Where I go when I feel depressed

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by Disco King

So, males generally want more sex and more sexual partners than women do.

is this convenient social tale still not dead. I mean I get it that stereotypes that are practical survive in academia as well, but this shit was already out when I went to college

do you learn how women are naturally better cooks, too, or some such shit?

Originally Posted by Disco King

and less likely to be mostly a result of socialization

I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not

[Elphenor]

I was gonna ask how true is that really

[pavementtune]

I don't know, we should compare 100 male professors who write the textbooks to find out the truth

from different decades, too, so we see the change in cultures where a woman is burned alive for adultery and sex outside marriage is a death sentence anyway, versus simply being labelled a slut, and reason enough to not get custody in case of a divorce because multiple partners make a mother an unfit parent, yet no such thing exists for fathers. that should be fun

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

no one thinks that, it's an act of aggression

You're out of your mind. Guys who send dick pics think that girls like it and that it'll turn them on cause they think they have a nice dick. Guys aren't intending it to be a malicious thing like you're making it out to be.

[reprise85]

malicious and aggressive don't mean the same thing.

whipping your dick out online or in person is indecent exposure and an aggressive act

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

it depends. you have the solitary dick pic. then there's the dick/torso pics. furthermore we have the dick/torso/buttocks pics. finally the set reaches full potential with the inclusion of the face.

I didn't know dick pics where you see more of the body are a thing. somehow I only ever get (unsolicited) boring straight up dick-only pics, at best with a hand on it or slightly in profile so you see the balls, too.

Which is very considerate, because when I get this shit, my first thought is of course "oh wow, I wonder if the balls match!"

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by reprise85

malicious and aggressive don't mean the same thing.

whipping your dick out online or in person is indecent exposure and an aggressive act

Well I think his description of aggression is a little off-base. I'd argue that most of the guys don't even intend for it to be aggressive. They honestly just think it's a good idea and that the women would love to see it. You know how much guys think about dick-size, so if a chap feels like he has a big one, he feels like it'll give him an edge to show it off. Hell, I have friends like this, and they're the guys who send dick pics.

Women sometimes do the same thing with breast-shots and stuff like that. Obviously I'd much rather look at a bare pair of breasts, but then again I'm not gay... Maybe some girls do like receiving images if the guy has a big dick. I imagine a lot of girls don't, but some likely do.

[teh b0lly!!1]

tbh just the fact that "dick pics" even became a widespread term, and moreover, a phenomenon, is bizarre and inconceivable to me

[vixnix]

Maybe it’s a cultural thing though...like, living under patriarchy we’re saturated in the knowledge of what men like - Hooters, T&A, teens4cash, etc.

As the sun sets on that, maybe the top shelf of petrol station magazine racks will be filled with magazines like Dick and Balls, Big Dongs, etc.

[yo soy el mejor]

too bad you're you or else you could save time and just feel better not being you

[vixnix]

Members Only

[fuzzyroes]

hardee har har

[vixnix]

I just thought of that

[FlamingGlobes]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

too bad you're you or else you could save time and just feel better not being you

https://i.gifer.com/FGSR.gif

[fuzzyroes]

I actually saw a women who looked a lot like Yo Soy today. I was carousing down the sidewalk and I saw this lady through the glass door as she was exiting an establishment and it looked just like Yo Soy, when she came out she saw me looking at her and I gave her a friendly smile and she gave me a very unimpressed look. I initially thought "ouch" but then I chuckled in my mind and thought, well, that was a typical Yo Soy reaction


One of those weird times where I was thinking about Netphoria in my day to day life.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I'd argue that most of the guys don't even intend for it to be aggressive. They honestly just think it's a good idea and that the women would love to see it.

you don't say

[FlamingGlobes]

Sounds like another Missed Connection.

[yo soy el mejor]

very glad i'm not you

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by reprise85

you don't say

I just said it you blithering nincompoop

[reprise85]

not intending on being aggressive doesn't mean something isn't aggressive

[fuzzyroes]

Reprise, I say this politely, but you're missing the original point.

reread the exchange with Breegull

I said: "Guys do it cause they think they have a big dick and they assume the woman being sent it is going to be impressed and wanna fuck him."

And he said "no one thinks that, it's an act of aggression"

Which is a stupid argument. He's saying that "no one" thinks that the women who they're sending the dick pic to would wanna see it...

Are you not understanding the disagreement? Whether it's aggressive or not, guys think that women are gonna like what they're sending, that cannot be argued... You certainly can't say that "no one thinks that".

[yo soy el mejor]

fuzzy is only suggesting some women might like being harassed online

[yo soy el mejor]

fuzzy would like more dick pics

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

fuzzy is only suggesting some women might like being harassed online

I was thinking more along the lines of a fellow getting a young ladies digits and then unexpectedly "surprising" her with one of said images. I mean, what avenues are there for this to happen with strangers? Do people still actually go on random chat lines and shit to meet people?

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I just said it you blithering nincompoop

you calling Reprise a 'blithering nincompoop', there are no words

[FlamingGlobes]

How many times do you think he had to Google 'nincompoop' before he got the spelling correct?

[FlamingGlobes]

Go home fuzzy, you're drunk.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

You're out of your mind. Guys who send dick pics think that girls like it and that it'll turn them on cause they think they have a nice dick.

...there's just no way anyone thinks this.

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Well I think his description of aggression is a little off-base. I'd argue that most of the guys don't even intend for it to be aggressive. They honestly just think it's a good idea and that the women would love to see it. You know how much guys think about dick-size, so if a chap feels like he has a big one, he feels like it'll give him an edge to show it off. Hell, I have friends like this, and they're the guys who send dick pics.

Women sometimes do the same thing with breast-shots and stuff like that. Obviously I'd much rather look at a bare pair of breasts, but then again I'm not gay... Maybe some girls do like receiving images if the guy has a big dick. I imagine a lot of girls don't, but some likely do.

not all guys are obsessed with their own dicks and forcing images of their dicks on women, just men who are insecure pieces of trash like yourself. I'm wholly unsurprised you are too stupid to understand this though. I have never had a woman send me an unsolicited picture of her junk in an attempt to fuck me. You know why? Because this is a specifically patriarchal and aggressive act. To force someone else to view your penis against their will is a form of sexual aggression and harassment. You compare this to people exchanging sexy pictures in a situation where the relationship is already defined as sexual, but that isn't the same at all. No woman wants to see your dick randomly. And no man actually believes women do, not even you. You are just lying to defend your patriarchal, misogynistic worldviews.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

is this convenient social tale still not dead. I mean I get it that stereotypes that are practical survive in academia as well, but this shit was already out when I went to college

Differing mating strategies of males and females has been pretty well supported by empirical evidence. Parental-investment theory generates hypotheses that can and have been tested.

Because of the higher investment females put into reproduction than men do (nine months of pregnancy, nursing), parental-investment theory predicts that more selective mating choices and preference for long-term, stable relationships would be selected for amongst females. This would increase the likelihood of offspring living to reproductive age, carrying on the mother's genes. Males would be more likely to pass on their genes if they had more partners, and a lower investment in reproduction (not getting pregnant, producing more than one gamete a month) means that they incur a lower cost for having more partners.

Cross-cultural studies have shown that men consistently report a preference for a larger number of sexual partners across all time intervals than women do. The size of the difference varies by culture, but the relationship of the difference has always been found to be the same.

Female fertility is highest during their 20s and reaches zero after menopause. Male fertility extends much later in life, and their ability to provide material sustenance also peaks later in life than female fertility does. So, parental-investment theory predicts that males will tend to prefer younger partners than females do.

This hypothesis, too, is confirmed by cross-cultural studies. Evidence shows that men tend to seek partners younger than themselves, and women tend to seek partners older. As men get older, the age difference between them and their wives increases, whereas as women get older, the age difference between them and their partners stays relatively stable.

David Buss conducted an experiment in which he had male and female confederates proposition strangers for sex. The vast majority of men agreed to the female confederate's proposal, while the vast majority of women declined.

Originally Posted by pavementtune

do you learn how women are naturally better cooks, too, or some such shit?

I've never encountered evidence of that. Just because some gender differences, or beliefs about gender differences, have empirical support for a biological basis, doesn't mean that they all do. Which differences exist, and how much those existing differences are socialized or evolved, is an empirical question. A reductionist worldview that everything is dictated by genes is just as mistaken as immediately dismissing any claims of genetic influence out of hand and believing that humans are exceptional amongst the natural world and the only species special enough to not feature any behavioural sexual dimorphism.

Originally Posted by pavementtune

I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not

I don't see why it would be absurd to acknowledge that differences in mate preference have strong biological factors, when we acknowledge that so many other aspects of an organism's behaviour is are shaped by evolution.

Culture and biology interact. Acknowledging that our evolutionary history has affected our behaviour does not mean we must deny cultural factors. In fact, they interact.

Amongst the 18 traits studied by Buss et al. concerning mate preference, some of them were more stable across culture than others. Preference for a mate with good financial prospects was predicted by sex better than by culture. Something like valuing chastity in partners was found to be highly sensitive to culture, with Chinese people, for example, valuing it much more than Swedish people do. Even though culture explained more variation than sex did, the relationships of the sex differences were stable across cultures, showing how socialization and culture can modify behaviour with a biological basis.

I'm not exactly sure which aim this "social tale" tested against evidence is meant to be convenient for. I don't see how accepting that human behaviour is biologically influenced necessarily has any pernicious social consequences, or invalidates certain progressive aims. It's not like the fact that men, on average, prefer to have more sex than women do, means that we can't stand against slut-shaming of women when they do pursue sexual pleasure, or that we have to tolerate things like income inequality or gendered sexual violence. I also generally think that our acceptance or rejection of claims should be based mostly on available evidence, and less on normative commitments.

[pavementtune]

okay, let's try this again:

Originally Posted by Disco King

So, males generally want more sex and more sexual partners than women do.

Originally Posted by Disco King

and less likely to be mostly a result of socialization

you claim empirical evidence.

how does the data what women and men did over the last centuries lead to a statement about what they WANT?


let's play this, made-up scenario:

empirical evidence:

country x:
90% of the girls get married by their famlies, at age 14
- 80% of women age 50 had max 2 sexual partners in their life

is your conclusion that woman want to have one partner, get married at 14, and don't want to have sex before marriage, because you have empirical evidence that this is in fact what they dod?