« I'd be lying if I said I was to blame | Main | Want Ads »
And girls, they wanna have fun
by anna at 08:13 AM on August 02, 2003
There's yet another study out that purports to explain why men are more promiscuous than women. It starts with the fait accompli that this is indeed a fact and then trots out tiresome evolutionary arguments about hunter-gatherer guys out to maximize their odds of passing on their genes and so on. I'm not buying it.
Supposedly these cockamamie theories neatly explain why men tend to woo women with smoking bodies and angelic faces while women pursue rich geezers with the resources to provide well their young. Both objects of affect are thought to offer the best odds of multiple viable offspring. Who's to say men don't simply prefer the company of hot women without any consideration of their fertility of fecundity? Maybe smart women gravitate toward rich guys without a moment's thought given to their affect on as yet unborn kids. Perhaps the very traits that made them rich are also attractive to the ladies.
Now I'm no mathemetician, but I do know that researchers ask subjects how many sex partners they've had and how man they'd like to have. And each time a man has sex with a woman for the first time, she too is putting another notch in her lipstick case. How then could anyone say dudes are more promiscuous than chicks?
Anecdotally, in my experience, females are more likely to stray than males. My first time was with a buddy's gal. A long-term girlfriend cheated on me with a close friend. I walked in on them in the throes of passion and was somehow made to feel that I was in the wrong for interrupting. Most guys I've known are too lazy to bother with cheating. So long as they're getting any, they are satisfied. Conversely, I knew a gal who'd allow men to pull trains on her. There's no male equivalent of that.
Plus I find these evolutionary arguments too pat. People aren't animals, after all. More imporantly, cultural stigmas come into play. The quaterback who plows through the entire cheerleading squad is hailed as a virile stud while the cheeleader who takes on the entire defensive line is derided as a filthy slut. These differences are drille into our heads by the media. Men's mags offer tips on picking up chicks and quickie seductions. Women's mags offer bedroom tips designed to hold onto a man. Surely these factors play as great a role as DNA in determining our behavior.
It's worthwhile to note that a large portion of these arguments is based on the dubious assumption that when the promiscuous male passes along his genes he's also passing along his proclivity to bang anything in a short skirt. Whereas the monogomous woman is assured of giving birth to a daughter who'll doggedly hold out fora weddin' ring. Generation upon generation of this would have resulted in gangs of rapists marauding through streets thronged with chaste women. Clearly that isn't the case.
One could easily extrapolate from this "data" that promiscuous guys are thus responsible for our soaring divorce rate. As you think you know, half of marriages end in divorce. There's just one teensy problem with this factoid: It's false. It was arrived at by comparing the number of weddings and divorces in year X. But that includes the termination of marriages in years A-W and the marriage rate tends to remain constant from year to year. So that's a fallacy. The actual divorce rate is anywhere from 11-34% depending on the study.
So there: Guys aren't all that bad and even if we were, we can't be held responsible for the unraveling of society's underpinning---cuz there's no such thing!
comments (8)
Every thing you said makes sense to me...except. "These differences are drilled into our heads by the media. Men's mags offer tips on picking up chicks and quickie seductions. Women's mags offer bedroom tips designed to hold onto a man."
Actually, times are a changing. Have you ever seen Jane or Bust magazine. The last issue of Jane gave me tips for one-night stands, how to have sex in a toilet stall and had pages and pages of semi-nude boys.
But still, that just proves your point even more. Girls *are* just a promiscuous as guys, if not more. I know personally the ratio of experience between me and any of my previous boyfriends is weighted heavily in my favor. Then again, maybe I am just a filthy slut. Ha!
by syd at August 2, 2003 10:13 AM
I think it's just a matter of who is attractive to you and who isn't. I don't think there is any scale to judge that. I have slept with women my friends deemed below me but there was that something that attracted me to them. I don't believe in the whole hot girl/ rich guy theory. I know that I have, personally, hooked up with girls who were so far out of my league it wasn't funny, but they dug me anyway. It wasn't for money either. I don't have much. Might be pheromones, might be evolution, but I think it's much simpler than that. They are hot to you or they aren't. We all have personal reasons as to why someone is sexy or not and I just don't believe you can, accurately, measure that.
SYD you filthy slut. Enjoy yourself grrrrl.
by Ezy at August 2, 2003 11:46 AM
Interesting. Syd's comments reminded me of another part of the study. When they were guaranteed anonymity, gals were much more forthcoming about when they first had sex, multiple partners etc. Guys didn't give a shit about being anonymous. It's like they were proud of their exploits.
by anna at August 2, 2003 1:03 PM
People aren't animals? I think people *are* animals, and are subject to the same evolutionary pressures as other biological life forms. However, I disagree with your statement that generation after generation of propagating a certain trait such as proclivity for banging leads to an extreme such as rape (which is more violence about sex rather than sexual). Rather I would say that your statement can still be true, men walking the streets *thinking/fantasizing* about banging women in short skirts - in fact I know some men who think, at least briefly, about banging just about every attractive woman they see. Whether that is also true of women (women pondering hopping on every attractive guy they see) is another question.
by chris at August 3, 2003 6:47 PM
Maybe I am abnormal but I never believe those stats that say men don't go five minutes without thinking about sex. Sometimes hours go by without any such thoughts.
by anna at August 4, 2003 6:36 AM
Chris I always value your opinions. But I guess I should clarify that I meant date rapists not the garden variety lurking behind trashcans. I tend to think date rape is often as much about blue balls as violence. That and the arrogant mindset that no always means maybe.
by anna at August 4, 2003 5:09 PM
Hi hws things going on,alli wanna tel is enjoy life by doing good ...
give enjoyment and enjoy life
by ANTO PAULMANN at December 14, 2003 8:56 AM
Find someone compatible with you! Want to find someone located close or far away?
Looking to casually date, or find a relationship?
by shabbir at March 12, 2004 5:13 AM