2007.03.25 The Female Orgasm

[Ali Quadir]

I think that confusion between two of you started with the post, where you stated that women are tasked to guide men from mere lust, or lower centers, to the higher ones, to which Ali replied in the first place. Then you said the above and this is where confusion started.

I would agree. To say it lightly: I'm allergic to everything that suggests that either is the superior sex. It's rubbish... We're equals. And a lot of the "Men are this and women are that" arguments are the result of societal beliefs, not of fact.. Meaning that they keep us in the cycles of sexual inequality. Belief shapes behavior.

Procreating as often as possible is for human males simply a recipe for disaster.

Men aren't procreating as much as they did before readily available contraception, but the biological urge is still there,

Obviously any act of procreation requires one male and one female.

In history at the time when male psychology was formed. There were not as many women available to procreate with as you might think. In fact the size of the nomadic tribes was small, large families not much more. And there was relative equality between men and women. Meaning that you can't force a woman to have sex with you, if you did you would be cast out of the tribe... Or worse... So the only way for a man to procreate would be to successfully seduce a woman and have her fall in love with you.. Ergo, the emotional bond is vitally important to a male's success to procreate... An additional issue is that if a man struck out with 1 woman. Then all other viable women would likely be her friends. So striking out with one means failing to reproduce, unless you can find another tribe to join with which is a dangerous move at best.

In males today you see that most men would rather wait forever than approach the girl they're really head over heels in love with.. And that is the true psychology of the male. Not the lust oriented animal that you like the rest of society depicts. Yes those exist. But it would be the same as saying that women are subservient creatures who like, or need, a strong man to tell them what to do.

A man who wanted to have sex as often as possible in society today would play numbers rather than have an enormous crush on an individual. Yet more men have enormous crushes on a single woman than men playing the numbers game. It's simply not how we're programmed to act.

(The numbers game is running from woman to woman untill one bites)

You're saying the urge is still there, I am saying the urge is equal in men and women.

which is considered by many 'experts' to be the explanation for higher rates of infidelity among men than among women:

Those cheating numbers are debatable..

It is very likely that women in your numbers cheat less because they were more dependent on their husband. With full equality, women and men are likely to cheat on an equal basis. Check your sources they'll say the same thing.

This is one of those sexist beliefs that has entered into our society.

I don't think so. It's not sexist to face the statistics. It is what it is. Statistically, men cheat more. They have more 1-night stands. They take longer to commit. When they do cheat, it's with women who are more attractive than their wives, so physical appearance is more of a factor; whereas with women (statistically) the emotional connection is more often a factor.

You know the saying: "There is lies, bloody lies and statistics.." Go back to your statistics and check the behavior of women who are on a basis of equality with their men. You'll see that their cheating behavior is also more equal..

This is what I mean with society imposing certain attitudes on the behavior of men and women. It was an actual fact before the sexual revolutions that women were less intelligent than men as measured by IQ tests. (They were not encouraged to use their brains!) It was even an actual fact for a while that women had no sexual urges at all. (Remember female hysteria?) It's not sexist... It's science! Sorry girl, but your labia drive your hysteria! Fortunately we outgrew those foolish notions... But there is clearly more to do.

You're arguing that men on the whole are only after sex. That they don't care about the women they're having sex with. And that sex is less of an emotional experience for men... This is insulting and sexist. It is understandable because of societies apparent belief in these myths... But never the less sexist in the same way that women can't think properly and should be subservient to their men.

Imagine a society where every man and woman has these mistaken beliefs, what kind of effect will that have on the self respect of men? What do you see in society today?

But the fact is that reality doesn't obey that theory.

It may be that the theory is wrong, but the statistics clearly do show a difference in male and female behavior.

Statistics measures only the end results of effects and influences on behavior... Statistics are not to be mistaken for inherent behavior. Yet that is what you're doing...

In a smog rich environment people are statistically more likely to have respiratory related health problems. What you're doing is analogous to assuming this is because they're inherently likely to have those problems...

Again I totally get where you're coming from. I believed this crap myself up to little over a year ago... I believed women were good and men were bad. I believed that there was something inherently wrong with masculinity.

Human society is clearly not defined by alpha males. It's very rare you find a true alpha male in real life.

This is surprising to me. I've observed many men engaging in 1-upmanship my entire life. I see it all the time in men. In the workplace, in schools, etc. There are numerous books written about how men tend to try to outdo one another, while women tend to bond with one another.

This is what I call competition among males. Not alpha male behavior... An alpha male does not require what you call 1-upmanship... Generally the individuals with high social status engage in less self proving behavior. It is the individuals low in social status who feel the need to prove themselves. Lower in the pecking order there's a lot more pecking.

When I was in a student dorm, I had for some reason de-facto respect. Everyone was running around pecking at each other, but they never ever bothered me. They respected me even if we kept a little distance. Maybe it was because I was a bit older, maybe because when the s*** hit the fan I was the one to fix their problems. Maybe it was because I refused to play those games myself. Point is that my supposed alpha status did not require me to engage in "1-upmanship" behavior. I think it's because I believed in my own ideas more than I believed theirs.

Incidentally: Competition among women is at least as fierce as among men. They're a tad more subtle about it but you should have noticed that too!

I get where you're coming from Monica, I think that males today are in a sorry shape. We're not gender conscious like most women are... We don't know who we are and most men don't actually reach maturity. We don't know our own power and we are constantly pushed in the position where we feel we have to prove ourselves. From this comes a bad behavior that only reinforces the problem. Men don't mature. You girls are a brilliant example of what change is possible if as a gender you believe and decide in a new vision of that gender. Even if the pioneers of that new vision were ridiculed by their society. "Women wearing pants? Ridiculous!!" But look at you! You've become brilliant! Similarly I believe men in society today are not what men truly are. We're not what we were in history. This is not a power struggle. We just need to be more ourselves. It's about self respect and self actualisation.