to be burbling intelligence <i>underneath</i>, but not spewing the intelligence on the surface too much, 'cause they resent you for it in the end. They want you to be smart, but they are annoyed when you walk around being too openly smart. It's like they feel less manly if you can outwit them, so they start trying to undermine your wits, start engaging in circular nonsense to distract you from your cerebral foothold, because really they want you dangling off a cliff at the end of a rope they're holding for you.

Next thing you know you're in chronic "spar" mode, everybody gets sarcastic and secretly wounded and throws up the bravado, and then you go your separate ways. Next they hook up with a submissive freakazoid with big tits.

So, upon further reflection I can see why guys dig you more now that you're reading horror and drinking -- you reek of wit, but superficially you partake of the infirmities of the feeble-minded masses.

Right now I'm sure a woman just can't "win" with men (that is, have an eternally respectful, loving communion). Either your intelligence offends, or your lack of it offends. In the end, your mind is always a nuisance. And this is why inflatables will always have a market.

(I'm ornery today. My neighbours started playing some appalling bullshit Christian rock at like 7 in the morning, and it was my only day to sleep in.)