Women are Sluts

Sharpy

Sharpy

Active member
In evolutionary terms, men seek out sexually desirable females whose youthful features indicate good health and the ability to bear children, while women look for mates with abundant enough resources to provide for their children.

So does this mean that women are genetically programmed to seek out only high-status men with lots of money and resources, and to disdain more average guys with lesser earning power -- that what women really go for is that big bulge in a man's pants (his wallet)?

Enter Dr. Tim Birkhead of the University of Sheffield (England), author of the ground-breaking Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. With research spanning the broad spectrum of the animal kingdom, Birkhead discovered that female promiscuity -- that is, females having sex with multiple partners, sometimes regardless of their resources or status -- is the norm rather than the exception.

In fact, females of most species, from damselflies to penguins, routinely copulate with several different mates. And this is especially true among the higher mammals, such as chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom humans share approximately 99% of DNA.

According to Jane Goodall (The Chimpanzees of Gombe), a female chimp may mate with different males of her group as many as 50 times a day, and will actively seek out low-status chimps from other bands for even more sexual encounters.

And bonobos, who act and appear even more similar to humans than chimps, are the real swingers of the animal kingdom -- they participate in virtual gang-bangs and sex (even lesbian sex) solely for the sake of pleasure.

Of course, for women the implications are staggering. According to Birkhead, human females are genetically programmed to be promiscuous. And if Birkhead is right -- that we share common evolutionary behavior with chimps and bonobos -- this means that women should be attracted to and willing to have sex with men regardless of status. Women should not be using dating and marriage as a business.

Yet in human society, women are still selling it and men are still forced to pay for it.

Why?

Because women think with their vaginas -- that is, they use their awesome sexual power to control, manipulate, and get what they want from men. And men let them get away with it.

But in this day and age of equal rights, when women are earning excellent incomes and claim that they have no need for men to support them any more (but still hypocritically expect men to pay for them), maybe it's time for women to finally be honest.

Maybe it's time for women to jettison the manipulative greed, which so characterizes their gender, and seek out men of any status, as apparently nature has intended. Maybe it's time for women to start having sex for the sake of enjoyment instead of cold-bloodedly using it as a tool to feather their own nests.

Men, you have two choices: either continue on as financial slaves and sacrifice your manhood on the altar of female greed; or stand up for yourselves right now -- refuse to be sex-ploited any longer.

Then maybe, just maybe, women can be as nature intended: sexually honest, like men.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
i didn't read the whole thing, but generally i agree.

There are those exceptions tho... those are the ones i go for. pretty much girls just want a guy who's ripped, rich, and skis. (hopefully)

--------

Ski. Eat. Sex. Sleep. Ski. What else is there?
 
your moms a flithy slut

i read the first line and stopped. I thought this was gonna be funny but it isnt funny at all

----------------------------------------

~Listen son, said the man with the gun, there is room for you inside~

Doctor said son, you have Reggaemylitis
 
and the members of NS continue to prove their stupidity and ignorance by being to stupid and lazy to read 5 minutes of text... You all still find it acceptable to put your replies in that do not contribute at all and only boost your post counts.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
i'm sorry skibum, but that deserves a scathing review. first of all the idea that we are living in times of sexual equality is completely absurd. women are not equal to men, our society is lightyears from that ideal world.

beyond that, biology is not the main determinant of our society. culture is our means of adaptation, which means you have to think about the cultural meaning of what were doing just as much (if not way more in my opinion) than you do in terms of biology.

you cannot suggest that women control sex. it all depends on your position. keep in mind that there are a million women out there that detest men for their the control over women. keep in mind that in western culture men are the dominant sex and as a result they maintain and perpetuate a lot of the constructs that control and subjugate women.

my point is, women are not apes. yes they are biologically related, but over a very very very long period of time and this allows for a more than considerable amount of change.

besides, this all boils down to an enormous and very contradictory double standard. you can't label a women a biologically predisposed slut if you aren't going to call men sluts too - after all they sleep and have mated with multiple individuals at one time.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
i read it all and it was good but i am not going to sumarize it casue i will leave something out so dont be lazy and read it

who dey?
 
lazy sacks. all of you. it was seriously like four paragraphs. if youre not going to read it, then dont worry about it.

Mercy's eyes are blue

When she places them in front of you

Nothing holds a roman candle to

The solemn warmth you feel inside

 
i hate sluts...and girls who act too hard to get

--------------------------------------

n

They say life is like ice cream, uve got to enjoy it before it melts. Thats why i go skiing, to keep my icecream cold.

~my english teacher wanted to flunk mein junior high,by the time im finished ill be 35, i smacked him in the face with an erasor,chased him with a stapler, and told him to change the grade on the flipin paper~ BRAD RAD*NORTHEAST CULT*
 
i'd also like to add that an article/research of that nature would hardly earn any scientific credibility in this day and age. its rather obvious that this so called scientist has some fairly sexist motivation. in fact i'd argue that his suggestions are enough to get him blacklisted in multiple concentrations of academia.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
Adaptation is the changing of a species to better suit its surroundings, it is 100% biological. It is true that human females are not promiscuous like apes, but that is only because they have found a better way to survive, use their sexual power to control men. You cannot deny that women have huge manipulative power over men through sex. Men may control business and politics, but when to comes to sex, women can get almost anything out of men using their sexuality.

I never said men are not biologically predisposed. We want sex, we crave sex, we have sex. We, men, are up front with our needs.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
I'm not presenting this as scientific fact, as the author probably intended it not to be taken literaly either, but it does bring up interesting points and is true in a stereotypical way.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
no it absolutely is not 100% physical. if you know anything at all about the anthropology, then you know that culture has been mans method of survival - it is how we survive today. and in that sense, your idea that womens 'manipulative' abilities are due to a biological nature simply isn't true. womens sexual 'control' over men would be due to cultural ways.

i'll put your theory to rest once and for all. if it was based on biological development, then it would be a cultural universal. and i'll tell you right now, this idea that women control sex and have the ability to manipulate men universally couldn't be further from the truth. all you have to do is take a quick look around the globe to see that it is hardly the case in a plethora of different cultures.

some women have the ability to manipulate men in some cultures. i'd argue wholeheartedly that men are just as capable of controlling women. as i said, its totally based on culture.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
You can not separate biological and cultural development as much as you are. It’s not black as white. I jumped the gun by saying it is 100% biological. The biology and cultural development evolve hand in hand. Without one or the other, neither would be where it is today. The need to reproduce is the main drive of nature. Sex as a result is the driving force. Although humans are one of the few species that have sex for pleasure as well as for reproduction. That basic instinct and need to reproduce is always there. Men do not deny this instinct; we embrace it, while women use men’s need. Western women have culturally evolved to learn that they can control men with sex. All you have to do is look at the gold digging women. Could a man pull that off? Not nearly as easily. Women all across the west are learning as well, if a woman is even decent looking, she will be able to get money, favors, and presents easily from a man. Maybe not every woman does this, and not every man is susceptible, but for the majority, this is the case.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
did you discuss this in class today? your really smart faggo

----------

Eternal Nothingness is Okay if Your Dressed For It

 
stfu. seriously you have no idea what you're talknig about. i hope you're raped in a dark alleyway and left to die. notice that never happens to men. and yeah, some women are easy, but men who like sex so much shouldnt complain if theyre getting some. its ppl like you who make it hard for women.

ive waited all my life to cross this line into the only thing thats true -ryan cabrera
 
I can't believe I am getting attacked for something I didn't even write. I posted it because I thought it was interesting and had a hint of truth to it. I am arguing the points of the article because it is always good to discuss things and get both sides of the picture. I also enjoy discussing things. Building your debating skills is never a bad thing.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
It looks like we have come to agree on many of the disputed points. It is hard to determine the biological and cultural evolution of humanity since evolution takes place over such a large period of time, but it is possible to determine that our culture has evolved into what it is due to certain biological changes. It is as a result impossible to prove either side of that argument; although we can both still maintain our own beliefs. We have also agreed that I am referring to western society and western women and not other cultures.

Maybe gold diggers weren’t a great example. Usually the men do know about why a young attractive woman is after them. They wouldn’t be wealthy if they were stupid.

It is accepted that men pay for meals and dates, and drinks, etc. Even with equality, men still do this. Women will continue to enforce this rule, it benefits them hugely. Sure it may be polite and chivalrous, but today’s society calls for equality. I agree with holding the door open, taking out a woman’s seat, etc, but the majority of women I know who are around my age (university), make more money at their jobs than the majority of males. I hate the double standard that is getting played out and used as a foot hold for women to get into men’s pockets. Albeit, there are many decent women out there who are not cheaters and frauds, but I think the number of women who think its acceptable to use men is growing. It gets perpetuated on TV all the time: women controlling men with their “sexiness�. If I were a woman, I would actually take offence to it. Women do not have to resort to manipulation to prove their power; they are just as smart and resourceful as men.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
1. you're not seeing this from both sides. who is to say that the man attracting the golddiggers isn't in full knowledge of his abilities – that he is in control of the women that fiend after his money and status. besides, how can you not draw the similarity of a mans power to a womens beauty, the characteristics may be different but in all actuality what is the difference – do they not ensure the same degree of power? if ultimately she wants his money then he is the commodity with the ability to select from a variety of women...you are forgetting that men are just as sought after as women. my impression is that you see women as powerful due to whatever relations you've had with them in the past. this is comes across as entirely subjective and i assure you, weakens the credibility of your argument.

2. biology and culture are not mutually exclusive, you are correct about that. however, there is nothing to suggest that they have developed hand in hand - at the same time and to the same degree. the primitave culture of our ancestors is something that has been fought and argued over intensively due to the fact that is a dead culture, by a group of beings that were physically built and disposed differently than us (can we even put ourselves in their mindeset?). it is therefore very difficult to determine how and what constructs of it actually existed. we do know that there was a culture as there is a wealth of archaeological data, but after that it’s a combination of speculation and brilliant thinking. however, although you might have made a point about the development of human culture in terms of biology and culture, it sounds to me that you have made this point irrelevant by placing human beings in the same pile as all other organisms. it is important that you realize that the degree of human conciousness and (even more importantly) our culture - something that literally no other organism has – set us far apart from other organisms.

furthermore and, you cannot gauge your beliefs/theories of human beings by basing them off of the culture that you are living in (western culture). if you’re going to make speculations about the entire human species that you have to go beyond that. it seems to me that you are completely caught up on the cultural aspects of one society. there are a wealth of cultural practices existing in this world that go entirely against this idea that women are manipulative. india for example, is a culture that partakes in far less sex than western culture. this is essentially due to the fact that a vast majority of Indian culture views sex and a highly defiling act. marriages have in many cases been constructed not with the purposes of developing passion and romance, but for socio economic reasons and to maintain kinship lines. while women are valued in Indian society (they perform numerous tasks that are central to the maintenance of Indian culture), they have very little power. they absolutely do not have manipulation over men in terms of sex. the husband runs the household and women are subject to his authority. this means that if the husband wants a child, then they produce a child. much of indian culture has regarded women as sexually dangerous (which has nothing to do with an ability to manipulate in the ways that you have suggested), but is due rather to their sexually repressed desires. it is the men that view them as beings with an insatiable desire for sex. which as you realize is completely contradictory to western culture which tends to view males as the ones with insatiable sex drives.

i could rattle off more cultural examples, but I don’t think this is necessary. you yourself have stated that the sexual manipulation (which i strongly argue occurs just as frequently among men), is a product of western culture. because this is not the case in a plethora of other cultures, It must be due to cultural differences. because if it was biological then it would require that cultures have developed to biologically different from one another – which you know is a notion of absurdity. this only goes to show that this female manipulation (which I have firmly argued to be a misconception), is a product of culture and not biology.

I would like to add further that this belief that women are manipulative and devilish is by far, one of the oldest, most stale and recycled theories in existence. by anthroplogical standards it is extremely problematic as it is entirely sexist. you must realize that throughout history male dominated cultures have declared women as evil and manipulative. the shear notion that you are repeating this offense is more than a little disturbing, I have no problem with placing it on par with the dubious misconception of racial superiority. I suggest you take the time to get over your issues and get to know women a little better, I think that that alone will iron out much of your misunderstandings about women.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
also, i'm not attacking you, i'm criticizing you. you may not have written the article, however you are in support of it and due to its dangerous and faulty claims, you are just as guilty as the author is. you just need to think a little more critically.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
oh i thought of one thing that would clarify all of this: just think of it this way. what would happen if a woman from a non-western culture was raised in western culture? she would take on the aspects of that culture. the same thing if the situation was reversed and a western girl was raised in a non-western culture - and thats exactly the point, none of this has to do with biology other than the fact that due to our brains we are able to resort to culture. if you still doubt me then think about the idea of a person being raised by a machine that fed it, what kind of personal beliefs would it have if it was without any kind of cultural imprinting? it wouldn't have any of these concepts.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
First off, I see it as complete garbage to try and base the behavior of genders on their cultural institution. While any cultural construct will always institute and have strong norms that anchor the stalwart beliefs of a society, there will (and always have) been subversive behaviors carried out by individuals. Large trends do not require blanket statements.

In western culture, I think it fair to label gender interaction where the goal is sex, to be a game. It is largely contingent on the nature of the characters and the circumstances of the situation. If you have a dominant female and obedient male in a drunken party atmosphere, vice versa, or any number of situations, there will be different outcomes. There are no cultural trends dictating the behaviors of the man and the woman.

Either can be the predator or the prey. There is no "all sluts are females" or "all sluts are males." There's not truth behind those statements. As tolerance has increased the roles and behaviors accepted for genders (and this goes both ways mind you - women being dominant or men becoming subordinate) has increased. I could just as well whore myself around with ease, or I could lay up and wait for some infested hose hound to come sniffing up my trouser leg. The fact of the matter is gender identity - in the sense of behaviors is going through a huge transitionary phase. There is alot of crossing over, alot of ambiguity between what is acceptable and what is not for a man or woman to engage in.

In addition to the newfound behavioral complexes, there is a degree of relativism that is skewing all our points. While SkiBum attempts to defend the article's integrity, and Ian is smashing it through citing cultural phenoma, I am setting up situations based on recent western cultural shifts. The simple fact that sex is present in every single culture makes this a tough thing to evaluate, its impossible to make a descision based on world culture due to the diversity among different institutions and belief systems. But that brings me back to my original point.

Subversion occurs in every culture, on whatever level, and when subversion occurs, it is largely the same - whether in India or America. What I mean is, when males and females are allowed to freely interact with each other, disregarding any cultural blockades, their activities are very similiar no matter what their disposition. Sex roles become interchangeable and interaction is more based on individual behavioral traits than a culture's requirements.

(apologies in advance for incoherence, but hey at least I used capital letters and periods.)

-AndrewP

----------------------

Per solitudinem ardere in remedium formidinis dictitabat.

'It is often said that the best remedy for fear is to burn alone.'

 
ooooh quit yer complainin'. Sluts aren't a bad thing. Only dirty sluts are bad.

nornornornornornornornornornorn ornornornornornornornornornorno rnornornornornornornornornornor

nornor
nonornornornornornornornor

nornornorno
rnornornornornornor rnornornornornornornornornornor nornornornornornornornornornorn ornornornornornornornornornorno rnornornornornornornornornornor nornornornornornornornornornorn ornornornornornornornornornorno rnornornornornornornornornornor nornornornornornornornornornorn ornornornornornornornornornorno rnornornornornornornornornornor nornornornornornornornornornor
 
"SkiBum attempts to defend the article's integrity"

haha, true, the article has pretty much no integrity, but I am pretty confident it was written to cite controversy. I don't want people to think that the article reflects my personal beliefs just because I attempt to defend it. Of what I am defending I am not to sure of anymore though. The basic message in the article is that women whore themselveso ut for money and tha men should stop being so forthgiving with their money. That is a huge generalization and right away does take away the very little integrity the articles had. I personally am not a cynicist . I believe that humans are inherently good. The article implies that women are connivng and evil. Some women have had to resort to less-than-honourable methods of survival, but that should not reflect women as an entire population.

I wanted to make clear that by defendign the article, I am not defending my own opinions and beliefs or experiences.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
^^ i understand what you're saying, but 'complete garbage' is a farcry. gender almost always a result of culture, hence the major aspect of cultural anthropology that is "sex and gender in culture" which as you can see, is a focus on how culture perpetuates gender roles...although sometimes how sex can determine gender roles in culture. of course there are always going to be subversive individuals, human beings are a span of biological possibilities, there will always be permutations that find their way through the norms of society. blanket statements are a difficult thing to deal with and in anthropology they do their damn best not to categorize people, however, in some cases it must be done. as a precaution there are often disclaimers that assert the fact that not everyone, or in some cases, or most often, or it is usual that...because frankly, we don't have the time to analyze human beings individually.

it is true though, you can't entirely construct theories that apply to human beings as a whole. there are cultural universals but they are few and far between and always subject to an enormous number of ideologies specific to that culture. but that doesn't mean you throw the whole thing out the window and say its all worthless. although relative, human beings do share similiarites that make it worth our while to investigate.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
Gender behavior is a result of institutionalized behaviors, where a set of traits have become legititamized through long standing support. In my opinion, granted I gave that 5 seconds worth of thought.

I agree, there are cultural parameters that dictate behavior widely enough to justify "blanket statements." They are necessitated because as you said, we can't study everybody.

But the point that I didn't quite get to, is that when an individual is removed from the constraints of his cultural environment, when those norms are forsaken, the behaviors become largely identical. (Mind you, this is musing and hypothetical.) But I think it fair to say, that yes within a culture individual's gender roles are controlled. However, once removed I can see individual forsaking their roles, and engaging in free riegn activity. Essentially all men and women when free to act with the fear of repercussion for "subversive behavior" are largely similiar. And the laws of culture no long dictate their behavior at all, instead male and female interactions are instead, largely based on individual behavioral tendencies and the new scenario in which they are placed.

-AndrewP

----------------------

Per solitudinem ardere in remedium formidinis dictitabat.

'It is often said that the best remedy for fear is to burn alone.'

 
it was a well written article with a convincing hypothesis

-----------------------------------------

Please, stop making skiing into a soap opera. This isn't the OC.
-J.D. May

JC TMC S3P
 
^Well that was poorly written...

But Ian, do you get what I'm saying.

-AndrewP

----------------------

Per solitudinem ardere in remedium formidinis dictitabat.

'It is often said that the best remedy for fear is to burn alone.'

 
^although i think that takes a lot of research to determine and i'd like to know what your evidence/support for that is, i'm going to say that i most likely agree with you. i tend to believe that while human beings do have some biological predispositions, i think that, well basically i know that gender is a range of possibility. if you've taken any anthropology you'll soon learn that gender comes an pretty extensive range of possiblity and that many of these different gender outcomes share things in common, however there are many different ways in which they are distributed between the sexes.

i think that its difficult to say, but very fascinating to think about what happens to culture when the norms are lifted and people are free to do as they please. andrew you'd probably be pleased to know that the hijras (eunichs in india that serve as a third gender) are a good example of this. indian society is constructe by jatis, which comprise a caste system that has evolved out of socio economic constructs. however, hijras do not have a caste and therefore take on a role that is sort of free of having to deal with many of the norms of society...however, they are also eunichs and sort of hated by a percentage of the population, so they are not entirely free.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
Well it was only musing, jesus Ian...

Haha, going to WasteTime HighSchool, with 500 other idiots, hasn't really allowed for any anthro. courses, alas. So I can't really substantiate anything.

But I will provide this obscure little parallelism.

You go to school, kids largely engage in a routine of behaviors, some expected, some subservise. The subversive population is often the subject of condescension from both cultural moderators (thats teachers) and peers (students.)

Now its Friday night.

Most everyone, save for a few unadventurous stallwarts of the rigamarole, go. Now the behaviors engaged in by the subversive group became normal and expected. Quite the paradigm from the school day wouldn't you say? The cultural barriers erected by the school are badmouthed and forsaken, and a polarized set of behaviors becomes the norm.

Interesting?

Granted thats a miniscule and far fetched example, but I think its understandably reasonable, and that you can appreciate extending the basis of that scenario to a much broader and cultural level. (Granted the time necessary for such a shift would have to be greatly extended.)

-AndrewP

----------------------

Per solitudinem ardere in remedium formidinis dictitabat.

'It is often said that the best remedy for fear is to burn alone.'

 
I'd like to point out a few errors I see with some of Alpinecowboy's statements.

The first statement, which actually pissed me off, was when he said "We are still light years away from equality." - How can you say this? My mother's workplace (predominantly women) just signed a contract in which they now make more money than those who do a similar job (and are predominantly men). Women have the same rights and get the same base salary. I think we're pretty friggin close! I realize that women have slower promotion rates but hey, so do fat people. No one is bitching that fat people are "light years" away from equality.

Secondly, "It would require that cultures have developed to [be?] biologically different from one another" - umm, they are actually. Being biologically isolated from one another, cultures evolve independently. - I (being a white North American) do not have the same genes as an African.

Thirdly, "What would happen if a woman of a non-western culture were raised in a western culture?" - Well, I know a lot of Asians and they are more inhibited than most people in our culture, much like they are back in Asia. The same goes for other cultures.

Now to bring this back to the topic of the article and away from a Biology versus Anthropology debate (which is clearly what this is, I know skibum is in science and I suspect Alpinecowboy is an Athro major) I'd like to defend the premise of this article.

You can compare the behavior of "less evolved" species with that of human beings. It is fair to compare the behavior exhibited by female chimps with that of female humans.

I can say this because it is the basis of much of our understanding of human behavior. Psychologists use RATS which are far less genetically similar to humans than chimps are. So there is no reason that you could not compare the behavior of chimps with that of humans.

I think we have over-analyzed this article. The article is simply pointing out what we all have already noticed about our society (I'm talking Western Society as I do not have any frame of reference from any other society). That men are still expected (or feel that they are expected) to pay for women despite equal wages. (And I'll side with skibum in that the average girl I know makes a crap load more money than I do and most guys I know.) And further more that women decide who their partner will be and some go for the money.

Lets face it, more often than not the guy asks the girl out and pays. He is also most often the one who makes the first move.

'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)

"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
 
Mermaids are Sea Sluts.

Oates
Reppin' 907

''gnothi seauton (know thyself)''
-Phemonoe/Pythagoras
 
jessbuff:

1. we are far from equalit, the extent of the problem is very deeply rooted. i don't think you understand what an eqalitarian society requires. it requires that women be responsible for roles and tasks that are as appreciated as men. further more women must develop some kind of autonomy and thats certainly not a standard. these two things are necessary for this, neither of which are. now your mom and many other women might have high paying jobs, but the majority do not. women are climbing the ranks to ceo positions and such, but power is still controlled (an overwhelming percentage) by men. you fail to see the difference between women having some power and women having equal power. ask yourself this, how long is it going to take a the united states to see a woman in power? because you're kidding yourself if you think its going to happen any time soon. sexism exists on television, in movies, in books, in legislation, in athletics, in school, in jobs, on magazine covers, in everyday conversation. are you comfortable with the idea of replacing any male position (not based on sexual dimorphism in terms of physical strenght) with a woman? and if you are do you think think the rest of society is? you should stop thinking of sexism as something that office employees joke about and as something that controls and subjugates half our population.

2. in terms of biological differences in culture: this is going to turn into an annoying arguement because you clearly don't understand the concept of race as a social construct. races don't physically exist - this is a tenet of anthropology, this isn't some swiss cheese theory of mine- biological outcomes (in terms of genetics) work like a color wheel where all features be it skin color, bone structure, musculature are all without the distinctions that humans have termed 'races.' basically if you stand every single person on the planet next to each, you will find that there are no distinct lines to divide/distinguish race. all you have to do is do a bit of travelling to see this. go to south east asia and you'll see people so dark you'd think they come from africa. go to the north of africa and you'll see people light skinned enough that you'd think that they are from the middle east. the skin tone and bone structure of western africa and eastern africa is entirely different. not only does race not exist, but that it has absolutely nothing to do with culture. you can argue with me all you want about this, but all you have to do is pick up an intro to anthropology book and any beliefs you're holding on to will be put to rest for good.

3. what would happen to someone if they were raised in a different culture? you've supplied a situation that doesn't go with the example i originally set. an asian person raised in america, must be without any cultural influences that would have been connected to where the came from. i'm speaking as if an asian baby was raised in america basically as an orphan - WITHOUT any kind of cultural connection, so forget a family that is holding on to any of its cultural roots. the asians that you are stereotyping are often from backgrounds where their parents are first or second generation immigrants and their cultural roots are still being adhered to - they have not assimilated into western society so of course they are going to act noticably different.

4. yes you can compare human beings to other organisms, but you must recognize the differences between humans and other animals because they are enormous. but you've missed my point, in that human beings have culture and apes do not, they may have traces of a sort of proto culture but it is not handed down in the way that humans culture is.

5. in terms of overanalyzing. you couldn't be more wrong, the idea that females are predisposed to be manipulative is completely absurd and also dangerous to society, mainly because people who read that are being supplied with a misconception that will cause further subjugation and mistreatment of women (remember that whole equality thing?)

it seems clear to me that not only have you not paid attention to the debate at hand, but that you haven't bothered to use rationality or critical thinking...not to mention you clearly know nothing about anthropology (which i suppose isn't your fault really). i'm not trying to be obnoxious, i guess i'm just pretty vehement about issues that perpetuate serious social problems (sexism).

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
I would liek to bring attention to number 1. in post 4 of alipinecowboy84's in this thread. You say that sure the men know the men know the owmen are using them for their money, but the point is that the women are still using their looks and sexuality to use the men. The fact that the men are aware doesn't defeat the point that the women go in with the greedy intentions. Gilrs date gusy for money thorugh the midle to upper class parts of society. A man with money is much more likely to get a girl than a poor man. I don't blame women, it is genetics that women should want to find the most able man to take care of them. I just think that that part of society needs to catch up with the equality movement.

Alpinecowboy 84, you need to be a less offensive debater. present your arguments, but stop attacking the people you are arguing with, it only takes away fro myour credebility.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
light years doesn't measure time, it measures distance.

i love apple, lanks, skibum_, lucyford, dfresh, d-rocket, cko, nopoles, gustle, spokaneskier, melvs, caden, freeskigrl24, mikee, wrightgirl, missy, jessbuff, seanpistol, doc.dre, dynstrtm, Spyderxtra789, schweitzerski, hey_cutie, almostaskiier, katesd, lateralis, eastcoastpride, ekunz, *jay*, t-schill, *pinkgrinder*, J.D._May, shorty_t, jib_tech, niwanyshyn, ever_murky, nsnski240 and the rest of you are a-holes. smiles :)) :)):): )):): :):))): :) :))
 
and that was really bad grammar. i'm tired, leave me alone.

i love apple, lanks, skibum_, lucyford, dfresh, d-rocket, cko, nopoles, gustle, spokaneskier, melvs, caden, freeskigrl24, mikee, wrightgirl, missy, jessbuff, seanpistol, doc.dre, dynstrtm, Spyderxtra789, schweitzerski, hey_cutie, almostaskiier, katesd, lateralis, eastcoastpride, ekunz, *jay*, t-schill, *pinkgrinder*, J.D._May, shorty_t, jib_tech, niwanyshyn, ever_murky, nsnski240 and the rest of you are a-holes. smiles :)) :)):): )):): :):))): :) :))
 
Your point is well taken, although you don't have to think you are smarter than me because you can recite your anthro text book. For your information I am a straight A kinesiology student. I have little experience with sociology other than my sociology of spot and social psychology courses. But I can say the following as a counter argument.

1. Lets drop the argument on equality: you over exaggerated, done.

2. We'll drop this too, because I would have to read this text to get an idea of what you are talking about. I still hold that black people have different genes than I do.

3. Your point is useless because, "An Asian person raised in America, must be without any cultural influences that would have been connected to where the came from" just plain doesn't exist. Everyone is bound to their biology and their ancestry.

4. I would recommend seeing some research about this. As humans, we cannot communicate with other species and it makes it difficult for us to judge whether they have culture. I would have to assume though, that most groups of social animals (such as apes) would have a degree of culture as you said, but we may be underestimating it because we cannot communicate or understand them and bias our observations of other species with our own pride and arrogance with respect to our own species. We have forever been underestimating the intelligence of other species, take the manatee for example.

5. Not gonna agree on this. Obviously the implications could be more than arbitrary, but I can find much more socially disturbing articles on this site .

Don't try and pin me with as being a chauvinist sexist pig. That I am not. But this article has a grain of truth from personal experience.

I often have heard my female friends say "I don't need to pre-drink, I'll get guys to buy me drinks." I have never heard a guy say that nor have I seen a guy accomplish it. I have however seen girls pull it off.

'I like long walks on the beach...sipping champagne by the fire...gutting dear... (Tweaks_Rock_me)

"Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks." (Skierman)
 
well, since men desire sex so much and will have sex with any women anytime...aren't men sluts too??? Interesting article though

Gravity sucks

"I only drink on 2 occasions. When I'm thirsty, and when I'm not."
 
i'll continue with this until you guys get it.

first of all i've kept my personal attacks to a minimum, i haven't called anyone stupid, i haven't called anyone a sexist pig, i have however very critically attacked the things you have said: welcome to debate, no one is going to hold your hand in this arena.

i'll begin with your statement skibum: you need to stop referring to women as women. its fine if you want to say some women, or women that you may have particularly known, but you need to stop referring to all women, because it simply isn't an accurate or fair representation. some women are interested in money yes, just as some men are interested in big tits. i understand that some women are completely vapid useless people who are looking for a sugar daddy, yes they exist, but you need to forget once and for all the idea that that is a representation of all women. because that frankly is sexist, it’s a stereotyping of women that’s discriminatory (look it up in the dictionary, I’m sure the definition won’t be far off).

anathema: lightyears was a metaphor for how much distance society has to travel in terms of gaining equality. time doesn't create change, its the direction you move in that creates change. if you’re looking for holes in my argument I’m sure you could find some spelling mistakes if you comb through it closely.

jessbuff:

i don't think that i've over exaggerated the inequality between men and women at all, its a social construct that a lot of people are in denial of dealing with. men are especially guilty of this, hey've rejected the idea and developed negative assoication with it since the emergence of feminism - i think a lot of people are unaware of the extent to which our society is wrapped up in it.

yes 'black' people have different genes than 'white' people but by stating that alone, you've completely missed my point on the spectrum of genetics. skin color, facial structure, musculature, etc are just as much a genetic spectrum as the things you know to have a spectrum, such as hair color, height, natural body fat, body hair, etc. people can't seem to wrap their heads around this. there is no distinct 'black' or distinct 'white' just a running spectrum of color. i'll put it this way if chimps (its chimps i believe) and humans have 98% of the same genetic code, then how similar do you think a black and white person are? there is not set of genes for a black person, nor is there a set of genes for a white person. there is no white and there is no black, that is a social construct created by humans for categorical reasoning.

in terms of 'the asian person' of course no person is without cultural influences, but yet again you've missed my point (maybe i just need to explain myself better). if you take a baby straight from the hospital just after it has been born, before it has been imprinted with any kind of personality or culture, and give it to any number of different cultures. it will grow up utilizing and perpetuating (perhaps subject to some ridicule due to its visual differences), the aspects of the culture that it grows up in. my point is no person of any 'ethnicity' is biologically predisposed to act in any way, you can argue all you want but there are endless amounts of tests and studies that prove this.

as for culture among apes. (yes i'm going to get rude here for a minute) what in the hell do you think physical anthrpologists have been doing all that time out there in the field studying them? shoving their pencil up their ass? look, if you have some kind of idea that no one has ever done any kind of research on the study of culture among primates then you've got another thing coming. what you aren't understanding in terms of culture is that it is something handed down from generation to generation, the degree of which in humans is so much higher than any other animal. now don't focus on the complexities of our culture, focus on the fact that a human baby is completely helpless without culture. now you're probably thinking, so what, so is any baby animal and you're right about that. but you have to realize that we learn from our culture. if you raised a baby from a machine and then let it out into the wild it would die because it has absolutely no knowledge of how to survive, it has no instinctual ability to survive. apes however (and even more so with other animals) learn some abilities, however are more reliant on their instinctual skills. this is why you must differentiate so much between humans and apes and all other species. my point isn't that all other species are worthless and have nothing to provide, i, in fact agree with you that humans have long underestimated other animals, i never said that they were worthless myself.

you don't agree with me that suggesting women to be biologically predisposed for sexual manipultion is damaging and dangerous? what about this aren't you understanding? how many times do i have to explain to you that 1. its not accurate to say that all women act in this way 2. that the biological differences between so called ‘ethnicities among different cultures’ aren't substantial enough to have developed an entirely separate method of attracting men than women do in western culture 3. suggesting women to be naturally manipulative only perpetuates misconceptions that lead to the subjugation and mistreatment of women??? at this point i'm just dumbfounded, i'm sorry if thats rude, but it just doesn't seem to be sinking into your head!

as for your friends, exactly, your friends. not some woman living in detroit, or another in mississippi, or in france, or in germany. your friends. how many times do i have to say that this isn't an accurate representaion of all women. you, skibum and anathema seem to be completely hung up on this.

what more do you want me to say to you. I’m not holding my knowledge over you. nor am I just repeating information I’ve learned in a book. yes some of these points I’ve made are tenets of anthropology, but there has been some analysis of your comments made. besides, are you going to condemn my argument because I’m supporting it by fact? that’s a necessary procedure in any kind of debate. aren’t you in college, shouldn’t you know that you’re supposed provide some kind of factual basis for your argument when you write papers?

I’m more than happy to continue this debate guys. that’s not some pompous intellectual alpha male challenge. if I can dispel three peoples sexist beliefs then I fell I’ve made some kind of difference.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
i must say that i read nothing but the original post.

but i REALLY must say that it was the greatest piece of literature in the past ten bajillion years.

thank you.

*******************

"The only things a guy should ever have to ask permission for are threesomes and going in the back door." - Jay

"dude what the fuck is in there..."

"coke"

"dude, it's fucking wet...oh, like the drink?"

"yeah dude" - Mat and Piot

Frostmonkey.NET
 
thinking there is genetic explanation for all behaviors (i.e. you're responsible of nothing) is close to nazism, no?

*******************

FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!

PUNK'S NOT DEAD!

RAILS SUCK!

POWDER SKIING RULES!

DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
 
I'm goign to have to appologize that you have to take what I said literally. I have made it clear that I am not trying generalize all women of being a certain nature, but am stereotyping. From my experiences, the experiences of others I've talked to and from what I see in the media, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of women will use their sexuality to get favours and money out of men.

And yes, you may not blatantly say, you're a stupid fucking idiot to anyone, but you obviously show a lack of even a morsel of respect for anyone opposing your position in this thread, other than EC_Andrew, but I assume you two know each other, so that would be expected.

You think you are morally superior by saying you're trying to change us, well, until I observe alternate behaviours from women, I will have to stand by my opinion.

I have even talked to women about this (mind you, not every woman in the world, as you might assume), but a few women and they have admitted that it is common practice to use their sexuality to influence men.

DL.CCR.PPP.J-CREW
 
^do women act like this or do men force them or want them to act this way. I think you know few females. forget what you see in media: lewinsky, pam anderson, ... aren't not representative.

Human beings are not animals. Sex is only important to those who have no soul and brain.

Look religious people: absolute respect, no sex involved, only love of one person to another.

I agree on the fact that our world, people forget what make you a human being. More and more sex, money, violence, power ,...

honestly, women we see on tv are sluts. Men too.

fortunately, the majority of people don't act that way

*******************

FACE YOUR FEARS, LIVE YOUR DREAMS!!

PUNK'S NOT DEAD!

RAILS SUCK!

POWDER SKIING RULES!

DEATH TO SNOWBOARD-ERS!!
 
well skibum i understand that you may have met many girls that are like that, but the media is about the worst place to confirm your beliefs. if the media was a source of truth, then all black people would be gansters and love fried chicken, 99% of women would be ridiculously good looking, and every informercial would solve all your problems. besides just because you may have met some women that are like that and that you may have some negative associations, does not mean that you should continue to maintain that idea until you meet someone who proves otherwise. (do you assume people guilty until proven innocent?). you have to realize that is what perpetuates stereotypes and discrimination. you have to realize that what you percieve and what is the truth are often two very different things. and that in terms of sexism it is a common them for male dominated societies to present women in a negative light (this has existed in all male dominated societies), who runs the media? men do. its hard, but you have to work against negative beliefs like that.

i don't think i'm morally superior, i just think that in this case you have some serious misconceptions about women. women are wonderful, they aren't the enemy. besides, you're going to get a lot less pussy in life if you have that kind of attitude.

"if you stay ill totally put out." - markd13 in regards to my having had it with this site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top