Are Men Whores?

[BC_chick]

I think I'm going to have to agree with Argus on this thread. Even though I think Kimmy's biological argument has played a crucial role in the past for women's discerning nature, as Argus said, there is more to it when the status quo remains in spite of birth control and abortion.

I would agree that the sexual experience plays a crucial role in the post-birth-control society. For the average woman it takes twenty minutes to orgasm whereas for the average man it takes seven. That means if a woman chooses a selfish partner, she will be left unsatisfied (and used). Contrary to what many men believe, being a good lover is not about satisfying your partner as she is mostly in charge of that. It's about having the desire to allow her to be pleased.

Also, if a man is physically healthy, he will almost always orgasm. The same cannot be said of women, some of whom will never experience an orgams in their lives. Sad, but statistically true.

So yes, I agree that the experience associated with sex is the determining factor in today's society.

As for the 'whore' comment, that's a whole other argument which has nothing to do with promiscuity. Take for example the gay community where bathhouses and peep holes are available for anonymous sex. There are still plenty of prostitutes.

Which brings us back to one comment of Kimmy's with which I agree. Money gets you sex and that goes for both genders.

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Kinky. You did what with the peacock feathers?

[Oleg Bach]

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

DEPENDS on what sort of business your boss is running. If it is some sort of evil and socially destructive enterprise under the guise of business...and YOU partake in assisting this person in his or her endevours...and YOU are a person that will do anything to survive including harming people...directly or indirectly then YES you are most certainly prostituting your self..you could be a whore.

[Argus]

I would agree that the sexual experience plays a crucial role in the post-birth-control society. For the average woman it takes twenty minutes to orgasm whereas for the average man it takes seven. That means if a woman chooses a selfish partner, she will be left unsatisfied (and used). Contrary to what many men believe, being a good lover is not about satisfying your partner as she is mostly in charge of that.

I'm not sure what you mean about her being in charge of satisfying her partner - or did you mean in charge of satisfying herself? :-)

In point of fact, when it comes to sex as a skill, women have it pretty easy. They dont' actually have to 'do' anything much to please a man. Men, in a word, are easy. Lie there. Hell, go to sleep. Men can still enjoy themselves! Pleasing a woman, however, takes skill, and a degree of empathy. What made the previous woman cry out to the heavens might make this one shrink back in revulsion. That last girl liked you to talk dirty? This one slaps you for it! They're all different! Men, however, are a one page book. What works on one works on all of them. And we're pretty easy to please. Do anything you like! We'll still ike it!

Also, if a man is physically healthy, he will almost always orgasm. The same cannot be said of women, some of whom will never experience an orgams in their lives. Sad, but statistically true.

And I think from what I've read that is mostly psychological issues, guilt, hangups, etc.

Which brings us back to one comment of Kimmy's with which I agree. Money gets you sex and that goes for both genders.

Not necessarily. There are masses of unwed young women in this country, some of them barely scraping out a living in minimum wage jobs, some living in subisidized housing, some with children from a guy who dumped them, most lonely and wishing they had a man. There are also masses of middle aged men whose wives have died or left them and who are lonely, but who are financially secure. Some of them go overseas looking for wives because young women in Canada want nothing to do with a guy who isn't young, hot and studly. Overseas, there are different priorities. Women there want a man who can provide for them and their children, keep them warm and safe. That trumps 'hot'. Unsurprisingly, there are few single women in these countries.

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure what you mean about her being in charge of satisfying her partner - or did you mean in charge of satisfying herself? :-)

In point of fact, when it comes to sex as a skill, women have it pretty easy. They dont' actually have to 'do' anything much to please a man. Men, in a word, are easy. Lie there. Hell, go to sleep. Men can still enjoy themselves! Pleasing a woman, however, takes skill, and a degree of empathy. What made the previous woman cry out to the heavens might make this one shrink back in revulsion. That last girl liked you to talk dirty? This one slaps you for it! They're all different! Men, however, are a one page book. What works on one works on all of them. And we're pretty easy to please. Do anything you like! We'll still ike it!

Men may get off in the same way from a purely mechanical standpoint, but to suggest there's not a broad spectrum of pleasure is mighty reductivist.

Overseas, there are different priorities. Women there want a man who can provide for them and their children, keep them warm and safe. That trumps 'hot'. Unsurprisingly, there are few single women in these countries.

There's also vastly different cultural standards at play the shape the perception of single woemn and their value. There's lots of women who might not neccesarly want "a man who can provide for them etc" but that's pretty much their only option.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Men may get off in the same way from a purely mechanical standpoint, but to suggest there's not a broad spectrum of pleasure is mighty reductivist.

Of course there are particular fetishes and preferences, but to put it bluntly, even a man whose fantasies involve bondage and goats isn't going to be unhappy at oral sex.

There's also vastly different cultural standards at play the shape the perception of single woemn and their value. There's lots of women who might not neccesarly want "a man who can provide for them etc" but that's pretty much their only option.

I'd think that if you were on welfare and struggling to make ends meet a man who can provide for you might be of considerable worth, and certainly better than spending years alone dreaming of that handsome, studly guy who is both sensitive and edgy. I think too many women in Canada were raised on soap operas and romantic magazines and books to think that the "ideal", ie, perfect man is basically the norm, and they should settle for nothing less.

Men rarely look for perfection in their women. We, as in sex, tend to have lower standards. There was a little item the other day about a poll whereby something like 2/3rds of women were searching for and dreaming about a "soul mate". Few men ever seem to put any thought into such perfection, though. We want someone we're physically attracted to and who we can get along with.

[bloodyminded]

Of course there are particular fetishes and preferences, but to put it bluntly, even a man whose fantasies involve bondage and goats isn't going to be unhappy at oral sex.

I'd think that if you were on welfare and struggling to make ends meet a man who can provide for you might be of considerable worth, and certainly better than spending years alone dreaming of that handsome, studly guy who is both sensitive and edgy. I think too many women in Canada were raised on soap operas and romantic magazines and books to think that the "ideal", ie, perfect man is basically the norm, and they should settle for nothing less.

Men rarely look for perfection in their women. We, as in sex, tend to have lower standards. There was a little item the other day about a poll whereby something like 2/3rds of women were searching for and dreaming about a "soul mate". Few men ever seem to put any thought into such perfection, though. We want someone we're physically attracted to and who we can get along with.

Although I think there's something to much of what you say here--particularly the "soul mate" or "Mr. Perfect" ideal which is literally unobtainable and self-defeating--I don't see evidence that men are less concerned than women with a relatively narrow spectrum of physical attributes. If anything, I think this is more of a tendency with men than with women.

[Argus]

Although I think there's something to much of what you say here--particularly the "soul mate" or "Mr. Perfect" ideal which is literally unobtainable and self-defeating--I don't see evidence that men are less concerned than women with a relatively narrow spectrum of physical attributes. If anything, I think this is more of a tendency with men than with women.

Admitedly all I have is anecdotal evidence, but in my experience, men, while having a preference, are open to almost any reasonably attractive woman - and most women, barring overeating - are reasonably attractive to men. Especially young women. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard young women comment negatively on guys that I thought were reasonably good looking. He's too hairy, or his teeth aren't nice, or he doesn't have broad shoulders, or whatever.

I mean, yes, there's a societal ideal for women here, being the perfect shape, including a nice rack, and probably blonde. But I haven't noticed flat chested brunette's having trouble getting men. Have you?

[August1991]

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.

TB, I thank you for stating perhaps more clearly what I meant to say.

I don't want to belabour a point since I largely agree with Kimmy except that I think she misses an important nuance. According to Kimmy, guys should screw as many chicks as they can since sperm is cheap; women, on the other hand, can have at most (!) 20 or so children so they won't screw around so much. (Kimmy will correct me if I have presented her argument wrongly. I suppose there's the added argument, I paraphrase, that "millions of years of evolution have hard-wired brains for this behaviour".)

My argument is that if men sleep around, it's because women accept it. IOW, this game of the sexes is far more complicated than one can imagine. (I prefer the choice of words of this CTV news report about squirrels while I quibble with the wording. "... put so much more investment in their offspring.")

"Classical research kind of suggests that while males should try to mate with as many females as they can find, females should be a little bit more chaste, more picky because they put so much more investment in their offspring," she said.

Having multiple partners can also force squirrels to expend a lot of energy, and make them more vulnerable to predators and sexually transmitted diseases, she said.

"But based on our findings, it doesn't really matter," she added.

CTV

IMHO, we could define male as B and female as A. What's the difference? Well, the difference is that one side brings a bigger investment to the procreation game - not their offspring (hence my quibble about the wording). Such a game can play out it in many different ways. According to Kimmy, it means that guys sleep around. In a different scenario, it means that the female eats the male after copulation.

As a side point (related to the CTV link), I was once curious why female cats don't menstruate. The simple answer is that female cats only menstruate (have an egg in their womb) after copulation. This strikes me as a much better way to live and procreate. OTOH, anyone who has been around a female cat in heat will wonder if that's an improvemnet, and knows that the whole premise of the OP is suspect.

----

As wondrous discoveries go, this basic fact of life dates almost a billion years ago. Amazing.

Edited December 21, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Although I think there's something to much of what you say here--particularly the "soul mate" or "Mr. Perfect" ideal which is literally unobtainable and self-defeating--I don't see evidence that men are less concerned than women with a relatively narrow spectrum of physical attributes. If anything, I think this is more of a tendency with men than with women.

I prefer this idea, while I disagree with you BM. Of course, co-operation and trade exist.

To manage in life, we must work/manage with others. We all benefit from co-operation.

For most of us, it's a question of finding the person with whom we can co-operate most easily. So of course love exists.

[bloodyminded]

Admitedly all I have is anecdotal evidence, but in my experience, men, while having a preference, are open to almost any reasonably attractive woman - and most women, barring overeating - are reasonably attractive to men. Especially young women. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard young women comment negatively on guys that I thought were reasonably good looking. He's too hairy, or his teeth aren't nice, or he doesn't have broad shoulders, or whatever.

I mean, yes, there's a societal ideal for women here, being the perfect shape, including a nice rack, and probably blonde. But I haven't noticed flat chested brunette's having trouble getting men. Have you?

No, not at all. Nor have I seen skinny-armed men having terrible difficulty in getting women.

But, like you, I can only really speak anecdotally. I guess our impressions are slightly different, for whatever that's worth.

Edited December 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[August1991]

Hello? Anyone in here? Is this thread empty?

Paul Krugman weighs in on this issue, and uses Google as a good example to show how our genes are more rational than our brains:

This makes me think of sex.

If you follow evolutionary theory, you know that one big question is why sexual reproduction evolved and why it persists, given the substantial costs involved. Why doesnt nature just engage in cloning?

And the most persuasive answer, as I understand it, is defense against parasites. If each generation of an organism looks exactly like the last, parasites can steadily evolve to bypass the organisms defenses which is why yes, well have no bananas once the fungus spreads to cloned plantations around the world. But scrambling the genes each generation makes the parasites job harder.

Paul Krugman

I loved that phrase: "Why doesnt nature just engage in cloning?"

-----

At issue, in a sense, is not merely how the sexes treat one another but also how the species defends itself against interlopers.

Edited January 11, 2011 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

Hello? Anyone in here? Is this thread empty?

Paul Krugman weighs in on this issue, and uses Google as a good example to show how our genes are more rational than our brains:Paul Krugman

I loved that phrase: "Why doesnt nature just engage in cloning?"

-----

At issue, in a sense, is not merely how the sexes treat one another but also how the species defends itself against interlopers.

Please define "interlopers"...

Are we talking about humans who might try to procreate with Aardvarks?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

Hello? Anyone in here? Is this thread empty?

Paul Krugman weighs in on this issue, and uses Google as a good example to show how our genes are more rational than our brains:Paul Krugman

I loved that phrase: "Why doesn’t nature just engage in cloning?"

Well, actually, nature started with cloning. The first lifeforms, and many of the most basic lifeforms today, procreate by mitosis, that is splitting apart into two identical copies. The problem with this method of procreation is as Krugman states, that each generation is identical to the last, the only changes are brought about due to random mutations, which are very rare. Any changes to the environment that adversely affect such an organism can all but wipe out the entire species, since it can evolve only very slowly and only due to random mutations. The evolutionary adaptation to this was ingenious: to speed the rate of evolution by mixing DNA in each generation purposefully, rather than only as a result of random mutations. Generally this means sexual reproduction, where two organisms of the same species each contribute parts of their DNA to produce a new organism that has a random assortment of its parents' DNA. There are also other methods for mixing DNA such as nuclear conjugation and viral transduction.