Are Men Whores?

[Melanie_]

As for no one teaching their boys to be responsible, that's hogwash. Boys are generally taught by their families to respect women. Maybe not much by their peers. It depends on the family values... which nowadays is where most of the real social ills stem from. Acceptance of hedonism is on the rise in our culture, and along with that comes consequences.

Whenever my 21 year old son leaves the house, I tell him to keep his genes in his jeans. So far, so good.

[Melanie_]

Umm the woman that has sex for money or a new ipod or "whatever" is the whore, not the one who has it for pleasure. In fact, physical and emotional pleasure is the valid reason to have sex. A society that teaches women that they gotta get an ipod in exchange for sex is a society raising a generation of prostitutes.

I think there are many valid reasons to have sex; physical and emotional pleasure may be two of them, but that doesn't cover the gamut. Physical and emotional pleasure can be found easily, without any strings attached. Sex can also be about demonstrating your commitment; it can be used as a reward; it can be about financial/personal gain; it can be about sacrifice. Who am I, and who are you, to judge why someone might choose to have sex with someone else? Sex is valid if the people involved consent, with full knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

[Melanie_]

Seriously, this is a bit of a ridiculous threads. We are sluts!!! If women were as slutty as men nothing in this world would get done. People would just be having sex everywhere at random throughout the day.

So women bear the burden of keeping the world on track? Thanks, but no thanks.

This makes me wonder about the men I work with every day. Are they all secret sluts, constantly thinking about sex in the ivory tower? As they walk around in their suits and ties, carrying their briefcases full of important papers and talking seriously about academia, are they really just a raging hormone under the surface? I've read the studies and reports that say yes, this is true, but I still find it hard to believe. On the other hand, my department consists mostly of women, and we do seem to be one of the most productive.....

[Moonlight Graham]

No kidding. If I was a women Id just masterbate and check out my tits all day. Probably wouldnt even get out of bed.

I've been thinking the same thing since i was 12 years old. Sometimes i wish i could have a nice rack just for a day. What a wonderful day in the bathroom that would be!

[Bonam]

Seriously, this is a bit of a ridiculous threads. We are sluts!!! If women were as slutty as men nothing in this world would get done. People would just be having sex everywhere at random throughout the day.

And the downside is?

[Bonam]

I think there are many valid reasons to have sex; physical and emotional pleasure may be two of them, but that doesn't cover the gamut. Physical and emotional pleasure can be found easily, without any strings attached. Sex can also be about demonstrating your commitment; it can be used as a reward; it can be about financial/personal gain; it can be about sacrifice. Who am I, and who are you, to judge why someone might choose to have sex with someone else? Sex is valid if the people involved consent, with full knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

I'm not judging, I'm just applying a word to an activity, using its correct definition. Sex in exchange for material wealth, whether currency or physical goods, is prostitution. Personally, I don't think prostitution is inherently immoral.. like you said, two consenting adults and all that. But if someone thinks prostitution is immoral, then I don't see how that same person could think that a girlfriend demanding material goods from her boyfriend in exchange for sex is not immoral, without being inescapably logically inconsistent.

Now, as for being a judge and being qualified to make moral judgment... that is inherent to every human being. Possessing a mind capable of understanding a concept such as morality is all that is needed to be able to make moral judgments. Such judgments are personal, and a person has every right to consider something moral or immoral, as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and thought processes. They do not have the right to enforce their moral judgments on others, but a person cannot help but make moral judgments in their own mind, it is impossible not to. Any decision you make about any moral issue is a moral judgment.

As for sex potentially being "about sacrifice"... care to elaborate? I don't know exactly what you mean, but if I was to judge any reason for sex as immoral, sacrifice would probably be the top of the list.

[Moonlight Graham]

And the downside is?

Well, we'd probably all die because nothing would get done. Who would grow our food? Or drive the trucks to transport it? Gov'ts around the world would collapse due to non-production, and the meek with erectile dysfunction would inherit the earth.

And of course over-population would be a problem. The kids wouldn't get fed by their horny parents, so they would die, and their rotting corpses would spread disease and further destroy the human race.

Mother nature is a smart lady (i'd probably bang her too).

[Melanie_]

I'm not judging, I'm just applying a word to an activity, using its correct definition. Sex in exchange for material wealth, whether currency or physical goods, is prostitution. Personally, I don't think prostitution is inherently immoral.. like you said, two consenting adults and all that. But if someone thinks prostitution is immoral, then I don't see how that same person could think that a girlfriend demanding material goods from her boyfriend in exchange for sex is not immoral, without being inescapably logically inconsistent.

Now, as for being a judge and being qualified to make moral judgment... that is inherent to every human being. Possessing a mind capable of understanding a concept such as morality is all that is needed to be able to make moral judgments. Such judgments are personal, and a person has every right to consider something moral or immoral, as they see fit, based on their own beliefs and thought processes. They do not have the right to enforce their moral judgments on others, but a person cannot help but make moral judgments in their own mind, it is impossible not to. Any decision you make about any moral issue is a moral judgment.

As for sex potentially being "about sacrifice"... care to elaborate? I don't know exactly what you mean, but if I was to judge any reason for sex as immoral, sacrifice would probably be the top of the list.

I agree with you, morality is determined individually; that's why I said we don't have the right to judge others' decisions. Of course, we can say that our own moral judgment wouldn't allow us to make the same decisions, but then, who knows what we will decide until we are in the situation?

In terms of sex as sacrifice, the example I was thinking of last night, but omitted to share, was a woman who uses sex to protect someone she loves (i.e., has sex in order to keep her children safe). She knows exactly what she is doing, and is willing to give up (sacrifice) her body for something more important to her.

Another example of sex as sacrifice would be a woman who has been cut (FGM). She will never get any pleasure from sex, it will always be painful for her, but she might be willing to endure the pain in order to have a baby.

[Oleg Bach]

Any human being that can be bought or sold for a price is a whore.

[ToadBrother]

Any human being that can be bought or sold for a price is a whore.

My boss buys my services as a IT admin for 40 hours a week. Does that make me a whore?

[bloodyminded]

My boss buys my services as a IT admin for 40 hours a week. Does that make me a whore?

Under the rather...promiscuous definitions being used here, yes.

And so is everybody who gets money for work or services from others in any capacity.

Which makes such an argument pretty meaningless, ultimately.

Edited November 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

Trust Kimmy to get me involved in a crazy Argus thread.

I do think you're underestimating the sex drive of women, Argus.

Years ago, I recall a conversation in which a woman said: "But let's be honest. People spend 80% of their time thinking about sex."

On reflection, the woman at the time was in her early 20s.

There are countless examples of physically unattractive men who've ended up with beautiful women. As long as he's got money, he's attractive to somebody.

This comment alone explains the fallacy of the OP of Argus.

Argus, why did all those women sleep with Tiger Woods? Or better, why did Tiger Woods become a golf player?

IOW, maybe something else drives the impulse to have sex.

From a "natural selection" point of view, male promiscuity makes a certain amount of sense. The more seed he can spread, the better his chances of staying in the gene pool.

Female promiscuity, on the other hand, doesn't. The rate at which she can pass along her genes is capped, regardless of how much sex she has or how many partners she has.

On this last point Kimmy, you're wrong. And in a way that deserves attention.

Simple probability theory dictates that both females and males have an equal chance to influence any future progeny. We are all the 50/50 chance genetic product of a female, and a male.

Well, not quite.

Females approach the fundamental reproductive game differently from males. In fact, this difference is the defintion of male. Whatever the species, males invest little and females invest alot. Males can choose freely, females discriminate.

Males are customers and females are hair salons.

-----

Genetics? Let me ignore genetics and think of real life. Some of us have more of a Mom than a Dad. (eg. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Pierre Trudeau.)

Then again, let me return to politics...

Edited November 14, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Simple probability theory dictates that both females and males have an equal chance to influence any future progeny. We are all the 50/50 chance genetic product of a female, and a male.

I think by "capped," Kimmy was referring to the fact that a pregnant woman is out of the "passing-on-genes" game for close to a year, where a man isn't; and she also has a mid-age, permanent cap.

[kimmy]

I think by "capped," Kimmy was referring to the fact that a pregnant woman is out of the "passing-on-genes" game for close to a year, where a man isn't; and she also has a mid-age, permanent cap.

Exactly so, bloody.

A promiscuous human male could have potentially as many offspring as his stamina will allow.

A promiscuous human female can have roughly a child per year for the duration of her childbearing years, which caps the number at ... about 30 at most I would think. A strictly monogomous human female could have 30 offspring as well.

So from a sheer odds-of-staying-in-the-gene-pool perspective, promiscuity would be a viable strategy for a human male, but confers no advantage to a human female.

Given the cap on the number of offspring, what other strategies available for a human female to improve her chances of remaining in the gene pool?

She can improve the survival odds (and future procreation prospects) of her offspring.

She can do this 2 ways:

-select a mate that has superior characteristics (healthy, strong, smart, attractive...) that her offspring will gain through heredity. This makes her offspring more likely to survive and to find mates and raise future generations to carry her lineage into the future.

-she can select a mate who is a superior provider and protector (loyal, handy with a spear...) who will protect her offspring and improve their chances of reaching adulthood.

Both of these basically boil down to getting the best mate and keeping him.

If there were a genetic factor in promiscuity (a big if, of course) then I think the genetics would be in favor of male promiscuity but in favor of a female preference for a single mate.

-k

[Bonam]

I think by "capped," Kimmy was referring to the fact that a pregnant woman is out of the "passing-on-genes" game for close to a year, where a man isn't; and she also has a mid-age, permanent cap.

Indeed... a man can (if society allows him to) have hundreds of concubines and thousands of children, as some powerful men throughout history have indeed done. Biologically, a man is probably capable of impregnating several women per day, every day, for much of his lifespan, potentially fathering tens of thousands of children, though usually men of enough power to attract that many women have had other duties to attend to and couldn't spend 100% of their time reproducing. On the other hand, a woman probably couldn't have more than 30 or so children even in the most extreme cases. Of course, modern technology potentially removes any such caps for both men and women, but humanity has not yet had time (and likely never will) to adapt evolutionarily to the realities of modern society and constantly changing technology.

[bloodyminded]

Indeed... a man can (if society allows him to) have hundreds of concubines and thousands of children, as some powerful men throughout history have indeed done. Biologically, a man is probably capable of impregnating several women per day, every day, for much of his lifespan, potentially fathering tens of thousands of children, though usually men of enough power to attract that many women have had other duties to attend to and couldn't spend 100% of their time reproducing. On the other hand, a woman probably couldn't have more than 30 or so children even in the most extreme cases. Of course, modern technology potentially removes any such caps for both men and women, but humanity has not yet had time (and likely never will) to adapt evolutionarily to the realities of modern society and constantly changing technology.

Yes, I agree. Women can have children later in life, and it appears that this rate is increasing faster than is the expansion of life-age itself. But as you say, this cannot have any serious evolutionary effect for a long time; further, it doesn't change what Kimmy has said at all, in the larger scheme.

[Bonam]

Yes, I agree. Women can have children later in life, and it appears that this rate is increasing faster than is the expansion of life-age itself. But as you say, this cannot have any serious evolutionary effect for a long time; further, it doesn't change what Kimmy has said at all, in the larger scheme.

Right, I agree. What I was referring to with removing the caps though wasn't just the ability of women to have children later in life. Rather, a woman could potentially have as many children as she wanted by having her eggs fertilized and grown in another woman's uterus, and furthermore eggs can be cloned. Anyway, that's neither here nor there to this topic.

Evolutionarily, men can gain a huge reproductive age through promiscuity, whereas women cannot, and this leads to the corresponding social dynamic.

[dre]

Right, I agree. What I was referring to with removing the caps though wasn't just the ability of women to have children later in life. Rather, a woman could potentially have as many children as she wanted by having her eggs fertilized and grown in another woman's uterus, and furthermore eggs can be cloned. Anyway, that's neither here nor there to this topic.

Evolutionarily, men can gain a huge reproductive age through promiscuity, whereas women cannot, and this leads to the corresponding social dynamic.

I think thats definately true... but theres something else in play, which is just the flat out dominance over females that males have enjoyed due to physical differences. Women historically have often been beaten or killed for infedelity, and lived under control of, and in fear of their husbands, and spent much of their time in the home. Men on the other hand have had free reign to do whatever they feel like.

I think theres a change in women sexuality not driven by biology but by socio-cultural changes in the roll of women in todays society and their level of empowerment.

[August1991]

Exactly so, bloody.

A promiscuous human male could have potentially as many offspring as his stamina will allow.

"Potentially" is the key word there.

Kimmy, you and the others posting seem to miss the nuance. Perhaps I read you wrong but you (and they) seem to be under the belief that men somehow dominate in the sex game because they can easily impregnate many women. (I'm reminded of arguments that China will eventually be dominated by men because Chinese parents abort daughters.)

Evolutionarily, men can gain a huge reproductive age through promiscuity, whereas women cannot, and this leads to the corresponding social dynamic.

Maybe one man can - but men in general cannot.

Perhaps that is the source of (my) confusion with posters above.

In fact, any male will contribute on average the same as any female to the genetic code of their children - and their progeny far off in the future.

To wit, this made me laugh:

She can do this 2 ways:

-select a mate that has superior characteristics (healthy, strong, smart, attractive...) that her offspring will gain through heredity. This makes her offspring more likely to survive and to find mates and raise future generations to carry her lineage into the future.

-she can select a mate who is a superior provider and protector (loyal, handy with a spear...) who will protect her offspring and improve their chances of reaching adulthood.

Both of these basically boil down to getting the best mate and keeping him.

Kimmy, would the same logic not equally apply to a male who wanted to ensure his genes survived to future generations?

What is the use of a promiscuous male if most of the genes are wasted?

(If it took 10 males to impregnate 1 female, then your argument might make sense. Bee and ant colonies function grossly along such lines - but they are an extremely small minority among species. We humans are typical of most species: one female, one male and the genetic code is shared on average.)

So, here's my subtler point: It takes two to tango - the difference lies in how the two dancers approach the dance.

I think thats definately true... but theres something else in play, which is just the flat out dominance over females that males have enjoyed due to physical differences.

dre, life would not exist on this planet for over 1 billion years if one sex had dominance over another. In fact, the mere existence of two sexes was an early development in life.

In the game of the sexes, the two sides are different but with a common purpose. No side is dominant. The game is far more complicated than that.

Edited November 16, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

"Potentially" is the key word there.

Kimmy, you and the others posting seem to miss the nuance. Perhaps I read you wrong but you (and they) seem to be under the belief that men somehow dominate in the sex game because they can easily impregnate many women. (I'm reminded of arguments that China will eventually be dominated by men because Chinese parents abort daughters.)

Maybe one man can - but men in general cannot.

Perhaps that is the source of (my) confusion with posters above.

In fact, any male will contribute on average the same as any female to the genetic code of their children - and their progeny far off in the future.

Yes, on average. What you are missing is that, evolutionarily, individuals compete with other members of their species for biological continuation. If one male is more successful at impregnating multiple females than another male, than the next generation will have more descendants of that promiscuous male than the less promiscuous one. Hence the evolutionary pressure: natural selection for males that impregnate the most females. This evolutionary pressure has existed for tens of millions of years in all the various mammalian species that preceded humanity, and by the time humans came along, the male drive to mate with as many females as possible was deeply ingrained in our genetic code.

Methinks you need to revisit the basics of how natural selection works.

[August1991]

What you are missing is that, evolutionarily, individuals compete with other members of their species for biological continuation. If one male is more successful at impregnating multiple females than another male, than the next generation will have more descendants of that promiscuous male than the less promiscuous one.

"... individuals compete with other members of their species... "

If I read you right, you are saying that males compete among each other. And who determines success in this competition? (Hint: Not other males.)

And, uh, females don't compete too?

Methinks you need to revisit the basics of how natural selection works.

Methinks you should rethink this too. Unless I have read you wrong. Edited November 16, 2010 by August1991

[The_Squid]

Are we talking iPod Shuffle or an iPod Touch?

haha... funny stuff...

Funny much like Stephen Fry is funny. I think probably he was making a point, but also making a joke...

If one thinks that women don't like sex as much as men, then they haven't met my girlfriend!! (lucky me, btw....)

Edited November 17, 2010 by The_Squid

[guyser]

If one thinks that women don't like sex as much as men, then they haven't met my girlfriend!! (lucky me, btw....)

And I concur about your girlfriend................no wait.

I know nothing. Never met her. I swear

[The_Squid]

And I concur about your girlfriend................no wait.

I know nothing. Never met her. I swear

hahaha....

[ToadBrother]

"... individuals compete with other members of their species... "

If I read you right, you are saying that males compete among each other. And who determines success in this competition? (Hint: Not other males.)

And, uh, females don't compete too?

Methinks you should rethink this too. Unless I have read you wrong.

Sexual selection is a fairly complex area of evolutionary biology. It's pretty much impossible to summarize it in a few paragraphs, but the end game can lead to some pretty strange things, like peacock feathers or the extreme sexual dimorphism found in many animal species.