Site Presented By
Friday, Nov 6, 2009
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."
that men want sex more than women. Women can be as intensely sexual as men UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, but usually the circumstances are not right.
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.
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. It would be EXACTLY like creationists accepting physics, chemistry, and astronomy but denying evolution and biology. In fact they could use your specific examples to make their case. Actually it isn't LIKE that it actually IS EXACTLY that.
This is why women are so determined to deny the sexual differences between men and women, so they can continue to argue that male horniness and the female lack of it proves that men are obnoxious and coddled by women and society (after all they still want sex) and women are abused (if women were as coddled as men they would be as horny as men so if a woman is one tenth as horny as a man it PROVES that life is 10 times harder for her, she works 10 times as hard, suffers 10 times the physical and emotional abuse, etc.) The fact that ANY MALE has EVER been induced to even pretend to take such insanity seriously is PROOF beyond doubt that women have ALWAYS had ENORMOUS power.
I'm all for splitting the household chores equally, parity in home responsibilities, whatever you want to call it. No-brainer.
But who decides what amounts to "equality"? Or what chores need doing when?
IOW, how many loads of laundry equals paying the bills and balancing the checkbook? Who decides how often the bathroom needs to be cleaned?
Sure, in a perfect world all that is worked out in a fair and balanced manner. But in real relationships it's a lot different.
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?
and it's better to look at the facts than to suppress them in service to ideology or politics. Of course some subjects lend themsleves more to direct study and experimentation than others. This doesn't mean that the scientific method is inapplicable but it does affect how easy or hard it is to accumulated evidence which will compel every informed and rational person to accept a conclusion.
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
