Are western societies customized on women needs?

[herbert_quain]

Eunuchs are the ideal.
Historical instances exist where they were greatly valued for their political guile and military discipline.

The history of china is filled with eunuchs who did things right.
A few instances are recalled where large portions of an army were eunuchs...think these were primarily in china and the middle east.

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/eunuchs.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch#Notable_eunuchs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Bing

How nice and when are you going to remove the testicles of your son if you have one or you will have one?

 

[Hadoblado]

@Bronto
I don't think it's a sign of bias or feminism to ask for sources. It also sets dangerous precedent if you call out people for wanting sources.

Reading the OP I wanted sources too. The OP was parading the word 'facts', and that makes me want to squeeze the trigger on demanding sources. Don't call your opinion a fact and you won't beg to be questioned.

OP said he was open to being proven wrong, but that's not how this works. He made a positive claim, and while he welcomes people proving him wrong with data he doesn't give any of his own. So the OP asked for sources first. It's just lazy and sort of rude. If you're creating a discussion about the way things are, and expect hard evidence to be given by others, you should give evidence yourself.

It looks like he's started linking sources now so there's that.

 

[_whispers_]

Really? where did you hear that?
And what about the freely polyamorous matriarchal cultures you were talking about?

There used to be a lot of morality for sure in both genders. But I am sure that if women would decide to move to polyamorous sexuality which involves most of men (like in the matriarchal societies you were talking about) I can hardly imagine how most men could have any objection about it.

Ummm.... I've seen so many comments from men that contradict what you are saying, but I'm just going to link to the latest one. She covers men's comments after the 3:40 mark, but I'm putting the whole video below, because it's all about shaming women for having sex:

https://youtu.be/hDRJtYUPBKA

Thank you for the links. They were informative.

 

[Brontosaurie]

If you believe a healthy normal woman's sex drive is less than a healthy normal male... well I'm sorry for you.

it's not necessarily less, certainly not lesser in any way, but it's different. or rather, they're different. on one hand, males are more frequently spontaneously aroused, and have a stronger urge to orgasm which is expressed in more masturbation and more casual turn-ons. on the other hand, women are capable of more intense sexual pleasure and also enjoy a wider spectrum of erotic stimuli, a more expansive sensual identity if you will.

claiming a difference in sex drive isn't the same thing as repressing female sexuality. they've often coincided (unsurpisingly) but they're not intrinsically intertwined, they're different things. if the sexes enjoy and desire sex in different ways, which we've got good theoretical reason to assume and some empirical reason to believe, our model must be able to accomodate for that. we can't exclude possibilities due to moralism.

 

[Sinny91]

it's not necessarily less, certainly not lesser in any way, but it's different. or rather, they're different. on one hand, males are more frequently spontaneously aroused, and have a stronger urge to orgasm which is expressed in more masturbation and more casual turn-ons. on the other hand, women are capable of more intense sexual pleasure and also enjoy a wider spectrum of erotic stimuli, a more expansive sensual identity if you will.

claiming a difference in sex drive isn't the same thing as repressing female sexuality. they've often coincided (unsurpisingly) but they're not intrinsically intertwined, they're different things. if the sexes enjoy and desire sex in different ways, which we've got good theoretical reason to assume and some empirical reason to believe, our model......Sinny's stupid highlighting happening here >>> must be able to accomodate for that. <<<<we can't exclude possibilities due to moralism.

Unless that sexual freedom involves BDSM

 

[Brontosaurie]

Unless that sexual freedom involves BDSM

that looks like a poor bait mostly.

how does it connect to this topic?

 

[Sinny91]

that looks like a poor bait mostly.

how does it connect to this topic?

If that was bait you'd know about it..

Whyyy so serious?

 

[Seteleechete]

Unless that sexual freedom involves BDSM

More like awesome bait.

 

[Sinny91]

Whilst I'd like to take the credit, my minds just naturally wired to.. Youknow...notice these inconsistentcies

 

[Brontosaurie]

If that was bait you'd know about it..

Whyyy so serious?

yeah i did

why assume i'm serious? do you expect me to just laugh at your not-that-funny joke or otherwise i'm bothered by it in some humiliating way?

whatever. you got a point or you don't. and you don't.

these inconsistentcies

just before this, you were "i'm just kidding" backpedalling. now you claim there's a point again.

what inconsistency? it should be rather easy to explain. what i've got so far is: i said something about sex and then something else about sex and they didn't have the same message. did they have conflicting messages? no.

my posts are actual content, i.e. they're designed to be read and not glossed over. i don't make superfluous points. this might make my posts a little hard to understand for someone not so inclined.

 

[Seteleechete]

yeah i did

why assume i'm serious? do you expect me to just laugh at your not-that-funny joke or otherwise i'm bothered by it in some humiliating way?

whatever. you got a point or you don't. and you don't.

The point was highlighting the hypocrisy shown by comparing your recent post with your views on BDSM.

 

[Seteleechete]

Isn't western society built around the ideas of equality and liberty, while traditionally most societies have been built around the idea of male dominance? If you try to bring equality to a formerly patriarchial society you are thus adapting to women needs, I don't see it as a particularly bad thing.

How many people (mostly men) suffer from chronic sex crave, because their sexual life do not match their biological need.
In western nations men live in a society where there is a constant sexual pressure under the rule: sex sells everything.
Men are programmed to have sex with any attractive woman around them, this is simply biology, the effect of testosterone and a natural sexual drive.
nowadays this abstinence is compensated with surrogates, like pornography and prostitution.... and drinking alcohol.

In the previous century the psychologist Freud wrote that sexual repression is the cause of all neurosis and alienation of men in modern societies.

Few men are luckier.

40% of gay men had 500 male sexual partners or more. Many famous actors, singers, sport men and other celebrities have hundreds if not thousands of sexual partners.

Differently from the majority of men they have the opportunity to satisfy their biological need.

While women main biological need is to get kids, most of women do get kids.

During evolution language was developed by women. Women have two language centers in their brain, men only one.
Women are in general more talkative than men and they expect a men to talk a lot to them during courtship.

We live in a world where if you can talk well (politician, lawyer, actor, business man, show man, womanizer) you can get everywhere, while if you are simply smart but
not good in talking you usually don't go very far.

As for this... it's simply natural selection for the environment we now reside in, I think INTPWolf mentioned this as well. The merits that decide who gets a mate have changed as a result in the changing society which theoretically should be compensated eventually through natural selection, of course evolution is quite a slow process. Males with a lot of testosterone based traits are simply not as desired in this kind of society.

Inevitable any kind of rapid change is going to negatively affect a now less useful/desired subset of a population.

 

[Yellow]

Really? where did you hear that?

I assume this is referring to the comment that a lot of men don't want to have sex with women who have had 100 partners already. The answer is that many men have a moral aversion (disgust) with the concept. And understandably so (as well vice versa), considering the commonness of venerial disease in our society. If you don't believe me, take a poll.

And what about the freely polyamorous matriarchal cultures you were talking about?

When people are free to mix it up, they significantly vary. The numbers begin to resemble those found with friendships. Introverts have a few meaningful relationships over their lifetime, while a few extreme extroverts may want to be drowning in genitals (stories of older Mosuo claim to have adults with 50+ different partners a year in their prime). Most people settle for something resembling serial monogamy with occasional overlaps.

You have to throw in some amount of reality with your claims. A man's sex drive (and fertility) increases most when he believes he's not getting any (and is finally about to get some). When adult men are confident in their access to sex, most are satisfied with a few sexual encounters a week (sometimes more, sometimes less).


It's true that the "grass is greener on the other side" attitude can make anyone petulant and grandiose, but it's important to separate sexual fantasies from sexual reality.

I'd also like to mention that the availability of porn isn't really the best evidence for a lack of sex. A good number of men enjoy their "little fireman time" regardless of how much sex they get.

 

[Sinny91]

@Bronto, I don't back peddle, and I rarely 'kid', if I do I'm lying.
I was casting a net, not hooking a blade through your cheek...
You're the one that swam into it
The outcome was humorous, and your defenses are bland.
And FYI, the reaction I expected was backpeddling on your behalf....

 

[Brontosaurie]

The point was highlighting the hypocrisy shown by comparing your recent post with your views on BDSM.

i got that. but calling it a hypocrisy doesn't make me realize why it is one. why is it one? i think it's not. i understand how it could seem like it on a surface glance, but i don't think it is.

what i've said is 1. that pursuit of violence in sex is indicative of mental illness (being clear that my definition of mental illness is wide and has nothing to do with legality or witch-hunting whatsoever) and then 2. that one can claim the existence sex differences in sexual drive without it being the expression or perpetuation of a structure that represses women.

so, from this you've concluded that i'm for repression of BDSM practitioners and against repression of women, correct?

i think it's a self-evidently ridiculous conclusion. i don't want to see BDSM practitioners repressed. i just think what they're doing is a symptom of mental illness. similarly, i don't want to repress cancer patients or anxiety sufferers or dyslexics or religious people either.

 

[Brontosaurie]

@Bronto, I don't back peddle, it was a humourous outcome.
I was casting a net, not hooking a blade through your cheek...
You're the one that swam into it

no actually you made a lukewarm joke which was also an unfounded proposition. you're now refusing to admit it was either of those, also somehow trying to frame it all as my fault.

the quality of me having swum into anything is directly proportional to your tacit self-devaluation.

 

[Seteleechete]

If the sexes enjoy and desire sex in different ways, which we've got good theoretical reason to assume and some empirical reason to believe, our model must be able to accomodate for that. we can't exclude possibilities due to moralism.

It's not about repression in either case.
In this case you believe sexual diversity is a neutral/good thing with the model having to accommodate different preferences and dismissing morality as an argument. On the topic of BDSM you say it's a bad thing(mental illness/against what's natural ect.) while arguing using morality and not accommodating different preferences.

At least that's how I read it.

 

[Sinny91]

no actually you made a lukewarm joke which was also an unfounded proposition. you're now refusing to admit it was either of those, also somehow trying to frame it all as my fault.

the quality of me having swum into anything is directly proportional to your tacit self-devaluation.

My comment was primarily an open ended enquiry, and a tongue in cheek joke secondarily.
So you got the wrong end of the stick in regards to my intentions.
'Fault' is an emotionally charged word which serves no purpose here...
Once again, why you so serious?
Finally, as my ENTJ friend like's to put it, "you are an ostritch who likes to play with words"... I haven't even got the energy to decipher your lastest insult.

Where are the laughing emoticons when I need them?!

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's not about repression in either case.
In this case you believe sexual diversity is a neutral/good thing with the model having to accommodate different preferences and dismissing morality as an argument. On the topic of BDSM you say it's a bad thing(mental illness/against what's natural ect.) while arguing using morality and not accommodating different preferences.

At least that's how I read it.

i acknowledge diversity in sexual drive as a biological reality. BDSM i.e. violent sex however i think is a result of psychologically maladaptative circumstances, habits and ideals. i do think people are born with varying degrees and styles of sex drive (which is entirely beside my point itt either way), but i don't think some people are born with a craving for sex that includes a component of ritualized deliberate violence (which is completely different from 'rough' sex btw). maybe they are. then i'm wrong. no one even shot from that angle in the original discussion iirc.

so, i'm not moralizing in one case while being tolerant in the other. i don't argue from morality, but from health.

it's ironic that the BDSM, which claims to be about sexual openness and exploration, is characterized by its introduction of rules into sex.

 

[Seteleechete]

Perceived morality and mental health are closely connected since what is considered a mental problem is based on commonly accepted morality.

maladaptative circumstances, habits and ideals.

This practically translates to morality. I acknowledge that the morality doesn't have to be incorrect in this case (though I believe it's) but it's still based on it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Perceived morality and mental health are closely connected since what is considered a mental problem is based on commonly accepted morality. This practically translates to morality. I acknowledge that the morality doesn't have to be incorrect in this case (though I believe it's) but it's still based on it.

it pertains to morality in a certain strict sense (human conduct) but it's not moralism, which is the important thing. and it's not hypocrisy cause morality isn't really the domain of the topic here in this thread. innate preferences don't belong to morality. i may be mistaken but in my view the BDSM topic is about cultural programming which is subject to morality (again, in the strict sense), and this topic is about biology, which isn't. in neither of the cases am i being prescriptive. there's a conflation of value and prescriptivity (or even coercion) which i don't subscribe to. makes communication difficult sometimes. or maybe i'm a bit iffy with words.

i may or may not think that hypermasculine women and hyperfeminine men might be biologically ill like BDSM is psychologically ill... would that alleviate the perceived contradiction? i'll serve me as a pure-bred bigot, well done, seasoned with salt and pepper.

(come on, it's not hypocrisy - just poorly matched clothes)

 

[Seteleechete]

it pertains to morality in a certain strict sense (human conduct) but it's not moralism, which is the important thing. and it's not hypocrisy cause morality isn't really the domain of the topic here in this thread. innate preferences don't belong to morality. i may be mistaken but in my view the BDSM topic is about cultural programming which is subject to morality (again, in the strict sense), and this topic is about biology, which isn't. in neither of the cases am i being prescriptive. there's a conflation of value and prescriptivity (or even coercion) which i don't subscribe to. makes communication difficult sometimes. or maybe i'm a bit iffy with words.

i may or may not think that hypermasculine women and hyperfeminine men might be biologically ill like BDSM is psychologically ill... would that alleviate the perceived contradiction? i'll serve me as a pure-bred bigot, well done, seasoned with salt and pepper.

I guess it's a bit of a difference in view as I make no real distinction between innate and gained cultural values when discussing preferences. They have the preferences/likes they have it doesn't particularly matter to me how they got them. If it is harmful in both this case and in the case of BDSM is a case of morality how they got to this point is a case of biology/cultural influences(I am myself unsure if BDSM is something you can be born with but as I said it doesn't particularly matter to me.)

You seem to be "tolerant" if the value is gained by birth but not if it is gained by cultural influence and I don't really agree with this distinction as a convincing argument in this case. If it is right/wrong is a moral discussion regardless how this point was reached (that they are biologically inclined to do this can then be used as an argument in this discussion).

I don't particularly know why you seem to fear this hypocrisy label so much.
Though I still see it as(unintentional) hypocrisy to try and dismiss moral arguments in a moral discussion especially when you use moral arguments to argue for a similar matter.

(The moral argument in this case would then be that it is okay here because they are biologically inclined in this case, while they are not in the case of BDSM, so it's bad there). Among all the other arguments on the matter.

 

[herbert_quain]

Ummm.... I've seen so many comments from men that contradict what you are saying, but I'm just going to link to the latest one. She covers men's comments after the 3:40 mark, but I'm putting the whole video below, because it's all about shaming women for having sex:

https://youtu.be/hDRJtYUPBKA

Thank you for the links. They were informative.

Interesting video. There are a lot of men who have very hard feelings and resentment towards women sexual life.
Before to say anything more, I also would like to add that there are many men who also are very upset about gay men sexual life, we can call them homophobic.

Take a look at this link:
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/...-homophobes-are-sexually-aroused-by-gay-porn/

Apparently homophobic men are repressed gay or bisexual men, in denial of their own attraction to other men.
Also because after all why a straight guy should feel mad about a gay. The more gay men the less the competition (this is my point of view).

Getting back to women, I think many men who get mad about women who have an active sex life with many persons, are sexually repressed, and on one side they envy the easiness most women have in getting casual sex (with men or other women) any time at any moment they want (and this is not quite the case for most of men).
On the other side they feel denied of their need of having the sex they biologically need by the very same women who get all the sex they want. (even men who have may sexual partners, because on one side the sexual hunger of men is huge , it takes a lot to get them fully satisfied, on the other side women are always a step ahead of guys in getting sexual partners, being the picky side).
In the end I think many men are in denial of all this situation and they just end up releasing their frustration with rants and by demonizing women.

 

[Seteleechete]

More bad generalisations please.

 

[herbert_quain]

I assume this is referring to the comment that a lot of men don't want to have sex with women who have had 100 partners already. The answer is that many men have a moral aversion (disgust) with the concept. And understandably so (as well vice versa), considering the commonness of venerial disease in our society. If you don't believe me, take a poll.

Yes maybe they will say they are disgusted, but most of them sleep with prostitutes anyhow. So they will just contradict themselves. Although being disgusted by promiscuity is more a cultural bias after all, like begin disgusted by homosexuals.

When people are free to mix it up, they significantly vary. The numbers begin to resemble those found with friendships. Introverts have a few meaningful relationships over their lifetime, while a few extreme extroverts may want to be drowning in genitals (stories of older Mosuo claim to have adults with 50+ different partners a year in their prime). Most people settle for something resembling serial monogamy with occasional overlaps.

Sexual drive has nothing to do with extroversion or introversion. You may have very introverted horny person and the other way around. Being extroverted (especially for men) may help significantly in satisfying sex drive.

You have to throw in some amount of reality with your claims. A man's sex drive (and fertility) increases most when he believes he's not getting any (and is finally about to get some). When adult men are confident in their access to sex, most are satisfied with a few sexual encounters a week (sometimes more, sometimes less).
.

Yes, I fully agree. Still most men feel attracted to the thousands of attractive women they come across.
And for some few guys (like Tiger woods or John Kennedy) this few sexual intercourses a week over the years involve hundreds or thousands of women and by coincidence all historical kings and powerful men in Asia had a harem with dozens or hundreds of women.

It's true that the "grass is greener on the other side" attitude can make anyone petulant and grandiose, but it's important to separate sexual fantasies from sexual reality.

There are quite some dramatic differences between genders (man and woman DNA are as apart as man and male chimp DNA http://dna-explained.com/2013/10/24...tells-us-that-men-and-women-are-not-the-same/ ) and my point is just that sex drive, a basic need (first layer of the Maslow hierachy) is not satisfied for most of men, for a number of reasons while it is for women (combined with their deep need of getting kids). There is solid evidence for this, many things were said in this thread, and links provided (few from the lazy guy who is writing now, others from other helpful persons).
But if you want to believe that men and women are the same, and you like to be in denial of the satus quo, I got your point and I don't mind, it is your problem, not mine.

 

[herbert_quain]

Isn't western society built around the ideas of equality and liberty, while traditionally most societies have been built around the idea of male dominance? If you try to bring equality to a formerly patriarchial society you are thus adapting to women needs, I don't see it as a particularly bad thing.

and what about the Maslow hierachy?
Is not a particularly bad thing not to have even the first layer satisfied?

As for this... it's simply natural selection for the environment we now reside in, I think INTPWolf mentioned this as well. The merits that decide who gets a mate have changed as a result in the changing society which theoretically should be compensated eventually through natural selection, of course evolution is quite a slow process. Males with a lot of testosterone based traits are simply not as desired in this kind of society.
Inevitable any kind of rapid change is going to negatively affect a now less useful/desired subset of a population.

So basically you agree with my point and this is your explanation for the situation.

 

[herbert_quain]

More bad generalisations please.

All right, you agree with me about my main point. What explanation are you not happy about, and why don't you give yourself a better explanation if this is the case?

 

[Seteleechete]

and what about the Maslow hierachy?
Is not a particularly bad thing not to have even the first layer satisfied?

You have porn to deal with it. Also I disagree with most the prioritization of that particular model, sex does not belong in the first layer for one and most of the other layers don't necessarily always have to follow the order. Basically I think the prioritization is subjective, e.g you might want social status over even the first layer and as the model is mostly about prioritization I might as well disagree with the entire model.

So basically you agree with my point and this is your explanation for the situation.

More of a justification for it.

Apparently homophobic men are repressed gay or bisexual men, in denial of their own attraction to other men.
Also because after all why a straight guy should feel mad about a gay. The more gay men the less the competition (this is my point of view).

Getting back to women, I think many men who get mad about women who have an active sex life with many persons, are sexually repressed, and on one side they envy the easiness most women have in getting casual sex (with men or other women) any time at any moment they want (and this is not quite the case for most of men).
On the other side they feel denied of their need of having the sex they biologically need by the very same women who get all the sex they want. (even men who have may sexual partners, because on one side the sexual hunger of men is huge , it takes a lot to get them fully satisfied, on the other side women are always a step ahead of guys in getting sexual partners, being the picky side).
In the end I think many men are in denial of all this situation and they just end up releasing their frustration with rants and by demonizing women.

Bad generalization, not saying it's wrong but it only explains things for a few people that fit the criteria.

 

[herbert_quain]

You have porn to deal with it.

People who get trapped for days in an elevator drink their own urine.
This is also a way to deal with scarcity of a resource for a basic need.
But at least urine does contain water, while watching porn is not an interaction with another person at all. If this works for you good for you.

Also I disagree with most the prioritization of that particular model, sex does not belong in the first layer for one and most of the other layers don't necessarily always have to follow the order. Basically I think the prioritization is subjective, e.g you might want social status over even the first layer and as the model is mostly about prioritization I might as well disagree with the entire model.

There are some people with low sexual drive or asexual and this is true for them.
But let's face it life is born to reproduce itself, this is universal, not only for humans. Most healthy persons have a quite strong sexual drive. Most women less than men, but they do have a much stronger instinct to get kids than men.

Prison inmates, who would be otherwise straight engage in homosexuality to fulfill this need.

Even most of catholic clergy (who are supposed to practice chastity) have an active sexual life:

"A 1992 study of several hundred clergy found that 62 percent of male clergy and 49 percent of female clergy had been sexually active since taking their vows, and the men had had more partners--about a quarter of the clergymen had five or more partners while only three percent of the women had that many."

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/ar...ong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/



I understand that the decreasing level of testosterone in men can bring to question more and more if this need is basic.
This can be seen as natural selection or the symptoms of an alienated species which damp testosterone and boost CO2 levels, with an uncertain and possibly not so long future ahead.

Bad generalization, not saying it's wrong but it only explains things for a few people that fit the criteria.

At least I provided a link. You say this reason accounts only for few cases while there are other reasons which explain the majority of cases which you do not even mention.
Am I supposed to believe you because you are an authority in this field? (but also authority should not be trusted right? after all you mostly distrust Maslow)

 

[_whispers_]

Interesting video. There are a lot of men who have very hard feelings and resentment towards women sexual life.
Before to say anything more, I also would like to add that there are many men who also are very upset about gay men sexual life, we can call them homophobic.

Take a look at this link:
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/topic/...-homophobes-are-sexually-aroused-by-gay-porn/

Apparently homophobic men are repressed gay or bisexual men, in denial of their own attraction to other men.
Also because after all why a straight guy should feel mad about a gay. The more gay men the less the competition (this is my point of view).

I agree, I've seen this type of research before. However not every homophobe is a repressed gay/bi/lesbian person. Some hate, because of religious reasons, some because that's how they were raised and some because they simply don't understand it. There are many reasons.

Getting back to women, I think many men who get mad about women who have an active sex life with many persons, are sexually repressed, and on one side they envy the easiness most women have in getting casual sex (with men or other women) any time at any moment they want (and this is not quite the case for most of men).
On the other side they feel denied of their need of having the sex they biologically need by the very same women who get all the sex they want. (even men who have may sexual partners, because on one side the sexual hunger of men is huge , it takes a lot to get them fully satisfied, on the other side women are always a step ahead of guys in getting sexual partners, being the picky side).
In the end I think many men are in denial of all this situation and they just end up releasing their frustration with rants and by demonizing women.

So you are not even going to consider the alternative that I presented to you? That women might also be promiscuous by nature, because it's beneficial for reproduction. And then you know society stepped in and told them for thousands of years that they belong to their men and they should be a virgin and get married otherwise they'll get cast out or even worse? That kind of leaves an impression on a culture. Kind of like those men who think that they can sleep around, but women can't.

and my point is just that sex drive, a basic need (first layer of the Maslow hierachy) is not satisfied for most of men, for a number of reasons while it is for women (combined with their deep need of getting kids). There is solid evidence for this, many things were said in this thread, and links provided (few from the lazy guy who is writing now, others from other helpful persons).

And what about 43% of the women who have sex and rarely reach an orgasm? Don't they deserve to have their basic needs satisfied? That's almost half of all women having sex. Compare that number to the 5% of men who rarely orgasm with a partner. 95% of men seem to orgasm almost every time.

http://mic.com/articles/113334/these-are-the-new-orgasm-statistics-every-woman-should-see

 

[Rook]

How nice and when are you going to remove the testicles of your son if you have one or you will have one?

I will never have a child.
My life is too short to deal with the shite stained diapers and energy needs of a human who happens to share my dna.

No, the ideal would be to round up a large percentage of the population that are deemed unworthy of procreation, and sterilize them.
Forced eugenics, the population of bipedal apes on this blasted planet will then finally decrease.

I am currently working on the shortlist, you've made it.

 

[herbert_quain]

I agree, I've seen this type of research before. However not every homophobe is a repressed gay/bi/lesbian person. Some hate, because of religious reasons, some because that's how they were raised and some because they simply don't understand it. There are many reasons.

Who care any longer about religion in the western world? Few rednecks in the bible belt maybe.
And then you live in Holland right, in many European countries including Holland homophobic is much below the threshold of what is socially acceptable while being gay is far above it. So I don't think people are raised against gays or stuff like that any longer.

So you are not even going to consider the alternative that I presented to you? That women might also be promiscuous by nature, because it's beneficial for reproduction. And then you know society stepped in and told them for thousands of years that they belong to their men and they should be a virgin and get married otherwise they'll get cast out or even worse? That kind of leaves an impression on a culture. Kind of like those men who think that they can sleep around, but women can't.

Right, but for thousands of years we also didn't use smartphones or social networks and we live now in 2015 not in the 1800's. The limit of promiscuity to any person right now is not what people think about promiscuity but one of the following:

1. 
   personal need of promiscuity
2. how many persons you can hook up on some "dating" website

and for most of women we could drop the second point.

And what about 43% of the women who have sex and rarely reach an orgasm? Don't they deserve to have their basic needs satisfied? That's almost half of all women having sex. Compare that number to the 5% of men who rarely orgasm with a partner. 95% of men seem to orgasm almost every time.
http://mic.com/articles/113334/these-are-the-new-orgasm-statistics-every-woman-should-see

This can explain why 43% could not care less about promiscuity.
Do you think it is men fault? If this is the case either it is not possible for men to please them (and sadly there would be nothing you can do about it) or men have less sexual stamina than in the past, maybe because of less testosterone.

The more sex a man has, the more testosterone he gets and the less the time to drink beer with friends and so again more testosterone and less estrogen and so on and so on
I see a kind of a pattern here...ha ha ha

 

[herbert_quain]

I will never have a child.

ok, you are so fond of the idea, you can still castrate yourself if you are a man or if you are a woman your boyfriend, if you have one.

I am currently working on the shortlist, you've made it.

all right, I don't mind, I will save money on condoms

 

[Fukyo]

Just go get some zinc supplements if you're so concerned about testosterone OP. Other than that, I don't get what this thread is about. The opening post is a mish mash of conspiracy theory-ish inductive thinking drawing connections between some unrelated stuff that doesn't seem to follow the question stated in the title, then most of your posts seem to be about how men aren't getting enough sex. Yeah, it's kind of a mess.