For men, when does character, morals, and pride override sexual desire?

[kaylan]

It was a figure of speech. But I'm sure you knew that already and just wanted to be provocative .

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

 

Not if it won't sell. It's easy to sell "crusty old, sinister male teacher has sex with student". Why? Because men are stereotyped as being authority figures while the female is supposed to be the victim. Hence, the socialization we receive about who is bad and who is good.

I dont buy that...because its become such a hot topic in the news of female teachers (especially good looking ones) hooking up with male students. Even though this is such, the incidence doesnt rival that of male teacher-female student relationships.

 

You are using a weak hypothesis to argue facts. If you simply want to argue away facts based on some assertion that "they just dont report it as much" then I dunno what to tell you. I could easily say that Native Americans make up 25% of the population of the USA...Doesnt matter if statistical facts say differently...I could just say those facts dont report the true figures and are biased.

 

Id be using the same reasoning as you, and to be honest, it doesnt fly at all.

 

I know women who had revenge sex, cheated on a spouse who had cheated on them first. Cheated on a spouse to get their attention. Women who wanted revenge on their restrictive conservatives families who went out and slept with the entire town police force. Etc.

Again, are we only talking about cheating? No we are not.

 

We are talking about a wide range of sexual behaviors that while women exhibit them as well, they occur at a greater frequency in men. Statistics show cheating occurs at the same rate amongst the genders. The other behaviors I highlighted have statistics showing men commit those acts at a much greater rate.

 

I asked why that is. Telling me about a crappy woman does not answer my question.

In fact I know more women who did these things than I know men who did stuff like frequent prostitutes or have sex with underaged girls.

Ok...and I know plenty of men who cheated? Your point? Do you know plenty of women who used prostitutes or had sex with minors? Do you know more men than women who were raped?

 

Ive had a few friends throughout my lifetime who were sexually assaulted. In only one of those cases was the victim male, and in none of those cases was the assaulter a female.

 

I simply asked why this is such. Telling me both genders cheat doesnt get down to the bottom of the other issues.

[aj22one]

Since I'm not exactly sure my friend about what it is you're asking in this particular thread I'm going step by step through your first post.

 

Weve all seen stories where friends, family, and careers get thrown out the window for sex. Recently we all heard the case of that teacher who just moved in with his student. He tackled all 3 in one swift move, all because he wanted to screw a girl his daughters age. I mean some dudes even backed up the guy on his decision, but obviously these were dudes who are brainwashed by pickup community stuff, so they arent representative of all dudes.

 

I'm not quite sure these sorts of things are always about the sex necessarily. More about the psychological rush of being to attract and bed a girl less than half his age.

 

Either way guys will sleep with hookers, with chicks they arent even attracted to, with men even if they arent gay...but just because they need something other than their hand to get off.

 

You've lumped a lot of behaviors together here. Some men visit hookers because they are desperate, some because they need "variety" in their sex life that they're not getting with their SO, and some because of the rush.

 

Now men who have sex with women they're not attracted to or with men is probably about desperation. Sad, and unwise, but not necessarily evil.

 

Then theres the guys who risk jail time because they seek sex with those under the age of 18...and then theres the horrible reality of rape.

 

Again, rape isn't about sex it's about power over a helpless person.

 

Look, Im a guy...and I understand testosterone is a bitch...but what about character, morals, and pride....arent they more important than "busting a nut". Guys out there risk their whole livelihood because of this need for sex. This is throughout human history.

 

I think it's more about the rush. Not the sex. After all, how good could an 18 year old really be at sex (since you brought up the teacher-student story)?

 

 

I have a super high sex drive myself...but I draw a line in the sand on certain things. I really wonder about all this...because I saw how an ex-buddy of mine had no pride when it came to sex. He would take what he could get, and even back stabbed me to get a piece of tail back in December, which is why we are no longer friends.

 

As I said, I know women are capable of the same things...but the rate at which they do these things is far lower....and with us supposedly being logical and rational as men are supposed to be, why in the world does a little more testosterone cause them to be so short sighted? Why does a slogan like "jerk off and then think about it" even need to exist.

 

I'm sure several women have stabbed each other in the back over men. Women also sometimes have no pride in who they date or sleep with. It's why gang members and drug dealers have no issues getting dates.

 

I scratch my head...because guys will complain about the female monopoly on sex, but it exists because of our own collective behavior. I guess Im just different. I have morals, self control, and pride that wont let me do certain things. I know plenty of guys here are like me as well...but this is something Ive been thinking about lately.

 

There's no such thing as "collective behavior". My choices as an individual do not and should not reflect on any other man.

 

Dudes cant complain about how they feel dating and sex are in a womans favor, and then keep playing the game the same exact way. I used to tell my ex friend that the most powerful thing he can do is adhere to higher standards and let women see this. Then the quality of chicks he would get would rise. Decent women dont want a guy whos penis does all his thinking. I think most dudes would understand this given the female aversion to guys who like prostitutes and/or kick game to minors.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The men on Loveshack who post about how hard they have it aren't exactly going around and dating minors, sleeping with prostitutes or otherwise wrecking their lives with sexual activity.

 

In fact I'm still confused about what you mean by all of this. It's almost like you want people to say "boys are bad, they suck and women are so much betterer and cooler".

[Negative Nancy]

For men, when does character, morals, and pride override sexual desire?

Never. No matter how many good conversations you had with someone, no matter how much history you've had together, it all doesn't matter when the next new shiny thing comes along. F*** all men, they are all the same.

[aj22one]

Never. No matter how many good conversations you had with someone, no matter how much history you've had together, it all doesn't matter when the next new shiny thing comes along. F*** all men, they are all the same.

 

And the same with women too, no?

[kaylan]

Since I'm not exactly sure my friend about what it is you're asking in this particular thread I'm going step by step through your first post.

 

I'm not quite sure these sorts of things are always about the sex necessarily. More about the psychological rush of being to attract and bed a girl less than half his age.

Its still related to sex. Thats the point. If it wasnt about sexual attraction, one would chase new male friends or get cheap thrills from doing other activities like speeding or something.

You've lumped a lot of behaviors together here. Some men visit hookers because they are desperate, some because they need "variety" in their sex life that they're not getting with their SO, and some because of the rush.

This doesnt disprove my point. They would still rather get the release from a woman and not their hand. Your reasoning ties into this, it doesnt negate it.

 

Now men who have sex with women they're not attracted to or with men is probably about desperation. Sad, and unwise, but not necessarily evil.

I never said it was evil. I was simply pointing out another instance of when a mans sex drive overwhelms his rational thought process.

 

Again, rape isn't about sex it's about power over a helpless person.

Rape is not solely about power. You even agreed with this early. Power is part of it, but sex is definitely apart of it. Without a sex drive, there is no desire for sex. There would be no erection or general urge to be with someone. Hence my point.

 

I think it's more about the rush. Not the sex. After all, how good could an 18 year old really be at sex (since you brought up the teacher-student story)?

As I said before, just because theres a physiological aspect does not mean this aspect is not tied to sex. You can get rushes elsewhere.

 

I'm sure several women have stabbed each other in the back over men. Women also sometimes have no pride in who they date or sleep with. It's why gang members and drug dealers have no issues getting dates.

When did I ever say women did not stab each other in the back. I pointed out what my friend did as another example of where sex overrides other more important matters...I was not trying to say women never did the same thing.

 

Again, with the "women do it too" argument. The whole point of the conversation was to dissect why men do certain things in greater frequency than women when it comes to sex.

 

There's no such thing as "collective behavior". My choices as an individual do not and should not reflect on any other man.

Youre reading too much into what I said. By collective behavior I meant "behaviors most men exhibit due". I was pointing out that most men give women a monopoly on sex. And this is true. In most sexual relationship, the women chooses when and where. More guys need to get out of that pattern.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. The men on Loveshack who post about how hard they have it aren't exactly going around and dating minors, sleeping with prostitutes or otherwise wrecking their lives with sexual activity.

This part of my post was referencing general dating complaints of men. I was speaking on an entirely different issue. You seem to have gotten confused reading it. Each paragraph break I moved on to a separate but related topic. I was not saying the men on LS exhibited all of these behaviors.

 

I was speaking solely about their complaints in dating and how the monopoly men give women in regards to sex ties into that.

In fact I'm still confused about what you mean by all of this. It's almost like you want people to say "boys are bad, they suck and women are so much betterer and cooler".

If you werent so worried about some perceived attack on men, youd see I was actually lamenting the state of masculinity. I was recognizing some truths, while towards the end wishing things were different so that male and female relations wouldnt be so complicated.

 

A couple of you simply seemed to take the statements as an attack on yourselves, when that wasnt the case. I pointed out some things about the world, and wondering why they are as they are. I was also imploring men to not be slaves to their hormones if they want a little help in their dating life. I was also pointing out that those who allow themselves to be slaves to their hormones can take it to grand extremes.

 

I obviously wasnt saying all men were like this. A couple of times I pointed out that. Did I not say this?:

 

"I have morals, self control, and pride that wont let me do certain things. I know plenty of guys here are like me as well...but this is something Ive been thinking about lately."

Edited March 10, 2012 by kaylan

[kaylan]

Never. No matter how many good conversations you had with someone, no matter how much history you've had together, it all doesn't matter when the next new shiny thing comes along. F*** all men, they are all the same.

And women dont do the same thing? Women trade up for a shiny and better new mate all the time. The same way men do.

 

Not all men nor all women are like this. Just because I highlighted some bad things does not mean all people are this way.

 

We cant be that sensitive and paranoid can we?

[Star Gazer]

I was simply pointing out some truths.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because you say it, doesn't mean it's TRUE.

[Diamonds&Rust]

However, though nature is a big influence in our behavior, nurture is very strong as well, and I feel many evo-theorists ignore this.

I'll confess to thinking that the boundary between evolutionary biology and historical fiction is very slim.

How is it unfair? One cannot throw out my entire question and assertion...

I meant that it's unfair to assume someone is dismissing the entirety of your post (or not reading it to begin with) just because they chose only one thing to comment on.

Us men see ourselves as highly logical, rational and able to separate ourselves from our emotions. When in reality it is hard for us. Lust is an emotion.

This is more of a personality thing than a gender thing. Also how you see yourself is only partially related to how you actually behave.

I did read it...trying to label facts as sexism is a pretty weak route to take

(...)

To say men or women are more prone to certain behavior would not be sexist

I'm not interested in whether your position is sexist or not. I just thought the argument was cogent.

 

Interestingly, your insistence that your "facts" have no bias is common among those with prejudicial opinions.

 

For example, I notice a disproportionate amount of Asian drivers who cut me off. I could call it a fact that I've observed more Asian drivers cut me off, or recognize that I'm more likely to notice the race of an offending driver when they're Asian.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily an ad hominem against you (e.g., your opinion is sexist, therefore you're wrong) but I totally understand why you'd feel that way. I also sympathize with not wanting to be called sexist for merely discussing gender differences, but keeping in mind that there's a difference between sexism and more harmful things that often get co-opted into that definition like discrimination or misogyny, it may not be possible.

 

I really like this point. It makes one ask, "what comes first?..the mind or the hormones?...which controls the other?"

I like Schopenhauer's compatibilist take on it, something to the effect of: Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills

P.S. - Whos the guy in your avatar...looks like Andre 3000 to me...but I think im wrong.

It's a different Andre. His stage name is Mac Dre, and he's unfortunately not very well known outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. His music is very radio-unfriendly, and the "hyphy" scene never caught on enough for him to get nationwide exposure. Recently, Drake made a brief shout out (by biting a lyric and passing it off as an homage by following it with "RIP Mac Dre") in a song, but considering how much that guy gets on my nerves, it wasn't cause for celebration. Many people (especially women! ) are disgusted by his music, but it's best-in-class if you have a good sense of humor and appreciation for gangster style.

Why minimize stats as an educated guess?

That seems like a relevant minimization, in context. Statistics may stand alone as fact, but their extrapolations are far from uncontested.

Thats like someone asking "why are there more short women than men" and then you answering "well there are plenty of short men out there".

I hope you understand the many nuanced differences between the above analogy and your original question. The biggest difference is that we can measure height with a tape measure, but it's also that sociology/psychology is far less straightforward than human growth.

 

I think, regardless of tone, you're choosing to ignore a valid point being raised about not the innate differences between men and women but how we as a society view those differences.

 

This is fine, but it seems strange when coupled with this persecution narrative--that somehow people are really ignoring what you're saying because they don't agree with you, or that replies inconsistent with what you believe to be facts about human nature are logically inconsistent.

 

I'm not trying to be harsh or overly-critical, but it does seem like you'd have a more productive discussion here if you could acknowledge a clearer boundary between fact and opinion. The presentation of facts to make a point introduces a bias; though the fact may be clear in context, injecting that fact into an argument does not absolve one of error. The same is true for logic, which is a way of ensuring the validity of one's assumptions, not a foolproof defense against being wrong. One can be logically consistent but still incorrect.

[kaylan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because you say it, doesn't mean it's TRUE.

Wtf are you talking about? Its known fact that many of the behaviors I pointed out are exhibited by men at a far greater rate than women.

 

Stats back this up. So its not like Im talking out of my azz. If I say men go to prostitutes far more than women, did I make a false statement?

 

Are you actually trying to argue my points or are you simply trying to be your usually annoying self?

[gaius]

For a healthy, testosterone filled male morals never beat sexual desire. If they truly want something and find it in conflict with their moral code then they will take it anyways and lie or come up with shoddy justification if discovered. Those who pass up opportunities and say they don't do it because of morals are lying or not in touch with themselves.

 

Women aren't much different either.

I only do sex with a woman I'm in a relationship with. I only do relationships with women who have good character and morals. To this day I've never had a ONS or a FWB or done any hookers. I don't plan to start now either. So there's your answer.

Is that about your morals or is it just you don't like casual sex and prefer the intimacy a long term relationship brings? I know it's considered shameful in male circles to not sleep with a woman if you have the chance but there really are a lot of guys who are happy with just their wives or girlfriends and don't really want any extra action. It's not because of their morals though, it's just what they prefer.

[kaylan]

I'm missing the beat in your eyes, because you and I disagree on the point that men cross moral guidelines far more often than women in order to get sex.

 

I can agree with that the numbers are greater, but I don't agree with that the numbers are that far apart from each other.

If the numbers arent far apart then why are the numbers so far apart when reports are drawn up?

There's a statistical study from the Kinsey institute that shows that women in their 20's have more sex than men in their 20's. There's a discrepancy there.

That discrepancy is most likely caused by cheating, which is in terms of numbers the largest issue when it comes to crossing moral guidelines for sex.

Cheating is ONE issue. Stop sitting on cheating. Men and women cheat at the same rates. Plus the Kinsey studies have been argued to have statistical flaws within them.

 

Either way, like I said before, simply pointing to cheating does not explain all the number differences for the other behaviors.

 

According to the study. When men and women hit their 30's, then the sexual activity of women drops and the sexual activity of men rises. In their 30's men have more sex than women do, even more than women had in their 20's. And again, the discrepancy is caused by cheating.

 

And when you link that to the study which shows that roughly 1 in 2 people cheat, yet men do it somewhat more than women, then the numbers match perfectly.

 

I mentioned cheating, because it occurs on a massive scale. Roughly half the population participates in it. Crimes like violent rape pale in comparison in terms of numbers.

 

And that's why I disagreed with you on the rate/frequency and that's why I focused on cheating, because in terms of numbers it is most relevant to your question.

Cheating occurs on a massive scale with both sexes and relatively the same rates based on most recent studies. How does this negate the fact that studies on the other behaviors I pointed out have such wide number differences?

 

You cannot look only at cheating. That is ONE issue. And thats my point.

[Diamonds&Rust]

No I think she's taking issue with the way you discuss the topic.

With good reason! There's a combative tone with an air of pathology to it.

 

I'd feel manipulated to get pulled too much in, but I can't resist asking why drug addicts choose to keep abusing drugs when they could just as easily get a rush from slutting it up?

[Diamonds&Rust]

If the numbers arent far apart then why are the numbers so far apart when reports are drawn up?

It's not that the Kinsey report "has been argued to have statistical flaws within them," it's that all psychology or sociology studies make methodological concessions by necessity and are motivated by limitless conscious and unconscious factors, only one of which is to tell us part of the truth about something.

 

Fact without bias is a quantum state disrupted the moment it's observed.

[aj22one]

Is that about your morals or is it just you don't like casual sex and prefer the intimacy a long term relationship brings? I know it's considered shameful in male circles to not sleep with a woman if you have the chance but there really are a lot of guys who are happy with just their wives or girlfriends and don't really want any extra action. It's not because of their morals though, it's just what they prefer.

 

Could be both.

[jobaba]

I really need to know the answer to this question. It seems like sex overrides so many things in a lot of guys minds. Yes for some women sex can override the same things that get overridden in men, but this happen way more often with men.

 

Weve all seen stories where friends, family, and careers get thrown out the window for sex. Recently we all heard the case of that teacher who just moved in with his student. He tackled all 3 in one swift move, all because he wanted to screw a girl his daughters age. I mean some dudes even backed up the guy on his decision, but obviously these were dudes who are brainwashed by pickup community stuff, so they arent representative of all dudes.

 

Either way guys will sleep with hookers, with chicks they arent even attracted to, with men even if they arent gay...but just because they need something other than their hand to get off. Then theres the guys who risk jail time because they seek sex with those under the age of 18...and then theres the horrible reality of rape.

 

Look, Im a guy...and I understand testosterone is a bitch...but what about character, morals, and pride....arent they more important than "busting a nut". Guys out there risk their whole livelihood because of this need for sex. This is throughout human history.

 

How can the most powerful gender, leaders of the world, masters of this realm...how can they all be so weak?

 

I have a super high sex drive myself...but I draw a line in the sand on certain things. I really wonder about all this...because I saw how an ex-buddy of mine had no pride when it came to sex. He would take what he could get, and even back stabbed me to get a piece of tail back in December, which is why we are no longer friends.

 

As I said, I know women are capable of the same things...but the rate at which they do these things is far lower....and with us supposedly being logical and rational as men are supposed to be, why in the world does a little more testosterone cause them to be so short sighted? Why does a slogan like "jerk off and then think about it" even need to exist.

 

I scratch my head...because guys will complain about the female monopoly on sex, but it exists because of our own collective behavior. I guess Im just different. I have morals, self control, and pride that wont let me do certain things. I know plenty of guys here are like me as well...but this is something Ive been thinking about lately.

 

Dudes cant complain about how they feel dating and sex are in a womans favor, and then keep playing the game the same exact way. I used to tell my ex friend that the most powerful thing he can do is adhere to higher standards and let women see this. Then the quality of chicks he would get would rise. Decent women dont want a guy whos penis does all his thinking. I think most dudes would understand this given the female aversion to guys who like prostitutes and/or kick game to minors.

 

But thats just me thinking theyd know better.

 

Once you get into your 30s and your friends start getting married and having kids, a lot this type of silly drama will disappear from your life...

[kaylan]

I'll confess to thinking that the boundary between evolutionary biology and historical fiction is very slim.

 

I meant that it's unfair to assume someone is dismissing the entirety of your post (or not reading it to begin with) just because they chose only one thing to comment on.

Sexism was not a valid argument in my eyes. So I argued that, plain and simple.

This is more of a personality thing than a gender thing. Also how you see yourself is only partially related to how you actually behave.

If gender wasnt important, stats wouldnt be skewed so much to one side or the other.

I'm not interested in whether your position is sexist or not. I just thought the argument was cogent.

Suit yourself. I argued against a point I disagreed with. No biggie. Keep it moving.

 

Interestingly, your insistence that your "facts" have no bias is common among those with prejudicial opinions.

Lol...please provide me with some information that shows what I have said is false. Why shoot the messenger.

 

Let me make a comparison. I am black, and blacks in the United States have a higher crime rate than other ethnic groups. Now, in a discussion asking why that is...one might point to socio-economics, which is a very valid point. Most people know that poverty perpetuates crime.

 

Now if someone then shot the messenger by calling me biased for simply restating statistically proven facts on crime and race...whats the point in that? I restated some facts, and asked other why they think the numbers come out that way.

For example, I notice a disproportionate amount of Asian drivers who cut me off. I could call it a fact that I've observed more Asian drivers cut me off, or recognize that I'm more likely to notice the race of an offending driver when they're Asian.

Theres a difference between this and what Ive down. Im not simply noticing things around me. I can also bring stat sheets to the table...if you rather I do that, than ok. But I saw no point in doing so since the information is easily searchable for anyone here, and theres no statistical information that negates what Ive been saying.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think it's necessarily an ad hominem against you (e.g., your opinion is sexist, therefore you're wrong) but I totally understand why you'd feel that way. I also sympathize with not wanting to be called sexist for merely discussing gender differences, but keeping in mind that there's a difference between sexism and more harmful things that often get co-opted into that definition like discrimination or misogyny, it may not be possible.

 

I like Schopenhauer's compatibilist take on it, something to the effect of: Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills

Understood. I really enjoy your responses. Very well thought out and well written.

 

It's a different Andre. His stage name is Mac Dre, and he's unfortunately not very well known outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. His music is very radio-unfriendly, and the "hyphy" scene never caught on enough for him to get nationwide exposure. Recently, Drake made a brief shout out (by biting a lyric and passing it off as an homage by following it with "RIP Mac Dre") in a song, but considering how much that guy gets on my nerves, it wasn't cause for celebration. Many people (especially women! ) are disgusted by his music, but it's best-in-class if you have a good sense of humor and appreciation for gangster style.

I saw a tv special on his murder a few weeks back. He was super popular around that area. Shame he never blew up and made it big.

That seems like a relevant minimization, in context. Statistics may stand alone as fact, but their extrapolations are far from uncontested.

Extrapolations are not uncontested, but to throw out something that has been proven down the drain with the bath water seems silly. Something was proven through a study of a large number of events that have taken place.

 

To simply draw up a hypothesis based on no specific event or numbers, and than counters the already existing stats by calling them simply "educated guesses" seems silly to me. One could simply make up things as they go along, without ever provided proof if they used such reasoning.

I hope you understand the many nuanced differences between the above analogy and your original question. The biggest difference is that we can measure height with a tape measure, but it's also that sociology/psychology is far less straightforward than human growth.

 

I think, regardless of tone, you're choosing to ignore a valid point being raised about not the innate differences between men and women but how we as a society view those differences.

And we can and have measured hormonal differences which explain our desire for sexual activity.

 

Hormones effects on sex are pretty straight forwards as well, though Im not dismissing sociology and psychology as playing a role. I was simply dismissing the "women do it too" arguments, because such arguments dont explain why they arent as many women doing it to.

This is fine, but it seems strange when coupled with this persecution narrative--that somehow people are really ignoring what you're saying because they don't agree with you, or that replies inconsistent with what you believe to be facts about human nature are logically inconsistent.

 

I'm not trying to be harsh or overly-critical, but it does seem like you'd have a more productive discussion here if you could acknowledge a clearer boundary between fact and opinion. The presentation of facts to make a point introduces a bias; though the fact may be clear in context, injecting that fact into an argument does not absolve one of error. The same is true for logic, which is a way of ensuring the validity of one's assumptions, not a foolproof defense against being wrong. One can be logically consistent but still incorrect.

Sound argument, but as I said before, why shoot the messenger? I did not pull anything out of my behind and just make things up.

 

But it would seem as if a couple folks would need me to throw easily findable numbers at them, for them to finally get what I am saying.

[kaylan]

For a healthy, testosterone filled male morals never beat sexual desire. If they truly want something and find it in conflict with their moral code then they will take it anyways and lie or come up with shoddy justification if discovered. Those who pass up opportunities and say they don't do it because of morals are lying or not in touch with themselves.

 

Women aren't much different either.

Im lying to myself if I decide to adhere to my moral standards? untrue.

 

Heres an example from my past. I had the opportunity to sleep with this girl I was super attracted to sophomore year of college. We had flirted and stuff before, and things were leading up to sex, but I refrained...why? Because she was drunk and I was only tipsy. My morals will not allow me to sleep with women who are intoxicated and Im sober. Thats just a position of power I refuse to take advantage of.

 

I truly wanted to sleep with her...but wouldnt do it when she was not sober. I found the opportunity in conflict with my morals, and I did not take it anyways thinking I could just lie about it later. I truly did not want to sleep with her while she was drunk.

 

I stuck to my morals.

 

Is that about your morals or is it just you don't like casual sex and prefer the intimacy a long term relationship brings? I know it's considered shameful in male circles to not sleep with a woman if you have the chance but there really are a lot of guys who are happy with just their wives or girlfriends and don't really want any extra action. It's not because of their morals though, it's just what they prefer.

As AJ said, why can it not be both? My morals will not allow me to cheat, and I also have no desire to be with another woman while Im commited to someone.

 

I was referring to the numbers on cheating. You're probably referring to numbers on violent sex crimes.

Im not just talking about violent sex crimes. Im talking about most of the behaviors I outlined in my OP with the exception of cheating.

 

I agree that cheating numbers are close. Ive said from the first page that I agree that women cheat as much as men. But I also said that you cannot argue the other behaviors by using stats on this one behavior.

 

In terms of numbers, cheating is the largest issue. All the other issues pale in comparison in terms of numbers. Which is why it's most relevant to your question and it's why it refutes your claim that the differences in numbers are far apart.

A lot of people cheat, but how do you know its the largest issue in terms of sheer numbers? In regards to the other behaviors, they are far more frowned upon than cheating and many instances dont see the light of public day...Either way you do not throw all the other behaviors out with the bath water just because a lot of people cheat.

 

The Kinsey Institute along with a German University are at the forefront of research on sex and relationships. Their studies are peer reviewed by multiple universities around the world and published in scientific magazines that require peer review before publishing.

When you first said something about a Kinsey study, I thought you were referencing Professor Kinsey's original report from decades ago. That reports validity was widely debated. Excuse my error.

Well if you want to focus on violent rape crimes, then there's no discussion. But like I said, those numbers pale in comparison to cheating.

Who said I want to look at only violent sex crimes? I highly many behaviors besides that and cheating. You simply hang your whole argument on cheating though. Edited March 11, 2012 by kaylan

[TheFinalWord]

For men, when does character, morals, and pride override sexual desire?

 

On a daily basis for me.

 

I don't think any amount of will power can push sexual desire away. A man has to have a purpose in his life that gives him direction. Then he can weigh all decisions through that paradigm. Many men have no purpose in life other than to indulge their senses. Although this is a weak mindset, such men are glorified by the media constantly.

 

I really need to know the answer to this question. It seems like sex overrides so many things in a lot of guys minds. Yes for some women sex can override the same things that get overridden in men, but this happen way more often with men. Weve all seen stories where friends, family, and careers get thrown out the window for sex.

 

When it comes to the workplace I believe it is like other immoral/unethical practices. Once a person gets comfortable in their surroundings or gets a bit of power they start feeling they can get away with things. Most of us have probably done things like goof off at work, essentially "stealing" time from the company. When we first started the job we would not have done that. But over time, we get comfortable and start playing on the internet, taking long lunches, wasting company time. Basically our risk-reward system adjusts to the perceived environment. Guys do this with affairs at work. Usually guys having affairs/sex on the job have been at it for a while before they get caught.

 

Recently we all heard the case of that teacher who just moved in with his student. He tackled all 3 in one swift move, all because he wanted to screw a girl his daughters age.

 

I liken what that man did to rape; he has an power issue and gets a sense of power from manipulating a young girl. Sex is just the outlet for a deeper issue.

 

How can the most powerful gender, leaders of the world, masters of this realm...how can they all be so weak?

 

They haven't read the works of Napoleon Hill

 

Napoleon Hill "Think and Grow Rich" #6 Self-Discipline - YouTube

 

(2:30)

 

Napoleon Hill is the father of self-improvement.

 

I really think ethical decision making needs to be taught in schools. Many men do not know how to make ethical decisions. They weren't taught by their parents and they don't get anything in the way of ethics in school.

Edited March 11, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[Mme. Chaucer]

Or, Napoleon Dynamite:

 

Napoleon Dynamite Dance Scene - YouTube

[TheFinalWord]

Or, Napoleon Dynamite:

 

Napoleon Dynamite Dance Scene - YouTube

 

I think you mean Kip He's the one that knows how to mack on-line babes!

 

[Diamonds&Rust]

Sexism was not a valid argument in my eyes.

That's the thing, it wasn't an argument so much as it was a characterization of a subset of observations. These types of observations will reveal sexist results as a matter of course, independent of argument.

 

It's confusing because often times people do use sexism as an ad hominem to silence people who make general observations. I don't think that's what's occurring here, but that's just my take.

If gender wasnt important, stats wouldnt be skewed so much to one side or the other.

Equivocating between statistics and incontestable facts is asking for logical trouble. You're a man, you should know this.

Why shoot the messenger.

I'm not buying the victim thing. The messenger's role in the transmission of a message can't be denied, except as a tactic by the messenger to defer responsibility. You've stacked the deck with your faulty premise, to a point where observing so grants you the delusion that nobody acknowledges or defeats your point.

 

I am black, and blacks in the United States have a higher crime rate than other ethnic groups. Now, in a discussion asking why that is...one might point to socio-economics, which is a very valid point. Most people know that poverty perpetuates crime.

 

Now if someone then shot the messenger by calling me biased for simply restating statistically proven facts on crime and race...whats the point in that? I restated some facts, and asked other why they think the numbers come out that way.

Excellent observation. I'll reply in earnest.

 

First, keeping with your example, there's no need for "most people knows" here, because there's a wealth of research on this topic. I don't fault you for not constructing the analogy with that in mind, but consider briefly the range of other factors that could be involved in this statistic and any corresponding policy impact. Surely there has to be room for racial bias there, if not in the halls of Academia or Capitol hill, at least in the way that police or courtrooms operate--right?

 

And in a more general sense, relating it back to the topic you originally brought up, it's not that you're a sexist person for making a sexist observation. It's not that you have bias. Everyone has bias.

 

It's that by not acknowledging your bias, you've presented your case as an uncontested fact. No harm, no foul on noticing this phenomena with men but not with women. However, to brazenly imagine any criticism of your rationale is an attack on an unquestionable fact is absurd.

 

Additionally, your use of the phrase "statistically proven" calls into question your understanding of both statistics and logical proof. At least for me. For example,

theres no statistical information that negates what Ive been saying.

That's a bold and unsupportable statement, unless what you're inferring that the burden of negative proof is on others to explain why your conclusion isn't unquestionably factual.

 

Either way, a refusal to engage in a statistical comparison isn't evading a valid argument, it's calling process on the whole thing and demanding you retreat from an untenable understanding of what statistics are and how they can be used to support an argument.

I saw a tv special on his murder a few weeks back.

Really? What show? I'd like to try to find it, there isn't a lot of media about him and I'm into collecting that sort of stuff.

He was super popular around that area. Shame he never blew up and made it big.

You're telling me. It's also a shame that the more radio-friendly artists were also somewhat stifled by the fickle machinations of the entertainment industry and corporate radio.

 

Of course, you can still hear his rhymes all over the radio, just without a proper credit or comparably-skillful delivery.

And we can and have measured hormonal differences which explain our desire for sexual activity.

 

Hormones effects on sex are pretty straight forwards as well

All hugely contestable points you're making. Personally, I'm not as convinced about the totality of physicalist conclusions as you are.

 

But disagreeing with you wasn't my actual intent, just pointing out that it makes no sense to complain that people aren't acknowledging your points simply because they're not convinced by them. That's what's going on, and it's the root of your frustration about why people aren't arguing well enough--your rules of engagement are skewed towards your opinions being well-understood facts. Even if you were to cite the studies you're referring to, extrapolating any results from them as "proof" of as evidence of anything beyond its own publication is a fallible act of interpretation.

 

But it would seem as if a couple folks would need me to throw easily findable numbers at them, for them to finally get what I am saying.

At this point, it seems like an unlikely expectation. Those easily-findable numbers do not accomplish what you're saying they should.

 

You've turned this into a theater of tautology, where we're essentially being asked to counter the definition that those numbers are valid because those numbers exist. It shouldn't surprise you that the discussion is stunted by that.

[Jynxx]

There's a point in your life where it will. It's not a coincidence that that point will be exactly on the border between being young and getting old; if you're not capable of throwing everything away and risking it all for the 1 thing you truly want you're not living life to the fullest.

 

If you really really desire a woman, you'll move heaven and earth for her. You'll lose your dignity, self respect, money, morals etc for her if you have to. In a way it's really the purest form of love that one can reach.

[kaylan]

That's the thing, it wasn't an argument so much as it was a characterization of a subset of observations. These types of observations will reveal sexist results as a matter of course, independent of argument.

 

It's confusing because often times people do use sexism as an ad hominem to silence people who make general observations. I don't think that's what's occurring here, but that's just my take.

I dunno. But I dont consider such observations sexist when such observations simply present us with reality. Its not like reports on the various behaviors I highlighted are being skewed to make men look bad. Its simply, things happens, then information is recorded and shared. I cant see anything sexist in that.

 

And trust me, I know all about the accusation of sexism used an an ad honiem...I used to be on a pickup artist forum sometime ago...and god forbid anyone ever disagree with those guys about certain gender issues. You would immediately be called sexist. And if you tried to debate your points, you were accused of using ad hominem even if you werent doing so.

 

Imagine that....the accusation of ad hominem as an ad hominem attack. It always made me laugh.

 

Equivocating between statistics and incontestable facts is asking for logical trouble. You're a man, you should know this.

I guess I enjoy trouble. Either way, I dont see why I was ever being jumped on for presenting an opinion based on statistical facts. I dont understand why someone would argue with me on the validity of this easily attainable information, especially when theres nothing out there to disprove it.

 

I'm not buying the victim thing. The messenger's role in the transmission of a message can't be denied, except as a tactic by the messenger to defer responsibility. You've stacked the deck with your faulty premise, to a point where observing so grants you the delusion that nobody acknowledges or defeats your point.

And what would my faulty premise be in your eyes? In my eyes my premise was that the sexual behaviors I highlighted in my OP are exhibited by males at a greater rate than women. I then questioned why.

 

 

Excellent observation. I'll reply in earnest.

 

First, keeping with your example, there's no need for "most people knows" here, because there's a wealth of research on this topic. I don't fault you for not constructing the analogy with that in mind, but consider briefly the range of other factors that could be involved in this statistic and any corresponding policy impact. Surely there has to be room for racial bias there, if not in the halls of Academia or Capitol hill, at least in the way that police or courtrooms operate--right?

 

And in a more general sense, relating it back to the topic you originally brought up, it's not that you're a sexist person for making a sexist observation. It's not that you have bias. Everyone has bias.

 

It's that by not acknowledging your bias, you've presented your case as an uncontested fact. No harm, no foul on noticing this phenomena with men but not with women. However, to brazenly imagine any criticism of your rationale is an attack on an unquestionable fact is absurd.

 

Additionally, your use of the phrase "statistically proven" calls into question your understanding of both statistics and logical proof. At least for me. For example,

Maybe I shouldnt have made the assumption that "most people know". I should have instead said " once analysis is made of various statistical information, a correlation can be drawn between poverty and crime. Upon review of such information one would be able to understand why such a correlation exists." Obviously a lot more goes into my analogy than simply "poverty begets crime". As you said, there are other factors to consider.

 

And I can agree racial bias is quite pervasive...but I wont assume it exists within the minds of all people. You said everyone has bias. Well allow me to present a quick copy-paste of the definition.

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

 

Can we not believe that in some situations some people can in fact be impartial? However, in our current situation I will say that I am in fact bias toward the analysis of record events.

That's a bold and unsupportable statement, unless what you're inferring that the burden of negative proof is on others to explain why your conclusion isn't unquestionably factual.

 

Either way, a refusal to engage in a statistical comparison isn't evading a valid argument, it's calling process on the whole thing and demanding you retreat from an untenable understanding of what statistics are and how they can be used to support an argument.

I conceded the fact that Im bias toward record analysis of real life events. Without any reputable information that can negate my original post, Im inclined to stick by my original points.

Really? What show? I'd like to try to find it, there isn't a lot of media about him and I'm into collecting that sort of stuff.

I cant remember the exact name of the show. But I think I saw the show on either the ID channel, or on Current TV channel.

 

You're telling me. It's also a shame that the more radio-friendly artists were also somewhat stifled by the fickle machinations of the entertainment industry and corporate radio.

 

Of course, you can still hear his rhymes all over the radio, just without a proper credit or comparably-skillful delivery.

The corporate big wigs apparently dont like hip hop which breaks away from stuff they sell to everyone.

 

All hugely contestable points you're making. Personally, I'm not as convinced about the totality of physicalist conclusions as you are.

 

But disagreeing with you wasn't my actual intent, just pointing out that it makes no sense to complain that people aren't acknowledging your points simply because they're not convinced by them. That's what's going on, and it's the root of your frustration about why people aren't arguing well enough--your rules of engagement are skewed towards your opinions being well-understood facts. Even if you were to cite the studies you're referring to, extrapolating any results from them as "proof" of as evidence of anything beyond its own publication is a fallible act of interpretation.

Well I am sorry...Im not one to to argue with scientists who have studied the effects of hormones on our bodies and behaviors. If you believe my previous statements are hugely contestable as you are protesting, then by all means contest away.

 

But my main complaint earlier was that instead of answering my questions or making an argument that dealt with the bulk of issues I presented, a couple of posters decided to chose one behavior (cheating) to debate. My premise was not a house of cards, and one behavior having the same rate of occurrence amongst the two genders does not automatically negate the difference in rates of occurrence with the other behaviors.

At this point, it seems like an unlikely expectation. Those easily-findable numbers do not accomplish what you're saying they should.

 

You've turned this into a theater of tautology, where we're essentially being asked to counter the definition that those numbers are valid because those numbers exist. It shouldn't surprise you that the discussion is stunted by that.

Well youve been on LS long enough to know that repetitive rhetoric is quite common. Hell, many internet forums are like that. Edited March 11, 2012 by kaylan

[samsungxoxo]

Weren't you the guy in some another thread who talked about how casual sex isn't that big of a deal?

 

I only do sex with a woman I'm in a relationship with. I only do relationships with women who have good character and morals. To this day I've never had a ONS or a FWB or done any hookers. I don't plan to start now either. So there's your answer.

That's what I've long been looking for and still don't find him nothing, but ''former wannabe alpha studs'' that suddenly think they are ready to settle down with a woman of morals... LOL.

 

I was just reading a male poster from other site (he was 25, my age) and his number was 35 but he was making a rule about that a woman that age should have a number of 10 only. I personally will be disgusted since my number is only 1 and therefore reject him from the start. I don't like former studs.

 

There definitely needs to be more men like you out there.

Edited March 11, 2012 by samsungxoxo

[Diamonds&Rust]

I dunno. But I dont consider such observations sexist when such observations simply present us with reality.

At the risk of reeling in a red herring, reality can be sexist.

For example, men are, on average, paid more than women.

 

But it doesn't matter, because the foundation of your equivocation between statistics and reality is flawed to the point of impasse.

 

Additionally, it was never an ad hominem, because the sexism doesn't degrade your argument, it just colors your observations.

Its not like reports on the various behaviors I highlighted are being skewed to make men look bad.

Bias and intentional manipulation are not the same thing.

Its simply, things happens, then information is recorded and shared. I cant see anything sexist in that.

To put it mildly, the methodology is probably more complicated than that.

Either way, I dont see why I was ever being jumped on for presenting an opinion based on statistical facts. I dont understand why someone would argue with me

I'm beginning to not understand that either.

theres nothing out there to disprove it.

I hate to repeat myself, but : That's a bold and unsupportable statement, unless you're inferring that the burden of negative proof is on others to explain why your conclusion isn't unquestionably factual. Either way, a refusal to engage in a statistical comparison isn't evading a valid argument, it's calling process on the whole thing and demanding you retreat from an untenable understanding of what statistics are and how they can be used to support an argument.

And what would my faulty premise be in your eyes? In my eyes my premise was that the sexual behaviors I highlighted in my OP are exhibited by males at a greater rate than women

So you do see the faulty premise I'm describing? I'm confused. Or you just don't call it faulty. That makes sense. The trouble is that you also don't concede the possibility that it could be faulty, which makes it more like dogma than reality.

Maybe I shouldnt have made the assumption that "most people know"...

My complaint was not semantic.

And I can agree racial bias is quite pervasive...but I wont assume it exists within the minds of all people. You said everyone has bias. Well allow me to present a quick copy-paste of the definition.

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

You need not assume that all people have bias. It follows from the definition you provide.

Can we not believe that in some situations some people can in fact be impartial?

We certainly can believe that, if we want to. Some people believe that this person is called God. Many people are undecided on this belief, however.

However, in our current situation I will say that I am in fact bias toward the analysis of record events... I conceded the fact that Im bias toward record analysis of real life events.

Worth mentioning: this is not a concession at all.

 

This is like saying that your only logical error is being so damn right all of the time.

Without any reputable information that can negate my original post, Im inclined to stick by my original points.

That's both fine and clear. Nevertheless, this does not render your points irrefutable, and I still think your rules of engagement and philosophy of argument are to blame for why no one has satisfied your expectations here.

The corporate big wigs apparently dont like hip hop which breaks away from stuff they sell to everyone.

That could be true, but there were other Bay Area rappers (E-40, Mistah FAB, etc.) who were more than willing to play by the rules of commercial rap. Here's an interesting article about it:

 

The Demise of Hyphy - Page 1 - Music - San Francisco - SF Weekly

 

Well I am sorry...Im not one to to argue with scientists who have studied the effects of hormones on our bodies and behaviors.

I'm not either. But plenty of people have. It seems like you're making an appeal to authority by calling them scientists, which in and of itself is a questionable characterization of statisticians poring over sociological data.

 

If you believe my previous statements are hugely contestable as you are protesting, then by all means contest away.

Calling them hugely contestable was my contest. If you're asking me to disprove the philosophical thesis of physicalism, you've grossly overestimated my devotion to this thread.

 

Even among professional physicalists, however, I don't know many biologists who would argue that the effects of hormones are completely understood, or that any of their conclusions are irrefutable. That's not a very scientific approach.

Well youve been on LS long enough to know that repetitive rhetoric is quite common. Hell, many internet forums are like that.

It's true. I actually got here in 2003, this is my second account. I don't remember why I switched accounts.

 

That said, I wasn't saying your rhetoric was repetitive. I mean your reasoning itself is circular. There's no room for argument, for the reasons I've previously mentioned.