Letters to the Editor
-
Here are some facts: many women enjoy sex. Some have sex with many partners. This behavior is not unnatural, loose, morally wrong, or any kind of a crime.
any chance the same tolerant attitude could be applied by feminists to men...oh wait I remember now.. because when MEN ...have sex with many partners....its never about respect and affection and attraction...but, rather than domination and manipulation and recrimination.
glad that's been sorted out
-
I'll Cede the Point
...when we see ABC interviewing concerned college men who are concerned because their 3 friends have had sex with 9 hot women between them.
-
so now it only matters what WOMEN think of other women
this also seems highly convenient; so I guess, since you now doubt value consistency highly, that what MEN think of women no longer counts.
-
The best way to screw a lot of women.......
is to screw a lot of women. Women are genetically inclined to want to have sex with men who have a lot of sex with lots of women. The poor things can't help themselves, since the reptile part of their brains tells them that the sons they will have with these men will also be womanizers, and spread their genes far and wide. The best strategy for men is then to appear to be womanizers, assuming that they want to have sex with lots of different women. I had a college roommate who followed that philosophy, the more he got the more he got. Boy was I jealous, but not structured to emulate him.
-
That's stupid, Al.
If you have a kid with a womanizer, and then he disappears, your chance of raising that kid to a healthy reproductive age and putting him in a life position where he has access to genetically valuable women is a lot lower. Humans need vastly more assistance in raising their kids than any other mammal. It's the *only* good reason why women put up with the shit from men that they do; otherwise we'd do like chimps, where "fathers" of individual babies aren't important at all and it's more like all the guys kind of hang around and give occasional assistance to any female with a child. And in most human societies, the reproductive fitness of an adult human male with no money or social status is incredibly low, and that's what happens when a guy has no dad, in most societies throughout history. So a womanizing man who walks out on his son might be giving his son womanizing genes, but no woman is going to *choose* the son if he grows up to have low social status, so it really doesn't matter what a horndog his genes make him.
I mean, the whole thing's infinitely more complex than that, but I've never even seen the most oversimplified evo-bio argument try to make the argument that women actively *look* for womanizing men. It's really not to a woman's advantage unless she lives in a matrilineal society where she will get most of her emotional and physical support from her kin, not the guy she sleeps with. It's just less to her disadvantage than it is to a man if his wife screws around and sticks him with raising a kid that isn't his.
No, the explanation's much simpler. Lots of women are attracted to the same traits, either because culture tells them those are attractive traits or because biology has selected for those traits. Men who have lots of women who are attracted to them have much more opportunity to sleep around than men who don't. So women don't go after womanizers because they're womanizers; women go after men because they're hot, and hot men have more opportunity to be womanizers.
-
There's lots of evidence that women are attracted to high status SPECIFICALLY
not simply attracted to the same traits which incidentally also are associated with high status, (though that probably also happens). There are lots of factors, but it is certainly in a female's genetic interest to produce a high status son rather than a low status one and a high status male is probably genetically helpfull in this.
-
Right on, RT.
This has nothing to do with sex, or whether either gender should have the right to sleep with as many people as they want. It has to do with the very idea that a journalist would write an article about athlete groupies as if it has some sort of tie in to a RAPE CASE. There is NO connection between women who want to have sex with athletes, and women who are RAPED BY men who happen to be athletes. No connection whatsoever. Women do not choose to be raped. And yet, here we have this helpful journalist interviewing women who heard that a friend of a friend likes to sleep with lacrosse players. As if the victim in this case - who did not even choose to spend time with lacrosse players specifically seeing as she was hired anonymously - was in a comparable situation. Disgusting.
-
I agree with everything. . .
Rebecca. With one small caveat. It is at least possible that a woman would agree to have sex only so that she could deny it later (for whatever reason). Forgetting this possibility puts the debate into a quick stall, as it allows the other side (whoever they might be. . . coaches, defense attorneys, lacivious men) this same quick rejoinder. Better to accept it, and move forward with the rest of the criticism you put forward against the good ol' boy system of slut-baiting.
-
Let's get at what this is really about
I am sick and tired of the media and their "poor athletes, they are so popular" angle on cases where sports stars rape women. Yes, our culture prizes male athletes -- we put them in these pampered cocoons on college campuses where they are idolized by fellow students, they get free tutors to help them with their homework (if they do it at all) and boosters foot the bill for most everything they need. Indeed this is no different than how they got treated in high school. And if they have the good fortune to go pro, the bonanza continues. From the second that a boy demonstrates any measure of athletic talent, he is told that he is so special that the rules just don't apply to him the same way as to everyone else.
Any wonder, then, that there always seems to spring up around athletes this culture of sexual entitlement, this notion that all women want to have sex with you, and they are there to be used and thrown away like tissues? Any wonder, then, that to these boys consent is presumed, and therefore rape is not possible? "She must have wanted it, all these other girls do...how could I have raped her?"
I don't care how many women want to sleep with you. When you find the one that doesn't, and have sex with her anyway, you've raped her. Why is it so many athlete's don't get that? Because we've trained them all too well to beleive that their prowess on the field entitles them to break the rules whenever they want, because the coach will make sure that everyone looks the other way.
The existence of "lacrosstitutes" is no surprise. That some might try to use their existence as a justification for rape is also no surprise. Just part of the sickness that is sports culture in America.