Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aenri]

I read the whole discussion and I don't understand what seemed to be the disagreement. I saw only snarky comments and talking past each another.

[Neonivek]

I read the whole discussion and I don't understand what seemed to be the disagreement. I saw only snarky comments and talking past each another.

It is because no one wanted to REALLY challenge his point.

It created a sort of "I know your wrong, but I really don't want to take the time to show you or look it up" situation.

It wasn't helped by the sort of tone the statement was made in, in which others interpreted as being made to be open to mocking, but still.

[penguinofhonor]

It created a "This guy is wrong, but he's just arguing to be an asshole so nobody is bothering" situation.

[Neonivek]

It created a "This guy is wrong, but he's just arguing to be an asshole so nobody is bothering" situation.

Ehhh, same thing really. Well except with less honey and sugar.

[Angle]

I think people were mostly arguing with him cause he was a jerk. The one claim that he made, that testosterone has an effect on mens sex drive, is quite obvious, though doubtfully as simple as he was making it out to be.

Anyway, does anyone disagree that there is little difference between the innate biological sex drive of men and women, or at least, that there is less difference between the two on avergage than there is between individuals in the same group?

[Helgoland]

I'd like to see a citation, but I wouldn't go so far as to oppose it.

Question: If you could switch your sexual orientation at will, would you do it? Why, or why not?

[Angle]

If I could do it any time I wanted, as much as I wanted, sure. Gotta come in useful some time or another. Be an interesting experience, too.

[Glowcat]

No more than I'd want to be able to switch interests (e.g. strategy games) on the fly. While there are practical benefits in opening a new pool of partners it'd be erasing of my personality in a way that's uncomfortable to consider. Though maybe it's only uncomfortable because it's not a part of my personality that I have reservations about.

[aenri]

Anyway, does anyone disagree that there is little difference between the innate biological sex drive of men and women, or at least, that there is less difference between the two on avergage than there is between individuals in the same group?

Thanks for clearing the point up.

I will disagree, and state that men have innately much stronger sex drive than women, for biological reasons.
It could be because of higher testosterone, something else or combination of factors, but the most probable one is testosterone. That's also the reason gay men have much more sex than lesbians.
Women have just biologically another way of assesing sex drive.

And now citations -
Testosterone increases sex drive for men
Men have more testosterone than women. I know, pretty obvious but don't want to be called out on that
Men (homo and hetero) have innately stronger sex drive
Women and plasticity of their sex drive

[palsch]

This is an interesting post on one psychological interpretation of the Not All Men thing.

[Willfor]

That's actually a pretty fascinating article that manages to encapsulate a few things I already knew in a good way, and also opened my mind to a different perspective on a separate axis. Thanks for the link!

[Graknorke]

This is an interesting post on one psychological interpretation of the Not All Men thing.

I'm not sure I can agree with that article. It assumes that everybody:

1) Wants to listen to other people's problems
2) Wants their problems listened to

[palsch]

I'm not sure I can agree with that article. It assumes that everybody:

1) Wants to listen to other people's problems
2) Wants their problems listened to

Not really. It assumes that talking about problems is a natural and helpful method of dealing with them for many people. It certainly doesn't assume the first. Just that for a lot of people, lending an ear is part of being a good person/friend.

I personally don't think it's a universal explanation for the Not All Men thing, because I think a fair amount of it is genuine anti-feminist trolling and deliberate derailing of discussions. But it is an interesting look at the people who do it by accident.

[GavJ]

The two hashtags are not mutually exclusive. They're both extremely true, and both should be fully respected by non-douchebags of all genders. The situation arises fairly simply, really:
A small number of violent people are forcing potential victims to act AS IF it were everybody out there that was violent as well, because they don't know ahead of time which people are the actual small number of violent ones. Rapists and the lot necessarily cause and lead to awkward interactions between various perfectly good hearted people. And we should be blaming for this... rapists. Only.

The classic metaphor is a plate of delicious home-baked cookies, one of which is laced with cyanide. 95% of them or whatever will leave you warm and satisfied and loved and happy and thinking of your childhood, and 5% will kill you dead.  Do you eat a cookie from the plate? Probably not. A small number of cookies would force all of us to treat all the cookies to some degree as poisonous.  Is that the good cookies' fault? No. Is that the cookie eater's fault? No.

This could be understood and accepted by everybody, without the need to ever blame or shame either the large majority of decent women or the large majority of decent men. The only people that need blaming are the sole source of the problem: murderers, rapists, flagrant harassers, people who aid and abet them, etc.

This doesn't seem complicated to me. It's not even at all exclusive to sexual crimes or misdeeds. It's true of ANY crime. I have to put locks on my doors and treat all my neighors as potential criminals at first, because 1% of neighbors are burglars or vandals. I have to go to the airport 2 hours early because we have to treat everyone like they might be a terrorist, due to 0.0001% of them being terrorists. Etc. etc.



Honestly, I'm fairly baffled why any of it is contentious at all. Why do we need hashtags? It should be common sense.  You don't see anybody putting up hashtags about burglary or home invasion called #NotAllNeighbors or #YesAllHomeowners

[scriver]

This is an interesting post on one psychological interpretation of the Not All Men thing.

Well that just hit home too deeply.