Are we becoming an overly sexualize society

[Scottdmw]

Gender battle?

 

By stating that it's best not to have a positive only/negative only view of men and that instead men have positive & negative actions and rather than praise or hate the male gender for some other mens actions judge a man on his own actions/character......

 

I don't see where my posts indicate I'm in this gender battle considering I'm not promoting a woman is better or men are worse platform.

 

Wow just wow if disagreeing with an idealized positive only and minimizing negative actions of men is being opposing and doing a gender battle. Guess when it comes to men it most be all/most men are great and only a very small few are bad otherwise you're opposing men.

 

All I can say is, that's what came into my head. . . .

[FrustratedStandards]

We are animals, but somewhat evolved ones. It might be in my nature to want money and wealth, but I don't go out and steal. It might be in my nature as man to want to punch a guy I really dislike, but I don't. And it might be in my nature to want to @#!! all beautiful women.

 

That said, that doesn't mean its in my best interests to behave this way and it goes the idea that we are a society evolved towards monogamy because it is our cultures and our own personal best interests.

 

I see an evolution or stages of people here on LS:

 

1 - the ones who can't get it

2 - the ones who can get it and want it whenever that can get it (in case it stops)

3 - the ones that can get it and know how to get it, but are selective on who gets them

 

 

Right. But that doesn't mean we are overtly sexual, it just means some people know how to be selective, and others don't bother being selective.

 

But at the end of the day, if you just want sex (and not a relationship) then does it really matter who you have sex with? If people want sex and sex alone, being selective will only delay the process.

 

If I was selective in my past relationships, then I would still be a single virgin looking for a mate.

 

I'm not saying go out and bang the first thing you see, but I think, at least in my case, that sometimes sexual satisfaction is more important and healthy than being selective.

 

About your comment "evolved towards monogamy". I would say that our SOCIETY is more evolved towards monogamy more than we are. That's why so many people cheat or have very short relationships, because they are interested in other people, or they want to have all the people they are interested in (hence why people have affairs).

 

That being said, yes, certain behaviours are not in our best interests, but sometimes we don't care what's in our best interests, we just want to get laid.

 

Other times yes, it does matter because you can attract the wrong kind of guy by being too sexual, and that is NOT in your best interests if you're looking for long term.

 

So I guess it depends on the intention. But that doesn't mean we are too sexual, it just depends on what we want and how we choose to present our sexuality.

[Quiet Storm]

This is why I think any woman who says she doesn't feel threatened by sexbots, sex dolls, or cloned women (the ultimate development), is either really platonic, lying, or a lesbian... because replacements for women would make their commodity worthless, and they'd essentially be nothing more than men without dicks.

 

We woudn't feel worthless because, no matter what YOU may think, our value is more than just sex.

 

I agree that for many men, sex is the only reason you grace us with your presence.

 

However, not all men are like that.

 

I am not deluded to think that as I age and get wrinkled and flabby, that my husband will still see me as the hottest woman alive. I know he will crave the youthful beauty that you guys are programmed to love.

 

However, while you may think my p*s*y is all I have to offer, my husband knows there is so much more to me than that.

 

He loves my voice, my touch, my smell. He loves my food, my massages, my sweet tea. And my pep talks, my moral support and organizing skills. He loves that in front of others, I will back him no matter what (even if he's wrong). He loves the way I trim his beard (my lines are tight!) and that I can say the lines to his favorite movie (The Big Chill) in unison with him. He loves the way we dance together, even though he's a foot taller. He loves how I nurture our babies, how I'm the loudest mom cheering at soccer games. He loves the innovative ways that I fix broken things and my sense of direction and that I can read his moods and body language.

 

And while many men will say "I can do that for myself" or "I can go to barber to get my beard done", my husband LIKES that he has a wife to do these things. He doesn't want to walk through life alone, and genuinely enjoys my company (gasp!). He's been by my side since 1991, and doesn't seem to hate me yet (another gasp!).

 

And decades from now when we're old and gray, I may not be able to ride him like he likes and he may want the lights out, LOL. But I am hoping that my other qualities shine through enough to make up for my fading hotness.

 

Ladies, not all men are looking for casual sex. Some men do want (and are happy having) a wife.

[udolipixie]

All I can say is, that's what came into my head. . . .

 

That's not really surprising now that I think it over.

 

I'm just beginning to see on here that if you state anything negative about men and it's not tied to but only very few men do that you get the man hater, misandrist, feminist, and gender battle label.

 

Quite amusing how the it seems most of the guys on here only seem able to handle this idealized view of men with only a handful of men being bad or having negative traits. You'd think positive and negative but judge a man based on his actions would be okay but god the hostile and what comes into LS guys head when they hear anything negative about men.

[El Brujo]

*AHEM*

To yank this thread back on topic, let me just get a few words in edgewise.

 

If society has been hypersexualized, evolution is to blame.

 

Nature wired our pubes to the pleasure centers in our brains (except for a very few people with no sex drive) so we'd make so many babies that a few of them would survive.

 

Nature didn't plan on us bringing the infant mortality rate down.

 

Now we're stuck with sex drives we can't control---or don't want to control.

 

Until nature or God or whatever severs the connection between our brains' pleasure centers and our pubes, we're going to have zillions of horny humans running around, scarfing down all the food and trashing the environment.

 

Simple as that.

[OnyxSnowfall]

Until nature or God or whatever severs the connection between our brains' pleasure centers and our pubes, we're going to have zillions of horny humans running around, scarfing down all the food and trashing the environment.

 

Simple as that.

 

I agree... over-population is and will likely become a bigger issue.

 

It's probably close to impossible to "educate" the hoards of people through-out the entire world and to teach them a little self-control (to at least use birth control / get "fixed")... I really scoff at the idea of even getting people interested in the future and quenching their fixation with the present and their focus of... "me me me, now now now".

 

Accountability and consideration are concepts that are usually taught LoL.

 

The resources will continue being exponentially used up and trashed. While there are "enlightened" people and even "enlightened" smaller societies, they simply cannot make up for the overwhelming mass of others who do not care what damaging impacts their actions have.

 

... future generations are going to wonder wtf was wrong with their ancestors ... they'll be left with the ****tiest things to deal with. It's taking place now and has been of course, and unless some lovely innovation is (re)discovered that can be implemented / applied to Earth as a whole and somehow can begin to put things back into a better balance... bye byeeee.

 

"People" without the capacity to have self-control / consideration + technology (within medical, agricultural, etc) = fail.

 

People seem so very selfish... ironic that they seek self-destruction.

Edited October 7, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[Sanman]

We woudn't feel worthless because, no matter what YOU may think, our value is more than just sex.

 

I agree that for many men, sex is the only reason you grace us with your presence.

 

However, not all men are like that.

 

I am not deluded to think that as I age and get wrinkled and flabby, that my husband will still see me as the hottest woman alive. I know he will crave the youthful beauty that you guys are programmed to love.

 

However, while you may think my p*s*y is all I have to offer, my husband knows there is so much more to me than that.

 

He loves my voice, my touch, my smell. He loves my food, my massages, my sweet tea. And my pep talks, my moral support and organizing skills. He loves that in front of others, I will back him no matter what (even if he's wrong). He loves the way I trim his beard (my lines are tight!) and that I can say the lines to his favorite movie (The Big Chill) in unison with him. He loves the way we dance together, even though he's a foot taller. He loves how I nurture our babies, how I'm the loudest mom cheering at soccer games. He loves the innovative ways that I fix broken things and my sense of direction and that I can read his moods and body language.

 

And while many men will say "I can do that for myself" or "I can go to barber to get my beard done", my husband LIKES that he has a wife to do these things. He doesn't want to walk through life alone, and genuinely enjoys my company (gasp!). He's been by my side since 1991, and doesn't seem to hate me yet (another gasp!).

 

And decades from now when we're old and gray, I may not be able to ride him like he likes and he may want the lights out, LOL. But I am hoping that my other qualities shine through enough to make up for my fading hotness.

 

Ladies, not all men are looking for casual sex. Some men do want (and are happy having) a wife.

 

That was honestly beautiful and reflects many of the wonderful thoughts I have toward my gf, who I miss so much right now. However, I also think that this is what is missing in much of today's more artificial and physically driven society. Having met many older couples in my life, there was a time when family would be able to counsel a young person about what was important in a relationship. Things like being a good husband and father, a provider for your family, and an intimate confidant to your partner. Of course, looks and physicality have always mattered. However, I don't think that people were as often rejected on the basis of their sexual experience/number of partners, boob size, whether their penis has a foreskin or not, the clothes they wear, or many of the other things I see people complain about on LS and in real life. Even among my friends, I see otherwise good men caught up in physicality and looks of a partner and never often never having learned to date a woman properly. More often, they have been raised (as I have) in a hook-up culture where relationships form out of parties, alcohol, and sex. I,personally, never went on a real date till I was 25. I slept with women, managed to have a few relationships, and generally did alright until that time. It wasn't until I hit that age and really yearned for a serious relationship that I began the process of 'dating' a woman and really getting to know her. Is that really the healthiest thing?

[Sanman]

To respond to the societal benefits of monogamy, it is important to remember a few things. While Darwin and others did propose survival of the fittest, they never suggested that a single man or group of men was the best route of survival of a species. While some suggest the idea of all the women having children of the alpha male, this only serves to make the gene pool shallower. A species is strengthened by variety in its gene pool. Therefore, monogamy, allowing for the greatest variation, may actually strengthen a gene pool even if it means that lesser males end up reproducing. Put another way, a variety of people suggests that there is a better chance human beings will survive regardless of the challenges we face from environmental factors, viruses, etc.

[OnyxSnowfall]

To respond to the societal benefits of monogamy, it is important to remember a few things. While Darwin and others did propose survival of the fittest, they never suggested that a single man or group of men was the best route of survival of a species. While some suggest the idea of all the women having children of the alpha male, this only serves to make the gene pool shallower. A species is strengthened by variety in its gene pool. Therefore, monogamy, allowing for the greatest variation, may actually strengthen a gene pool even if it means that lesser males end up reproducing. Put another way, a variety of people suggests that there is a better chance human beings will survive regardless of the challenges we face from environmental factors, viruses, etc.

 

Hmm... monogamy does not allow for the greatest variation --- promiscuity does.

 

Oh all the possible combinations that can manifest through sharing your DNA with multiple people... as a male or as a female...

yes, those possibilities allow for the "greatest" variations.

 

In your theory, you're presuming several women would all share one male --- in that respect, because the only differing DNA are the women... were they each instead "monogamous" with an altogether different male, then yes, "monogamy" would provide more genetic variety than one male continuously reproducing within his harem that no other male can touch.

 

BUT the most variety is a woman bearing children from several different males. And males inseminating several women.

 

I read somewhere that the foreskin acted like a tool to "pull" out possible semen within the vaginal canal... hmm.

 

(and just for the record, I value monogamy ... but I can't help but heed the inaccuracy).

Edited October 8, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[El Brujo]

While some suggest the idea of all the women having children of the alpha male, this only serves to make the gene pool shallower.

 

This is true. And no one wants to talk about an alpha male who carries a gene which will cause all his offspring to be stillborn, crippled, or crazy.

[OnyxSnowfall]

This is true. And no one wants to talk about an alpha male who carries a gene which will cause all his offspring to be stillborn, crippled, or crazy.

 

Even if he carries such a "gene"...

 

(you do realize that most causes of stillbirth and "insanity" are not understood / known? --- often times things are a combination of nature and nurture regardless...)

 

...if he fathers enough children or couples with the right females, that "gene" could become recessive / obsolete... there's no guarantee it would cause "all" of his children to actively live it.

 

Genetics are still largely an enigma...

[mr.dream merchant]

How is that any different than the awful male celebrities that young men idolize?

 

Most of the male celebrities are just skanks as well and in fact their skankiness is touted as proof of being masculine.

 

 

 

No different from how men idolize loose men and either become loose men or desire to be loose men.

 

Hopefully contraceptive, abortions, and adoptions will ease the broken household bit. Not sure what's the issue with single parenthood when it's a choice as plenty of young and old women I know have decided to be single parents either through adoption, in vitro, or surrogates. Their kids are mentally stable and socially normal.

 

 

 

Most guys just want to party and have sex too in fact most men don't want to settle down until much later than women do.

 

As for the saddest part . Women were "conditioned" and still are conditioned to accept this kind of behavior in men with the boys will be boys and the whole key/lock deal. Most men will tout the accept the consequences for your actions but don't uphold it. After all it's fine for them to want to be a master key that is open to all but not okay to have a sh*tty lock that is open to all. Rather than being a key that fits one lock and a lock that fits one key.

 

As for the vagina is a drive-thru . Not much different than the guys who treat their d*cks like that and expect women to be a-okay with them slutting around while they hold women to a higher standard that they immensely value and they make bs excuses not to uphold.

 

It's a goose gander deal.

 

 

 

The STDs is a people thing the only gender thing about it is that men are twice more likely to give an STD than get one.

 

Never said it was ok for men either. I'm just addressing my opinion on the female population, ahem, because I could care less what other men do with their dick. Its not my agenda. Peace.

[El Brujo]

Genetics are still largely an enigma...

 

Try telling that to the people who do paternity tests.

 

There was a divorce case not long ago I heard about on KCRW... a guy and his wife had a baby with cystic fibrosis. The husband didn't carry the gene for it, but unbeknownst to anyone, the wife did---and so did the macho hunk she was fooling around with while hubby was at work. BUUUUUSTED...

[OnyxSnowfall]

Try telling that to the people who do paternity tests.

 

There was a divorce case not long ago I heard about on KCRW... a guy and his wife had a baby with cystic fibrosis. The husband didn't carry the gene for it, but unbeknownst to anyone, the wife did---and so did the macho hunk she was fooling around with while hubby was at work. BUUUUUSTED...

 

I didn't state they were *completely* an enigma.

 

I stated, largely.

 

And that's because... unless scientists are hoarding knowledge / keeping it from being publicized (which I'm certain they do to some extent), there is much about genes that are undiscovered (or prior discoveries faded/vanished out of recent knowledge).

 

The discovery of the human genome is awesome in and of itself --- we're talking about BILLIONS of chemical pairings... but genes themselves only make up a small portion of that, reaching numbers in the thousands (that we're aware of)... --- not all have even been sequenced --- and many (much like the brain itself in fact) do retain their mysteries quite well. For example, hazel eye colors are still speculated ...

 

Keep in mind that environmental factors can affect and even change someone's DNA as well (even mutating their genes/chromosomes)... also, the DNA of a fetus can be influenced by what the mother eats and or what she's exposed to... what determines what genes will be received from whom isn't fully understood (nor why they are), it could very well be equivalent to the random rolls of a dice, with each dice sporting a different set of numbers that are merely available...

Edited October 8, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[Sanman]

Hmm... monogamy does not allow for the greatest variation --- promiscuity does.

 

Oh all the possible combinations that can manifest through sharing your DNA with multiple people... as a male or as a female...

yes, those possibilities allow for the "greatest" variations.

 

In your theory, you're presuming several women would all share one male --- in that respect, because the only differing DNA are the women... were they each instead "monogamous" with an altogether different male, then yes, "monogamy" would provide more genetic variety than one male continuously reproducing within his harem that no other male can touch.

 

BUT the most variety is a woman bearing children from several different males. And males inseminating several women.

 

I read somewhere that the foreskin acted like a tool to "pull" out possible semen within the vaginal canal... hmm.

 

(and just for the record, I value monogamy ... but I can't help but heed the inaccuracy).

 

 

Well, yes, if people were producing as many offspring as possible without regard to resources, then you would be right. However, given the competition for resources, limiting the number of offspring makes sense in order to ensure the best possible chance of offspring survival and success. Thus, monogamy would create the greatest variation while allowing for a limited number of offspring and limited resources with which to raise them. Really, if it is all about what you factor into the equation. I assume the alpha male will reproduce because of an abundance of resources, but more resources would be available to limited offspring from another male then splitting all of the alpha's resources. This is ignoring cheating and such though. However, while cheating may produce more varied offspring with another male's resources, you also risk losing those resources 9f that cheating is discovered.

[OnyxSnowfall]

Well, yes, if people were producing as many offspring as possible without regard to resources, then you would be right. However, given the competition for resources, limiting the number of offspring makes sense in order to ensure the best possible chance of offspring survival and success. Thus, monogamy would create the greatest variation while allowing for a limited number of offspring and limited resources with which to raise them. Really, if it is all about what you factor into the equation. I assume the alpha male will reproduce because of an abundance of resources, but more resources would be available to limited offspring from another male then splitting all of the alpha's resources. This is ignoring cheating and such though. However, while cheating may produce more varied offspring with another male's resources, you also risk losing those resources 9f that cheating is discovered.

 

I agree that resources are an issue. However, just because two people are in a monogamous relationship does not mean they are not going to produce multiple children together... even if the overall number compared to promiscuous breedings were lower, it could potentially still be too much...

 

Some presumably monogamous couples around here have 8+ children... while I know several promiscuous people whom have one or two children from someone or two people they are not currently with, but use birth control etc with their other partners.

 

Ultimately...

 

Limiting the number of offspring truly comes from abstinence, sex that cannot result in reproduction and or birth control...

 

It doesn't depend upon whether or not someone is in a monogamous relationship.

 

(also, as far as cheating goes... some men are okay with taking care of another man's offspring... some people are in open relationships as well --- there doesn't have to be a notion of cheating).

Edited October 8, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[El Brujo]

I stated, largely.

 

And that's because... unless scientists are hoarding knowledge / keeping it from being publicized (which I'm certain they do to some extent), there is much about genes that are undiscovered (or prior discoveries faded/vanished out of recent knowledge).

 

Well DUH... that's why cancer is feared as a death sentence. Everyone with at least half a brain knows big pharma and many oncologists don't want genetic treatments for cancer (like monoclonal antibodies and oncolytic viruses) to become cheap and available to the public, because they'd rather keep dispensing costly and ineffective chemo drugs.

 

And until the states started winning those big tobacco lawsuits a few years ago, tobacco execs had known since the 1930s that smoking was carcinogenic... but the documents were stashed away in company vaults until the courts blew them wide open.

[Hot Chick]

Lots of studies have shown that men who are married are happier. That's just a fact.