Female sexual dysfunction

[the last yatto]

[the last yatto]

"Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring often ignoring their own sex drive."

FIX'T

[noir]

It seems to me the only major difference between male and female sexual dysfunction is that stigma which is imposed by society. Society teaches us that a man that can't 'fuck bitches' is less of a man. Whereas a woman who is unable to get aroused is generally understood as an unfortunate but societally acceptable thing.

Conclusion: Modern western sexuality (at least from my own male perspective) is based almost entirely on ego. And where as it seems to me the female ego boost is derived from their partners desire to have sex with them, the male ego boost is derived much more from the act, the 'achievement'.

Only 14 posts in, and noir wins an internets.

+1 internets w00t

You know... I was going to comment further on this thread... but looking back... I have nothing more to say.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Kai wins thread

thank you Kai!

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.

Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?

If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.

In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?

BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.

Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?

ETA: Social science is about establishing accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.

[Vene]

Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.

Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?

If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.

In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?

BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.

Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?

[East Coast Hustle]

Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.

Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?

If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.

In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?

BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.

Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?

ETA: Social science is about establishing accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.

Don't bother. You're arguing religion.

[Adios]

Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.

Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?

If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.

In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?

BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.

Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?

ETA: Social science is about establishing accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.

Don't bother. You're arguing religion.

*whistle*

ECH gets a 15 yard penalty for unnecesary roughness. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Don't bother. You're arguing religion.

[East Coast Hustle]

Don't bother. You're arguing religion.

It means that no matter how correct your assertions are, they will never be right.