As mentioned before, this is because the vast majority of cultures are sedentary agricultural and post-agricultural cultures with highly organized power structures. In these cultures, wealth and power are inherited, and so paternity becomes a big issue and the sexual codes basically work to ensure a clear line of heredity.
The reason why cultures with other sexual codes are tiny and obscure is not because they are meaningless variations. It is because they are the few parts of the world that have different social and economic structures, which allow for different sexual systems. If we were all hunter-gatherers, or pastoral nomads or whatever, we would see a greater variation (or, rather, perhaps a different prominent variation.)
Right, but if you asked said person whether they were attracted to their partner then of course they would say “yes”. And sure, part of that is from adjusting their beauty scale down, consciously or otherwise.
The original assertion I’m arguing against is that women only find alpha males attractive. There are lots of reasons why that’s too broad a statement.
You’ve got my vote.
Objection withdrawn.
You believe.
Anyway, care to take a stab at the question I asked?
I can tell you what the difference is, between the sexual drives of men and women. Simple physiology. Ejaculate is stored, and as the container fills, urgency to relieve the pressure rises. It has a profound impact of male sex drive, and while most structures in the male reproductive system have an similar counter structure in females, the storage facility is not.
Wet dreams will evacuate the system, and lower the pressure, but the sex drive of males is … insistant prior to release.
It isn’t the only difference, but this one has a huge impact.
Men really should take matters in hand, before doing something stupid.
Is sperm build up related to sexual drive, though? I know we had a thread on blue balls where it was established that the pain from arousal had nothing to do with the build up of sperm.
Because in human males, like the apes we are descended from, men usually do the defending. I don’t deny evolution. I simply believe that when it comes to human behavior in modern society, it’s not so easy to draw these connections.
What is my interest in this? I’m a female who really enjoys sex and I think good sex is one of the top most important human experiences. I also believe most female’s sex drives have been affected by constant conditioning telling them that for women to enjoy sex is bad or unnatural.
I have friends who don’t masturbate, rarely come to orgasm, etc. What do they have in common? It’s not that they had the same cave-man ancestors. It’s that they grew up in sexually repressive families. When I masturbated as a toddler, I was told “Thats a private thing to do in your room.” When they did it, they were rushed to the nearest priest and told they had just nearly damned themselves to hell. Of course their sex drive is whack.
In my mind, this kind of conditioning deprives people of one of the great joys in life, and as such is outright abusive. And so I feel a strong need to remind people that female sexuality is a natural, strong, meaningful thing.
It isn’t exactly blue balls. It is more like a full bladder, or bowels. The longer one waits, the more the need to empty the contents manifests. It makes the sex drive more insistant.
I agree 100%. But even if women can freely enjoy sex, what if the conditioning goes further? What if well socialized women have mostly been conditioned to need alpha displays - or actual proof of alpha status - on the part of males in order to be sexually excited?
(I do believe this, but I believe it is due to generations of social conditioning, not to any hardwired biological imperative.)
In my mind, this kind of conditioning deprives people of one of the great joys in life, and as such is also outright abusive. Men ought not have to “earn” sexual partners through behaviors unrelated to courtship.
It sure would be nice if we could bring your repressed class of women and my less-than-alpha class of men together, sven. But I suspect the result would be an all too graphic illustration of Life Is Not Fair. In the long run, there probably are a lot of people out there who are not meant to find That Special Person, simply because the rules of the game are not to their advantage.
Can we have some cites for that claim about semen build-up, wsbenge? Because when I go for a few days between ejaculations, it’s nowhere near 20 times as much volume as when I go a few hours between. It seems more likely to me that it’s produced on demand, and if it’s stored at all, it’s only for a few moments right before release.
You need to bear in mind the difference between sperm cells, which are produced continuously and AIUI are reabsorbed if they go nowhere (otherwise vasectomy would make your balls explode), and seminal fluid, which is produced in response to sexual arousal and builds up in the seminal vesicles. “Blue balls” is a misnomer, the discomfort associated with unfulfilled arousal is in the fluid production and storage areas (mainly the prostate and seminal vesicles), not the testicles.
OK. Let me first say that I have no opinion on how women should act sexually other than they shouldn’t be coerced. Gay, straight, bi, celebate, promiscuous, monogomous, I have no problem.
Also, even if some of these things are “unnatural” that’s of no consequence to me because most of our daily lives are unnatural. We’d be hypocrites to declare something wrong because it’s unnatural.
I hope I’m being clear enough.
But there’s a difference between the root of our sex drive and what women need to or should be doing in the modern world. Acknowledging that women are often attracted to status doesn’t mean all women should be, or that any other behaviour should be condemned.
I was flicking through some Feminism books in my local library and I was astonished by how many implied that the idea of men being attracted to beauty and women being attracted to status is a male conspiracy.
It’s nonsense.
If it’s a conspiracy, it’s one that’s somehow spread all around the world.
Oh, but then there’s the theory that an agricultural society must lead inexorably to our current mating behaviours. I don’t see why that should be the case, or why it should continue to be the case, and find it far less plausible than just saying that our attraction instincts (which surely no-one denies exist) extend to perceptions of alpha-ness.
The point I made in the OP was that for virtually all species of animals the males have a stronger mating urge than the females. And it appears that humans share this characteristic. ISTM that someone who is trying to assert that a) humans are different than virtually all animals, and b) that the fact that they actually do share the same characteristic is due to cultural influences and not inherent, is fighting an uphill battle.
Not that it’s impossible for such an argument to be correct. But certainly the “null hypothesis” has to be that what seems to be true actually is, and humans are not an exception in the animal kingdom.
I interpreted the claim as being that women are attracted to the power aspects of their mates.
Modern society has not been around all that long. There was plenty of opportunity for people to be shaped by pre-modern forces. And once that happened, it doesn’t all disappear because the forces that shaped it no longer exist.
This statement is simply behind the times. The idea that modern humans have minds and genomes shaped during pre-historic times has fallen apart in the last few years. The field of evolutionary psychology is based on the assumption that change in the genome goes very slowly, so there’s been no chance for evolution to reshape our brains during the few millenia of civilization. Unfortunately for the evolutionary psychologists, this assumption is flatly wrong.
I’m taking it you never read the Ron Thread™? Or met struggling musicians knee-deep in ladies up for NSA sex? Maybe it’s just the circles I travel in, but the bars are teeming with 90 lb weaklings working on their art or bicycles who are hardly at a loss for female companions. They are not displaying feats of strength, driving flashy cars or moving up the corporate ladder. Though really, I’m not sure how a man shows signs of being an ‘alpha,’ or exactly what an ‘alpha’ is. Someone who makes a lot of money? Puts other people down? Wears suits?
And again, discussing sex drives is near impossible until it’s determined whether the people in question are seeking heterosexual penetration, orgasm, orgasm through penetration… what?
Why do you think that a struggling musician can’t seem sufficiently ‘alpha’ to some women. Perhaps this musician is who is he is because he feels above the traditional corporate rat race. Perhaps the girls are enlightened and agree. To them, the guys in suits are cute looking, but ultimately embarrassing.