SEX

[PrettyBoy]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Yes.

But what you were asserting earlier were sex and gender differences.

I mentioned that women have physical sexual desires too, but the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men. Like I said in an earlier post men and women struggle sexually in different ways. Men crave physical intimacy, while women crave emotional intimacy. A man's body can disconnect from his mind, heart and soul. A woman's body, mind, heart, and soul are all intricately connected. Men are stimulated by what they see, and women are stimulated by what they hear. Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle. I think there are several differences, which is why it's so important in a relationship to try and meet each others needs.

[PrettyBoy]

Y'all are about to make me miss my movie. I'll catch up with you ladies later.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

I mentioned that women have physical sexual desires too, but the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men.

Really?

And Hardee's says men don't bake (the commercial where dude asks his boys if they want his freshly baked biscuits). I wonder what makes people think such things.

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Like I said in an earlier post men and women struggle sexually in different ways. Men crave physical intimacy, while women crave emotional intimacy. A man's body can disconnect from his mind, heart and soul. A woman's body, mind, heart, and soul are all intricately connected. Men are stimulated by what they see, and women are stimulated by what they hear. Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle. I think there are several differences, which is why it's so important in a relationship to try and meet each others needs.

These differences seem real because physical and biological differences have been exaggerated. For instance, women are usually smaller so that has translated to women being the "weaker sex." That designation has translated to a whole lot of gender stratification and other things (mostly nonsense). From there it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a man to stop being so emotional all the time, he'll stop being emotional--or pick and choose his outlets more carefully. Then observers will say "aha! see...men are not emotional like women are!" Then the cycle continues.

Suffice it to say that when my significant other and I come together to discuss each other's needs, aside from physical and biological differences between us, we are not saying "I woman...you man...."

When he and I do something for each other that the other is fully capable of doing her/himself, it is purely about social influence and chivalry rather than biological/inherent differences and needs for males and females. Our personality and behavior differences are not confined to male/female or man/woman. In fact, there are many personality traits and behaviors in both of us that defy gendered norms and stereotypes. Imagine that.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

the physical act of sex isn't an overwhelming temptation for women like it is for men.

Like DSTCHAOS, I'm going to have to seriously disagree with this.

Originally Posted by PrettyBoy

Men have a recurrent physical needs cycle, while women have a recurrent emotional needs cycle.

Whoa, if anyone has a "cycle" it's women and physical needs can be a very strong part of it.

I'm not attacking PB, I just wanted to chime in on what I see as some misconceptions.


Cheerful mentioned the commonalities of humans and other animals in her first post. There are definitely correlations but it gets very complicated when you bring psychological factors into it. Example: female birds may go for the prettiest plummage or moose for the biggest antlers but that doesn't always translate to humans. Personally, a large, "hot" guy would send me running in the other direction.

And on the other topic that Cheerful brought up and I don't think anyone's addressed....I think it tends to go against nature for males to be monogamous. All animals have the need to perpetuate the species wired in. Humans have put constraints on this. I'm not saying that I think men should run wild. I just understand that there may be a struggle between our animal instincts and what we've been socialized to accept.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Cheerful mentioned the commonalities of humans and other animals in her first post. There are definitely correlations but it gets very complicated when you bring psychological factors into it. Example: female birds may go for the prettiest plummage or moose for the biggest antlers but that doesn't always translate to humans. Personally, a large, "hot" guy would send me running in the other direction.

And on the other topic that Cheerful brought up and I don't think anyone's addressed....I think it tends to go against nature for males to be monogamous. All animals have the need to perpetuate the species wired in. Humans have put constraints on this. I'm not saying that I think men should run wild. I just understand that there may be a struggle between our animal instincts and what we've been socialized to accept.

That's like saying it's against nature for humans to do most of the things that we do. If it can be acquired through evolution and nurturing, it is difficult to fully distinguish what human "nature" is in comparison to other animal species. Humans are supposed to be different than other animals anyway, right?

But thanks for connecting cheerful and AKA Monet's posts about animals for me. I do find connection in that the male of almost every animal species is charged with spermulating (is that word?) as many females as possible. The only reason why females can't eggulate (not a word?) as often as possible is because of the conceiving and birthulation (not a word) stages.

On that note, if there's truly a tie between humans and other animals in that manner, this means that female humans really don't care who spermulates their egg and will go from male to male until the eggulation occurs. In that case, humans have definitely regulated women more than men because women are called whores when they do this. On another note, that means that female humans are naturally supposed to be nurturers because they give birth--just as most female animal species are in charge of birth and nurturing.

(I feel a panic attack coming on. I'm glad that we're not relegated to our "nature" or even our "socialization," for that matter.)

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

That's like saying it's against nature for humans to do most of the things that we do.

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

If it can be acquired through evolution and nurturing, it is difficult to fully distinguish what human "nature" is in comparison to other animal species.

I don't believe the idea of monogamy is something that can be instilled via evolution. Nuture, yes, via socialization.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Humans are supposed to be different than other animals anyway, right?

I haven't questioned any deities on that lately.

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

On that note, if there's truly a tie between humans and other animals in that manner, this means that female humans really don't care who spermulates their egg and will go from male to male until the eggulation occurs. In that case, humans have definitely regulated women more than men because women are called whores when they do this. On another note, that means that female humans are naturally supposed to be nurturers because they give birth--just as most female animal species are in charge of birth and nurturing.

I'll leave all that to the factor. I will say that if that were the case, then we've still regulated men more. Women would only sleep around until they were certain they were pregnant. Men, on the other hand, could conceivably inseminate a different woman every day (more or less depending on their stamina).

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

(I feel a panic attack coming on. I'm glad that we're not relegated to our "nature" or even our "socialization," for that matter.)

As am I.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

I think it tends to go against nature for males to be monogamous.

Actually, there are some animals that are monogamous.