Where I go when I feel depressed

[yo soy el mejor]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Differing mating strategies of males and females has been pretty well supported by empirical evidence.

aka all my dude friends like to fuck

side note: have no female friends

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

your evidence - is based on cavemen theories. I don't know if you have noticed we have 2018 and that genes actually change.

Yes, gene frequencies change. But they don't change overnight. Humans are a relatively young species, and contemporary humans aren't going to be all that genetically distinct from our human ancestors living a few thousand years ago.

Is your suggestion that behaviour adaptations selected for earlier in our species' history have been completely erased? Does this extend to other human adaptations (fear of snakes and spiders, pattern recognition, diurnality, lack of attraction to relatives), or just ones that result in dimorphism?

Originally Posted by pavementtune

if you cannot see how for centuries these theories have been convenient and for whome, I suggest to recognize in which world you live in.

The fact that people have tried to use certain ideas to justify bad things doesn't invalidate those ideas. The ideas have to be judged on their empirical support.

And anyway, as I stated before, accepting a biological basis to behaviour doesn't even commit us to these ideologies in the first place. It's not like men preferring more sex than women do means that sexual inequality is suddenly justified. Just out of curiosity, what adverse social practices do you think one would be forced to accept should one also accept that dimorphic behavioural adaptations exist?

Originally Posted by pavementtune

and if you seriously believe that sexual behaviour hasn't more than a tiny bit to do with socialization, I suggest you get real for a second.

What do you suggest if I don't seriously believe in that claim that I never even made in the first place? Nowhere did I say that socialization has a minuscule effect on behaviour. In fact, I said that socialization and evolution interact, and that most of the variation is explained by culture, while the basic relationships seem to have an evolutionary basis.

Originally Posted by pavementtune

if you seriously believe this, I don't know what to tell you, other than maybe drop your books for a bit and talk to girls now and then you don' try to date.

You've yet to really offer any counterpoints. All you've really done so far is express incredulity with variations of the phrase "if you really believe X, then I don't know what to tell you" or "stop reading books science is lame you should rely on anecdotal evidence instead."

I'm also sure the dig about "talking to girls I'm not trying to date" is meant to provoke me into clarifying that I do in fact have woman friends, and that we have in fact had conversations about interpersonal attraction, so that the inevitable comeback can be "haha he's trying to use 'I even have female friends!' as a defense!" However, none of that would really be relevant to the current conversation.

Originally Posted by pavementtune

which you seem to approach like a scientific field study with little sense for reality, too, tbh.

How so?

[pavementtune]

ah fuck, I edited my last post by mistake to get the same quotes.

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 women 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 do?

what I take issue with your statments is - the want. not what data suggests that women and men did in decade x in culture y. but what they want, and then you continue to find reasons for why they want that. that is incredibly oblivious.

[smashingjj]

Nice discussion and all but there is here only one real expert on what women really want. Fuzzy, take it away.

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I'm also sure the dig about "talking to girls I'm not trying to date" is meant to provoke me into clarifying that I do in fact have woman friends, and that we have in fact had conversations about interpersonal attraction, so that the inevitable comeback can be "haha he's trying to use 'I even have female friends!' as a defense!" However, none of that would really be relevant to the current conversation.



How so?

no, you might be sure, but that's not it, I was serious and not trying to provoke you.

for a good year now your dating stories have read like pulling teeth in a laboratory. so you don't need a defense because what I think about what phrasing you choose when you talk about a girl you ask on a date is not your problem.

by using only that data that is available to me, namely your posts about dating stories, I come to the conclusion that you seem to regularly struggle in interacting with girls. and for the why, I draw my gut conclusion that you approach finding a partner or dating partner like a scientific reserach project. "okay this didn't work, let's try this, should I touch her arm or better not, what does the data suggest is more succcessful? she signals she is not into me, and I think that's because x."

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by smashingjj

Nice discussion and all but there is here only one real expert on what women really want. Fuzzy, take it away.

haha yes, fuzzy to help, I heard he did not so bad and scored a few nice chicks in the past years, some were even a 7/10.

[smashingjj]

Not sure what those empirical women that you folks keep going on about are supposed to be but they sound hot to me!

[pavementtune]

sorry I misspelled that, I got distracted while looking up the spelling of nincompoop, it's supposed to say elliptical.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

ah fuck, I edited my last post by mistake to get the same quotes.

okay, let's try this again:






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 women 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 do?

what I take issue with your statments is - the want. not what data suggests that women and men did in decade x in culture y. but what they want, and then you continue to find reasons for why they want that. that is incredibly oblivious.

Uh, the studies I was talking about literally asked men and women how many sexual partners they would prefer to have over several time spans. Prefer.

Studies also asked men and women what traits they value most in possible partners.

[pavementtune]

ah I see. with empirical evidence you meant surveys, my bad, I really thought you meant actions, not preferences.

can you find a link, by chance? I would like to see those because I only know the interpretations of euro surveys that came out pretty much equal.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I have never had a woman send me an unsolicited picture of her junk in an attempt to fuck me.

I remember the days of good ole MSN messenger, there'd be chicks that'd randomly send you shots of their naked breasts or in rare situations pictures masturbating and stuff like that. A little different yes, but still kind of falls under the same kind of behavior.

[fuzzyroes]

And before you guys start thinking, "oh wow, Fuzzy must've had game" let me clarify that the majority of these images sent were from girls that you wouldn't exactly wanna see explicit images of... To put it nicely haha.

The point is, I know for a fact girls indulge in the same behavior sometimes too. I'd never be dumb enough to say they do it as much as guys, but it does sometimes happen.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by pavementtune

no, you might be sure, but that's not it, I was serious and not trying to provoke you.

for a good year now your dating stories have read like pulling teeth in a laboratory. so you don't need a defense because what I think about what phrasing you choose when you talk about a girl you ask on a date is not your problem.

So, if you didn't think this comment was seriously worth my consideration in relation to the discussion at hand, the purpose for making it was…

Originally Posted by pavementtune

by using only that data that is available to me, namely your posts about dating stories, I come to the conclusion that you seem to regularly struggle in interacting with girls. and for the why, I draw my gut conclusion that you approach finding a partner or dating partner like a scientific reserach project. "okay this didn't work, let's try this, should I touch her arm or better not, what does the data suggest is more succcessful? she signals she is not into me, and I think that's because x."

So, it's bad that I try to pay serious attention to people's responses and comfort, and modify my behaviour to accommodate that?

I understand that for most neurotypicals who didn't have to suffer delayed social development and who can comfortably navigate social situations, social interaction is mostly going to be intuitive. It's not intuitive for me. I've had to practice it like people practice musical instruments or math. I have to pay close attention to the results of by actions. Maybe one day I'll be normal and therefore deserving of interpersonal connections.

[pavementtune]

it's right there, I believe. worth your consideration when talking about reality, yes.

no reason to get so defensive, I didn't know how far your struggle goes. you also don't need to give me imagined "I am being attacked for being not normal" and put words into my mouth how you are supposedly not deserving.

come on dude.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Disco King

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.



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.




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.

That was brilliantly put DK. Spot on stuff. I'm finding that it's almost becoming politically incorrect to talk about the biological differences regarding gender

[Elphenor]

I would not claim to know either way

but the Clark and Hatfield study whereby they simply have people solicit strangers for sex seems useless because the concern for social stigma but more importantly personal safety would give you an expected 0% yes rate from women

more convincing is an observance of it being the norm across multiple cultures, but out of the compared cultures, how many are not patriarchal?

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

And before you guys start thinking, "oh wow, Fuzzy must've had game"

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

I'd never be dumb enough to say ...

don't sell yourself short.
i believe in you!

[smashingjj]

yeah you just might surprise yourself there, mattias!

[Cool As Ice Cream]

pennis not errect

[teh b0lly!!1]

if a tree falls in the forest, does that mean the tree is no longer errect?

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

if a tree falls in the forest, does that mean the tree is no longer errect?

depends on the fall. (elphenor to thread!)