I think men seem more simple because their “impulses” and sexual apetite are so overt. (Or are culturally stimulated to be overt… whatever) Women aren’t as outgoing in what makes them tick.
Anyone who thinks men aren’t easily manipulated by sex ? I think we are.
Your story about the Wild West has no connection with non-US women.
Also: It does not explain why books describing women as complex while men are merely a bundle of primary instincts are read whereever they make it to bookstores. They are bought and read by women.
(Anybody ever read the hilarious “The Rules” which seemed to be a hit a few years ago? One of my nieces in Europe had that… Why women spend time on reading “instructions to get him marry you” is beyond me).
I am curious to see you explaining the “secret boy” inside me and how this explains women who act like little girls.
Salaam. A
It is a universal idea. It is even the main factor behind the segregation of sexes, like for example in Islamic societies.
But I don’t see why this is a reason to say that men are “primitive”. We are not a bunch of Cave Men who can’t control our sexdrive and our impulsive reaction to what stimulates it.
Really, I’ve been in a lot of situations where my instincts told me " take her" while my reason told me otherwise. If you can’t control that sort of situations, then you are a hopeless case.
Salaam. A
Excuse me? Jerry Falwell is a polygamist? 
The idea is that we are more easily stimulated then women… even if we do “control” ourselves… a trained horny dog is still a horny dog. (I must say that women when they feel free and at ease can be much more sex crazy than we men)
I think the mixing up is better… especially if you give women autonomy and freedom. More sex is never bad IMHO. Naturally if its my wife I might think differently 
Sexual repression only leads to bad stuff…
Well did she want to be “taken” ? I only control when its necessary to do so… otherwise I’m a hopeless case. 
manipulated? imho, no. satisfied? imho, yes. with regards to sexual gratification, women are way more complicated than men. at least that’s what they always say.
I’m a musician, and I have often observed people’s reactions to a piece of very complicated music of a style they’re not familiar with.
Some of them comment, “Gee, there’s nothing to it”, or “It’s the same thing over and over”.
Possibly, referring to half the human race as ‘simple’ is a way for an intellectually lazy person to express their lack of understanding, in a way that shifts the blame.
(I would also like to point out that if the question is limited to sexual matters, then there does seem to be some evidence that we men are simpler creatures than women. I was addressing the tendency to describe men as simple overall).
Actualy, the sexual repression you have in mind is in many cases seen as more felt by the men. (Complicated issue. Not for this thread)
Hmm… Yes… I’m always quite sure of it. I must admit here that such invitations not always have a direct connection with my shining personality and natural charm.
Depends on your interpretation of what is a necessary control 
Salaam. A
Oops! Of course when I said proof I really meant explanation, justification, simplification, or perhaps just holding me in that special way I need so often.
Well, in moder times yes. Anyone remember what hysteria was and its most common medical treatment?
I’m glad you added this. I was going to call you in the notion that men are more sexual than women.
As to whether men are more easily manipulated, I’d say that is a toss up. Women certainly have a good deal of power in the lives of people I know. But look into the life of prostitutes. Its not the sort of “Gee heres a good career” choice some people think it is. I think that lifestyle gives good evidence for both arguments. Prostitutes are manipulated into offering themselves for money, Johns are manipulated into giving up more money than they otherwise might. The issue is not which sex is more easily manipulated, but rather the differences in the triggers used for said manipulation.
The idea that women can manipulate men easily is based on the perspective that offering or actually feeling sexual attraction is relatively easy and consequence free for women. Meanwhile, the idea that women are easily manipulated is based on the idea that feigning love is easy and consequence free for men.
The simple vs complex issue is the same thing. Neither sex is simple or complex. They are simply different. There are issues about which men tend to be simple while women tend to be complex. Similarly there are issues about which women tend to be simply while men tend to be complex.
All such generalizations are, however, sterotypes and so subject to the pitfalls associated with them.
I think Joseph Campbell could do a special about this where he would show that phallic images and symbols are simple and direct and lead to monotheism and vaginal images and symbols are dark and mysterious and complex and lead to nothing but girl trouble. Beware the magical cave of wonders!
As for why the ideas come back over and over, I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that heterosexual relationships are very intense and anything that helps people organize that trauma in their minds is psychologically comforting. No joke. As far as you can go back in written records, you see evidence that the bond between a man in a woman is difficult and painful and totally messes up everyone’s peace of mind.
Most people can accept that even if there are a lot of differences between a black man and an asian man, none of them really dictate anything and to harp on the differences leads to more destructive rationalizations than useful theories that help mankind, but making up wild theories about why men are from mars and women are from venus is valid science?
I don’t really know why we are compelled over and over to find new reasons that men can’t be like women and women can’t be like men.
One thing I really notice on this boards is that people love the evolutionary psychology that “proves” that men are genetically programmed to not want to be monogamous and to want to have sex with as many 12 year old girls who look young for their age as they can manage to catch between boar hunts. The females are programmed to try look as 12 years old and catchable as they possibly can. Failing that, I guess they have to go lie in the road with their legs open and wish for someone to take pity on them. You would think at some point in this evolution women would have learned that it’s probably easier to babysit for each other and just go kill a rabbit than it is to keep looking 12 until your children are old enough to survive on their own. But we didn’t cause we were so incapacitated by childbearing that we only had the energy to go rub some berries on our lips in an effort to get a man to sperm us up one last time before our eggs dried up.
I see that line of reasoning on this board so much that I figure it must be somethign the typical person believes is true.
I understand that this is a Freudian slip. Is it a slip up or a slip in?
Or perhaps there is some more complex context my simple mind is missing?
Anyone who thinks women aren’t also easily manipulated by sex? I think we both are.
From my personal experience, it’s a lot easier for a wife to change her husband’s mood than for a husband to change his wife’s mood. This may be either simplicity on the husband’s part, or stubborness on the wife’s part, who knows?
Also, women are more likely to second-guess a decision they have made, while men are more likely to “let the chips fall where they may”. This might be due to simplicity/laziness/stubborness of men to re-think the alternatives, or an increased sense of justice and a concern to not appear ambiguous/weak/undependable.
Of course this is a generalization which varies based on the person and the grayness of the situation, but I think it’s correct based on what women and men have said to me.
_
_
Well, barring the “snips of snails” explanation (since I think most people have heard “snips and snails”), I’d say that I don’t think “snips” are particularly specific. Granted, “snips” aren’t quite as broad a category as “everything nice”, but I still think it lacks a certain specificity.
I’m actually surprised no one caught this:
Males are ‘generally smarter’ than females? Really? Do you have some kind of cite to back up this incredible assertion??
As to the ‘physically weaker’ I suppose if we are going on averages then females are generally weaker than males. There are of course ecceptions to this, though I suppose at the top end, all things being equal, men generally are stronger than women all things like weight, size and conditioning being equal. I’m not sure that your assertion that this lack on the womens part explains why folks think ‘Men are primitive’ and ‘Women are complex’ though.
To answer the OP directly, I think its one of those urban (or pre-urban I suppose) myths, that women are more ‘complex’ and men are more ‘primitive’. You can find LOTS of examples of men being complex and women being primitive and vice versa. PEOPLE are both complex and simple, are both primitive and sophisticated…and are infinitely varied between these and other categories…and such variety crosses gender and ‘ethnic’ boundaries all the time defying anyone trying to categorize or pigeonhole people into neat little boxes. I think trying to shoehorn ANY large group of hominids into any one category like this is an excersize in fantasy.
Just my opinion of course.
-XT
Well, whatever snips are, that is what they are. Unless you think it is possible that snips could actually be a word meaning something like “Everything naughty and mean.” I suppose that is a possibility.
I actually found a site which had the rhyme as Frogs and snails and puppy dog tails. I posted that other one because it included more explanation and history.
Are you assuming a positive change of mood here? From my experience it is far easier for a husband to change the mood of his wife from good to bad than the reverse. I am only speaking from personal… Oops, TMI.
Um, he didn’t say that men are smarter, he said that women are not smarter. While it is a formulation that allows for the possibility that men are smarter, it most assuredly does not require it, in that, if men and women are equally smart, then clearly women are not smarter than men, and men are not smarter than women.
From dictionary.com:
Little bits and scraps of things. That’s what snips are. Not too specific, imho.
Of course women are smarter; just ask them.
I’m such a kidder. The elevation of women dates (at least) to the advent of chivalric poetry, circa ~A.D. 1100, in which women are put on metaphorical pedestels and worshipped from afar by long-suffering males whose base desires fill them with shame whos dark shadows are illuminated by woman’s beauty etc etc etc. The whole things strikes me as eye-rolling hooey and just another way to avoid treating women as equals. Women have a greater investment in mating, as they have to carry and nurture the resultant child, and as such they may use methods a bit more subtle that those demanded from men, but beyond this limited requirement, I’d say women are just as capable of troglodyte stupidity as any Y-chromosomer.
From my personal experience that’s quite false.
Data isn’t the plural of anecdote, hey-hey.
Again, this is simply anecdotal blather. It’s quite easy to simply ASSUME it’s true because it’s a common stereotype, and because people like to think it’s true because they like to think they fit into the molds society wants them to fit into.
But if I actually sit down and think about the behaviour of myself, my wife, and all our friends and family, comparing the behaviour of the men to the women, it is quite obviously nonsense. I know many men who can’t ever stick with a decision and I know women who are as bullheaded as a minotaur. So absent objective, tested evidence, it’s probably utter baloney.