Women Do Not Enjoy Sex

Rabble Rabble · 01-11-2010 03:37PM

iguana wrote: »

You mustn't read much on the subject so. You've never gotten as far as polyanderous anthropology or heteropaternal-superfecundation which is pretty basic stuff, imo. It sounds like you've been reading pseudo-science based on subjective empirical evidence used to back up monotheistic beliefs.

I've been reading empirically based evolutionary science. Where is the "monothesitic belief" system which is asking why women are not as sexual as gay men, and suggesting that is a bad thing, which I am?

"polyanderous anthropology" apparently links to this thread on google:-) heteropaternal-superfecundation is about how you might get fraternal twins from different fathers and very rare in humans: which is, I posit, interesting but unrelated to the subject. Big words though.

However, I mean hard science like evolutionary theories, not weak social sciences like sociology, anthropology, or intelligent design.

Wikipedia sez:

"Much of the research on human mating is based on parental investment theory,[36] which makes important predictions about the different strategies men and women will use in the mating domain (see above under "Middle-level evolutionary theories"). In essence, it predicts that women will be more selective when choosing mates, whereas men will not, especially under short-term mating conditions. This has led some researchers to predict sex differences in such domains as sexual jealousy,[37][38] (however, see also,)[39] wherein females will react more aversively to emotional infidelity and males will react more aversively to sexual infidelity. This particular pattern is predicted because the costs involved in mating for each sex are distinct. Women, on average, should prefer a mate who can offer some kind of resources (e.g., financial, commitment), which means that a woman would also be more at risk for losing those valued traits in a mate who commits an emotional infidelity. Men, on the other hand, are limited by the fact that they can never be certain of the paternity of their children because they do not bear the offspring themselves. This obstacle entails that sexual infidelity would be more aversive than emotional infidelity for a man because investing resources in another man's offspring does not lead to propagation of the man's own genes."

iguana · 01-11-2010 03:38PM

Richard Dower wrote: »

Look at you!...with the big words!

Well if I was to use smaller words I'd have to use a hell of a lot more of them. I'm just being economical with my letters.

kelle · 01-11-2010 03:39PM

How does he know?

Did he turn into a woman for a day?

Misanthrope · 01-11-2010 03:40PM

I see where he's coming from but with all due respect to him, Fry is gay, and just as I will never fully comprehend the motivating factors behind his sexuality,I don't expect him to understand mine as a straight guy.

What about steamy one night stands?I've screwed a couple of chick whose name I didn't know before or after, and I'm no Cassanova.I don't recall those horny temptresses asking for anything other than a ride.

But Fry is right when it comes to some if not a lot of women.How many stunning women are married to nasty little trolls with huge bank accounts?

We've all seen it.Dweebish,boring,ugly little man with Victorias secret model on his arm,and he thinks he's the envy of us all.But really everyone is looking at them thinking 'pathetic rich dweeb and stunning prostitute.

Instead of going by things like physical and psychological compatibility, a lot of women now pick a man by,bank account size,make of car or fame.Ask Danny DeVito.He looks almighty with a 6 ft blonde hanging 'off him?'??no other way around.He looks like he's windsurfing off them.

iguana · 01-11-2010 03:42PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

However, I mean hard science like evolutionary theories, not weak social sciences like sociology, anthropology, or intelligent design.

Oh my! You don't think anthropology plays a large part in evolutionary theory and liken it to intelligent design?

I seriously overestimated your scientific knowledge.:eek:

kiad · 01-11-2010 03:45PM

EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT. SATIRIST COMEDIAN ACCUSED OF MAKING SATIRICAL REMARKS. PAGES 2 - 57.....

Rabble Rabble · 01-11-2010 03:46PM

iguana wrote: »

Oh my! You don't think anthropology plays a large part in evolutionary theory and liken it to intelligent design?

I seriously overestimated your scientific knowledge.:eek:

I cannot underestimate yours any less. Neither anthropology, nor any of the social sciences are really scientific. Basically like intelligent design, you look for cracks in the edifice of the only theory which explains human nature - that would be evolution - and then apparently "prove" you theories with ad hominen attacks. Or big words which, have, nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I posted the wiki explanation of evolutionary theories on the differences between men and women. That is merely wikipedia, but it is a good summation of what the evolutionary psychologists believe.

Rabble Rabble · 01-11-2010 03:49PM

Misanthrope wrote: »

I see where he's coming from but with all due respect to him, Fry is gay, and just as I will never fully comprehend the motivating factors behind his sexuality,I don't expect him to understand mine as a straight guy.

What about steamy one night stands?I've screwed a couple of chick whose name I didn't know before or after, and I'm no Cassanova.I don't recall those horny temptresses asking for anything other than a ride.

But Fry is right when it comes to some if not a lot of women.How many stunning women are married to nasty little trolls with huge bank accounts?

We've all seen it.Dweebish,boring,ugly little man with Victorias secret model on his arm,and he thinks he's the envy of us all.But really everyone is looking at them thinking 'pathetic rich dweeb and stunning prostitute.

Instead of going by things like physical and psychological compatibility, a lot of women now pick a man by,bank account size,make of car or fame.Ask Danny DeVito.He looks almighty with a 6 ft blonde hanging 'off him?'??no other way around.He looks like he's windsurfing off them.

That really wasnt what Fry was talking about. However you can feel what you want about Danny Devito, he isnt worried and he has the 6 foot blonde on his arm to prove it :-)

Ush1 · 01-11-2010 04:00PM

iguana wrote: »

Bring all of the science that you like but not amateur cod-science like that in the post you quoted.

Sorry, how is it amateur cod science exactly?

Misanthrope · 01-11-2010 04:01PM

kiad wrote: »

EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT. SATIRIST COMEDIAN ACCUSED OF MAKING SATIRICAL REMARKS. PAGES 2 - 57.....

Where is the satire in what he said ,or at least in what was quoted in this thread?Sounded like a pretty straightforward observation clouded slightly by it's author's lack of essential knowledge of his subject matter,yet not without merit, for it's general social observations are sound.I would argue the absolutism of his proclamation but can't deny there is truth in it.

If he was being satirical who is the satire based on?Psychologists and sociologists?I should probably read the entire piece before I comment any further,both being actions I have no intention of undertaking as I am extremely high right now.

Misanthrope · 01-11-2010 04:09PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

That really wasnt what Fry was talking about. However you can feel what you want about Danny Devito, he isnt worried and he has the 6 foot blonde on his arm to prove it :-)

You don't think guys like that aren't aware of how ridiculous they look?They probably worry all day that she is riding some Adonis poolboy behind his back or maybe just some equally incompatible guy with more money.
If I was them I would probably do it the same on the basis that it's better to be small, fat ,rich and getting laid by stunners than small, fat and rich.

kiad · 01-11-2010 04:10PM

Misanthrope wrote: »

Where is the satire in what he said ,or at least in what was quoted in this thread?Sounded like a pretty straightforward observation clouded slightly by it's author's lack of essential knowledge of his subject matter,yet not without merit, for it's general social observations are sound.I would argue the absolutism of his proclamation but can't deny there is truth in it.

If he was being satirical who is the satire based on?Psychologists and sociologists?I should probably read the entire piece before I comment any further,both being actions I have no intention of undertaking as I am extremely high right now.

Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

You're welcome.

getz · 01-11-2010 04:13PM

my girlfriend likes sex with me, because she does not charge me as much as she does other men

Princess Peach · 01-11-2010 04:14PM

I enjoy it.

optogirl · 01-11-2010 04:18PM

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

That really wasnt what Fry was talking about. However you can feel what you want about Danny Devito, he isnt worried and he has the 6 foot blonde on his arm to prove it :-)

Danny DeVito has been married to Rhea Pearlman for years - she ain't no 6 foot blonde??

iguana · 01-11-2010 04:18PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Sorry, how is it amateur cod science exactly?

Because, as I said, it's a theory that's based on subjective evidence. It's based on surface assumptions rather than what actually happens in societies, human or animal. It falls apart when the right questions are asked or when we look at mammalian (and other species) behaviours that exist without millennia of imposed religious morality. Within polygynous primate packs the women "cheat" on the alpha male with younger males in the group, despite the fact that they risk expulsion and death due to this. Even swans which we hold up as as example of animal monogamy are only socially monogamous, as in they have a life-partner but sexually both males and females "swing" extensively.

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that females enjoy sex less than males in the majority of species, including humans. And there is plenty of empirical evidence to show that females enjoy it every bit as much as men and even some that shows we enjoy it more.

Ush1 · 01-11-2010 04:26PM

iguana wrote: »

Because, as I said, it's a theory that's based on subjective evidence. It's based on surface assumptions rather than what actually happens in societies, human or animal. It falls apart when the right questions are asked or when we look at mammalian (and other species) behaviours that exist without millennia of imposed religious morality. Within polygynous primate packs the women "cheat" on the alpha male with younger males in the group, despite the fact that they risk expulsion and death due to this. Even swans which we hold up as as example of animal monogamy are only socially monogamous, as in they have a life-partner but sexually both males and females "swing" extensively.

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that females enjoy sex less than males in the majority of species, including humans. And there is plenty of empirical evidence to show that females enjoy it every bit as much as men and even some that shows we enjoy it more.

Okay, I'd ask you to re-read what I actually said, it's nothing to do with enjoyment or erm, religion?

Dr. Zeus · 01-11-2010 04:26PM

Lots of massive generalisations in this thread. Also a lot of "male experts" on women's sexuality.

Sex (enjoyment, drive) is a personal thing and does not subscribe to the generalisation been thrown out here for either gender.

I like Stephen Fry but he is given far too much air time

iguana · 01-11-2010 04:35PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Okay, I'd ask you to re-read what I actually said, it's nothing to do with enjoyment or erm, religion?

I did read it multiple times, it's always a shock to see people repeating such silliness as if it was some sort of fact, I had to recheck that it wasn't tongue in cheek.

Ush1 · 01-11-2010 04:36PM

iguana wrote: »

I did read it multiple times, it's always a shock to see people repeating such silliness as if it was some sort of fact, I had to recheck that it wasn't tongue in cheek.

So you do realise nothing in your post showed a single shred of evidence against what I said?

01-11-2010 04:43PM

iguana wrote: »

You mustn't read much on the subject so. You've never gotten as far as polyanderous anthropology or heteropaternal-superfecundation which is pretty basic stuff, imo. It sounds like you've been reading pseudo-science based on subjective empirical evidence used to back up monotheistic beliefs.

My cats breath smells like cat food....

Ush1 · 01-11-2010 04:49PM

I'd suggest checking this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection_in_human_evolution

In almost all facets of the animal world it's the female that is the selector and the males that compete.

force majeure · 01-11-2010 04:51PM

Don't go about asking mo about Step Fry because I no nothing about Monsignor Fry and for the fact off the matter on hand even less about what women think off sex. Coming to think now.... I dont know much about that either. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: