Men, Women, and Monkeys (split)

[Magic Poriferan]

I personally can't keep myself from making that sort of jacking, "you're full of shit" gesture every time I read one of those incredibly gender dividing comments. :rolli:

[Thursday]

I personally can't keep myself from making that sort of jacking, "you're full of shit" gesture every time I read one of those incredibly gender dividing comments. :rolli:

:high-five:

[CaptainChick]

Oh yeah, us guys and gals are like totally the same when it comes to sex and sexual desires. :rolli:

[Thursday]

Oh yeah, us guys and gals are like totally the same when it comes to sex and sexual desires. :rolli:

i like to be coddled and dominated
and its nice to have my hair stroked as i cry
resting my weary head upon the lap of my lover

[Magic Poriferan]

Oh yeah, us guys and gals are like totally the same when it comes to sex and sexual desires. :rolli:

I think the differences between men and women are vastly over-rated. Most of them are socially formed. Of course, being social creations, they are subject to popular belief, so ironically, people like you reinforce their existence even as you complain about them.

And for the record, the majority of the time you make some snarky comment about men and women, your depiction of women is closer to what I'm like. :dry:

[CaptainChick]

i like to be coddled and dominated
and its nice to have my hair stroked as i cry
resting my weary head upon the lap of my lover

I think the differences between men and women are vastly over-rated. Most of them are socially formed. Of course, being social creations, they are subject to popular belief, so ironically, people like you reinforce their existence even as you complain about them.

And for the record, the majority of the time you make some snarky comment about men and women, your depiction of women is closer to what I'm like. :dry:
Word up.

Y'all are exceptions to the *general* rule.

I am pretty exceptional too.

Rock on!!!

:D

[Mempy]

If us gals had the balls, (har-har) to actually explicitly state what turns us on, in detail, y'all would be shocked/bewildered.

Hey! I totally opened up in this thread! See my steamy, detailed, sexy post a couple pages back.

I personally can't keep myself from making that sort of jacking, "you're full of shit" gesture every time I read one of those incredibly gender dividing comments.

+1

It's a pet peeve of mine to read or hear someone make broad generalizations about how "all men act" or how "all women behave." It's like, are you kidding?

I don't mind when people make generalizations about men and women in jest or mockery, but when they are completely serious about dividing the human experience into what males experience and what females experience, I just don't understand the logic. If you want to talk about how men and women differ physiologically or societally, and how THAT might have an impact on their behavior, go ahead, but don't try to take universal human emotions and experiences and assign them exclusively and totally to one sex or the other, rather than to the realm of all humans. :coffee: There may indeed be experiences that apply exclusively to one sex or the other, but it's important to try discern the difference between (1) societal conditioning and/or physiological-based differences and (2) what are most likely universal human experiences, and it's important to try not to blur those lines too much or with reckless abandon. I guess the thing I hate most about these generalizations is that they're not carefully or well thought-out.

WOAH. Mempy just got serious on your asses. ;)

Edited to add:

I also agree with Magic that the differences between men and women are just vastly exaggerated.

[CaptainChick]

Pssht.

I've sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo done my research on this subject.

I actually happen to exhibit plenty of androgynous characteristics as well.

Go do some research on the physiological effects of estrogen and testosterone on human behavior.

To put an emphasis on societal and environmental factors on sexuality and sex differences is a disservice to people like homosexuals. They are biologically wired differently, just as women and men happen to be.

Of course there are and will forever be exceptions to the *general* rules.

Regardless, please, I implore you, do your research.

[CaptainChick]

Also, think big, or bigger at least.

Think of males and females in the *entire* animal kingdom.

Then think smaller, think of animals in the mammalian sense, sans hyenas, you will definitely recognize behavioral tendencies of males and females that transcend the species level.

For all intents and purposes and to be concise,

Femininity ~ Estrogen-induced behaviors/characteristics

Masculinity ~ Testosterone-induced behaviors/characteristics

[Magic Poriferan]

Hey! I totally opened up in this thread! See my steamy, detailed, sexy post a couple pages back.



+1

It's a pet peeve of mine to read or hear someone make broad generalizations about how "all men act" or how "all women behave." It's like, are you kidding?

I don't mind when people make generalizations about men and women in jest or mockery, but when they are completely serious about dividing the human experience into what males experience and what females experience, I just don't understand the logic. If you want to talk about how men and women differ physiologically or societally, and how THAT might have an impact on their behavior, go ahead, but don't try to take universal human emotions and experiences and assign them exclusively and totally to one sex or the other, rather than to the realm of all humans. :coffee: There may indeed be experiences that apply exclusively to one sex or the other, but it's important to try discern the difference between (1) societal conditioning and/or physiological-based differences and (2) what are most likely universal human experiences, and it's important to try not to blur those lines too much or with reckless abandon. I guess the thing I hate most about these generalizations is that they're not carefully or well thought-out.

WOAH. Mempy just got serious on your asses. ;)

Edited to add:

I also agree with Magic that the differences between men and women are just vastly exaggerated.

We seem to identify with each other on a lot, Mempy. Why does it always seem like you are in the shadows?

Pssht.

I've sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo done my research on this subject.

I actually happen to exhibit plenty of androgynous characteristics as well.

Go do some research on the physiological effects of estrogen and testosterone on human behavior.

To put an emphasis on societal and environmental factors on sexuality and sex differences is a disservice to people like homosexuals. They are biologically wired differently, just as women and men happen to be.

Of course there are and will forever be exceptions to the *general* rules.

Regardless, please, I implore you, do your research.

I've studied evolutionary psychology, honey-buns. I'm aware of the effects of hormones. I'm also aware of certain neurological differences but the vast majority of conclusions about men and women open up useless chicken and egg questions. Also, there are an enormous number of studies that are total crap...

I recall the thing that was posted here before about men mentally linking sex and money. The interpretation of their results were so poor... :dont:

[Edahn]

Also, think big, or bigger at least.

Think of males and females in the *entire* animal kingdom.

Then think smaller, think animals in the mammalian sense, sans hyenas, you will definitely recognize behavioral tendencies of males and females that transcend the species level.

For all intents and purposes and to be concise,

Femininity ~ Estrogen-induced behaviors/characteristics

Masculinity ~ Testosterone-induced behaviors/characteristics

^^ Definitely not this kinda talk ^^


Things that I knew would turn me on: boobs, legs, pretty eyes or face, humor, wit, intellect, reading comprehension, debate skills, logical reasoning

Things I was surprised to find turned me on: :censored: and :censored:, and definitely :censored:.

[Magic Poriferan]

Also, think big, or bigger at least.

Think of males and females in the *entire* animal kingdom.

Then think smaller, think of animals in the mammalian sense, sans hyenas, you will definitely recognize behavioral tendencies of males and females that transcend the species level.


Or I could pick gibbons, where the two are about the same. :D
I hate the animal kingdom examples... Too much cherry picking. And it's also something of a non-sequitur once we identify how different each species is. We are our own species, so I don't know how much we can conclude about ourselves by looking at one of them. It was like when Kiddo was trying to claim that we should naturally be like bonobos, because they were our closest relatives. I was trying to explain to him how little sense that made.

[CaptainChick]

Men linking sex and money?!?!?!??

Well that's just retarded.

Here, enjoy a *viable* resource on evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.epjournal.net/)

[Mempy]

Pssht.

I've sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo done my research on this subject.

I actually happen to exhibit plenty of androgynous characteristics as well.

Go do some research on the physiological effects of estrogen and testosterone on human behavior.

To put an emphasis on societal and environmental factors on sexuality and sex differences is a disservice to people like homosexuals. They are biologically wired differently, just as women and men happen to be.

Of course there are and will forever be exceptions to the *general* rules.

Regardless, please, I implore you, do your research.

Well, maybe the effect that testosterone and estrogen have on experiences is more pronounced than I first thought, and maybe I will do some research on it, but I'm still very wary of seeing the differences as vast, and also wary of trying to take experiences that seem supiciously universal and say that they are only the domain of either the male or female half of the universe. I'm not saying there aren't physiological differences that affect the experiences of males and females, just that I'd be careful of ascribing too much to them. On the other hand, it's entirely possible I'm ascribing too little, but I'd much rather go that route. :)

[Edahn]

Men linking sex and money?!?!?!??

Well that's just retarded.

Why's it retarded? It makes perfect sense.

[CaptainChick]

Or I could pick gibbons, where the two are about the same. :D
I hate the animal kingdom examples... Too much cherry picking. And it's also something of a non-sequitur once we identify how different each species is. We are our own species, so I don't know how much we can conclude about ourselves by looking at one of them. It was like when Kiddo was trying to claim that we should naturally be like bonobos, because they were our closest relatives. I was trying to explain to him how little sense that made.
:shocking:

Um, do you um,, like not believe in um, evolution?

Regardless, obviously you are not much of a biologist, to each his own I guess.

:coffee:

[Magic Poriferan]

:shocking:

Um, do you um,, like not believe in um, evolution?

Regardless, obviously you are not much of a biologist, to each his own I guess.

:coffee:

I believe in evolution... That comment seemed almost deliberate in how much it missed the point.

Bonobos, gorillas gibbons, and orangutans all have very, very different mating styles. It's an example of how a cluster of closely related species could have significant divergence in their habits. It also implies that we won't have a lot of success trying to determine our own habits based on one of theirs.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible I'm ascribing too little, but I'd much rather go that route. :)
And on philosophical grounds, I really have to agree with her about this. If we are going to make a mistake(and we probably are) I'd much rather under-estimate gender differences than over-estimate them.

[CaptainChick]

Well, maybe the effect that testosterone and estrogen have on experiences is more pronounced than I first thought, and maybe I will do some research on it, but I'm still very wary of seeing the differences as vast, and also wary of trying to take experiences that seem supiciously universal and say that they are only the domain of either the male or female half of the universe. I'm not saying there aren't physiological differences that affect the experiences of males and females, just that I'd be careful of ascribing too much to them. On the other hand, it's entirely possible I'm ascribing too little, but I'd much rather go that route. :)Fair enough. :)

Why's it retarded? It makes perfect sense.
I sense sarcasm, but then again, one never really knows with you. :huh:

[Edahn]

Fair enough. :)


I sense sarcasm, but then again, one never really knows with you. :huh:

No, I was being serious. They both stimulate pleasure. We strive for both resources and sex to promote longevity.

[CaptainChick]

I believe in evolution... That comment seemed almost deliberate in how much it missed the point.

Bonobos, gorillas gibbons, and orangutans all have very, very different mating styles. It's an example of how a cluster of closely related species could have significant divergence in their habits. It also implies that we won't have a lot of success trying to determine our own habits based on one of theirs.
One concept: Sexual dimorphism.

Sexual dimorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)

Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_non-human_primates)

[Magic Poriferan]

No, I was being serious. They both stimulate pleasure. We strive for both resources and sex to promote longevity.

You'd have to see the article to understand why it was stupid. I'm sure you can dig it up. Though I don't remember if it was in this forum or the science forum... But it was probably in this one.

[CaptainChick]

No, I was being serious. They both stimulate pleasure. We strive for both resources and sex to promote longevity.
I would need a link to the thread and more specifically to the article before I could make any solid yeas or nays regarding whatever the proposed theory was/is.

Hmm, men sex and money: I think one of the main reasons why men like/seek out money is because it lends them greater access to obtain "greater" sex, in both potential quantity, and quality of mate(s).

[Edahn]

Split from what turns you on? (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sexuality-mature-topics/6888-what-turns-you.html)

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm aware of sexual dimorphism. Duh.

So ummm... let's take those little facts about the brains of men and women, and draw the bridge from their, to....

...here:

Lol @ men.

What simple creatures.

God bless 'em

:)

If us gals had the balls, (har-har) to actually explicitly state what turns us on, in detail, y'all would be shocked/bewildered.

This is why men are so easy to get off, and women...not so much.

Explanations?

[CaptainChick]

Men are more easily aroused than women, they *tend* to have a lower threshold for sexual stimulation in order to reach orgasm.

[Edahn]

Hmm, men sex and money: I think one of the main reasons why men like/seek out money is because it lends them greater access to obtain "greater" sex, in both potential quantity, and quality of mate(s).

I don't 100% agree. You have to be a guy and think guy-thoughts to know this, tho. When I want money, I am not thinking about girls. I'm thinking a bit about status, but really, I'm thinking about pleasure and shit like that. The access to females...eh. It might be true that THOSE WHO ARE AVARICIOUS get more chicks, and pass on their genes with greater chances of survival, making the genes more numerous. But that's not the same as saying what you said, imo. It also points out a weakness in evolutionary psych in that anyone can connect behaviors to access to survival and you'd have a hard time falsifying the claim.

[Mempy]

We seem to identify with each other on a lot, Mempy. Why does it always seem like you are in the shadows?

What does that mean? Like, waiting to pop out of the darkness on you like some ninja, or just watching you from afar and observing things? Well, I tend toward both habits, especially the second. That would be my reclusive, reserved and anxious side.

In the thread this subject was split from, I really let loose and described some of my biggest turn-ons. I enjoy the release from my anxiety and seriousness that sexuality provides. But that may be the same old, same old for most serious, anxious, independent recluses. :coffee:

[CaptainChick]

Edahnis:

Dude, I feel you, for example, I want to obtain money simply as a means to gain personal freedom to do what I please, when I please, and I believe many men would agree with this sentiment.

But, yeah, you're right many men do want themselves some money, power, and status, for um....yeah, for multiple "noble" reasons. ;)

[Magic Poriferan]

Men are more easily aroused than women, they *tend* to have a lower threshold for sexual stimulation in order to reach orgasm.

Is that so? Okay... But what about this?


If us gals had the balls, (har-har) to actually explicitly state what turns us on, in detail, y'all would be shocked/bewildered.

This is why men are so easy to get off, and women...not so much.

You've actually sort of already given another cause here. So explain why the first statement is true.



What does that mean? Like, waiting to pop out of the darkness on you like some ninja, or just watching you from afar and observing things? Well, I tend toward both habits, especially the second. That would be my reclusive, reserved and anxious side.

In the thread this subject was split from, I really let loose and described some of my biggest turn-ons. I enjoy the release from my anxiety and seriousness that sexuality provides. But that may be the same old, same old for most serious, anxious, independent recluses. :coffee:

I mainly meant... Where are you, and why don't I see you around more often?
Is it simply because of being reclusive, reserved, and anxious?

[Magic Poriferan]

And all of the questions I'm asking so far side-step the part about you calling men simple creatures. Which is something of an insult to me, and I imagine you would have an especially hard time validating that with evolutionary psychology.

[CaptainChick]

Men aren't simple creatures, they are or rather, can be quite complex, actually.

Here's an interesting article

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/JonesInvestigatingMay2008.pdf

[Jennifer]

Interesting comments.

I sort of agree with most of them, yet none of them.

The truth seems to be that there are differences (triggered mostly by hormonal influences, and the differentiation of particular biological gender structures), yet there's a ton of overlap (as a minor point, each man or woman has varying degrees of hormones in their bodies, there's no "blanket" hormonal profile, just general typical ranges) and society definitely has taken minor or nuanced differences and created social artifices on top of them.

As a side note, though, testosterone's definitely the "sex me up" drug.

Running on testosterone: "Mentally somewhere else; sees a hot girl walks by; gaaa, let's do her, even if I'm not interested and I have a 500lb migraine."

Running on estrogen: "TV show I like. Ice cream. Nice bath. Sex. Yeah, any of those, why not? Actually, the ice cream might be less messy."

That's why women are sometimes prescribed small amounts of testosterone, to bump up their drive a little, when they have trouble being interested but have an interested partner.

[Haphazard]

If I can be completely honest, I haven't seen much difference.

Part of the reason why men and women seem so different might be... you know, the whole 'opposites attract' thing. Ignoring the traits that you're not attracted to/mystified by and playing up the traits that do, therefore making the two seem much more 'different' than they really are.

Then again, what I could see happening is there being a rather wide difference between men and women, but it's not even close to the differences that everyone 'know'.

It's more a matter of, if you're looking at the big picture, there's no difference at all, but if you get closer, you see differences, but if you get close enough to see many significant differences, there's too much variance between individuals that these supposed differences could just be considered differences between individuals. It's like, we'd have "A through X" types of behaviors women, but if 5/6ths of the types of behaviors are analogous with types of behaviors with men, and most people only show up to have 3/4ths of the traits... well, that's pretty useless, isn't it?

[Ivy]

And all of the questions I'm asking so far side-step the part about you calling men simple creatures. Which is something of an insult to me, and I imagine you would have an especially hard time validating that with evolutionary psychology.

I think maybe you took her too seriously-- it looked to me like she was "kidding on the square." Basically kidding but with a grain of seriousness behind it. And she's right, in one sense. Male sexuality is a lot simpler than female sexuality, which makes total sense evolutionarily-speaking because the one biological imperative is that the man must ejaculate to keep the species going.

[Night]

I think maybe you took her too seriously-- it looked to me like she was "kidding on the square." Basically kidding but with a grain of seriousness behind it. And she's right, in one sense. Male sexuality is a lot simpler than female sexuality, which makes total sense evolutionarily-speaking because the one biological imperative is that the man must ejaculate to keep the species going.

I agree.

The prerogative to continue the ultimate success of our species must be suitably less dynamic in complexity as to disabuse the male from the sophistication of evolutionary biology.

As females do not possess such a mandate (in the strictest sense), they can afford to restrict their reproductive budget around a position of psychological intimacy; that is to say, the female is able to suspend her desires towards a personalized behavioral construct - like blue eyes; broad shoulders; robust finances - etc.

The comment wasn't - as I read it - meant as an obvious slap. Men are fundamentally simpler in design.

Women love. Men love...to fuck.

This is a good thing.




Thanks Jennifer!

[Ivy]

BTW, I have to say it: "Honeybuns" = :steam:

[Jen]

Women love. Men love...to fuck.

This is a good thing.




Thanks Jennifer!The animalistic approach. I love it! Can't wait for Limey to get home tonight! :holy:

[edel weiss]

I honestly don't know what to believe when I hear about gender differences. I do think that some of them exist, but not enough to make very extreme generalizations.

One thing I've noticed in daily life is that men, on a general level, are more likely to better drivers than women. That doesn't mean that women can't be good drivers, or that a woman can't be a batter driver than a man.

In MBTI itself we see that women are more likely to be Feelers than men.

As for sexuality... I guess that since men have the sperm, they're more likely to be promiscuous while women are more picky about choosing a mate for that egg. That doesn't mean society should encourage men to 'sow their oats' and socialize women into believing that they ought to seek monogamy because they're women.

Oh, and I'd rather not think of men as simple creatures. Some men are simple creatures. But some women are simple creatures too. Not all.

[Night]

In MBTI itself we see that women are more likely to be Feelers than men.



Is this true?

[Haphazard]

Is this true?

I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure that feeling will manifest differently in F men and F women, particularly FJ types.

[edel weiss]

Is this true?

I've seen a few statistical tables, all of them support this.

Myers-Briggs Statistics (http://www.theanconas.com/MBTI/mfstats.htm)

I could find only this one on a google search.

Quoting from the webpage -

It is interesting how the men on the T-F have the T just slightly over half, while for women it is 25-75.

[Night]

Ah - thank you, edel weiss.

[Haphazard]

So that would mean that more than half of humans are F... by a pretty fair shot.

Why is this so disconcerting to me?

[pure_mercury]

So that would mean that more than half of humans are F... by a pretty fair shot.

Why is this so disconcerting to me?

I don't think it should be. There are tons of Es/Ss/Fs/Js in the world, and it doesn't make things easier on me.

[CaptainChick]

Women love. Men love...to fuck.
"Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the feeling that nothing remains to be said." -Jean Rostand

:)

[Magic Poriferan]

That's exactly the kind of sentence that makes me bitch about this shit.

[CaptainChick]

That's exactly the kind of sentence that makes me bitch about this shit.
Oy vey, it's a generalization!!!

i.e. It is not about *you*, per se.

[Magic Poriferan]

I know.

[heart]

Men are more easily aroused than women, they *tend* to have a lower threshold for sexual stimulation in order to reach orgasm.

Kegel exercises can level the playing field. Men get older and slower too.

[Ivy]

If you would take it in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which I'm sure it was intended (as an exaggeration of trends among the sexes, not a decree about the way things always are) you might see the kernel of truth in there. No, not all men are insatiable, uncontrollable horndogs, and not all women are starry-eyed romance novel heroines. The TRENDS are pretty irrefutable, though--men tend to be more visually and physically oriented where women tend to be more emotionally and situationally oriented. Nobody is saying that all women or all men are one way, or that no women or no men are the other.

[CaptainChick]

And duh, obviously both men and women love to love and love to fuck and obviously there will be men who love to love more than they love to fuck and women who love to fuck more than they love to love and men and women who love neither.

But if you can't see the humor and insight in that comment.... I just don't know what to say to you.

[CaptainChick]

Kegel exercises can level the playing field. Men get older and slower too.God bless Kegel exercises!!!

:yes:

If you would take it in the tongue-in-cheek manner in which I'm sure it was intended (as an exaggeration of trends among the sexes, not a decree about the way things always are) you might see the kernel of truth in there. No, not all men are insatiable, uncontrollable horndogs, and not all women are starry-eyed romance novel heroines. The TRENDS are pretty irrefutable, though--men tend to be more visually and physically oriented where women tend to be more emotionally and situationally oriented. Nobody is saying that all women or all men are one way, or that no women or no men are the other.
Fo' shizzle!!

[Magic Poriferan]

I've actually never found gender based humor funny, at all. And no, I'm not supressing my laughter out of some kind of moral determination, I honestly have no inclination to even smile in the first place. A complete lack of it in society wouldn't be a loss for me at least.

Anyway, I really don't like how often these generalizations get thrown around. They are the rule rather than the exception. You can tell me your intent is to jest, but intent does not determine consequence... You know how if you repeat a rumor, you give it strength, no matter what you think or say about it? This is sort of the same.

And the effect does seem apparent. You can call these generalizations insignificant or innocent, but I can't help but notice how someone like myself is basically mute and invisible in a discussion about men and women. You seem to believe it more than you claim.


As for studies about the differences between male and female behavior, I concluded some time ago that the only really enlightening study would be a trend study. We have to examine the opinions of men and women on a variety of subjects and keep tabs on it over a period of decades, and see how much it changes, and which parts change. That would actually be helpful.

[heart]

Running on estrogen: "TV show I like. Ice cream. Nice bath. Sex. Yeah, any of those, why not? Actually, the ice cream might be less messy."

I hear women say things like this, but I always wonder if it is because they feel they ought to say it. I mean do many women in happy relationships really feel this way? Heck I don't feel this way even when my relationship with husband is getting me down and I'd like to fast track him to the moon.

When young and single, I had a lot more sexual thoughts and interest than I ever let on because it is just not "safe" to be that open. I tend to think women are just as sexual as men but it is not safe to always allow it come to surface. Then too I see a lot of women in vastly unhappy relationships who use sex as power leverage as something to withhold. I never understand how they are able to do that.

not all women are starry-eyed romance novel heroines.

Romance novel heronines usually have a lot of sex. Even the Regency ones now have a lot of sex. ;)

[pure_mercury]

I hear women say things like this, but I always wonder if it is because they feel they ought to say it. I mean do many women in happy relationships really feel this way? Heck I don't feel this way even when my relationship with husband is getting me down and I'd like to fast track him to the moon.

When young and single, I had a lot more sexual thoughts and interest than I ever let on because it is just not "safe" to be that open. I tend to think women are just as sexual as men but it is not safe to always allow it come to surface. Then too I see a lot of women in vastly unhappy relationships who use sex as power leverage as something to withhold. I never understand how they are able to do that.


I, for one, hope that these women become more open to sharing these thoughts. With me or with other men who would be glad to hear them and not judge.

[Orangey]

I've actually never found gender based humor funny, at all. And no, I'm not supressing my laughter out of some kind of moral determination, I honestly have no inclination to even smile in the first place. A complete lack of it in society wouldn't be a loss for me at least.

I agree with this. I don't find gender based humor funny at all, and not even because I think it's 'harmful' or ideological. It just plain isn't funny.

[CaptainChick]

I love a good strong romance novel heroine!!!

:wub:

And the sex scenes are totally hot.

:peepwall:

[heart]

I, for one, hope that these women become more open to sharing these thoughts. With me or with other men who would be glad to hear them and not judge.

Part of the "unsafe" is knowing your own female nature, that if you allowed yourself to become inappropriately sexual you would end up bonding with someone unsuitable. So it is not that the female doesn't want the sexuality or feel it but that sexuality makes her more vulnerable so she feels she must supress it for self protection.

When a partner arrives and it is safe, then sexuality can flow more freely. At least this is how it seems to me. That women have just as much sexual interest as men but not as free to show it because of the difference in emotional natures and then all the issues around the fact that for a woman, sex can bring a pregnancy.

The married women who tell me they don't like sex with husband or are avoiding it, invaribly seem to be locked into a power struggle with him over childcare and household chores issues. I cannot help but wonder if resentment quells their desire or they are denying themselves in order to leverage power over him> Some of them have admitted they withhold to gain favors or such.

[heart]

I love a good strong romance novel heroine!!!

:wub:

And the sex scenes are totally hot.

:peepwall:

Preach it! :smile:

[Geoff]

Part of the "unsafe" is knowing your own female nature, that if you allowed yourself to become inappropriately sexual you would end up bonding with someone unsuitable. So it is not that the female doesn't want the sexuality or feel it but that sexuality makes her more vulnerable so she feels she must supress it for self protection.

When a partner arrives and it is safe, then sexuality can flow more freely. At least this is how it seems to me. That women have just as much sexual interest as men but not as free to show it because of the difference in emotional natures and then all the issues around the fact that for a woman, sex can bring a pregnancy.

The married women who tell me they don't like sex with husband or are avoiding it, invaribly seem to be locked into a power struggle with him over childcare and household chores issues. I cannot help but wonder if resentment quells their desire or they are denying themselves in order to leverage power over him> Some of them have admitted they withhold to gain favors or such.

Quite insightful - I've known a couple of women who've said they back off of sex, and find that very difficult, because they know that it creates emotional attachment and they don't want to bond with someone inappropriate (err, not me in this example I'm pleased to say :yes: )

[CaptainChick]

I agree with this. I don't find gender based humor funny at all, and not even because I think it's 'harmful' or ideological. It just plain isn't funny.
I get a hunch that this might be due to your and MP not really identifying much with your gender.

And that's totally cool and legit.

I am one of those people who is mystified by her heterosexuality, and who views a distinct pattern amongst both men and women and when people speak about these differences, if their assessment happens to be accurate, I can and do find myself relating.

I know that there are exceptions to the rule, my sister being one. She is more masculine than most men, for real.

She works in production is competitive as hell and has zero tolerance for relationship intimacy and issues, she is *not* the girl you call when having problems with your SO or your best friend, etc.

I am always observing men, and more specifically men that I happen to get romantically involved with, obviously they were all individuals, but they too were all heterosexual males, and they all exhibited similar "male" qualities, bless their little hearts.

Yes, well, hmm, women and men, there is in fact a difference.

:)

[Ivy]

I hear women say things like this, but I always wonder if it is because they feel they ought to say it. I mean do many women in happy relationships really feel this way? Heck I don't feel this way even when my relationship with husband is getting me down and I'd like to fast track him to the moon.

When young and single, I had a lot more sexual thoughts and interest than I ever let on because it is just not "safe" to be that open. I tend to think women are just as sexual as men but it is not safe to always allow it come to surface. Then too I see a lot of women in vastly unhappy relationships who use sex as power leverage as something to withhold. I never understand how they are able to do that.

That bothers me on so many levels. Number one, way to let your partner know that sex with him is such a drag that you consider it currency. Number two, if you actually enjoy sex, why would you punish yourself?

As for the "sex = nice bath = ice cream = TV" sentiment? No, I don't feel that way in a general sense. Sex is way better and I'd rather do it. But there are times when I would choose one of the others over sex because I'm just not feeling sexy. I don't think that is true of my husband very often.

And I think you're dead-on about it not being safe to express that aspect of ourselves. Hell, I self-censor a lot of my sexual comments on this forum, even, because I get the impression people think of me as a maternal figure and the societal pressures not to mix madonna and whore are very strong. My usertitle on INTPC for a long time was "Sacred and Profane."

Romance novel heronines usually have a lot of sex. Even the Regency ones now have a lot of sex. ;)

But they're starry-eyed while they're getting it on!

[heart]

But they're starry-eyed while they're getting it on!

May we all be so starry eyed while getting it on. :wubbie: :D Life can be so ugly, why not be starry eyed when one can be!

[Geoff]

May we all be so starry eyed while getting it on. :wubbie: :D

I thought it was compulsory! Don't tell me that not everyone is :cry:

[CaptainChick]

Oh, regarding the whole sex (as in coitus) thing.

I know that I really must be in the mood to really have sex, granted there were times when I would just give it a go to please my mate but he knew that, regarding sex, I was the ultimate gate keeper, if I didn't feel like it, he would have to either work hard at making me feel like it, ahem yes, a whole lot of foreplay on his behalf, or accept the fact that he wasn't going to get laid.

Should sex be more democratically allotted?

Perhaps, but I like the notion of having sex whenever *I* feel like it.

:D

[heart]

Oh, regarding the whole sex (as in coitus) thing.

I know that I really must be in the mood to really have sex, granted there were times when I would just give it a go to please my mate but he knew that, regarding sex, I was the ultimate gate keeper, if I didn't feel like it, he would have to either work hard at making me feel like it, ahem yes, a whole lot of foreplay on his behalf, or accept the fact that he wasn't going to get laid.

Should sex be more democratically allotted?

Wanting to be wooed a bit or needing foreplay is different from what I am talking about. I just see that as part of the whole act.

Perhaps, but I like the notion of having sex whenever *I* feel like it.

:D

Oh I agree with the above.

I had an old friend who used to make her husband promise to buy her outfits (when their budget was really strained already) in exchange for sex and she would laugh later at how desperately he pleaded. It really sickened me, but I also didn't understand how she could do so long without sex. I mean from what she said, she was like a block of ice about it. I'd say more, but lol this is a message board and I already say too damn much as it is!

[Magic Poriferan]

I get a hunch that this might be due to your and MP not really identifying much with your gender.

And that's totally cool and legit.



The problem here is very simple. Who is defining whether or not I identify with my gender? I'm apparently not very male, even though I am a male in every possible way. This doesn't make sense.

In other words, if I'm a man and I behave this way, than I'm apparently behaving a way that a man might behave. Get it? This is apparently male behvaior, because its being acted out by a male.

This exact problem came up in an entirely different sort of thread. It was the silly thread about dressing up as another MBTI type. I decided to mock it by claiming that I'd dress up as an INTP, and then described a very stereo-typical depiction of an INTP that is also nothing like the way I dress. I then said I normally dress like an INFP. The joke here, is that if I'm a n INTP, then however I dress is apparently the way an INTP would dress.

[CaptainChick]

Oy vey, not male vs. female, but masculine traits versus feminine traits.

One can be an androgynous male or female, a female can have masculine traits and a male can have feminine traits.

[Magic Poriferan]

Then what is the source of the definition of masculine and feminine, and what good is having them?

[CaptainChick]

For all intents and purposes and to be concise,

Femininity ~ Estrogen-induced behaviors/characteristics

Masculinity ~ Testosterone-induced behaviors/characteristics
Thar ya go!!!

[Magic Poriferan]

So, does that mean I somehow have less testorone and more estrogen than is male?

You also didn't answer the second questions, which I would be very interested in.

[CaptainChick]

I would be willing to say that I have a bit more testosterone coercing through my veins than most females.

And my sister certainly has a lot more testosterone than most females.

Perhaps you do not have/process as much testosterone as the average male, so, big whoop, right?

I personally never liked uber-masculine men.

Testosterone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone)

[heart]

I personally never liked uber-masculine men.


I think around 160 to 170 pounds, 6ft is A+ for a guy. ;)

[Ivy]

Then what is the source of the definition of masculine and feminine, and what good is having them?

It sounds like you're asking her to place a value on masculine and feminine, when she's just trying to relate to you that she thinks they exist. CC has been pretty neutral about the terms and I haven't seen her say that a guy has to have a full deck of masculine traits to be a "real man" or anything of that nature.

If you graphed masculine and feminine traits among large populations of men and women, there would be some overlap, but the basic trends would be there. There's no reason to reverse-engineer that and say that WITHOUT all those traits an individual isn't manly or womanly, and I don't think anyone is saying that here. Statistics don't apply to individuals.

[CaptainChick]

I think around 160 to 170 pounds, 6ft is A+ for a guy. ;)Shhh, quiet you, I do too!!!

It sounds like you're asking her to place a value on masculine and feminine, when she's just trying to relate to you that she thinks they exist. CC has been pretty neutral about the terms and I haven't seen her say that a guy has to have a full deck of masculine traits to be a "real man" or anything of that nature.

If you graphed masculine and feminine traits among large populations of men and women, there would be some overlap, but the basic trends would be there. There's no reason to reverse-engineer that and say that WITHOUT all those traits an individual isn't manly or womanly, and I don't think anyone is saying that here. Statistics don't apply to individuals.Thank you.

:hug:

[Magic Poriferan]

Then what is the source of the definition of masculine and feminine, and what good is having them?

That's mainly the one I'm waiting on right now.

[heart]

When talking about "stereotypical" masculine or feminine traits: It is like the average man likely 60 percent masculine, 40 percent female. Average woman 60 percent female traits, 40 percent masculine. And then varations with individuals in all directions.

[Geoff]

I think around 160 to 170 pounds, 6ft is A+ for a guy. ;)

6'1" check.
171lb

Damn!

Back to the drawing board, Geoff :doh:

[Ivy]

It's that extra inch of height--I think we can make an allowance in your case.

[heart]

It's that extra inch of height--I think we can make an allowance in your case.

Yes, I think so too. :D

Then too that caveman beard must weight a lot all by itself!

[Geoff]

Yes, I think so too. :D

Then too that caveman beard must weight a lot all by itself!

You know what's worrying? My father has a beard (not quite as impressive as this one.. but still..) I look scarily like him with this photoshop avatar.

[heart]

Song for Geoff. (http://www.last.fm/music/Paul+Overstreet/_/Seein%27+My+Father+In+Me)

[pure_mercury]

I agree with this. I don't find gender based humor funny at all, and not even because I think it's 'harmful' or ideological. It just plain isn't funny.

I've written some comedy intended for TV or film, and I've read a lot of scripts. The amount of "Man, my wife sure does love to shop!" and "My husband is such an oaf; he always leaves the toilet seat up!" crap is staggering. It reminds of that Simpsons episode in which Marge laments the cancellation of the TV show Ethnic Mismatch Comedy #644. That is what a lot of writers know.

[Magic Poriferan]

What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging these definitions of supposedly masculine and feminine behavior? What positive impact does it have on society?

[Ivy]

Does it have to have a positive impact on society?

What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging anything?

[Magic Poriferan]

Does it have to have a positive impact on society?

If it doesn't, why hang onto it?


What is the beneficial purpose of cataloging anything?

Ermmm, reference serves a lot of purposes, and that's why I figure cataloging is sometimes useful.

My precise use of words in that case doesn't really matter, anyway. The more general point is: What good are these generalized definitions of male and female behavior?

[Haphazard]

When talking about "stereotypical" masculine or feminine traits: It is like the average man likely 60 percent masculine, 40 percent female. Average woman 60 percent female traits, 40 percent masculine. And then varations with individuals in all directions.

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*

[Magic Poriferan]

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*

Easy there, Happy(I think that should be your nickname :D), we must handle this calmly now.

This does address what I was getting at, though. If we are all going to give the utlimate priority to individual qualities(and we damn well should) then what use is there to these perscribed generalizations?

[heart]

This sort of thing is absolutely maddening!

Though there may be a difference, the difference is so goddamned negligible when applying to individuals that it's absolutely useless, and yet PEOPLE INSIST ON STICKING TO IT ANYWAY! JUST BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT TO BE TECHNICIALLY CORRECT YOU HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!

*mouthfoam*

*falls over backwards, faints*


Are some people here hanging around a lot of people named "Pat" and "Chris"? :D

[Haphazard]

Easy there, Happy(I think that should be your nickname :D),

You would certainly not be the first to think that. Most people I know seem to have a taste for irony.

we must handle this calmly now.

This does address what I was getting at, though. If we are all going to give the utlimate priority to individual qualities(and we damn well should) then what use is there to these perscribed generalizations?

I think what people should do with them is learn something about statistics. When the average person hears "X tends to Y," they will think "X will always Y" despite not knowing the probability that X will Y, or anything about the sample used to draw the conclusion that "X tends to Y." They might not even be applying it to a correct context, depending on how they heard "X tends to Y."

Also, people don't understand conditional statements and their reverse. I really just think the whole world just needs a good lesson in mathematics, to at least learn where assumptions and statistics properly apply.

[Magic Poriferan]

I think what people should do with them is learn something about statistics. When the average person hears "X tends to Y," they will think "X will always Y" despite not knowing the probability that X will Y, or anything about the sample used to draw the conclusion that "X tends to Y." They might not even be applying it to a correct context, depending on how they heard "X tends to Y."

Also, people don't understand conditional statements and their reverse. I really just think the whole world just needs a good lesson in mathematics, to at least learn where assumptions and statistics properly apply.


Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?

[Haphazard]

Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?

No... should I have?

[Magic Poriferan]

It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50% chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. :laugh: The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.

[Haphazard]

It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50% chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. :laugh: The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.

I need to read this book, even though it'll probably make me cry.

If there's one thing that makes me upset, it's people misusing math...

[Hmm]

Alright I'm going to shake this thread up. I'll state my opinion.

1. I do not believe that men and women have much of a difference in sex drive ONCE AND IF THEY ARE TRULY ATTRACTED TO THEIR MATE.

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

3. Men will not have sex with just any woman who offers it. They are not the "sex machines" that society and traditional machismo portrays them to be. They will turn a willing woman down easily if she does not live up to their preferences.

4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

5. Some women have sex with men they are not truly attracted to, for other reasons (I wouldn't).

There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

[Hmm]

Here's something else I saw written somewhere by a man:

-----------------------

Ten Emotional Needs of Women:

1. Protection of her most valuable asset: Her Reputation

2. She needs to experience a Range of Emotions

3. Cater to the Little Girl in Her

4. He must show Dominance, making all major decisions, including taking 100% responsibility for the sex in the relationship

5. Safe from fear of Abandonment

6. Trust him to be honest, even if it makes her mad

7. Her physical protection and safety

8. Can he handle her sexuality (whatever it may be) - don't let a fantasy go unfulfilled or she will satisfy it given the opportunity behind your back

9. Does he have sought after High Quality Sperm

10. Prove he is not a closet homosexual.


Not sure I agree with them all, and definitely not the exact wording, but many of them are true for most women.

[01011010]

<Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".

[Magic Poriferan]

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

ALL women? That's a 100% assertion. That's very unlikely. I personally find no rationale or evidence that supports this notion. I can find rationale and evidence to refute it. But right now I'm mainly going to focus on the fact that I have spoken with many women that do not seek aggressive partners. Even rather feminine heterosexuals. Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?

That, to me, would be an assumption, based far too much on faith and intuition. And it's dangerous, because of how much it ignores the commentary of the people being subjected to it. It's rather Freudian.



4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

Could you define the "natural order?"



There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

I'm not mad at you. I do disagree with you and think you are in error about this. I would like to handle it politely, though.

No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".

And here you go. She's an exhibit. She doesn't match your description. What am I supposed to make of that?

Kind of funny though... I'm rather fond of both of you. Hope this doesn't take an awkward direction.

[Hmm]

Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?

Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."


But what if they pursue their mates?
What if they pick introverted, passive guys for partners?
What if they always turn-down guys that pursue them?

In other words, if their actions match their words, why should I assume that they really want an aggressive partner?

[Hmm]

You don't have to if you don't want to. I was just putting that out there.

[Magic Poriferan]

It just doesn't seem that the real occurance of things reflect the notion that ALL women(or just the straight ones) have a certain preference.

I'm not as concerned about what you'd say to me as what you'd say to those heterosexual women who are aggressive and dislike aggressive men.

[CaptainChick]

Here's something else I saw written somewhere by a man:

-----------------------

Ten Emotional Needs of Women:

1. Protection of her most valuable asset: Her Reputation

2. She needs to experience a Range of Emotions

3. Cater to the Little Girl in Her

4. He must show Dominance, making all major decisions, including taking 100% responsibility for the sex in the relationship

5. Safe from fear of Abandonment

6. Trust him to be honest, even if it makes her mad

7. Her physical protection and safety

8. Can he handle her sexuality (whatever it may be) - don't let a fantasy go unfulfilled or she will satisfy it given the opportunity behind your back

9. Does he have sought after High Quality Sperm

10. Prove he is not a closet homosexual.


Not sure I agree with them all, and definitely not the exact wording, but many of them are true for most women.
Honestly, where did you find this crap? I oscillated between finding it highly offensive to finding it highly amusing.

:nice:

10 emotional needs of *women*, written by a ... *man*.

LOL!!!

[Magic Poriferan]

Honestly, where did you find this crap? I oscillated between finding it highly offensive to finding it highly amusing.

:nice:

10 emotional needs of *women*, written by a ... *man*.

LOL!!!


Be gentle...

[CaptainChick]

10. Prove he is not a closet homosexual

x__X

[Lethe]

4. He must show Dominance, making all major decisions.

I would have kicked his arse out the door. :rolleyes2:

[CaptainChick]

9.) Does he have sought after High Quality Sperm.

Oh wow, that is such an emotional need of mine it's soooooo not funny.

When I am with the man I love, the mere thought of his sperm not being sought after by others, or it not being anything but that of High Quality, really gets my panties in a twist!!!

Harumph!!!

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't know what degree to take that list seriously, since it seems obvious to me that it was at least slightly facetious.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Alright I'm going to shake this thread up. I'll state my opinion.

1. I do not believe that men and women have much of a difference in sex drive ONCE AND IF THEY ARE TRULY ATTRACTED TO THEIR MATE.

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

3. Men will not have sex with just any woman who offers it. They are not the "sex machines" that society and traditional machismo portrays them to be. They will turn a willing woman down easily if she does not live up to their preferences.

4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

5. Some women have sex with men they are not truly attracted to, for other reasons (I wouldn't).

There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

I think you're largely right here. Sometimes we deny certain truths because it's not the way we'd like things to be in an ideal world. My only beef here is that I see a little wiggle room on #2. Very little. It's true, though, that feminism and biology are at direct odds with each other, and will be as long as only one gender can give birth.

[Ivy]

I consider giving birth the most feminist act I've ever performed.

[Magic Poriferan]

I think you're largely right here. Sometimes we deny certain truths because it's not the way we'd like things to be in an ideal world. My only beef here is that I see a little wiggle room on #2. Very little. It's true, though, that feminism and biology are at direct odds with each other, and will be as long as only one gender can give birth.

Errmmm... Sometimes feminism gets a little whacky, but yeah... you've got to admit that #2 is worth more than a little beef. It's worth a big beef.

1, 3, and 5 seems kind of obvious. I wonder how steadfast #4 really is.

[Hmm]

That emotional needs of women list was in fact written by a man. His name is Frank B. Kermit.

I think you're largely right here. Sometimes we deny certain truths because it's not the way we'd like things to be in an ideal world. My only beef here is that I see a little wiggle room on #2. Very little. It's true, though, that feminism and biology are at direct odds with each other, and will be as long as only one gender can give birth.

Yes.

[01011010]

I'm rather fond of both of you. Hope this doesn't take an awkward direction.

I don't agree with some of her ideas. However, it won't change my opinion of her. I don't attach feelings to debate. She's a very nice individual.

[Orangey]

It's true, though, that feminism and biology are at direct odds with each other, and will be as long as only one gender can give birth.

Well, 'feminism' is a very broad term that encompasses several different (and often conflicting) ideologies, so I'd be wary of generalizing it's meaning. If you're talking about the 'radical feminism' crap that you hear from the likes of Andrea Dworkin and her ilk, then yes, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately it's the 'feminism' of this sort that you have to hear about all the time.

[Hmm]

I don't agree with some of her ideas. However, it won't change my opinion of her. I don't attach feelings to debate. She's a very nice individual.

Ditto. There is no one here who I have any hard feelings towards. I'm slowly starting to adore you all even if we do disagree.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I consider giving birth the most feminist act I've ever performed.

Dang you and your ability to cut someone's point to ribbons in a minimum of words! I wish there were a smiley of somebody angrily shaking their fist :)

Well, 'feminism' is a very broad term that encompasses several different (and often conflicting) ideologies, so I'd be wary of generalizing it's meaning. If you're talking about the 'radical feminism' crap that you hear from the likes of Andrea Dworkin and her ilk, then yes, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately it's the 'feminism' of this sort that you have to hear about all the time.

I agree. For the record, I had radical feminism in mind. The kind that tries to will the uterus out of existence through legislation or rhetoric. That has always seemed to me a rather illogical position to take, because while advocating for women, it completely surrenders to the male paradigm of power and fights an impossible battle to claim it.

You're also correct that we rarely hear more moderate views. Sadly, every cause is dominated by the radical edge because they're the ones that are the most committed and the ones that make for the best story. Too many institutions suffer from bad reputations because people assume everyone in that institution thinks and acts like the radical edge.

Sorry, that post was kind of all over the place :p

[Orangey]

I agree. For the record, I had radical feminism in mind. The kind that tries to will the uterus out of existence through legislation or rhetoric. That has always seemed to me a rather illogical position to take, because while advocating for women, it completely surrenders to the male paradigm of power and fights an impossible battle to claim it.

You're also correct that we rarely hear more moderate views. Sadly, every cause is dominated by the radical edge because they're the ones that are the most committed and the ones that make for the best story. Too many institutions suffer from bad reputations because people assume everyone in that institution thinks and acts like the radical edge.

Sorry, that post was kind of all over the place :p

No need to apologize, I get your drift :). I'm not a fan of those fringe feminist ideologies either...the type that try to make absurd arguments along the lines of "PMS is a patriarchal myth", or "Newton's Principia is a rape manual". :dont:

[Haphazard]

"PMS is a patriarchal myth"

It's not exactly myth, but it hardly seems fair that as soon as a woman starts acting like a bitch, people's minds automatically wander to her pants, when the worst parts of PMS are often not even mood swings.

I'm always a bitch, regardless of the stage of my menstrual cycle. So please. Stop wondering. ;)

[Orangey]

It's not exactly myth, but it hardly seems fair that as soon as a woman starts acting like a bitch, people's minds automatically wander to her pants, when the worst parts of PMS are often not even mood swings.

True, but that's due more to other people's (mis)use of the concept of PMS than to the condition itself. Some radical feminists would deny that any such physiological condition exists at all.

[phoenix13]

True, but that's due more to other people's (mis)use of the concept of PMS than to the condition itself. Some radical feminists would deny that any such physiological condition exists at all.

I wonder if they actually mean that or if they're just using that argument as a means to an end. I like to pretend that people are reflective.

[Haphazard]

True, but that's due more to other people's (mis)use of the concept of PMS than to the condition itself. Some radical feminists would deny that any such physiological condition exists at all.

The only women who think PMS doesn't exist don't ever get it. They do exist. And I despise them.

The problem is not any inherent differences themselves but rather the way the public will shape apparent 'differences' into these easily misused concepts. Though there are differences, they would probably be better off strictly acknowledged biologically and sociologically rather than explicitly socially -- as in, if science finds these new trends, it might be better if the people do not know, if all they're going to do is misuse anything found.

Not like that's ever going to happen... but eh.

[Orangey]

I wonder if they actually mean that or if they're just using that argument as a means to an end. I like to pretend that people are reflective.

As a means to what end?

[phoenix13]

As a means to what end?

To get people to treat men and women as equals? To take women seriously when they're pissed instead of assuming it's PMS? It's just so absurd an assertion that I'm trying hard to see where it's coming from. (The principle is if you over-reach you'll end up closer than if you reach for the actual impossibly distant target.)

[Orangey]

The only women who think PMS doesn't exist don't ever get it. They do exist. And I despise them.

The problem is not any inherent differences themselves but rather the way the public will shape apparent 'differences' into these easily misused concepts. Though there are differences, they would probably be better off strictly acknowledged biologically and sociologically rather than explicitly socially -- as in, if science finds these new trends, it might be better if the people do not know, if all they're going to do is misuse anything found.

Not like that's ever going to happen... but eh.

I agree. PMS does exist, but only a portion (I don't know the exact statistic) of the female population experiences its symptoms at all, and among the ones who do, only a small portion experience it to a debilitating degree. Yet people will continue to use it (as it is used in popular parlance) as though it were universally applicable to each and every single woman to an equal degree. Ah well, it can't be avoided.

Edit: phoenix13, I see what you mean now. Perhaps that is their strategy, I don't know. All I do know is that I don't much respect a movement that uses blatant falsehoods as a means of gaining rhetorical clout.

[heart]

Premenstrual Syndrome (http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/pms.htm#d)

How common is PMS?

Estimates of the percentage of women affected by PMS vary widely. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, at least 85 percent of menstruating women have at least one PMS symptom as part of their monthly cycle. Most of these women have symptoms that are fairly mild and do not need treatment. Some women (about three to eight percent of menstruating women) have a more severe form of PMS, called Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD). See the question, "What is Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD)?" below for more information.

[CaptainChick]

http://mszigzag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pms_copy.jpg

[heart]

All it ever does to me is make me feel more fatigued and slowed down in all ways. I am not at all likely to be extra bitchy, just less EVERYthing. Like the winter of the month.

[Hmm]

Everybody has ups and downs, good moods and bad moods. It's part of being human!

[phoenix13]

http://mszigzag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pms_copy.jpg

Where do you get these pictures?!

[CaptainChick]

Where do you get these pictures?!
Google images!!!

:yes:

[Hmm]

I'm a little tipsy right now but I just want to say to the women that you shoudl not feel bad about having emotional highs and lows. YOu shoul love yoruselves and men love you too. You are beautiful women. Cereal.

[Ivy]

Here's what gets me about the PMS thing. It's just as anti-feminist to deny women's experiences as imaginary as it is to dismiss their ideas as being PMS-influenced.

[Hmm]

Here's what gets me about the PMS thing. It's just as anti-feminist to deny women's experiences as imaginary as it is to dismiss their ideas as being PMS-influenced.

tha'ts deal Ivy. I ddidnt understand it but it's deep anyway. What is your type?

[Ivy]

I don't know but I love cereal!

[Snail]

There are physiological differences between the genders, and clearly there are, in general, also psychological differences. The fact that most men are T types and most women are F types means that it would be impossible for everyone to pair up with someone of his or her own type in a relationship, but those of us who are aware of this fact have the advantage in finding type compatibility if rejecting diversity in our relationships in order to increase the probability of harmonious interaction is our goal.

I do feel that type has more to do with human difference than biology, and whether or not there is a correlation between the two is irrelevant because any broad generalization is unfair to the individuals who must live their lives as the exceptions, victims to the false expectations of others. An individual ESTP woman may be more likely to be promiscuous than an individual INFP male, regardless of gender stereotypes or cultural expectations that might lead one to suspect any random male of being less sexually picky than any random female. I also know that my ESTJ grandmother fits into the masculine stereotype more easily than my ISFP friend, who is a male.

Hormones and brain development may influence type to some extent, but whether or not this is found to be the case, it is the individual will that determines sexual choices within that contextual framework. If we wish to characterize inward moving vs. outward moving qualities, it may be healthier to view them as "yin and yang" instead of "feminine and masculine," as this seems to be more accurate and inclusive. As this applies to typology ESTJ would be at the ultimate yang end of the spectrum while INFP would be at the ultimate yin end, with individual variation depending on the intensity of a specific preference and how the will may shift along that spectrum in a situationally dependent manner.

As for the comment about women seeking dominant males, I disagree that this is always the case. The dynamics of the sexual relationship need not bleed over into other, non-sexual, areas of the relationship. I like soft-spoken, gentle poetic types who would be willing to give their own lives before being so harsh as to even squish a bug. In the bedroom, my preference is for someone who has emotional power over me, and who is capable of making me feel an intense attraction for him at will. In order for me to be comfortable enough to feel this way, I must trust my partner to be completely harmless. He must also see the body as a mere tool of expression that is used to communicate his desire for my spiritual qualities rather than as a decorative object. Passionate expression may appear, outwardly, to resemble dominance, but the psychological aspects are entirely different.