Why are women so fickle in love?

[FieryTrainwreck]

Because not all women are equally 'pursued'.

Just as not all men pursue. We're talking, very necessarily, in general terms here. If we're going to resort to anecdotes or subsets, we can prove and discredit everything. There are no hard and fast rules that will apply equally well to every human relationship or human person. Having now established what should be obvious to everyone, maybe we can get back to discussing the broader ideas at hand.

And men have the right of refusal as well. A woman can't just go 'I think I'll take that man' and he will immediately have sex with her. Men do have some standards.

I never said men didn't have the right of refusal. Or that women never pursue. But if you are programmed to pursue, how much more likely are you not to exercise a right of refusal? You are conditioned, over thousands of years of human and societal evolution, to behave a certain way in obtaining a certain goal... and then you are to carefully evaluate and possibly reject that goal? While operating with sub-optimal judgement/blood-flow?

Men reject sex. It happens. I've seen it. I've done it. But I don't think I'm out of line when I say that, on average, men are less likely to do so than women. Because men have been set up to pursue it.

It's true that traditionally the men are supposed to initiate courtship, but doesn't that put them in a more favourable position? After all, if they fancy someone, they can just ask them, while a woman (or a girl) will have to wait for the man to take the first step.

I don't know that it puts them in a more favorable position. There are advantages and disadvantages to both tacts. It puts men in a more self-possessed position, probably. This carries with it other risks, of course. I'm not really interested in attaching any sort of value judgement, either way. That's the fundamental disconnect here; you seem to be affixing value to these things, unsolicited, while I'm trying to observe and synthesize.

The Internet is full of unsecure girls and women who cry about how that cute boy or hot man doesn't even look at them or ask them out. Do you think women do not face rejection already?

Again, that women do indeed face rejection doesn't mean they face, on average, less rejection. This is a natural byproduct of the traditional male role of the "hunter". The internet, as an unprecedented historical grounds for emotional outpourings at the touch of a button, certainly might reveal the inner-turmoil of countless "girls waiting for the one". Their suffering isn't marginalized or reduced by the notion that women are, in general, the sexual gate-keepers. Controlling sexual opportunity through strict access (versus overt force) isn't necessarily an empowering or liberating position. It's just a position.

No, historically women were kinda conditioned by the society to be vary of sex, because having sex had far bigger consecuences for women. The old ideal in the western society for a woman was a pure virgin who didn't want to have sex.
(But would to please her man)

Exactly... ? It's the historical role of men running up against the more recently defined role of women that creates the dynamic I'm talking about in this thread.

Also, do you think women don't want sex?

"We're starting, I think, from the supposition that people want to have sex. It is objectively pleasurable for the vast majority, and we are biologically driven to seek it out. We don't start from a position of "take it or leave it". Biologically, for the most part, we default to "want sex"."

Me. Quoted from my last post directly above the bit you (now very clearly) selectively pulled.

If you're going to indiscriminately lob a question that indirectly accuses me of harboring stereotypical anti-woman views, you should probably make sure I didn't answer said question a few sentences previous to your pulled quote.

Exiting thread.

 

[Lieju]

That's the fundamental disconnect here; you seem to be affixing value to these things, unsolicited, while I'm trying to observe and synthesize.

I don't even know what you're saying there.
I'm just kinda tired of men going on on male-dominated forums how easy women have it and on the female-dominated how men can get sex really easily. You know what they say about grass being greener...

"We're starting, I think, from the supposition that people want to have sex. It is objectively pleasurable for the vast majority, and we are biologically driven to seek it out. We don't start from a position of "take it or leave it". Biologically, for the most part, we default to "want sex"."

Me. Quoted from my last post directly above the bit you (now very clearly) selectively pulled.

Because I'm kinda confused by your arguments. I agree that women might be more likely to decline sex (because there still is the double-standard that men who have a lot of sex are studs while women who have a lot of sex are whores.)

However, this is what you said:

By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors

And that is what I took issue with.

If you're going to indiscriminately lob a question that indirectly accuses me of harboring stereotypical anti-woman views, you should probably make sure I didn't answer said question a few sentences previous to your pulled quote.

Erm, what? You're confusing me again.

 

[manic_depressive13]

In a way, you're sort of reinforcing what I'm saying. Men are more likely to engage in casual sex IF they are able. Those men who possess the necessarily social or material capital to become promiscuous typically do so, and they are arguably the most "sexually fickle" people on the planet. But they are also an outlier, a subset, relative to the entire male population - though a highly visible one, which certainly skews perception. Women, I believe, are stereotyped as more "fickle" because they have, on average, more opportunity to be "fickle" (which is really a synonym for promiscuous in this context).

Yeah sorry, my brother doesn't possess any "social or material capital" but he has been in numerous sexual relationships because he is outgoing. He has also rejected many people, and been rejected too.

There are loads of women and men who just want to mess around and will take pretty much any offer they can get. There are as many women and men who want serious relationships and have varying levels of success at finding them.

It isn't hard for men to have sex. The bar at my uni is testament to that. Regardless of what the media tells you, most men don't want to have sex with whoever is willing. I have several male friends who have rejected numerous propositions from women. Not because they are particularly attractive or have any assets that allow them to be picky, but because they frequently put themselves in social situations, and there are women who take a liking to them and approach them.

Just because men are the "designated pursuers" doesn't mean they get less sex. Say a guy approaches five women at a bar over a period of a week. Two of them agree to sex. Meanwhile, a woman who has been going along to that bar for the entire week has not been approached once. Who controls the sexual opportunity? The person for whom it is considered socially acceptable to go around propositioning people? Or the person who retains the right to refuse, but is afraid of being branded a "slut" if she approaches someone she fancies?

You might say, but if the woman DID approach people, she would get a higher success rate! To which I would answer, you don't know that. Some men she approaches could be in a relationship, some of them might just not be interested in casual sex. It would also depend on her attractiveness and social skills, and the individuals she chooses to pursue, just like it would for the man.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Yeah sorry, my brother doesn't possess any "social or material capital" but he has been in numerous sexual relationships because he is outgoing.

Outgoing, you say? What exactly do you think is meant by "social capital"?

He has also rejected many people, and been rejected too.

I'm glad we can use the anecdotal evidence of your brother to disprove sweeping generalizations about interesting cultural phenomena. Tell me, what does your brother think about Syria?

There are loads of women and men who just want to mess around and will take pretty much any offer they can get. There are as many women and men who want serious relationships and have varying levels of success at finding them.

There are 6-7 billion people on the planet. It's no fucking secret that people who want to have sex will find sex. That wasn't what this was about at all.

It isn't hard for men to have sex. The bar at my uni is testament to that.

University is a very sexually-charged environment in the first place. Might as well start talking about "sexual opportunity" through the lens of strip clubs or red light districts.

[Regardless of what the media tells you, most men don't want to have sex with whoever is willing. I have several male friends who have rejected numerous propositions from women. Not because they are particularly attractive or have any assets that allow them to be picky, but because they frequently put themselves in social situations, and there are women who take a liking to them and approach them.

Shit man, your circle of friends is solving everything around here! Quick, put them to work on third world debt!

Just because men are the "designated pursuers" doesn't mean they get less sex.

Did you quote me on this? I don't believe I said this at any point.

Say a guy approaches five women at a bar over a period of a week. Two of them agree to sex. Meanwhile, a woman who has been going along to that bar for the entire week has not been approached once. Who controls the sexual opportunity? The person for whom it is considered socially acceptable to go around propositioning people? Or the person who retains the right to refuse, but is afraid of being branded a "slut" if she approaches someone she fancies?

In this hypothetical, the five women who were approached at the bar control sexual opportunity. The female gender, as a whole, even in the hypothetical you specifically designed to dispute what I'm saying, controls sexual opportunity.

You might say, but if the woman DID approach people, she would get a higher success rate! To which I would answer, you don't know that. Some men she approaches could be in a relationship, some of them might just not be interested in casual sex. It would also depend on her attractiveness and social skills, and the individuals she chooses to pursue, just like it would for the man.

So in role reversal, with the woman as the pursuer, she would be be more vulnerable to rejection because the objects of her pursuit (possessing the right of refusal) would gain a greater measure of control over sex. Sort of my point. The combination of traditional male roles with the increased self-possession and recognized rights of women has created a situation wherein women are the gate-keepers of sexual opportunity (in civilized society, of course).

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

That's the fundamental disconnect here; you seem to be affixing value to these things, unsolicited, while I'm trying to observe and synthesize.

I don't even know what you're saying there.
I'm just kinda tired of men going on on male-dominated forums how easy women have it and on the female-dominated how men can get sex really easily. You know what they say about grass being greener...

So you don't know what I mean when I say you are "affixing value to these things"? Then you go on to say that I'm "going on" about "how easy women have it" when I never said anything about female roles being easier. They clearly aren't. Acting as the gate-keepers in societies where you are pursued doesn't mean anything good or bad without specific context. Is anyone pursuing? Are any of the men pursuing remotely palatable? Is being cast in the role of "the pursued" antithetical to your needs for self-determination? How are you viewed by society at large if you step outside of those traditional roles? Plenty of interesting, complicated, and occasionally difficult questions surrounding the female half of this equation - just as there are for men.

"We're starting, I think, from the supposition that people want to have sex. It is objectively pleasurable for the vast majority, and we are biologically driven to seek it out. We don't start from a position of "take it or leave it". Biologically, for the most part, we default to "want sex"."

Me. Quoted from my last post directly above the bit you (now very clearly) selectively pulled.

Because I'm kinda confused by your arguments. I agree that women might be more likely to decline sex (because there still is the double-standard that men who have a lot of sex are studs while women who have a lot of sex are whores.)

My arguments have nothing to do with fixing moral value to behavior. I'm operating purely in biological and structural realms. If a woman chooses to have sex with many men, someone interested in casting moral judgments might designate her a "whore". I don't believe that vocabulary has any place in a discussion revolving around the purely mechanical aspects of sexual pursuit and gate-keeping. I would say she is exercising her control over sexual opportunity in such a way as to benefit her wants and needs.

However, this is what you said:

By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors

And that is what I took issue with.

Ah, that's a fair criticism. I didn't speak in very general terms there. What I said shouldn't apply to every single woman on the planet. I feel like that's kind of obvious, but one can't allow such sloppiness when one is in the cross-hairs of an agenda.

Anyways: prostitution.

Now is prostitution a good thing? I'd argue no. Is it an advantage for the female gender? I'd argue no. Is it an indicator that the female gender, on a very basic level, controls sexual opportunity? Yes. Women can literally sell sex. There's a reason why male prostitution services predominantly male clientele.

Prostitution also serves as an example of men using economic influence to override or bypass women's control of sexual opportunity. This is that "leveraging capital" bit I was talking about earlier.

If you're going to indiscriminately lob a question that indirectly accuses me of harboring stereotypical anti-woman views, you should probably make sure I didn't answer said question a few sentences previous to your pulled quote.

Erm, what? You're confusing me again.

You broke apart the quote string, so I'm not surprised it's confusing. I'll reassemble things.

You indirectly accused me of thinking women don't want sex. I provided a quote (from a post you'd just quoted, mind you) where I explicitly pointed out that we should be operating from a default position of "most everyone wants sex". I was insulted by your veiled accusation that I was harboring a common anti-woman view - especially when I'd already demonstrated a contrary view not more than a paragraph removed from something you selectively pulled. That's dishonest debate, and it signals that you're bringing a tremendous amount of targeted bias to the conversation - as indicated by an earlier statement from you in this post.

At no point do I recall saying women have it easy or men have it tough. I haven't, to my knowledge, pronounced any sort of moral judgment on either gender or their roles in generating sexual opportunity. You are continually and needlessly injecting an emotional component into the discussion. It's a common occurrence on this forum, and it makes talking about any gender-related issues infuriating. There are probably male posters coming at this with their prejudices, but that doesn't make it true of all of us.

Removing myself from the discussion now.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It's pretty ridiculous to see you complaining about her anecdotal evidence when you have nothing to back you up except your zealous beliefs.

Zealous beliefs? It's a logical progression based on traditional roles running up against modern rights. Most of it is entirely self-evident or involves minimal reasoning. People seem determined to shoot my ideas down by projecting moral or value judgments on the things I'm saying when I've honestly done no such thing. It's a raw mechanical/structural discussion from my point of view, but there's no debating or discussing with people determined to drag preconceived notions about a forum or a discourse into the fray.

Then you come in and use the word "zealous". Completely inappropriate, insulting, and reckless, not to mention juvenile.

I've finished.

 

[Lieju]

That's the fundamental disconnect here; you seem to be affixing value to these things, unsolicited, while I'm trying to observe and synthesize.

I don't even know what you're saying there.
I'm just kinda tired of men going on on male-dominated forums how easy women have it and on the female-dominated how men can get sex really easily. You know what they say about grass being greener...

So you don't know what I mean when I say you are "affixing value to these things"? Then you go on to say that I'm "going on" about "how easy women have it" when I never said anything about female roles being easier.

I never said you were going on about that. I apologise. Obviously I worded myself badly.
What I meant was that it seems to me both sexes think the other one has it easy, and since you seemed to be saying women get sex easily, I assumed you were claiming that.

My arguments have nothing to do with fixing moral value to behavior. I'm operating purely in biological and structural realms. If a woman chooses to have sex with many men, someone interested in casting moral judgments might designate her a "whore". I don't believe that vocabulary has any place in a discussion revolving around the purely mechanical aspects of sexual pursuit and gate-keeping. I would say she is exercising her control over sexual opportunity in such a way as to benefit her wants and needs.

I agree with that, but read what I wrote:

. I agree that women might be more likely to decline sex (because there still is the double-standard that men who have a lot of sex are studs while women who have a lot of sex are whores.)

'Whore' is an extremely common insult to women and girls, especially if they have sex. Society (like it or not) casts moral judgements on us and influences our behaviour. It has been until lately, and still is in a large part of the world, that a woman looking for sex gets the reputation of a 'whore', so you can't really ignore the society's expectations when talking about control of sexual opportunity. I'm a bit confused why'd you take issue with my usage of the word here.

However, this is what you said:

By comparison, women can quickly find sexual partners through sheer availability; if a woman makes it known that she is interested in having sex with a man, she will find plenty of suitors

And that is what I took issue with.

Ah, that's a fair criticism. I didn't speak in very general terms there. What I said shouldn't apply to every single woman on the planet. I feel like that's kind of obvious, but one can't allow such sloppiness when one is in the cross-hairs of an agenda.

An agenda? Are you confusing me with someone else? Also, am I expected to be able to read your thoughts? Like I said, that's the kind of attitude I've seen often on male-dominated forums.

Anyways: prostitution.

Why are we talking about prostitution now? Why? Is this about me using the word 'whore'? Because I thought it was pretty obvious I meant it in the context of a pejorative, rather than actual prostitution.

You indirectly accused me of thinking women don't want sex. I provided a quote (from a post you'd just quoted, mind you) where I explicitly pointed out that we should be operating from a default position of "most everyone wants sex". I was insulted by your veiled accusation that I was harboring a common anti-woman view - especially when I'd already demonstrated a contrary view not more than a paragraph removed from something you selectively pulled. That's dishonest debate, and it signals that you're bringing a tremendous amount of targeted bias to the conversation - as indicated by an earlier statement from you in this post.

I asked you a question because I was confused. I assure you, I harbor no ill will towards you.
(Although I probably shouldn't have written that reply when sleepy.)
Also I wasn't familiar with the expression of 'affixing value to these things'.
(And I'm still not sure how I'm affixing things to somewhere. A moral judgement I'm making? Where?)

 

[manic_depressive13]

I'm glad we can use the anecdotal evidence of your brother to disprove sweeping generalizations about interesting cultural phenomena. Tell me, what does your brother think about Syria?

Shit man, your circle of friends is solving everything around here! Quick, put them to work on third world debt!

You think the ability to have sex with who they want, and refuse sex when they want it, qualifies people to discuss and solve complicated international issues? I must say, you have low standards.

So in role reversal, with the woman as the pursuer, she would be be more vulnerable to rejection because the objects of her pursuit (possessing the right of refusal) would gain a greater measure of control over sex. Sort of my point.

But everyone has the right to refuse sex. Therefore everyone has equal control over sex.

women are the gate-keepers of sexual opportunity

Like cerberus.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

women are the gate-keepers of sexual opportunity

Like cerberus.

[/quote]

If you haven't heard the term in this context, you should probably read up a little more on the things you're trying to discuss.

Again, affixing values to things. That's what happens on this forum whenever anyone tries to have an honest discussion about gender. If you attribute some generalization to one gender or the other, based on common sense or statistics, you always have people with preconceived notions accusing you of assigning worth or morality to said generalization. As if describing the way things are, in broad strokes, is somehow insulting or degrading.

Or the old reliable: I know someone different than what you said, therefore you are wrong. A point of view from which all discussion is rendered completely pointless because there are 6-7 goddamn billion people in the world. Chances are, oh, 100% that you can find an outlier.

I'm a very politically correct person, and a very liberal person, but I'm also very pragmatic and appreciative of the value of statistics and the scientific method. Seems these things hold no sway when everyone has an axe to grind, and this is why I'm using these forums less and less. It's not just the close-mindedness or the snap-reactions to anything anyone says. It's the sheer, exhausting predictability of it all.

 

[manic_depressive13]

If you haven't heard the term in this context, you should probably read up a little more on the things you're trying to discuss.

Again, affixing values to things. That's what happens on this forum whenever anyone tries to have an honest discussion about gender. If you attribute some generalization to one gender or the other, based on common sense or statistics, you always have people with preconceived notions accusing you of assigning worth or morality to said generalization. As if describing the way things are, in broad strokes, is somehow insulting or degrading.

Yes, telling lies is insulting. It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with being wrong. I would be equally indignant if you were claiming that dogs can't look up.

Or the old reliable: I know someone different than what you said, therefore you are wrong. A point of view from which all discussion is rendered completely pointless because there are 6-7 goddamn billion people in the world. Chances are, oh, 100% that you can find an outlier

More like: I know enough people personally who demonstrate the falseness of your claim to suggest that your method isn't a useful way of interpreting things.

I'm a very politically correct person, and a very liberal person, but I'm also very pragmatic and appreciative of the value of statistics and the scientific method. Seems these things hold no sway when everyone has an axe to grind, and this is why I'm using these forums less and less. It's not just the close-mindedness or the snap-reactions to anything anyone says. It's the sheer, exhausting predictability of it all.

Then provide some statistics? Perhaps show us the "science"? I'm also fed up with these forums, although it's less to do with predictability and more to do with the rampant sexism.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Yes, telling lies is insulting. It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with being wrong. I would be equally indignant if you were claiming that dogs can't look up.

This is just funny. What have I said that was a lie? What have I said that was insulting towards women?

More like: I know enough people personally who demonstrate the falseness of your claim to suggest that your method isn't a useful way of interpreting things.

So it is possible to be both indignant about generations of cultural programming AND dismissive of the effects of such programming? Fascinating stuff.

Then provide some statistics? Perhaps show us the "science"? I'm also fed up with these forums, although it's less to do with predictability and more to do with the rampant sexism.

I think a lot of the ideas follow from the premises. That's why it's a discussion forum and not a peer review scientific journal. I'm not interested in "proving beyond a shadow of a doubt" some concept to a person I'm never going to meet - and whose opinion I will never change. This field is of interest to me. I actually read a fair amount about gender roles throughout nature. Applying some of the terms and concepts found elsewhere in nature to human beings makes sense.

Do you agree that men occupied the role of the marauder or "hunter" in this context? Do you agree that such a role naturally creates certain behaviors? Do you agree that women have, traditionally, occupied a complimentary or mirrored role? Do you agree that this role, also, generates certain behaviors? Why can't some things simply follow, quite logically, on the basis of the way the genders were "set up" for thousands of years?

These are GENERALIZATIONS. I can say that until I'm blue in the face, but folks will still lose their shit because "I know different!". Of fucking course you know different. If you're posting here, chances are beyond good that you're part of a community that no longer holds to (or remotely cares about) traditional gender roles. What's more, I absolutely believe these traditional gender roles, in this context, are unraveling fast across the globe. I don't pretend to know whether or not that is good or bad because I don't care if it is good or bad. That's not a pronouncement I'm interested in making. It's not even an opinion I have one way or the other. I'm only fascinated by the natural behavior of men and women, in a broader, generalized context, given the framework of traditional gender roles. How do these roles interact with changing ideas about equality?

It is possible to talk about the differences between men and women without a) hand-waving everything that doesn't apply to everyone and b) taking every generalization as some kind of personal slight. Guess what? Women are more likely to pursue nursing as a career. Men are more likely to be firefighters. Women are more likely to file for divorce. Men are more likely to kill themselves. Women are more likely to be physically weaker. Men are more likely to have a lower tolerance for pain. The genders are NOT the same. Bringing up those differences, or discussing possible differences and reasons for them, is NOT an attack or an insult.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm sorry, but where exactly do you use the scientific method to demonstrate that "Men are more likely to engage in casual sex IF they are able"?

That bit was in recognition of the "Tiger Woods Phenomena", in which powerful men are more frequently "addicted to sex"... because powerful men can more easily obtain sex. The point was to offer a potential explanation to the OP and/or the thread as to why women might actually be "more fickle" - you know, that it might have everything to do with opportunity/ability and not so much to do with "der brainz makes it like dat".

The scientific method isn't a buzzword to use to act like science is on your side, there needs to be an instance of you actually using it. Also, 'common sense' tends to be untested junk that people merely commonly believe to be true, which is very much not something that goes well with science or the scientific method.

And really you can complain about the "I know someone different thing", but you know they're actually doing better than you when you're not actually providing any statistics for it. Pretty worthless to point out for a general trend, but what's even more worthless is you using 'common sense' which amounts to popular belief.

What would it honestly take? Spend a few minutes laying out exactly how I should go about proving everything I've said, regarding probably one of the most complicated and difficult subjects in the world, which is studied endlessly by people for a fucking living, to a random stranger on a casual internet discussion forum.

The OP obviously had a bad experience, and he was very incorrectly using it to generalize about women. It was also just as obviously an emotional response to a trauma (as perceived; no judgments as to the validity of said trauma). I was offering a few ideas as to why women might actually be perceived as more fickle, and I really don't think I insulted anyone along the way. More importantly, I took that route because the same old "no, men and women are the same, gtfo" response is boring, pointless, non-conducive to actual discussion, and potentially quite wrong.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Yes, telling lies is insulting. It has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with being wrong. I would be equally indignant if you were claiming that dogs can't look up.

This is just funny. What have I said that was a lie? What have I said that was insulting towards women?

More like: I know enough people personally who demonstrate the falseness of your claim to suggest that your method isn't a useful way of interpreting things.

So it is possible to be both indignant about generations of cultural programming AND dismissive of the effects of such programming? Fascinating stuff.

What?

I think a lot of the ideas follow from the premises. That's why it's a discussion forum and not a peer review scientific journal. I'm not interested in "proving beyond a shadow of a doubt" some concept to a person I'm never going to meet - and whose opinion I will never change. This field is of interest to me. I actually read a fair amount about gender roles throughout nature. Applying some of the terms and concepts found elsewhere in nature to human beings makes sense.

Maybe you should read Delusion of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

It is possible to talk about the differences between men and women without a) hand-waving everything that doesn't apply to everyone and b) taking every generalization as some kind of personal slight. Guess what? Women are more likely to pursue nursing as a career. Men are more likely to be firefighters. Women are more likely to file for divorce. Men are more likely to kill themselves. Women are more likely to be physically weaker. Men are more likely to have a lower tolerance for pain. The genders are NOT the same. Bringing up those differences, or discussing possible differences and reasons for them, is NOT an attack or an insult.

Except there are studies and statistic that show this. You have yet to show me a study or statistic that says women are gatekeepers of sex.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Except there are studies and statistic that show this. You have yet to show me a study or statistic that says women are gatekeepers of sex.

If one gender is trained from a very early age to pursue sex, and the other is not, the former is considered the marauder or hunter. If the second gender, in the passive or waiting role, owns a right of refusal, then the second gender clearly possesses greater control over sexual opportunity. Fundamentally. It's common sense.

Can the marauder turn down sex? Of course. But he/she must overcome a culturally installed gender identity as the hunter. In keeping with the metaphors, you don't turn away game unless you believe it to be insufficient/dangerous or you believe yourself capable of finding other prey.

Of course it's much more nuanced and complicated than this, which is why it is a generalization. And a changing one at that. But whatever. I don't believe you are in this conversation for the conversation. I think you're here to denigrate and belittle and generally browbeat anyone who isn't adhering to whatever social justice platform you think should define all gender discourse.

Also, Cordelia Fine's arguments are mostly anthropic. Of course society and culture play a huge role in shaping gender roles. That doesn't negate arguments that stem from or deal with those specific shapes. The effects of a thing don't disappear or become unimportant just because the causes are terrible or questionable.

She also really glosses over the fact that men and women are biologically different, and that those differences can influence the mind in very indirect but still substantial ways. For instance, women are not hardwired to be the gate-keepers of sex, but they are repeatedly thrust into that role by society/culture. Given enough time and conditioning, this will, in fact, become part of a brain's circuitry. I mean she does realize that cognitive therapy is fully capable of altering brain chemistry, right?

She's out to prove that a female brain and a male brain, in a vacuum, are functionally identical. Aside ignorant fools lacking the proper education/language to describe what they're seeing, I don't think anyone doubts this.

 

[Bluelaughter]

Don't know how anyone could disagree with women being the overall 'gatekeepers' of sex in almost any context. You could come up with any number of statistics: If a random man and a random woman post on Kijiji for sex, the female ad will almost always get way more responses. Am reminded of the prank where a woman was forced to move after an ad in her name was posted. There's way more money in female prostitution than male. Strip clubs employee mostly females. Pornstarters with only women are much more likely to be successful then ones featuring only men. More pornographic material is of females than of men. There was the one study on a university campus where a random man asked women for sex, and vice versa.

"Men are more likely to engage in Casual Sex." Statistically speaking, this is true. The consequences of casual sex for men and women are almost the same with the differences being women could get pregnant and suffer loss of reputation, whereas men gain reputation.

When you get to non-casual sex, and longer term relationships, most of the evidence is anecdotal, but overwhelmingly supports the conclusion. Don't know if anyone has done a study on it, because the study would probably be a waste of money.

 

[manic_depressive13]

If one gender is trained from a very early age to pursue sex, and the other is not, the former is considered the marauder or hunter.... you don't turn away game unless you believe it to be insufficient/dangerous or you believe yourself capable of finding other prey.

Seeing men as aggressors and women as prey to be plundered or robbed isn't healthy. Please stop using such fucking creepy language and then pretending you are unbiasedly describing society as it is today. Instead of saying "men are seen as the dominant sex, they are expected to initiate sexual encounters" you use analogies like "hunter" and "marauder" and compare women to "prey". It's really rape-y and disturbing.

If the second gender, in the passive or waiting role, owns a right of refusal, then the second gender clearly possesses greater control over sexual opportunity. Fundamentally. It's common sense.

NO IT ISN'T. Do you even understand what opportunity means? The person for whom it is culturally acceptable to proposition people for sex BY FAR controls the sexual opportunity. Far more than the person who has to wait to be propositioned. If a man asks 20 women out, and gets rejected by all of them, he has still had more opportunity than a woman who is asked out by 5 men. Opportunity has nothing to do with success.

 

[Strazdas]

It's no fucking secret that people who want to have sex will find sex.

I am a still living proof that this statement is wrong.

University is a very sexually-charged environment in the first place. Might as well start talking about "sexual opportunity" through the lens of strip clubs or red light districts.

University is sexually charged enviroment? Where do you live i should move there then. There is no sexuality in university here.