Sexist or what?

[floo]

deleted

[Bubbles]

"While most men look for good looks and good bodies, women need reliable, independent and strong-minded men. They look for men who take charge."

I came across this comment by a guy on another forum, I felt like stringing him up by his dangly bits.  Any guy on R&E who agrees with that outrageous sexism had better watch out as I will be round at theirs, not a threat, but a promise!

 

I guess some do.

Sometimes I think some men look for a woman who is very organised and has everything sorted for them by their wives.

People are very different in what they look for in a partner.

One woman I know won't let her husband in the kitchen so he has never had to cook a meal.  She is exceptionally organised and he isn't allowed to do it.

My husband on the other hand really enjoys cooking, and hates me organising him, in fact doesn't let me.

It's not a good idea for us both to be in the kitchen at the same time because he needs space.  I'm the same.

Hopefully people select the partner that fits 

[Brownie]

Whilst it is a bit of blanket statement and generalisation it does appear to be true that men go for physical*, they want a lot more than that if they are thinking of settling down.  Very beautiful, attractive girls and women, even intelligent and capable ones, seem to have their hearts broken more often than less obviously attractive girls.  Men sometimes feel a bit intimidated, or want to 'bring them down', or don't trust them.  I've seen a lot of that, it's sad.  Eventually they find someone who is right, who are confident in themselves, but it's a sad business on the way.

*women also have to find someone physically pleasing, they don't have to have 'film star' looks but if you plan to have a relationship, you need some physical attraction.

[Samuel]

agreed Floo, its bollocks... speaking of which, lets not talk about 'dangly bits' and 'stringing', non-consensual sexual violence is not something we should make light of.

Ok, I know that sounded a bit tounge -in-cheek, but its also a serious point.

[Harrowby Hall]

"While most men look for good looks and good bodies, women need reliable, independent and strong-minded men. They look for men who take charge."

I came across this comment by a guy on another forum, I felt like stringing him up by his dangly bits.  Any guy on R&E who agrees with that outrageous sexism had better watch out as I will be round at theirs, not a threat, but a promise!

A problem here, Floo, is that this is where biology and culture have a head-on crash. For reasons best known to evolution, homo sapiens is a very vision-based species and the fat deposits in the female body owe as much to sexual attraction as to function.

A complication is that the primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is probably to ensure long-term pair bonding rather than reproduction per se. Therefore women have evolved in such a way that they present a constant visual attractiveness to men.

I think that women are undervalued and short-changed in society and that some of the responsibility for this are attitudes in religions - particularly the Abrahamic religions. One consequence of this is the difficulty that women have had in achieving positions that less well qualified and less able men have reached with relative ease. I think it appalling that there are aspects of our society that women achieve only with difficulty.

A recent piece of news that pleased me greatly was that the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra has a appointed a woman - and a young woman at that - to be its next conductor.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Harrowby,

A complication is that the primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is probably to ensure long-term pair bonding rather than reproduction per se.

Only asking because it is first time I have heard this, anyone agree with this.

Gonnagle.

[Harrowby Hall]

Hi Gonners

This is what I wrote in a reply in the thread Abortionon the Religion and Ethics board:

Sexual behaviour in homo sapiens is very complex. It is possible to argue that if it is for pleasure then the natural consequence of coitus is pleasure.

Although biologically the role of sex is reproduction, it is difficult to argue that that is the primary purpose of sex in humans. There are many differences between human sex and that of other species. As a species, homo sapiens is relatively infertile - even where conception is sought and coitus takes place under favourable circumstances, conception may not occur. Ovulation is an event which is signalled in other species with specific and unmistakable signals from the females to receptive males. In some species females can retain and store sperm and release it at ovulation.

In homo sapiens ovulation is hidden - there may be signs that some women observe when they ovulate but by no means are all women necessarily aware of them and they are invisible to men. Coitus in humans is totally independent of fertility - there are many women for whom the post-menopausal stage of their lives are times of great sexual activity and fulfilment. If the primary purpose of coitus is reproduction then this activity is meaningless.

My own view of the biology of human sexuality is that it is related to the size of the human brain. A major difference between humans and other animals is that the human brain is very large and takes many years to grow. To accommodate this growth human offspring have a childhood that is very long - a dozen years or so to sexual capability and then a further period (adolescence) before final full maturity. For all this time, the young humans must be protected and cherished. This is more effectively accomplished if there are two parents involved. Without some incentive there would be nothing to keep the male parent from staying around.

The primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is to maintain the pair bond by means of repeated reward, Hope  .....   by pleasure.

[Shaker]

*round of applause* for a superb post.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

"While most men look for good looks and good bodies, women need reliable, independent and strong-minded men. They look for men who take charge."

I came across this comment by a guy on another forum, I felt like stringing him up by his dangly bits.  Any guy on R&E who agrees with that outrageous sexism had better watch out as I will be round at theirs, not a threat, but a promise!

I don't see this comment as sexist as such, it strikes me as being unimaginative and clichéd.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Of course it is sexist!

How?

[ekim]

HWB....."   I don't see this comment as sexist as such, it strikes me as being unimaginative and clichéd."

Of course it is sexist!

A bit of both I suspect.  He has made a universal statement about women .... (All) " women need reliable, independent and strong-minded men. They look for men who take charge."  This could be followed with ... Floo doesn't, therefore Floo isn't a woman.

[Bubbles]

How?

Well if I won 143m on the lottery, no way would any man take charge...........

 

[Brownie]

I expect every guy to treat me as an equal, not a poor little woman who needs a big strong man to look after her!

I agree with you floo, you dear little woman   .

Where are the big strong men, I wonder?   I've known a couple who look and talk the part who, if push came to shove, they'd run a mile.   
The really strong ones don't show it that much and aren't afraid of a strong woman.

[Hope]

A problem here, Floo, is that this is where biology and culture have a head-on crash. For reasons best known to evolution, homo sapiens is a very vision-based species and the fat deposits in the female body owe as much to sexual attraction as to function.

A complication is that the primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is probably to ensure long-term pair bonding rather than reproduction per se. Therefore women have evolved in such a way that they present a constant visual attractiveness to men.

[Couldn't have put it better, HH.

I think that women are undervalued and short-changed in society and that some of the responsibility for this are attitudes in religions - particularly the Abrahamic religions.

Whilst I agree that the outworking of these faiths over time has mirrored this, I wonder whether the intention at the start of them was to be that.  Remember that there are certain things that women would seem to be better evolved/created to do than men.  I think that modern Western culture has - to a degree - marginalised these roles and abilities.

A recent piece of news that pleased me greatly was that the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra has a appointed a woman - and a young woman at that - to be its next conductor.

Hadn't heard that; great news.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Harrowby,

Ah! a abortion thread, that is why I missed it, don't partake in those threads, but your post is a thought provoker, so much to think through, it made me stop and think about all the rubbish I read about homosexual relationships, pair bonding, no need for reproduction, puts a lie to its all about making babies.

Yes thank you, one to mull over.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Any guy on R&E who agrees with that outrageous sexism had better watch out as I will be round at theirs, not a threat, but a promise!

Doesn't this fall foul of rule 1h?

[jeremyp]

Hi Gonners

This is what I wrote in a reply in the thread Abortionon the Religion and Ethics board:

Sexual behaviour in homo sapiens is very complex. It is possible to argue that if it is for pleasure then the natural consequence of coitus is pleasure.

Although biologically the role of sex is reproduction, it is difficult to argue that that is the primary purpose of sex in humans. There are many differences between human sex and that of other species. As a species, homo sapiens is relatively infertile - even where conception is sought and coitus takes place under favourable circumstances, conception may not occur. Ovulation is an event which is signalled in other species with specific and unmistakable signals from the females to receptive males. In some species females can retain and store sperm and release it at ovulation.

In homo sapiens ovulation is hidden - there may be signs that some women observe when they ovulate but by no means are all women necessarily aware of them and they are invisible to men. Coitus in humans is totally independent of fertility - there are many women for whom the post-menopausal stage of their lives are times of great sexual activity and fulfilment. If the primary purpose of coitus is reproduction then this activity is meaningless.

My own view of the biology of human sexuality is that it is related to the size of the human brain. A major difference between humans and other animals is that the human brain is very large and takes many years to grow. To accommodate this growth human offspring have a childhood that is very long - a dozen years or so to sexual capability and then a further period (adolescence) before final full maturity. For all this time, the young humans must be protected and cherished. This is more effectively accomplished if there are two parents involved. Without some incentive there would be nothing to keep the male parent from staying around.

The primary purpose of sex in homo sapiens is to maintain the pair bond by means of repeated reward, Hope  .....   by pleasure.

Except your argument refutes itself.

You say the primary purpose of sex is to maintain the pair bond, but you also claim the purpose of the pair bond is to provide a stable environment for offspring to reach sexual maturity i.e. to enable your genes to propagate more than one generation, so it still comes back to reproduction.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think that you are confusing purpose with motive.

[trippymonkey]

My husband has always treated our three girls and myself just as he would treat blokes, which is great.

Have you no ambition, you lot ?!?!!?

Nick

[trippymonkey]

Speaking as a guy - I was joking !
Honest !?!?!  
Cos women are generally better than men !!!

[Sassy]

Speaking as a guy - I was joking !
Honest !?!?!  
Cos women are generally better than men !!!

Made me laugh...LOL.

You got a brown nose now?

Come on Nick, stand up for yourself.

It was funny... seems some lack a sense of humour...

Keep em coming...

[trippymonkey]

LACK OF HUMOUR ?!?!!? On THESE boards ?!!!??!!?

Perfectly capable of sticking up for myself here or anywhere else ta very much.!!

[ippy]

I expect every guy to treat me as an equal, not a poor little woman who needs a big strong man to look after her!

What if you can't find an equal, I'm only asking on behalf of a friend of mine, a close friend?

ippy

[jeremyp]

I think that you are confusing purpose with motive.

Nope. It's a bit dodgy to talk about purpose with respect to biological function, but motive is definitely right out.

[Harrowby Hall]

If you observe the behaviour of humans with their offspring you will see that children are cherished, loved and protected - not for what they might become - but for who and what they are. They are sources of joy and affection and are wanted for the happiness they bring from moment to moment. I don't really think that any parent (except for a monarch concerned with propagating the dynasty) sees their child as a potential breeder.

I accept that the behaviour I describe may be driven biologically to ensure that the offspring has the best chance of survival and hence breed. Homo sapiens, as a species, has a rather low reproduction rate - unlike many other mammals which produce litters.

But sex in homo sapiens is totally unlike sex in almost all other species - it is only matched by one of our closest relatives, the bonobo chimp.It has become an everyday activity from which reproduction has largely been eliminated.