Things Men Can Get Away With That Women Can’t

I would actually argue the opposite. If women want to be ‘taken seriously,’ then they have to act more stereotypically ‘male,’ specifically regarding emotions/ crying. Think John Boehner… his crying made him ‘sensitive’ and ‘passionate.’ If Hillary Clinton (for example) had done the same thing, she would have been ‘overly emotional,’ ‘pms-ing,’ or ‘weak.’

“Eating yogurt.” 

Please begin writing for TC immediately.

your rpely has revolutionalized my life.

I’m a commenter; no one should expect me to be original ;) TC writers should be held to higher standards though, no?

that’s so cute.

SHO KYUTE.

“The problem isn’t that, it’s that people who deviate from that norm are
seen as people to be punished rather than just people who are different.”

I agree with you that the way society treats people who do not fit with the norm is not right. I do think that if people perhaps took a second and understood more of the dynamic between male and female sexuality they might perhaps have less negativity towards said dispositions. However if you look at the idea of what is the norm, in terms of reproduction, what is “tried and true” is what is keeping the human race alive. If its been kept in by evolution then it must work for survival. People who deviate from this or try to change this are in some way tampering with the very survival of the human race. I believe that alot of the negativity in some ways unconsciously comes from this.

“This, on the other hand, is pure bullshit. A guy who gets laid a lot and
a girl who gets laid a lot may have good game, low standards, a sheer
love of sex, all three, or some other reason.”

I’ll say it again. A girl does not need game to get laid. She just has to say yes. As for a love of sex… who doesn’t love sex? Low standards… and you just proved my point. Males do not have standards when it comes to procreating. Remember? If a males job is to spread his genes as much as possible then thats what he will do, regardless. When you refer to low standards this why females get the shit end of the stick. If a female is sleeping around, she has low standards. With her, when it comes to reproduction she needs to pick good genes. If she doesn’t then she is looked down upon in not doing her part to make sure only the best genes go forward in future generations. Understand that while not all sexual encounters are to reproduce (sex is after all fun) I believe that the sentiments that are reflected in society can somewhat be traced back to this idea. Is it right? No, but this perhaps is where the double standard comes from.

“And if the women are the one making the babies, surely there’s an evolutionary argument for them to fuck more than men?”

Women can only get pregnant once at a time. So there really is no benefit to wanting to fuck more. I will say that some studies have shown that even in other monogamous species sometimes either partner would cheat on the other. For males the reason is somewhat obvious (increase chances genes survive) for females Scientists speculate that its some sort of evolutionary protocol to keep the gene pool fresh. Some say its an added competitive screening. In nature if one male is a better care taker than another male but that other male might have better genes, the female gets the best of both worlds in by not knowing whose offspring it is the better care taker takes care of the offspring regardless.

“After all, they’re the ones with the biological clock, and by your
argument all women need to have as many babies as possible according to
their “biological blueprint”

Women do not need to have as many babies as possible. They are more focused on quality over quantity. They are the ones  that have more time invested in each offspring. And as you pointed out females biological clock is what hovers over each females head in which case is why its so worrisome or a bad thing if a female is single. Not to mention if the males are the ones supposedly doing the seeking and she has not been sought out there is that to think about as well.

“so if a woman’s not objectively attractive she would, by your logic, be even more promiscuous than the most gamey of gamers.”

If she knows that or thinks that she is unattractive one would say or think she has low self esteem, and is not low self esteem a quality trait that is usually associated with someone who is promiscuous?

“Of course, (one of) the flaw(s) in your argument is that if it were really as simple as that nobody would ever have thought of birth control, because if sex were all about the urge to procreate then nobody would have bothered to think up a gazillion methods to have sex without
the risk of a baby.”

Obviously throughout time our society has to some degree dictated how many offspring people could have. You might even bring nature into this as well. See, having too many offspring one then sacrifices the quality of care of all the offspring decreases the chances of successful offspring. In our society financial freedom is a big determination of how large a family might be. Remember sex is fun, it feels good, and its a great way to show the love you have for someone. People just dont always want a kid each time they do it. The way men and women engage eachother in courtship is rooted in reproduction, sex. However sex does not always have to yield an offspring.

and as for men being hornier than women. they are.

I think your argument doesn’t take some things into consideration..

Females are looked down upon by society for having many sexual partners, which in turn dampens their drive to seek many sexual partners. Both sexes have testosterone and estrogen. They just have different balances. There are many women that actually have a lot of testosterone.  Men are not always hornier than women; men are just more visual and “out there” with their sexuality.  This means men are more likely to stare at women, go to strip clubs, talk about sex, etc.  A woman’s sexuality is more internal.  This doesn’t mean that women aren’t just as horny as men, it just means that women are taught and tend to conceal their sexuality more. It’s also been reported that teenage girls are becoming more sexually aggressive..so your argument isn’t exactly valid.

Also, the fact that you base all that you know about male/female relationships on the evolutionary theory, is frankly quite sad.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Study-Declares-Men-Hornier-Than-Women-77666-1.htm

guess what? the scientific community disagrees with you!

please, dont blame society for lack of a sex drive. If you take a look at the study it also takes into account masturbation which again men do more of.  You are going to tell me society also looks down on women who masturbate more than it looks down upon men? Its something anyone can do in the privacy of their home without the worry of people judging them.

I see alot of people telling me im wrong, but none of you have even come close to basing your statements in any actual grounds.

Take a basic course in psych and you’ll find that people aren’t just programmable robots like behaviorism once had us believe; humans form greater paradigms and construct complex realities, and in doing so they become less affected by the strictest forms of learning.  

Here’s the story:  You tell a girl over and over throughout her development that she should abstain from sexuality until she meets Prince Charming.  The greater paradigm formed is not that she will get punished for having sex; it is that sexuality makes her dirty, and her survival depends on being clean enough that a hero will carry her into matrimony.  Ultimately, in constructing a reality around the goodness of chastity and the wickedness of sexual indulgence, she will masturbate less not because she is afraid of being caught and punished, but because she is afraid of BEING wicked.

You’re living in the past, when humanity was conveyed as simplistic; your science has more in common with religious dominance than it does with genuine inquiry.  Humans are complex.  There is still plenty to be discovered.

And I find it ironic that you as a man are declaring yourself the ruler on defining gender, even if you justify it with scientific articles, especially while you are rationalizing a life of pleasure and freedom for men and a life of work for women.

 First you tell me that humans are not just programmable robots, then you go into a story about how women were programmed to like sex less. After that, you liken my view to something more in common with religious dominance yet your story contains words like “chasity” and “matrimony” which both are words coming out of religion. btw I am an Atheist. ;)

While I do not disagree that the environment and culture around us can effect us. I still find it quite the stretch to say that 2000+ years of religious ideology and custom can undo millions of years in human evolution. You are indeed explaining  one of the reasons that women perhaps have less sex than men but I do not believe that you have adequately proven that women are more or equally desiring of sex as men are.

Your story does remind me of an article that I read recently that talks about how men and women are different but equal and that this feminist view that men are trying to hold women down is false.  How evolution has designed both sexes with strengths and weaknesses that compliment each other. You hear alot about how men are at the top, are all the bosses, get paid more money than women. However few also look at the other end of the spectrum. More men are homeless, more men die in wars, more men are in jail. The idea being, which your story some what supports, is that throughout history life has favored the men who took risks and the women who played it safe in terms of who reproduced. Not that this is right or fair, but cultures rarely were fair to an individual and more about preserving the culture itself. The man who took the greatest risks would be the one that had a better chance of reproducing. Inversely, women who played it safe would be (in your words) carried off into matrimony by a “Hero”. Heroes take risks.

But whatever, this is going off the path of our discussion…

Point being, you did nothing in your reply to prove that women are as horny as men. I also find it insulting for you to assume that I am declaring myself some sort of ruler of gender when all I am doing is supplying an alternate view and backing it up with some sound reason. I never approved of this idea and I fail to see where you get the idea that I said men have it so much better than women. My main goal was to show everyone perhaps where these differences came from. This idea of Man vs Woman or Boy is Better than Girl, or Girl is Better than Boy. Why cant both sexes be acknowledged as being Different but Equal? I also believe that if more people did take this view that it would lead to an even better understanding of the human species. Because like you said, there is still plenty to be discovered.

To both Guest and Remy:
         This is the old debate about “Nature vs. Nurture.”  And as always, the answer isn’t mutually exclusive, but rather,  both Nature and Nurture play a role in how women and men behave as sexual beings.  It is not evolution OR culture that shapes how we act, but a combination of BOTH these things that influence us and instruct us on how to behave.  Believing that only one factor influences us is simplistic and naive.  The percentage that each factor will influence an individual will vary between person to person and from situation to situation.  In other words, it is only by combining both your explanations that we arrive at a more complete truth.

Also, the fact that you base all that you know about male/female relationships on the evolutionary theory, is frankly quite sad.

Yes because humans get their sex drives and sexual habits from magazines. lol.

Yes because the average number of sexual partners doesn’t vary wildly between cultures. lol.

Maybe you should pick up Cosmopolitan.

Although, this article is now 2 months old I figured I would post this here. Since I am still getting responses.

I have done more research on the topic. I have looked into this much more. Discussed it with colleagues and have come to the conclusion that when it comes to women and men and their desire for sex. It is again like nature has always set up the male and female. The same, but different.

Honestly it seems quite silly now for me to think that one was more than the other. In fact it seems more so that when it comes to males the desire for sex is a low to medium constant. While females desire is not as constant as a males but when arousal happens a females desire is much more intense.

To clarify this does not include whether males or females think more about sex but rather the levels of sexual desire. ie: horniness  / state of arousal.  Which it is now my belief that if you were to quantify both sexes over a period of time you would find it about equal.

I do believe that environment does influence how a species will react to survive as you pointed out in your example of females on a military base  sleeping around more. You could attribute this to some sort of evolutionary protocol to keep the gene pool mixed. While I understand that people have sex for reasons besides procreation we must also understand that the main function of sex is to reproduce. Nothing is indeed black and white but you are picking out exceptions to the rule. I also believe social conditioning is not as strong as a factor as you might think.

As a general understanding in nature males are the ones seeking out females to mate with. This is not just specific to humans but many other species function the same way. You don’t have to “buy” this explanation, but in ignoring it you would be ignoring a large part of the way nature works.

I tend to agree with most of what you’ve written — as politically incorrect as some of it may be. But this…

“As a general understanding in nature males are the ones seeking out females to mate with. ”

…I’m not so sure about. If you’re talking strictly sexual encounters, then yes. But for general “mating,” women seek it as much as men do. They may wait to be pursued rather than do the pursuing, but that’s a bit of evolutionary deception, I think. Because women will still need to put themselves out there–even if it’s just enough to get male attention. They often don’t need to do more; men will find them if they make themselves reasonably available. But watch the woman who doesn’t get many male suitors, and she’ll become as miserable and desperate as the sex-starved single guy. (This isn’t a judgment, just an observation.)