The in-equality of sexual attraction

"Women are a monolithic category and are also all stupid for dating guys who sell drugs instead of me."

Graffic, I think you accept popular stereotypes way too much.

^and this, this is just absurdity.

Women (and men) may get more horney depending on various hormonal cycles, but unlike most animals - including most other primates, humans don't have a period of "heat" and don't have specific times for sex. Human sexual activity is "naturally" flexible, we don't go into heat, we don't have a mating season, we are built to have face-to-face sex (rather than just one mating position like some animals), we can have sex basically anytime we want, we don't die after procreation. We were made for causual sex IMO.

I guess back to the OP's question. Sexual attractions are not some kind of darwinian determinist thing, they are very flexible and maluable and societies have had many different conceptions of what constitutes normal sexual behavior, attractiveness and so on. So any specific manifestations of kinds of attraction are undoubtedly influenced by social practices, circumstances, and precieved norms.

As for women likeing "bad boys" - I think this is largely a stereotype. It has echoes of the racist myths of white women being seduced by "natives" or, in the US, blacks. I think it's less of a manifestation of actual trends in society and more a reflection of the notion that men should control women's sexuality and deem who is and is not appropriate.

Of course there are examples of women (and I'd arguem more so with men) fetishizing rebels - though again, I don't think this can be generalized and often this is mearly fantasy. This may have something to do with perceived freedom from bourgoise morality and guilt by various subcultures or even "othered" populations. In a repressed society "loose (i.e. bad) women" are lusted over and moralized over (sometimes at once!) and "rebel guys" don't want to be with you so you can raise their yuppie kids, they just want the "passion" - or at least this is how popular myths go.

Then that is rather juvenile and an example of women being easily fooled and led astray because "bad boys" i.e criminals aren't really "confident", they are more insecure and foolish. I would see the behaviour of a bank robber or criminal outlaw on the run for example as more stupid than assured.

I think women, and people in general just like power, and perhaps because women are naturally weaker than men physically they are perhaps more partial to the trappings of power and dominance than a male. This is why there is an in-equality in sexual attraction.

And I disagree with the assertion that we are "made for casual sex". You could use the same argument that we are "made" to be violent or "made" to be racist or "made" to be greedy. It's this kind of "noble savage", primitive view of humanity (I believe there is some of this ideology in satanism) that we should just indulge our urges rather than combat them to develops ourselves that in turn makes us human and sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Casual sex obviously benefits the male and just like we tackle greed we should also tackle the natural animalistic desire for casual sex by discouraging it culturally.

The OP paints with such a broad brush that it is hard to get a handle on his thesis. I might concede that women as the bearer of children might have some instinct for seeking protection or provision. Anything beyond that would seem to be a gross over-generalization.

I must say I find confidence quite the turn-off. Self-satisfied buggers. Self-loathing or delusion.

I don't what the hell you're talking about with this "heat" thing but Im talking about ovulation which corresponds to a change in hormones.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wss102312.php

First we're mostly talking about "fantasy" at this point. Men and women like the romantic image of outlaws - sexually and just otherwise - it's a popular motif in pop-culture.

2nd, why is it women being "led astray" when they like "bad boys" but not men being "led astray" if they like "bad girls?".

No you couldn't make these arguments equivalent. The human body was "made" to be able to have sex basically whenever they want, our upright position allows us to have sex in a variety of positions, and so there just aren't the kinds of biological limitations that exist for many other animals - women's choice is kinda favored too because we don't have "dominant males" or "mating seasons" despite what crude pop-Darwinism might sometimes argue.

Humans can be violent and often are, but we were not biologically designed for this and are pretty weak and defenseless compared to the other great apes who are stronger, more aggressive, and have sharper teeth.

Race doesn't exist biologically, it's a concept so there's no way in the world that this is biological.

Greed again, is conditional - we tend to want to survive and so sometimes this means being selfish and hording things, but there is just as much evidence of compassion and selflessness across human history as of "greed". So I don't see where biology fits into this either - the "greed" of others is a moral evaluation, not an objective biological thing.

Finally, why does causal sex "obviously" benefit males? Women want and enjoy sex. Do lesbians never have causal sex - or do they have it, but it just doesn't benefit anyone? Sex is good and fun and should be encouraged for those who have the mutual desire. What should be done away with are not "behavior that some find morally objectionable for whatever reason" but systems of control regarding mutual relationships and sexual encounters: sexism, repression, the family and marriage as an economic unit rather than just mutually loving people.

"Heat" you know having a mating season. I may have read into what you were arguing - I thought you were arguing that women only have sexual attractions for part of the month or something.

Wait, what?

I'm pretty sure getting laid is orgasm-inducing fun across the sex/gender spectrum. Also, slut-shaming much?

You could argue that our upright posture and mans broad shoulders were "made" to fight, or to hunt and kill.


Sex is good and fun. But I think it is even more "fun" if you like if it's discouraged culturally and encouraged culturally to have it within wedlock. It makes it more erotic and embracing rather than having a free for all gorge and giving in to animastic lust. People will and do have affairs and sex before marriage happens but we should discourage it culturally. You could use the same argument that "greed" is very good fun however we shouldn't encourage it, we should tackle it.

Also "sex is good and fun" sounds like a very male thing to say. I have no doubt the majority of heterosexual men see sex as good and fun, however I doubt whether the majority of women see sex as good and fun in the same sense that men do. There is probably a number of women who have the same sex drive as men however I would guess there's probably also women, perhaps the majority, who are more interested in a relationship, or just although enjoy it just generally less interested in physical sex, and see sex as not the most exciting thing in the relationship. Some perhaps might not even like it that much and see sex as the price to pay for being in a relationship. Either way, I think women's sexuality is more complex than men's and saying things like "sex is good and fun" doesn't really benefit anybody.

Obviously with contraception women have more freedom to be promiscuous however women still have the instinct for protection and provision and encouraging promiscuity culturally encourages a dysfunctional society of pleasure seeking objectifiers.

I think morality is evolutionary. If you want to indulge in natural animalistic desires like promiscuity and objectification because it is "how we were made" if you follow that thinking to it's logical conclusion there is no rational reason why you don't also legitimize indulging in stealing, raping or being selfish and greedy.

We should be combatting "natural urges" that result in an in-equality and a bad society, rather than encouraging them.

Confidence is hardly ever "real", hahaha.

Women like casual sex too though.

We don't think that people should live as self-denying ascetics, though. Communists want a society so abundant that anyone can have anything they want. I also don't see anything wrong with casual sex, and can only see problems aplenty with trying to keep people from having casual sex. As long as everyone's safe and consenting, it's none of my business and I don't care.

You might think that, but obviously a lot of people, women included, appear to disagree. Fewer people are getting married but they are still having lots of sex.

Good sex is mutually pleasurable. There's no such thing as mutually pleasurable greed.

So you think that women are essentially prudes? What basis, other than your opinion, do you have for this?

Women can have multiple orgasms, one immediately after another, much more easily than men can. Women certainly have the capacity to enjoy a sex drive equal to or greater than that of men.

[citation needed]

None of those things are mutually pleasurable, unlike consensual promiscuity.

You have yet to establish that promiscuity in and of itself does any harm to society.

So when humans thousands of years ago decided to form in couples with provision and protection for women this was some kind of "break" in evolution? And today with modern science or whatever we are now more "enlightened" to revert back to accepting promiscuity and a sexual free for all because "people should do what they want"?

It doesn't work. Why do you think the "free love" thing was dropped so quickly in the USSR? It creates feelings of jealousy and other ill feelings.

It encourages men to behave badly to win the attention of women, for reasons that I've explained. Rather than make women equal, encouraging promiscuity and lust encourages genders to heighten their differences and gender characteristics to attract one another that is not always rational and in the best interests of society(due to the irrational nature of raw sexual attraction). Sexual attraction is an in-equality.

I think that the noxious "Lad culture" we have now that started in the 90's (where for some reason we accept casual misogyny in a way we would never accept casual racism) owes itself to the free love and feminism movement that it formed as a reaction to because of the failings of it.

Marriage wasn't a protection for women, though. It was another institution which made women subservient to men -- in this case their husbands. This has only recently begun to change in the 20th century.

And like I told you in the other thread, promiscuity was always a thing. People had extra-marital affairs all the time, and they were even expected to a degree.

Can you provide any shred of evidence to back this up? I've heard a lot of explanations, ranging from Stalin's concern over a population slump or trying to buddy up with the orthodox church, but your suggestion here is by far the silliest.

But that isn't how it works in real life, though. Women don't exclusively have sex with criminals and drug dealers. Not even mostly. You're pretty much just trotting out a popular myth/trope/bitter fantasy of frustrated dorks like its fact when it simply isn't.

The mental acrobatics you are capable of are pretty amazing, dogg. Abolitionists in the USA were responsible for the KKK then, by your logic.

And that now that women are treated equally in marriage, and marriage is no longer about property and inheritance, there is less of an argument to undermine it. It still discourages casual sex and provides stability and protection for women.



I think it encourages men to be more exploitative, greedy and selfish when they know they will be rewarded with the attention of attractive women.

An interesting hypothetical question is how many blokes out there would want to be rich or powerful if it was somehow a massive turn off to women and for some reason all the women were going for poor pacifist monks? Do you think male bad behaviour would still be the same?

Raw sexual attraction is not rational or equal. That is why advertisers use soft pornography to sell products. Male's might not be shallow and consumerist intrinsically but they cannot help the natural sexual attraction so corporations play on it. Also corporations advertise a certain way a woman needs to "look" to attract men to intice them to buy their products.

You haven't made a case for discouraging casual sex.

You may think so, but you have yet to demonstrate that it actually happens on a meaningful level.

How does that follow? Sexual attraction, "raw" or otherwise, is a perfectly rational response to arousing stimuli, at least for human beings.

As for equality, you still haven't provided evidence for your assertion that women are intrinsically more prudish than men. In fact, that they can have multiple orgasms could indicate the opposite case.

It discourages casual sex like any relationship does. There isn't some magical "no more cheating" spell with marriage. You'll probably find similar rates of affairs amongst married couples as any couple that's been together for several years.

No one's arguing to "undermine" it (unless you think arguing to make marriages even easier to terminate is undermining it, in which case I most certainly am). We're saying that people ought to be able to do what they want with their own bodies, regardless of whether they are married or not. What other people do has nothing to do with another couple's marriage.

But that doesn't actually work. For living proof, look at the eternal sadness that is the pick up artist community -- a community of men who think the key is being selfish and exploitative and cannot stop failing at relationships with women on any level.

I don't think we need hypotheticals when we know that women aren't a monolithic group, that different people want different things in people, and that the stereotypical "bad boy" isn't what everyone wants. Or even most people, I'd say.

How many men fantasize about a "bad women"? Hardly any. I know it to be true and I see it all the time in everyday life.

The main reason men bother to get rich or act like arseholes is to get the attention of attractive women which is their natural desire because of sex drive.


Pornography is mostly watched by males. Most advertising uses images of "sexy woman". How often do you see sem-naked men on bill boards or the cover of magazines. Advertisers know soft porn of women sells because men are more interested in sex and are more visual.

If society encourages casual sex culturally and promiscuity it encourages human beings to be more selfish (more consumerist), and to emphasise certain things that make them attractive to the opposite sex with the end goal of getting casual sex. For women that includes not wearing a lot and for men it might be acting like an arsehole. Neither is erotic or embracing, it's cheap and it results in an in-equality and a dysfunctional society. It should be discouraged culturally.

I dunno, femme fatales are pretty popular.

Provide any sort of evidence to suggest it's the "main" reason or even one of the top reasons.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

[citation needed]