Author Topic: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')  (Read 27191 times)

Offline LauraGigs

  • Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
    • My Design Portfolio
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2009, 04:38:33 pm »
One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial venues set up specifically for women to have casual sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual or anonymous sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2009, 05:10:00 pm »
One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial places set up specifically for women to have sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)

Excellent point, Laura. I've often thought about that, too.

This came up earlier here at BetterMost, in discussions of strangers having sex in public places, such as restrooms. Obviously, it's something that some men do from time to time. Again, I don't have statistics handy, but I'm guessing it's very, very unusual for women (aside from prostitutes) to have quick casual sex with someone they have never spoken to and know absolutely nothing about.

For that matter, how many women -- as opposed to men -- hire prostitutes? I would guess there are far, far more prostitutes of either gender catering to men than there are for women.

Another sign of difference: the number of male rapists and molesters vs. the much lower number of female rapists and molesters. Not that rape is all about sex -- there's a violence aspect, too, and women tend to commit fewer violent crimes of all kinds. Other factors may include physical strength, the physiology of arousal, etc. Still, it's telling that female perpetrators are so uncommon -- again, not nonexistent, but relatively rare.

If men and women were indistinguishable in terms of their appetite for casual, no-strings sex, they'd be equally involved with all that stuff.



Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,587
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2009, 05:30:39 pm »
One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals.  There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure.  But in what degrees?  What percentages? 

I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story.  Are there any commercial venues set up specifically for women to have casual sex, such as bathouses?  Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual or anonymous sex encounters?  Such as parks, bathrooms, and such?  (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)
My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.

I believe that as women become less and less suppressed we will see more women engage in this type of behaviour.

Someone mentioned rape though, and rape isn't about sex. (And even if it were - the majority of rapes occur between people that now each other - not between strangers)


Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,428
  • No crybabies
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2009, 05:39:47 pm »
I think one big reason women don't seem to be as promiscuous as men is the pregnancy risk.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline louisev

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,107
  • "My guns and amo!! Over my cold dead hands!!"
    • Fiction by Louise Van Hine
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2009, 05:51:56 pm »
Excellent point, Laura. I've often thought about that, too.

This came up earlier here at BetterMost, in discussions of strangers having sex in public places, such as restrooms. Obviously, it's something that some men do from time to time. Again, I don't have statistics handy, but I'm guessing it's very, very unusual for women (aside from prostitutes) to have quick casual sex with someone they have never spoken to and know absolutely nothing about.


Katherine, I would say that there are forces far different than biology involved here; it is a cultural standard for the dominant sex - for there is no doubt that the US is a patriarchal society - to determine the modes of sexual behavior, and this has been true since the rise of patriarchal cultures based in classical Greece and Rome.  Men had a privileged role as citizens in classical society, and the noble class had free access to slaves and citizens of both sexes to enjoy, and lacking the stigma against same sex relations, indulged in both, whereas women had very strictly defined sex and labor roles as caretakers, housekeepers and cooks, and could not be citizens.  In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.  Europe is way ahead in terms of sharing parenting in families, equalizing professional roles, and removing stigmas that relegate women to a narrow range of behavior.  Accordingly, you will see a very different type of demographic for dating and public sexual behavior in those cultures because the emphasis is changing - socially speaking, Europe is at least 100 years ahead of the US (that is my completely made-up statistic based on personal observation.)

I also think that those of us (females) who have been either "reared male" (not to take on a traditional marriage-and-childbearing role, but a career role), or educated outside the home to non-traditionally-female adult roles or professions, tend not to see that their experience is atypical for America as a whole.


For that matter, how many women -- as opposed to men -- hire prostitutes? I would guess there are far, far more prostitutes of either gender catering to men than there are for women.


different manifestation of the same cultural predilection.


Another sign of difference: the number of male rapists and molesters vs. the much lower number of female rapists and molesters. Not that rape is all about sex -- there's a violence aspect, too, and women tend to commit fewer violent crimes of all kinds. Other factors may include physical strength, the physiology of arousal, etc. Still, it's telling that female perpetrators are so uncommon -- again, not nonexistent, but relatively rare.

If men and women were indistinguishable in terms of their appetite for casual, no-strings sex, they'd be equally involved with all that stuff.


The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.
“Mr. Coyote always gets me good, boy,”  Ellery said, winking.  “Almost forgot what life was like before I got me my own personal coyote.”


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2009, 05:55:28 pm »
My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.

I believe that as women become less and less suppressed we will see more women engage in this type of behaviour.

I wonder why women's sexuality has been suppressed. My feeling is that cultures don't develop completely arbitrarily, but in fact are reflections of human inclinations. Not exact reflections, more like funhouse mirror reflections, because sometimes those inclinations get distorted by customs and traditions.

Still, and I can't think of any way to prove this one way or the other, but I find it very very difficult to believe that as women become less suppressed we will start seeing them engage in quick, casual sex with random total strangers in the same numbers that men do.

Why? Evolutionary psychology offers a possible explanation. Men can spawn, potentially, infinite numbers of offspring, and by doing so can spread their genes widely, so men's casual sex is rewarded by evolution. Women can only have one child at a time (well, in addition to twins and so on, but you see what I'm getting at). So they have to be more selective about who fathers it -- ideally, they want someone who will be supportive and help raise the child. Getting to know that person emotionally helps determine whether they're a suitable candidate.

Quote
Someone mentioned rape though, and rape isn't about sex. (And even if it were - the majority of rapes occur between people that now each other so it wouldn't be about casual sex anyhow.)

I was the one who mentioned rape. Rape IS sex. It's not JUST about sex -- I said before that is also about violence. But it's violence (and power, and aggression, and intimidation, etc.) expressed through sex. To say it's not about sex is like saying robbery isn't about money. I have written a fair amount about rape, and I have heard many many people say "rape isn't about sex." What I think they're trying to get at is that it's not about the same kind of sex that is the result of love, or even physical attraction. But it very much does involve sex, by definition.

Women don't rape partly because they're not interested in having that kind of sex.



Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,587
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2009, 06:03:11 pm »


The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.
Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
Males can be raped by other men (most often heterosexual men) or by women, but these cases are often not reported because of the stigma.


I read about male rape a while ago. I recomend this site
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,587
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2009, 06:11:38 pm »


I was the one who mentioned rape. Rape IS sex. It's not JUST about sex -- I said before that is also about violence. But it's violence (and power, and aggression, and intimidation, etc.) expressed through sex. To say it's not about sex is like saying robbery isn't about money. I have written a fair amount about rape, and I have heard many many people say "rape isn't about sex." What I think they're trying to get at is that it's not about the same kind of sex that is the result of love, or even physical attraction. But it very much does involve sex, by definition.

Women don't rape partly because they're not interested in having that kind of sex.



What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.


and that´s why I wouldn´t agree with you that the reason why women don´t rape (which they do) is partly because they´re not interested in having that kind of sex.
After all, women are also interested in being in control which is the purpose of a rape. I think the reason simply is that it´s more difficult for us. Men are generally stronger.


This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participting, everyone.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2009, 06:15:32 pm »
Katherine, I would say that there are forces far different than biology involved here; it is a cultural standard for the dominant sex - for there is no doubt that the US is a patriarchal society - to determine the modes of sexual behavior, and this has been true since the rise of patriarchal cultures based in classical Greece and Rome.  Men had a privileged role as citizens in classical society, and the noble class had free access to slaves and citizens of both sexes to enjoy, and lacking the stigma against same sex relations, indulged in both, whereas women had very strictly defined sex and labor roles as caretakers, housekeepers and cooks, and could not be citizens.  In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.  Europe is way ahead in terms of sharing parenting in families, equalizing professional roles, and removing stigmas that relegate women to a narrow range of behavior.  Accordingly, you will see a very different type of demographic for dating and public sexual behavior in those cultures because the emphasis is changing - socially speaking, Europe is at least 100 years ahead of the US (that is my completely made-up statistic based on personal observation.)

I agree with most of this, because I agree there are cultural and social components to differences between male and female behavior. And I agree that some European countries are ahead of the U.S. in terms of equalizing male and female roles. I haven't lived in Europe, so I hesitate to get much more specific here based on a tourist and reader's very limited exposure, but I have certainly heard of sex-role attitudes lingering in some European countries that I would consider dated. Europe may be socially ahead of the U.S. in many ways, but I don't think they're perfect that way yet.

And speaking of generalizations, this

Quote
In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do."  Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.

certainly has a grain of truth, but as a chattel female I would not put things quite that harshly. America is changing, too slowly I totally agree, but the situation is not quite as dire and absolute as your description implies.

Quote
The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast.  However - culture does.   Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter.  The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence.  His reason was blunt:  "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter."  He's right, too:  a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens.  Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse.  There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls.  It happens: but people dont' talk about it.  It's not biology at work here.

Well, I don't think you've disproved the influence of biology. Yes, behaviors are changing and no, biology doesn't change that fast. Sure, there are cases of women sexually abusing kids. The D.A.'s comment was stupid. Cultural changes cause behavioral changes and will likely to continue doing so as the culture continues evolving.

When men and women do it in equal numbers, let me know and I will consider your case closed.

Men and women are obviously physically different, hormonally different and so on. I'm not sure why anyone would assume they can't also be behaviorally or emotionally different. I know this is not PC to admit, because it could be used to oppress women (or even men). But I am not using this as an argument for further oppression of women, and in fact I feel every individual should be allowed to do whatever feels right to him or her as long as it's not harmful to anyone else. To support that viewpoint, I don't have to believe that every individual wants to do the exact same thing.


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Love vs. Lust (split off from Things that make you go 'hunh?')
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2009, 06:32:40 pm »
Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
Males can be raped by other men (most often heterosexual men) or by women, but these cases are often not reported because of the stigma.


I read about male rape a while ago. I recomend this site
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

I know. I wrote about male rape a while ago (about 15 years ago, to be exact). I interviewed survivors, looked at the statistics.

What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.

The purpose of the act is generally at least partly sex. As I said, there are other factors. I think to say that men who force others to have sex with them aren't really having sex is oversimplifying -- or perhaps referring to a different meaning of the word "sex."

Quote
and that´s why I wouldn´t agree with you that the reason why women don´t rape (which they do)

Of course. I should have said that they rape in far smaller numbers.

Quote
After all, women are also interested in being in control which is the purpose of a rape. I think the reason simply is that it´s more difficult for us. Men are generally stronger.

Could be. But I disagree that's the only reason. My own feeling is that women are not AS interested in that kind of control, and they would not be AS LIKELY to express it that way. I don't think I can produce any evidence of this that would definitively separate it from cultural influences, though.


Quote
This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participting, everyone.

It sure is!  :)


Let me ask you this. Do you really feel that there are no differences whatsoever between male and female attitudes and behavior? That is, do you think that men and women, though obviously different on the outside, are indistinguishable on the inside? If not -- that is, if you think it's possible that men and women do differ on the inside -- then why would sexuality be an exception? Or if so -- if you think differences between men and women are just external -- then would you attribute all of the differences in male/female behavior, throughout all of history and across all cultures, to purely bodily differences such as physical strength rather than anything emotional or behavioral?