11 Dec 2008, 10:49 am
Unless these guys were referring to prison rape or being savaged by a Grizzly bear during mating season ...
Only when their friends would never hear them admit it!
PS The Poll is missing an option "Whenever it is available with someone who is attracted to you".
<EDIT> I guess that counts as "Whenever it is available"
11 Dec 2008, 11:43 am
yeah but that'll never be made a rule
11 Dec 2008, 11:59 am
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
11 Dec 2008, 3:42 pm
11 Dec 2008, 4:41 pm
11 Dec 2008, 5:12 pm
11 Dec 2008, 11:01 pm
12 Dec 2008, 7:50 am
OK, after reading lots of studies and statistics on the internet over the last couple of days I agree that, even if 33%-46% of women, ( depending on which study you refer to ), are supposedly "suffering" from "low libido"/female sexual dysfunction/little or no interest in sex most of the time, ( something which many point out is just evidence of a fundamentally lower sex drive in women rather than a dysfunction, as it affects so many women that it can hardly be called an abnormality), there is no data to support my hypothesis that it is the "coital imperative"/the almost automatic inclusion of p-v penetration in sexual activity, ( with its risk of pregnancy or abortion ), which is responsible for the increasing numbers of people living alone.
If it is not simply that AS numbers ( as percentage of the population ) have increased, it is obvious that many more AS men had a chance of living with someone for a significant period of their lives 100 years ago than now. In 1900 in the USA 80% of households were headed by married couples. In 2000 only 53% were headed by married couples, and 7% by unmarried couples. 27% of households in 2000 were people living alone, and although 20% of these people are apparently in steady relationships, that still leaves a vast number ( 21% of households ) living alone with no steady partner.
It does seem as if something about the current organisation of sexual activity is acting to the disadvantage of AS men, but I accept that it may not be the coital imperative. Something about the changing roles of women, and children, is definitely a factor though. Women used to be prepared to "accept" men with the barest attractions, ( socially speaking ), in order to have a family and be head of a household/leave their own family. Whereas now women can leave home, and have money and a house, without needing a man to do it.
It makes me wonder who/what kind of people were responsible for the previous system. 
NB. An important correction: During my reading I discovered that data which I have been quoting for the last couple of years, ( from studies which got a lot of headlines a few years back ), has since been refuted/exposed as unreliable; which is that abortion causes depression etc etc etc.
Apparently abortion is more likely to be a sign/expression of already existing psychological difficulties/mental health problems, ( when it is not done because of rape/incest or danger to the mother's health ). Women with fewer psychological difficulties who experience unintended pregnancies tend to choose not to have an abortion.
PS. DentArthurDent; The University of Liverpool research is available directly on their site, as a news release, and with a ref to its publication in the Journal of Biosciences. I don't understand what you find so unacceptable about this.
All the statistics were taken from reputable/frequently cited/reasonably reliable sources, ( I just couldn't be bothered to cite all sources; it's a lot of typing ), except for the statistics relating to depression after abortion, which I simply remembered reading about, and didn't bother to check until yesterday. Mea culpa.
.
Last edited by ouinon on 12 Dec 2008, 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
12 Dec 2008, 9:03 am
Most men still do accept women for their 'bare' attractions
It makes me wonder who/what kind of people were responsible for the previous system.
Men? And obviously many would say the cause of the change you describe, then, is feminism. I think it's had some effect. But isn't the biggest factor.
The biggest problem is the extravagant, opulent lifestyles we lead in the west, funded with unearned wealth. We're become a bunch of spoiled brats, who have lost touch with real life, basically. Unearned because nobody earns the vast salaries some of us get. These are mostly ordinary, unexceptional people lucky enough to exploit the situation created outside of their control.
The west has been exploiting the rest of the world for centuries...and the loot has created rewards totally disproportionate to the real value of the work being done.
It's casued expectation to sky rocket. Women expect so much more from men in the west, because there is so much more. A short time spent with a group of the average females, or a quick scan of what the average females are looking for on dating sites show's they mostly want one thing: MORE!! !! ! No sense of humility, the word has almost ceased to exist. No sense of 'enough'. If you mention 'quality' , they'll instantly assume you're referring to top designer labels, not "Zen And the Art....".
Both sexes are finding it more than difficult to find a reliable, dependable, sound partner. It's both a supply and demand problem. We demand too much fantastical nonsense (knights in shining armour, barbie doll princesses) yet the supply is bound to be flawed due to the consumerised insanity we live in.
The sense of 'entitlement without effort' is so strong, nobody even notices it anymore. This has been building for hundreds of years and I'm now wondering if the current economic problems may be the time that the slack finally gets 'realed' in.
And then I expect that women will again become more like what you describe above, ouinon.
12 Dec 2008, 10:28 am
Most men still do accept women for their 'bare' attractions
It makes me wonder who/what kind of people were responsible for the previous system.
Men? And obviously many would say the cause of the change you describe, then, is feminism. I think it's had some effect. But isn't the biggest factor.
The biggest problem is the extravagant, opulent lifestyles we lead in the west, funded with unearned wealth. We're become a bunch of spoiled brats, who have lost touch with real life, basically. Unearned because nobody earns the vast salaries some of us get. These are mostly ordinary, unexceptional people lucky enough to exploit the situation created outside of their control.
The west has been exploiting the rest of the world for centuries...and the loot has created rewards totally disproportionate to the real value of the work being done.
It's casued expectation to sky rocket. Women expect so much more from men in the west, because there is so much more. A short time spent with a group of the average females, or a quick scan of what the average females are looking for on dating sites show's they mostly want one thing: MORE!! !! ! No sense of humility, the word has almost ceased to exist. No sense of 'enough'. If you mention 'quality' , they'll instantly assume you're referring to top designer labels, not "Zen And the Art....".
Both sexes are finding it more than difficult to find a reliable, dependable, sound partner. It's both a supply and demand problem. We demand too much fantastical nonsense (knights in shining armour, barbie doll princesses) yet the supply is bound to be flawed due to the consumerised insanity we live in.
The sense of 'entitlement without effort' is so strong, nobody even notices it anymore. This has been building for hundreds of years and I'm now wondering if the current economic problems may be the time that the slack finally gets 'realed' in.
And then I expect that women will again become more like what you describe above, ouinon.
To be fair, other parts of the world have similar wealth divides. Its not solely an affair of western nations. Extravagance and opulence occur as far east as it is possible to go before you hit the west again too.
12 Dec 2008, 1:03 pm
I was wondering whether in fact this phenomenon, ( AS males left on the shelf ), might at least partly explain why the previous system existed.
There may have been a "good" reason , ( that is one that seemed rational to some people, and not just like an exercise in domination for its own sake ), why rules/structures were set in place which "confined" women to childbearing and household/homestead duties ( which used to be much more important than they are now ) and marriage/dependence on a man, ( father then husband ). Perhaps it was partly because of this sort of phenomenon, lots of males left on the scrap heap each generation, creating "trouble" because "lone" males.
Whereas with chimps the less successful males just slink off and live alone or in gangs outside the group, with humans, once civilisation started, this may have become a problem, which certain people tried to find a solution to. They decided to "share the women out" equally/"fairly", with various laws, which considerably restricted the freedom of both men and women, but meant that most men, ( even the least "prepossessing", so long as had work of some kind ), "got" a woman, and some men even got a few extra.
The funny thing is that much of the impetus to dismantle the system may have come from AS/on or near the spectrum women, not happy with traditionally "female" pursuits and the constant company of children and other mothers, and wanting in on masculine activities. Certainly the middle-class feminist movement has had a lot of fairly AS-type proponents/theorists/activists. Fed up of being parcelled out so that men wouldn't go on the rampage out of sexual frustration.
Wealth differences do exist everywhere, and although consumerism may be exacerbating the issue, I think it is just that wealth has become a symbol for/representative of "good genes" or good mating/parenting prospects, and is just the language for that now rather than muscles or weapons or number of animal tusks in a necklace, ( or feathers in a tail ).
.
Last edited by ouinon on 12 Dec 2008, 1:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
12 Dec 2008, 1:18 pm
Maybe humans have become sufficiently civilised now for "lone males" not to be a problem anymore.
.
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
12 Dec 2008, 3:05 pm
12 Dec 2008, 5:54 pm
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
12 Dec 2008, 9:17 pm
13 Dec 2008, 3:14 am
