Men and their.. insatiable lust

Vangelis

Okay, guys. It's time to resign from this "debate", all of you. It is a waste of posts trying to talk to dublindude. You will not gain anything or persuade out of his current state of mind.

I ask any moderator to lock this thread. Please.

chump

The Corinthian strikes again...

Critical about nothing in particular, but everything...

amp

Vangelis wrote:

Okay, guys. It's time to resign from this "debate", all of you. It is a waste of posts trying to talk to dublindude. You will not gain anything or persuade out of his current state of mind.

I ask any moderator to lock this thread. Please.

Request denied. Back on topic.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

It is a waste of posts trying to talk to dublindude. You will not gain anything or persuade out of his current state of mind.

You on the other hand are completely different...

bonkey

dublindude wrote:

We may think cheating is morally wrong (and of course I agree with this) but it is not natural to not cheat. We have to make ourselves not cheat. We have to choose, "No, this would be wrong if I did this."

I'm curious as to how you conclude this. Personal observation, or something more scientific?

jc

AARRRGH

bonkey wrote:

I'm curious as to how you conclude this. Personal observation, or something more scientific?

jc

I've been trying to stay away from this topic as it is too much black versus white but...

To answer your question: something more scientific and personal observation. I'm very interested in male/female relations and I've read a lot of books and watched a lot of programmes on Discovery Channel about it! Once you accept the "theory" that humans are just smart animals, and replace the animals on nature programs with humans, you'll see it really does make sense...

bonkey

dublindude wrote:

Once you accept the "theory" that humans are just smart animals, and replace the animals on nature programs with humans, you'll see it really does make sense...

But some of those animals are monogamous, so I don't see how it makes sense at all.

It may suggest, given that monogamous species are in the minority, that we are more likely to be as you suggest, but thats a far cry short of the claims you were making.

jc

CathyMoran

Just in conection with contraception - I always believed that it took two to tango, both men and women should take an equal and active role in it, not all women can go on the pill and not all women have regular periods (not that going by that is acurate in any case). Apart from the safe sex aspect the woman always has a tougher time if things go wrong but both parties should take responsibility. I do think that the added fear of pregnancy can affect both sexes and overide lust to a certain extent, certainly it is easier to have an orgasm if you are relaxed if nothing else.

In terms of cheating and lust - I do not think that lust is always involved in cheating. If someone is unhappy in themselves or with their relationship it is easier to cheat but lust on its own, well I am not so sure?

Personally I would consider myself to have a high libido but I would not give into it unless in a very serious relationship, I have been in situations where the chemistry between me and another person was so strong that I had to seriously bite my lip to stop myself kissing them, but I managed it though in two of those cases I ended up dating the person afterwards. I do feel that there is still a lot of social pressure for women to be demure, conservative and not express their sexuality as in men that is not condoned as much - it really gets on my nerves but until society changes...

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Not quite true. For centuries women have been able to able to know when they're most likely and least likely to get pregnant from sex. This is old knowledge, and most women know this already.

I am no expert - but I thought such "cycle" methods are chancy. More chancy maybe than a condom on its own? I don't know much about this stuff though so please do correct me with some facts on this if you have them to hand.

Deleted User wrote:

we're still seeing people place all the blame on men for pregnancies.

What about the demonisation of teenage girls or even just young single women who had been 'stupid' and got pregnant that went on in the past. Wasn't much blaming of the man involved there.

Anyway this is all pointless digression. To repeat, I only said:

"In fairness there has been a bit more to it than "society". Human females (aka women) end up with the "bun in the oven" which they can't palm off on someone else (not for 9 months anyway) - giving the feckless males their chance to escape."

Nothing there about blaming the man for the pregnancy now is there? Just that the man has, if he wants to, the chance to do the dirt and sow some wild oats in this situation for reasons of biology.

Deleted User wrote:

Women know their own bodies better than we do, and thus bear the same responsibility that we do.

Actually, don't they bear much more responsibility than men for whether they get pregnant or not? - especially now anyway.

Deleted User wrote:

Agreed. But do people want that change? Honestly do you think people want to take responsibility?

I wouldn't know what people want or what they will do. Depends on the people and the circumstances. All I said is that we aren't ruled by biology. And I am truly sorry I said anything at all. I was a fool, I know.

The Corinthian wrote:

What a idiotic attempt at a discussion.

<Sniggers nastily>

The Sweeper

I have this book. I was working on a transcript of a conference one night, and one of the female speakers cracked a joke at one of the male speakers. He was going to get married, she recommended he buy his wife this book, and then read it himself.

QED I bought it, out of curiosity.

I'd like Vangelis to state the page where it states anything, at all, in any way, about specific behaviour leading to lesbianism.

The book is broken into 11 subsections:

Same Species, Different Worlds
Making Perfect Sense
It's All in the Mind
Talking and Listening
Spatial Ability: Maps, Targets and Parallel Parking
Thoughts, Attitudes, Emotions and Other Disaster Areas
Our Chemical Cocktail
Boys Will be Boys, But Not Always
Men, Women and Sex
Marriage, Love and Romance
Towards a Different Future

Each subsection is divided into maybe 20 little sub-categories. Each of these sub-categories covers three or four pages of the book, sometimes more, sometimes less.

It makes it an easy read actually, because you can pick and choose topics of interest.

Approach it as you would any self-help type books. It is interesting though, and contains some valid points. Particularly entertaining sub-sections are:

"Women talk, men feel nagged"
"Why men can't handle women being emotional"
"How men get a raw deal"
"Why men want women to dress like tarts (but never in public)"
"Why sex suddenly stops"

And so on and so forth... if some of those sound like sterotypes it's possibly because they are, but overall there's no smoke without fire. This book shines a light into the source of the smoke. If you don't like it, don't read it. Personally I found it funny. Especially the one on "Why Men Grope and Women Don't".

Kell

Wicknight wrote:

Its human nature to steal,

Umm, where did you come up with this nugget? Stealing is a prediliction for obsessive behaviour to steal things that compensate for an emotional void.

Wicknight wrote:

You are completely ignoring the fact that it is also human nature to get into a relationship with someone.

Again, where did you come up with that one. It is not human nature to have your specific purpose in life curtailed by having one partner. Our specific purpose in life as males is to fúck with as many females as possible to spread our genes and ensure the survival of the next generation. To disagree with this denies your purpose in life and makes me question your existance by so denying it. As pointed out by TC, not all males work off this basis.

Everyone here who has said that not all men want to fúck like the clappers are basing this within the confines of relationships. Relationships are not a natural instinct- not at all. I dont have anything against them really but try for a moment and run a search for monogamous sub genus' of the animal species and you'll find very few on the planet. Why? Very few species, and that goes for us humans, are pre-programmed for monogamy because it denies our basic programming to fúck.

Society, the nuclear family, laws blah blah blah, has bent the perception of what we should be into a family man, monogamous male type identity. However, to illustrate by separate example-

someone comes up to you in the street with a knife. You shít yourself-your blood boils-your adrenalin pumps-your brain decides in tiny nanoseconds to either fight or flight.

Would anyone deny the above example of resilient animal instinct? I thought not. So those who choose to argue that the resilient urge to fúck like a bástard 24/7 is gone is full of horseshít. You have just chosen to comply with what society has decided you should.

K-

savoyard

So men's role in life is to shag like rabbits and my role is to push out babies:rolleyes:

We've evolved: we're social animals who have social rules. After milennia of evolution, biology and socialisation are intermixed. You can shag randomly if you want but there are other semi-biological reasons for relationships. Men don't want to support children that aren't theirs - relationships (and specifically marriage) are one way to ensure that the seed you've planted is yours and not someone elses'.

As for the whole "all men cheat" thing, it's extremely insulting to the many men who quite happily stay faithful. I'm older than Dublindude, so by his rationale I know more;) and the men (and women) I know, by and large, do not cheat. Those that do have generally made one drink-fuelled mistake and are racked with guilt. Monogamy has a lot of benefits, for men and women and the guys I know shagging around are usually pretty emotionally retarded.

It's normal to be attracted to other people but most mature adults realise that curbing animal instincts pays off in the long run.

Zombrex

Kell wrote:

Umm, where did you come up with this nugget? Stealing is a prediliction for obsessive behaviour to steal things that compensate for an emotional void.

So when an artic fox steals a recent kill of a polar bear as the polar bear is resting (saw it on TV last night), he is really compensating for an emotional void in the fox's life ... ummm

The idea of "property", of ownership of something is not "natural" in the way dublindude is talking about sexual relationships. In the natural world stealing something you need from someone else is a common and natural event.

Kell wrote:

Again, where did you come up with that one. It is not human nature to have your specific purpose in life curtailed by having one partner.

Then why do we do it? And don't say "oh its society" cause society is a reflection of human behaviour. We naturally form relational structures between ourself as part of a wider society. Sometimes these structures clash with other instincts (you might help a person in a car crash, but when a threat to you happens you run as part of a flight or fight response), but to say that emotional and sexual partnerships between humans is unnatural is nonsense. The entire (and very real) biological system of guilt is based around forming and mentaining these relationships.

Kell wrote:

Our specific purpose in life as males is to fúck with as many females as possible to spread our genes and ensure the survival of the next generation.

No its actually not ... if it was you would die naturally well before the age of 40 .. the primary purpose of humans (not animals, but humans) is to raise children, not simply to produce them. That is the reason we form partnerships with females, it is also the reason we don't die in middle age.

Kell wrote:

Everyone here who has said that not all men want to fúck like the clappers are basing this within the confines of relationships. Relationships are not a natural instinct- not at all.

Yes they are, that is why we have been forming them since recorded history began and probably well before them. The modern strict ideas of a marriage or a relationship are not defined specifically in human genes, but the evolutionary ideas and motivations behind them are. As someone said, we are social creatures, we form a wide range of social constructs naturally that many other animals don't.

If human relationships between men and women were not natural we wouldn't form them. Yet here we are talking about "cheating" Dublindude is ignoring the fact that these men he talks about are in relationships, otherwise it wouldn't be cheating. So he should really be asking the question if men cheat cause it is natural why are they also all in relationships? Cause women/society force them? No, possibly in the past but certainly not any more. There is no presure on men especially to form these types of bonds. The do it naturally, because it is an instinct to form these relationships as much as it is an instinct to spread genetic material.

Kell wrote:

Very few species, and that goes for us humans, are pre-programmed for monogamy because it denies our basic programming to fúck.

If the single purpose in life for male humans was to f**k you would not live past your 40th birthday. And remember your grandparents? Well you wouldn't have known them cause they would have been dead long before you were born (your own parents would have died, naturally, when you were about 10 at the latest).

As I have said the human species puts much more emphasis on the raising of children than most other species. Part of this is the formation of monogmis bounds. Why? Cause you don't want your partner running off and having lots and lots of kids and then not being able to help you raise the children.

Kell wrote:

someone comes up to you in the street with a knife. You shít yourself-your blood boils-your adrenalin pumps-your brain decides in tiny nanoseconds to either fight or flight.

Would anyone deny the above example of resilient animal instinct? I thought not. So those who choose to argue that the resilient urge to fúck like a bástard 24/7 is gone is full of horseshít. You have just chosen to comply with what society has decided you should.

Just cause dogs do it Kell doesn't mean all species do it. You are looking at the sexual behaviour of something like a lion and saying "ah we must also do that", which ignores about 20 million years of human evolution :rolleyes:

god vangelis and dublindude are both annoying!the truth is somewhere in between your two views!!

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

god vangelis and dublindude are both annoying!the truth is somewhere in between your two views!!

Yeah it's mine

There is a biological urge to procreate, that is stronger in males than females. That is true for nearly all mammals afaik. But this ignores the other instincts that have developed in humans to raise and protect children. The very existance of grandparents, a phenomenon found in hardly any other animal species, is testemony to how were are not simply like every other animal.

To simply say that the only thing that drives men is to f**k and that the development of monogamist relationships are completly unnatural is, simply put, nonsense.

I explained why in my post above, but I would also add that I wonder how many men would actually cheat and screw around if each sexual encounter resulted in a baby? The idea of screwing around, and getting away with it, is sustained by the use of modern birth control, a completely unnatural system to begin with. If "most" men actually were faced with the natural consequences of sex I think the story would be a bit different.

Vangelis

savoyard wrote:

So men's role in life is to shag like rabbits and my role is to push out babies:rolleyes:

We've evolved: we're social animals who have social rules. After milennia of evolution, biology and socialisation are intermixed. You can shag randomly if you want but there are other semi-biological reasons for relationships. Men don't want to support children that aren't theirs - relationships (and specifically marriage) are one way to ensure that the seed you've planted is yours and not someone elses'.

As for the whole "all men cheat" thing, it's extremely insulting to the many men who quite happily stay faithful. I'm older than Dublindude, so by his rationale I know more;) and the men (and women) I know, by and large, do not cheat. Those that do have generally made one drink-fuelled mistake and are racked with guilt. Monogamy has a lot of benefits, for men and women and the guys I know shagging around are usually pretty emotionally retarded.

It's normal to be attracted to other people but most mature adults realise that curbing animal instincts pays off in the long run.

That's an interesting different post. In what way were these men emotioanlly retarded?

Wicknight, you forget those few married couples who chose not to have children but who grow old together and are faithful. They did not intend their marriage to be a frame or protection and safety for their child(ren). I believe most people marry because they love eachother, not because they want children. But that having children within marriage is an advantage. But that comes second, it is not the main reason for two people who choose to grow old together and vow to make their best effort to make the other party happy.

U$ername

Vangelis wrote:

So I read this book by a couple of scientists. They say that men always want sex for the sake of ensuring the next generation. Or sometimes plain self-satisfaction. And they can have sex with ANYBODY just because it is a biological urge. Why do I know men who are not like this then? Idiotic "scientists" say it's true with this arguement: "Because we say so!" BLAH! *makes vomit noise*

Should girls feel that they are used or should they "bear with" them and understand that they have an insatiable sexual appetite?

I hope my irritation isn't too strong for the mods.

Perhaps you should keep a few grains of salt around when you are reading books. You are taking what was in the book as the absolute truth. There are men who want sex all the time, men who want sex some of the time, and rapists.

At a guess, I would thnk that there are women who want sex all the time and women who want sex some of the time. Im sure statistics for the incidences of men being raped are fairly small so its safe to assume men have a stronger urge to have sex than women.

I read this book and I found it very entertaining. Im sure I could pick out a few different sections where I would disagree but I do not take the written word as absolute truth. Girls can do whatever they like, they can sleep with random blokes or have long-term relationships with them, both options are available.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

That's an interesting different post. In what way were these men emotioanlly retarded?

Well, I thought you were resigning from the debate, or were you just keeping your head down until someone finally agreed with you?

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Wicknight, you forget those few married couples who chose not to have children but who grow old together and are faithful.

Well it isn;t a law

There is a natural built in fear of fire in most humans, but saying "but sure what about fire fighters" doesn't really change that.

The number of people who marry but never have children through choice rather than medical restrictions I would imagine is a rather small minority of the worlds married couples. And besides I am just talking about instincts and evolution, there is nothing stopping people from making conscious decisions in their lives that go against this.

Vangelis wrote:

I believe most people marry because they love eachother, not because they want children.

Well the idea of "love" is going a bit outside the instincts and behaviour patterns of the human animal. And a discussion of what is love is a bit outside this thread.

Vangelis wrote:

It is not the main reason for two people who choose to grow old together and vow to make their best effort to make the other party happy.

Well it is the reason you actually do grow old together.

The majority of animals don't live much past their sexual prime, their biological purpose in life is to breed and then die. But humans do, we live far beyond our sexual prime and past our ability to survive unassisted in the wild because the idea of grandparents has evolved in our species as a method to help raise, teach and protect our children and grand children. Biologically you serve very little purpose living past say 40 except to help raise the children of your children. The traditional idea of the family unit, children-parents-grandparents, has evolved in our species. Traditionally in the "wild" humans would have large families and grand parents were need to help raise the children of their children.

And before anyone says it, it isn't cause of medical advances in modern times. People were living into their 70s in Biblical times.

chump

Good job Wicknight ... very good.

Vangelis

Wicknight, why are you being so cheeky? I decided to keep a low profile, meaning that I would stop complaining about what dublindude stated. And what is wrong if I respond to someone who says something I agree with? Nothing. It you think that is a problem, leave it to me, it isn't your problem. You see, chump does the same thing. He gives you praise because you said something he agreed with. However, I didn't give praise, I just expressed my interest.

Wicknight wrote:

The number of people who marry but never have children through choice rather than medical restrictions I would imagine is a rather small minority of the worlds married couples. And besides I am just talking about instincts and evolution, there is nothing stopping people from making conscious decisions in their lives that go against this.

No.

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is the reason you actually do grow old together.

The majority of animals don't live much past their sexual prime, their biological purpose in life is to breed and then die. But humans do, we live far beyond our sexual prime and past our ability to survive unassisted in the wild because the idea of grandparents has evolved in our species as a method to help raise, teach and protect our children and grand children. Biologically you serve very little purpose living past say 40 except to help raise the children of your children. The traditional idea of the family unit, children-parents-grandparents, has evolved in our species. Traditionally in the "wild" humans would have large families and grand parents were need to help raise the children of their children.

To the bold sentence: Where did you read/hear this? That to me seems more cultural, not directly biological. Maybe the "biological purpose" you speak of is not everything that life is about, hm? As soon as you're past 40 the government or whoever else should chop your head off because you can no longer serve as a rabbit that can be screwed and produce lots of good gene-lumps(babies) for the next generation? No, obviously life is not only about being "biologically fit".

Wicknight wrote:

And before anyone says it, it isn't cause of medical advances in modern times. People were living into their 70s in Biblical times

Not only that. The Bible also tells that Abraham, Moses and the people in the earliest times became as old as 900 years too.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Wicknight, why are you being so cheeky?

Cheeky? How dare you woman!

Vangelis wrote:

However, I didn't give praise, I just expressed my interest.

And I am explaining my position ... there is a very real evolutionary reason why we live into old age and I have explained it.

I am not asking you, or anyone, to change the way you live your life, or tell then that it is correct or incorrect way to live. Its just biology.

Vangelis wrote:

That to me seems more cultural, not directly biological.

Well culture won't keep you alive longer. Isn't it more likely that our culture has developed around our natural evolutionary instincts and behaviours...

Vangelis wrote:

Maybe the "biological purpose" you speak of is not everything that life is about, hm?

Never said it was, I am just explaining to you the evolutionary reason we living well into old age, and have instincts to form partnerships to produce children. It isn't a reflection on right or wrong behaviour ...

Vangelis wrote:

As soon as you're past 40 the government or whoever else should chop your head off because you can no longer serve as a rabbit that can be screwed and produce lots of good gene-lumps(babies) for the next generation?

What?

Vangelis wrote:

No, obviously life is not only about being "biologically fit".

Look, I am talking about the biology behind the human species. You can do what ever you want in life, have babies don't have babies I really don't care. I am explaining to you the biological and evolutionary reasons behind the way the human species has evolved. No one is going to force you, like I said before it isn't a law

Vangelis wrote:

Not only that. The Bible also tells that Abraham, Moses and the people in the earliest times became as old as 900 years too.

Well that might be stretching it a bit

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

And what is wrong if I respond to someone who says something I agree with? Nothing.

But if you can only respond to those you agree with but cannot address the arguments of those you disagree with then that is very wrong, because it betrays the fact that you cannot do so.

ionapaul

To be very fair, Wicknight, I would think that the reason humans live long enough to become grandparents and help raising their children's children is down to social and cultural 'evolution', rather than biological evolution. The reason we live much longer, on average, than biologically similar humans living 300, 3000, 30000 and 300000 years ago is more to do with the development of agriculture and abandonment of the harsh hunter-gatherer lifestyle. A good comparative example can be found by comparing the expected lifespan of wild and feral cats versus their genetically identical cousins (often literally cousins or siblings), housecats. Because of their 'pampered' lifestyle, housecats will live about 15 years on average, often reaching their mid-20s. The wild and feral cats will live about 7 years on average. As mentioned, they are genetically identical, the difference is down to lifestyle.
Sorry for going OT, but it is an interesting subject!

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

But if you can only respond to those you agree with but cannot address the arguments of those you disagree with then that is very wrong, because it betrays the fact that you cannot do so.

I do not only respond to those I agree with. Preach that to someone who does. Please. And I intend to respond to Wick's post, but it's been too much for me lately here, so Wick: be patient!

lazydaisy

Wicknight wrote:

There is a biological urge to procreate, that is stronger in males than females.

The stereotype is that the men want to f*** and the women who want to have babies.

Gay men are reputed to have olympic sex drives which suggests that males are hornier even when they are not procreating. The porn industry would also suggest this and would also suggest that it is culturally encouraged. Monogamy is a western ideal promoted by its religions, which historically have been concerned with property and inheritance. It is not as prevalent in Africa or in polygamous societies and religions.

Also - and this isnt really that important but since people are talking about "cheating" it was the accepted norm in the west up to around the 60s husbands to cheat and wives to turn a blind eye. What choice did they have really but to accept it being economically dependent on their husbands.

The participation of grandparents in raising children is not universal nor is it biological. It is culturally determined.

The question is whether or not monogamy for life is a reasonable demand from human nature.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

The participation of grandparents in raising children is not universal nor is it biological. It is culturally determined.

People are confusing what I said about grandparents. I am not just saying their is a biological instinct in grandparents to help raise their grandchildren (even though there is).

What I am saying is that the very fact your grandparents are alive when you are born is a specific phenomon related to humans, and the evolutionary reason is that we live longer to become grandparents to raise our children.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

What I am saying is that the very fact your grandparents are alive when you are born is a specific phenomon related to humans, and the evolutionary reason is that we live longer to become grandparents to raise our children.

Beloved Wickinight, thou who are so fond of sources and back-up for one's arguements: What scientific research suggests this?

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

I do not only respond to those I agree with. Preach that to someone who does. Please.

Actually that’s exactly what you did - you claimed to “resign from the debate” and then seemingly had a change of heart, starting up again only when someone finally posted something you agreed with, and conveniently ignoring all those pesky points that were made against your arguments up to that point.

So please do tell us another one.

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

So please do tell us another one.

I do ignore some points because I'm too tired of this debate(not really a debate) and answer what I have the energy to answer.

But tell you another one what?