It is true also that for biological reasons women are instinctively, "selfishly" invested in NON-SEXUAL relationships in a way men are not. This is because female relationships to help other females with their kids are almost as important to reproductive success as a mate. For males on the other hand other males are only real friends if they help each other have the status that will get them women. This is why men are less "deep" at social relationship in general and why womens non sexual friendships can be so twisted and weird, jealous, obsessive, in a way that for men only happens in sexual relationships. Confusion over this difference causes enormous difficulties between men and women.

The problem with your reasoning is that it's not based in any actual science, just guesess, and that it assumes that our relationships are governed by instincts we developed tens of thousands of years ago while living in completely different circumstances. Evolution does continue -- tens of thousands of years may not seem like that much, but "Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago," which is not that long ago. Moreover, the other, more bothersome underlying assumption of your reasoning is that humans living in modern conditions cannot possibly adapt through the use of their minds, that the mind cannot overcome these instincts we allegedly all have, and that nurture has little influence on how we act and who we are.

I'm a little surprised LeCastor that you keep harping on all the distorted science of the past. It seems absurd to argue that because science has been misused and distorted no science can be right if it is related to a sensitive subject.

Agreed. That's why I keep asking to you actually present the science you are claiming backs up your hypothesis, but then you tell me that "that would be useless."

If men were sexually put off by obnoxiousness in women as easily as women are put off by obnoxiousness in men sexual relations would cease entirely

Do you have any evidence, or are you just running your mouth?

Y'all probably know I don't like or want children, but I believe it's a fundamental human right, as much as freedom of thought, expression, and religion is, and therefore, should only be infringed upon in extremely limited circumstances. In legalese, should be subject to strict scrutiny.

To me, China's policy obviously infringes on this right, i think that while the government interest in preventing overpopulation is compelling, I don't think that a one-child policy is in any way, shape or form the appropriate method of achieving this goal. As I mentioned earlier, there are other ways to achieve this goal, but they are more expensive, in time and money, and take longer. Many governments don't want to pay in resources for protecting and preserving people's rights.

MY comment was that this implies women don't really like sex and use it simply as a tool to get whatever they want, be it money or jewelry or help around the house. And that men are panting dogs, who will only engage in helpful, productive behavior if sex is dangled in front of them like a dog biscuit. THIS assumption is what is patently ridiculous. Women enjoy and desire sex every bit as much as men, if not more.

...

The subject, once again, was "is sex a currency that you can trade for household jobs". And I think the answer is bluntly "no".

For you and me, the answer is definitely no. I think the answer is yes for some women, because it's one of the only currencies they know or have (a SAHM doesn't have a lot of her own money, for example). I think it's because of learned behaviors and gender non-parity is the cause, Dick Dworkin thinks it's because "men are panting dogs" and "women don't really like sex."