louis ck.

[scaredyclassic]

im gonna go out on a limb here but id bet men who assume generally women arent interested in them were weeded out of the gene pool along the way.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]

This quote (based on a 2016 study) explains at least part of the problem: “Heterosexual men consistently overestimate a woman’s sexual interest, according to new research..” [/quote]

I’d be interested in CA Renter’s take on this whole subject. It seems to be her belief that males and females are basically the same at birth, and that virtually all the differences in male and female behavior are due to social conditioning. So, following that logic, all we have to do is stop conditioning men to be so interested in sex. CA Renter, do you think that would work? Anybody besides her think that would work?

[spdrun]

Both men and women are interested in sex. It’s OK. We’re designed to be. If G-d didn’t intend us to enjoy it, she’d have designed us to work something like: we need to have sex, or we die. (Sort of like ferrets, or Vulcan Pon Farr.)

Stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty.” There’s nothing wrong with being interested in sex — in fact, this country would likely be a better place if people have more time for good sex (and proper knowledge of/lack of shame about birth control).

Why the Puritanical view that sex is something people should be less interested in? The issue is CONSENT, not sex. If women were conditioned to be more clear about what they wanted and when the were interested, things would be a lot less ambiguous regarding consent.

[NotCranky]

Seems like the biggest factor in women’s sexual interest equalizing to that of a male , is and always has been her being appreciative of something else the man has , could offer , or is doing, that is not primarily sexual. I am not saying it’s always phony and exploitive, or being a “ho”, but something besides sex to appreciate is a big part of the equation, like it or not.

Take for instance (post nuptial shut-off) PNSO , the woman was sexual while she appreciated the chance of catching that mate, or getting that first child, she wouldn’t be very disinterested all the time, couldn’t be. IF she doesn’t have,, or perceive, a lot to appreciate in that mate after the reproduction phase. It often becomes a declining thing or full stop.

[spdrun]

That’s an argument for … more sex. Or even (maybe) for social acceptance of mistresses and boytoys outside of marriage. It’s much less stigmatized outside the US. Husband and wife could raise kids in a stable home while still having fun in bed, if not with each other.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Both men and women are interested in sex. It’s OK. We’re designed to be. If G-d didn’t intend us to enjoy it, she’d have designed us to work something like: we need to have sex, or we die. (Sort of like ferrets, or Vulcan Pon Farr.)

Stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty.” There’s nothing wrong with being interested in sex — in fact, this country would likely be a better place if people have more time for good sex (and proper knowledge of/lack of shame about birth control).

Why the Puritanical view that sex is something people should be less interested in? The issue is CONSENT, not sex. If women were conditioned to be more clear about what they wanted and when the were interested, things would be a lot less ambiguous regarding consent.[/quote]

It’s not conditioning, it’s biology. To take the evolutionary biology approach, as you seem to be doing, think about the strategy that each gender would use to transmit the highest number of offspring into the next reproducing generation. For a long time sex equaled babies and pregnancy was a dangerous thing. A friend of mind from Java said that there was a saying that a pregnant woman has one foot in the grave (obviously very recent advances in medicine have changed this, but that has not had time to have an evolutionary effect.) Women have been bred to be picky – there are much higher risks. Read The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins) https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925/ref=nodl_

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]

Both men and women are interested in sex. It’s OK. We’re designed to be. If G-d didn’t intend us to enjoy it, she’d have designed us to work something like: we need to have sex, or we die. (Sort of like ferrets, or Vulcan Pon Farr.)

[/quote]
Sure, they’re both interested in sex. But that doesn’t mean they’re interested for the same reasons, or even in the same way, let alone the same amount.

Also, it’s more complicated than that. Some anthropologists think that rape occurred during our evolution as an adaptive behavior. Forced sex by males is common in nature. So a lack of interest in sex wouldn’t necessarily prevent a woman from passing on her genes. Certainly a lack of interest on the scale of a man’s interest wouldn’t.
[quote=spdrun]

Stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty.” There’s nothing wrong with being interested in sex — in fact, this country would likely be a better place if people have more time for good sex (and proper knowledge of/lack of shame about birth control).
[/quote]
If you stop conditioning women that interest in sex is something bad, evil, or “slutty,” they might be more interested. But not as interested (obsessed) as men.

[quote=spdrun]

Why the Puritanical view that sex is something people should be less interested in? The issue is CONSENT, not sex.
[/quote]

Again, it’s more complicated than that. Louis CK had consent. Actual, verbal, out-loud consent.

[quote=spdrun]
If women were conditioned to be more clear about what they wanted and when they were interested, things would be a lot less ambiguous regarding consent. [/quote]
Sure. But wouldn’t that involve sterilizing the whole “game” that men and women play? The chase, the coyness, the signals, the romance, etc? That game is as old as society (or older). Could we accomplish that? Should we?

Maybe you’ve got a point there, though. Perhaps the natural tendencies of men and women are not compatible with society. Maybe the game we’ve been playing for thousands of years – women are sometimes coy and men are sometimes coercive (or worse) – just won’t work anymore. Maybe it’s never really worked in the context of society. Maybe we’ve always known it doesn’t work and now we’re finally getting around to holding ourselves responsible.

But what’s the alternative? Yes doesn’t always mean yes and no doesn’t always mean no. (Before anybody attacks – I’ve always taken no to mean no, as any provident man would. But that doesn’t mean that it always means no. It doesn’t.) How do you fix that? How do you eliminate the nebulousness that has been a part of human sexual relationships since there have been humans? Written contracts? I don’t see it working.

I’d be interested to hear any ideas about how that might work.

[Anonymous]

Some insights on human courtship rituals.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]im gonna go out on a limb here but id bet men who assume generally women arent interested in them were weeded out of the gene pool along the way.[/quote]

That brings us back to nature. In nature, old men who wanted sex would be chased away by women and young men. I have seen in villages where women shoo away men who bothered them. Woman. can do that only when the men’s social status is about the same as theirs.

Men may have the desire, but they don’t have the right. Civilization, money and power give men many more options, but sex harassment shouldn’t be one of them. Old men are meant by nature to want sex, but they are not meant to get it.
The intelligent males will use charm and wit to get females to consent.

I agree with spdrun about consent and more sex. I think an economist said that more sex is safer sex because the more healthy people have sex, the better.
https://books.google.com/books/about/More_Sex_Is_Safer_Sex.html?id=4DlVPgAACAAJ&hl=en

[spdrun]

zk:
(1) There’s reputable research stating that women are actually MORE interested in sex than men.
(2) I’ve met quite a few women who weren’t shy about expressing their interest. They weren’t “we need a contract for everything” overly political over-thinkers either. Made things much, much easier — I’ve found the nebulousness and need to play games to be more irritating than fun. Nothing better than a woman who can express what she wants without playing head games.

Interesting, despite the US’s reputation for forwardness, white/American women tend to be more coy than others. I think it’s partly due to US media that tells people that the man has to chase, the woman has to be hard to get.

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]zk:
(1) There’s reputable research stating that women are actually MORE interested in sex than men.[/quote]

True, assuming that porn movies count as reputable research.

The guy just wanted to deliver a pizza…

[NotCranky]

I saw a woman at the gym today. Her shirt had “OK , but brunch first” printed on it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=NotCranky]I saw a woman at the gym today. Her shirt had “OK , but brunch first” printed on it.[/quote]

She probably only wears that in the afternoon.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]

This quote (based on a 2016 study) explains at least part of the problem: “Heterosexual men consistently overestimate a woman’s sexual interest, according to new research..” [/quote]

I’d be interested in CA Renter’s take on this whole subject. It seems to be her belief that males and females are basically the same at birth, and that virtually all the differences in male and female behavior are due to social conditioning. So, following that logic, all we have to do is stop conditioning men to be so interested in sex. CA Renter, do you think that would work? Anybody besides her think that would work?[/quote]

I think economic power makes all the difference.

You can go and observe in villages in developing countries. Because of development and capitalism, when women at the bread winners, when they are entrepreneurs and own shops at the local markets and bring home the moolah, they are strong. They may not want sex, but they wouldn’t easily submit. Often, the men are useless adrift drunkards who demand sex and money which leads to rape because society is male dominated.

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]zk:
(1) There’s reputable research stating that women are actually MORE interested in sex than men.
[/quote]

Show me.

My guess is that it’s something along the lines of “women in committed relationships are more interested in sex with their partners than men in committed relationships are interested in sex with their partners.” That wouldn’t surprise me. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. Not even close.

[quote=spdrun]
(2) I’ve met quite a few women who weren’t shy about expressing their interest. They weren’t “we need a contract for everything” overly political over-thinkers either. Made things much, much easier — I’ve found the nebulousness and need to play games to be more irritating than fun. Nothing better than a woman who can express what she wants without playing head games.

[/quote]

Sure, I think we’ve all known those types. But, again, that’s not what we’re talking about, here.

[Author]

Posts