Male sexuality: Double standards & social shame

[EyeSeeCold]

I found this article pretty interesting.


Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?

Society pressures men to initiate sexual relationships, yet punishes them when they’re candid about their desires.

Many of us women go through our daily lives fending off unwanted male attention; most of us have worried about being attacked by men.

If I stroll down a city street or take public transit alone, I can count on being approached by men I don’t want to talk to. If I walk home after dark, I can’t help fearing assault—so much so that if a man or group of men come near me on the street, I feel my heart lodge firmly in my throat until they pass.

The pressure put on men to be initiators, but to avoid seeming creepy or aggressive, leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators. (How many women do you know who proposed to their husbands?)

So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep? After all, the point of promoting sex-positive attitudes is for everyone to be able to be open about their needs and desires, right?

I obviously had every right to turn down my Internet Lothario. Still, I shouldn’t have called him a creep; all he was doing was being overt and honest about his desires, and he did it in a polite—though straightforward—way.

...

After a few rounds of banter, I called a halt, and he respected that. I think the word “creep” is too vague and prejudiced to mean anything anymore. But if I were willing to use the word, I’d say my Internet suitor was the opposite of a creep.

And while there’s immense cultural repression of all sexuality, there’s also a fair and growing amount of modern TV, movies and feminist energy that seek to enable female sluttitude in all its harmless, glorious forms. The stud vs. slut dichotomy is worth discussing, but it has one flaw: it entirely ignores the word “creep,” whose function appears to be restricting male sexuality to a limited, contradictory set of behaviors.

As one masculinity thread commenter named Tim observes: “The only way for a guy to guarantee that he won’t be called ‘creepy’ is to suppress entirely his sexuality, just like a woman can escape being called a slut by suppressing hers.”

I’ve got three suggestions for how we can all start taking down awful conceptions of male sexuality—and the word “creep” with them.

1) Sam summed it up best: “Accept male desire, and accept men’s word when they talk about it.”

Just as women shouldn’t have to feel exploited when they have consensual sex, men shouldn’t have to feel like they’re exploiting someone when they have consensual sex. Just as more and more space is being made for forthright discussion of female sexuality, more and more space should be made for forthright discussion of male sexuality.

2) “Male sexuality should be approached from the concept of pleasure rather than accomplishment,” writes machina, a blog commenter.

Linking sex to accomplishment rather than pleasure also leads to some men caring more about getting it done than their partners’ consent

3) Which brings me to my last thought: Let’s work to discourage sexuality that’s actually predatory or non-consensual.

Obviously, most people aren’t rapists, and as HughRistik says: “I don’t think an individual man deserves to feel that his sexuality is toxic merely because he is a man and other men have displayed their sexuality in toxic ways.”

Someone made a comment on reddit that female sexuality is demonized too, I agree that promiscuity is seen as a negative for women while it is a positive for men. That's not something to overlook, but at the same time males face stricter legal & social penalties for sexual interest while female sexual interest has virtually no condemnation attached to it and they are usually given the benefit of the doubt.

I notice that there're a lot of gender biases like this that are difficult to acknowledge and deal with. "Male-ness" is the status quo and feminist efforts attempt to oppose that, but there's a problem of keeping in mind that females have been oppressed for a long time yet still recognizing and giving attention to legitimate male biases.

A related concept: reverse discrimination (especially cultural/racial and religious)

 

[Hadoblado]

This is spot-on.

I have almost entirely suppressed my sexuality as a result of exactly this. I am more afraid of being called a creep than I am motivated to meet girls.

 

[Proletar]

Yes. This is very true.

 

[sammael]

So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep? After all, the point of promoting sex-positive attitudes is for everyone to be able to be open about their needs and desires, right?

I tend to be more of the opinion that it's not that a man is expressing his sexual needs that is the problem, it's the manner in which he does so. I've observed that guys almost as a rule are either clueless, clumsy, awkward, or crude, or any combination of these when it comes to this expression. "Creepy" in this context is a perception of a display of unwanted sexual interest or advance. However it is entirely possible to interact and flirt in a non sexual oriented way, and then to proceed accordingly as the situation or reaction warrants. Hitting on a woman doesn't have to be about trying to get into her pants, it can simply be just having fun.

I think it's pretty common for men to have this association between an interaction with a woman and sex, which causes the way he will interact to be oriented around sex. Obviously this is flawed, but it's also inefficient, it's just hit and miss. If guys could replace the 'women-sex/getting laid' association with 'women-having a good time/enjoying the interaction' it would largely do away with 'creepy' behaviour (or perceived unwanted sexual interest/advance), and rather ironically there'd probably be more sex too. When just going out on a limb the odds are stacked unfavourably, but if there is some kind of sign of further interest before 'expression', it's quite the opposite.

 

[Cognisant]

I was watching "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life", specifically the scene where a man was being chased off a cliff by topless women as his chosen way to receive the death penalty for some minor thing and a woman commented that it was sexist and I retorted "And yet if it were topless men you'd have no objection", to which she had no reply.

Judging by commentary a lot of women in this country watch rugby just to ogle the brawny men wrestling each other, and pull their shorts up each others asses, and that dosen't bother me in the slightest, perhaps it should given that I'm in every bit as much sexual competition with them as women are in with models/actresses/pornstars (not that there aren't also male models/actors/pornstars too) but it dosen't bother me because I just don't see my attractiveness in those terms, I judge myself to my own merit, not to how I compare.

Perhaps that's a fundamental difference in the male/female mind?

Getting back to the OP there's kind of a weird disparity in the acceptability of showing imagery or whatever that men find arousing and the acceptability of them being aroused by it, I mean there's light smut mags in nearly every newsagent but no man would be seen carrying one, likewise there's gossip mags with advertised indecent pictures of male celebrities (obtained without their permission) end up on coffee tables and in break rooms. I guess the difference is that light smut mags are still smut mags, there's no publicly acknowledged precedence of women relieving themselves to pictures of Brad Pitt or whoever (does that happen? be honest) so it's deemed acceptable, even though if a men's magazine had pictures of celebs taken without their consent, well that would likely be the end of that publication.

I wonder what's creating this disparity? Do men simply want "it" more therefore society has naturally adapted to suppress their impulses, that makes some sense, however guys don't really talk about sex even in circumstances when we could get away with doing so, which has me doubt whether being able to discuss such matters publicly without being labeled creeps would cause us to do so.

Or perhaps women feel societally obligated to call men creeps as a matter of maintaining their personal image, basically there's a binary choice, either a woman doesn't condone a man's sexuality at all, or if she does she implies sexual interest in him. So not wanting to imply interest she's forced to call him a creep, there being no precedent for not showing interest or ignoring him, which is likely due to men being persistent, which in turn could be due to certain women requiring persistence, which is due to interested men being readily available, etc, doesn't matter.

In summary I guess we shouldn't take the label "creep" so harshly as there's a range of creepiness which unfortunately we seem to currently lack the verbiage for.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Personally, I've never been called a creep (inasmuch as I'm aware), and I've also never really hid my sexual interests or tastes. Perhaps it's because I'm attractive, or perhaps it's because I've learned to seem innocent somehow. Perhaps it's because I don't make a show of my interest until some interest has been returned. I can't say, exactly. However, I have known guys who I think are creepy, and it seems to me that a lot of it has to do with how attractive the guy is to women. Obviously, the less attractive a guy is, the less a woman wants to be sexual with him. Duh. I bet, though, a lot of it is simply keeping sex and displays of interest in the appropriate context. Just like talking about jet propulsion may be cool, it doesn't mean people who are thinking about and/or discussing something else want to turn their attention on jet engines just because you want to talk about them. Show interest honestly and openly, but don't effectively change the subject unless the other person also wants to discuss it.

@sammael The fact of the matter is that a man either is or is not sexually attracted to a woman. When you're around them, you're sexually attracted. Just like you can't eat a food you like and not enjoy it (barring severe circumstances), you can't think of or be around someone you find attractive without being attracted to them. You can make the conscious decision to think of them sexily, sure, but even without effort the sexual appeal is there no matter what you do. It's not so much that we link women with sex as we do link sexy people with sex, we simply consider women to be sexy and not men (in general). I agree interactions should not be based on the appeal, but denying the appeal is just plain dishonest.

 

[Absurdity]

Insightful responses.

I'd like to add that part of the problem lies with the way men value themselves. If you're trying to hit on a woman and she calls you a creep or drops hints that you're being creepy, that's probably your cue to disengage. However I don't think one should take it personally. You're a man for fuck's sake, you shouldn't be ashamed of your sexuality and rejection shouldn't cause you to spiral into an emotional meltdown where you're afraid to approach women all together. A man's sense of self-worth shouldn't be tied to what women think of him, and a man shouldn't see a woman as something that will complete him.

Now if you're consistently called a creep it might be time to evaluate your methods (not to mention your appearance).

 

[Duxwing]

Although I’ve never pursued sex, I’ve had no such problem in my life with ‘lesser’ forms of romance. I keep a close eye out for cues to disengage and generally act in a laid-back way, gaining me two accolades that bring me pride to this day :

"You’re the most down-to-earth guy that I’ve ever met."

And

"You’re a real gentleman."

The first accolade was from the first girl that I ever kissed—well, she kissed me, but that’s beside the point—a few minutes before we kissed, and then kissed again, and then kissed again. What’s more surprising is that I took a very laid-back attitude to the relationship, was almost two years younger than her, and had only known her for a few days before that moment ; what’s more, I’d been rigorously applying all of the dating theory that I’d read in the preceding months, carefully monitoring social cues and patterns, maintaining awareness of body language and touch, and before we kissed, my lightsaber was as extended as it has ever been. And to top it all off, after I broke up with the first girl, her best friend asked me out.

The second accolade was during my freshman semi-formal dance, wherein I took the attitude of "I’m probably not going to get another chance to get these urges out of my system, so I’m going to go whole-hog : death or glory !". Note that these urges were not only for women, but for dance and song as well. I came to that dance for the entire experience, and boy, did I get it. I danced like crazy, and apparently well, for I was the first to grind that day. It felt really good ! So I went on and danced and sang and ate and drank (no alcohol, of course) the night away, and I ground ten girls and thoroughly enjoyed the experience each time. Of course, I do feel proud in having gotten around to so many of them, but such pride was secondary to the fun. At one point, I was on such a roll that a guy told a girl to grind with me, and she looked hesitant. I asked her, doing my best to convey the sympathy and frankness that I felt, "Do you want to? It’s OK if you don’t.". She said that she didn’t want to, and I said "OK" and felt glad not to have hurt her. At that point, the guy who introduced her to me reached over and shook my hand, saying, "You’re a real gentleman."

And you know what happened the day after? All the girls that I’d danced with waved to me while I was leaving school, and many asked to hear my story. Social rejection? Bah! More like glory!

Looking at these two examples, we find that men, or at least boys, can be very intensely focused on the romantic component of a relationship and even feel pride in promiscuity without being labeled as "creeps" ; to the contrary, proper handling of their romantic relationships can even lead to cheers from their peers.

-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

I was watching "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life", specifically the scene where a man was being chased off a cliff by topless women as his chosen way to receive the death penalty for some minor thing and a woman commented that it was sexist and I retorted "And yet if it were topless men you'd have no objection", to which she had no reply.

Hmmm. I always thought that scene was funny.

Perhaps that's a fundamental difference in the male/female mind?

Both men and women can have strong sex drives, but I think with men the sex drive is different just based on the physique. Women don't get "blue balls" in other words for not having sex for long periods of time; in fact, what seems to happen is that we just stop thinking about it, until we're in a relationship where sex is possible. Men are physically built to shoot their loads every two days, or however long it takes for semen to build up in the plumbing, and that pressure is really uncomfortable and edgy.

There's also a much more visual element to men in my experience, and full-blown desire for sex can be triggered in a few seconds (from my perception) if someone attractive is seen. It's a pretty intense drive. it's also why visual porn can be so successful. There are women who have some pretty powerful drives as well (typically influenced by their T levels), but it seems a kind of different animal than the typical male sex response.

I tend to be more of the opinion that it's not that a man is expressing his sexual needs that is the problem, it's the manner in which he does so. I've observed that guys almost as a rule are either clueless, clumsy, awkward, or crude, or any combination of these when it comes to this expression. "Creepy" in this context is a perception of a display of unwanted sexual interest or advance. However it is entirely possible to interact and flirt in a non sexual oriented way, and then to proceed accordingly as the situation or reaction warrants. Hitting on a woman doesn't have to be about trying to get into her pants, it can simply be just having fun.

That's a pretty useful thought to add to this discussion. Delivery has a large impact on how something is perceived.

I think it's pretty common for men to have this association between an interaction with a woman and sex, which causes the way he will interact to be oriented around sex. Obviously this is flawed, but it's also inefficient, it's just hit and miss. If guys could replace the 'women-sex/getting laid' association with 'women-having a good time/enjoying the interaction' it would largely do away with 'creepy' behaviour (or perceived unwanted sexual interest/advance), and rather ironically there'd probably be more sex too.

Yes, that's pretty much it from my perspective. It can be a turnoff to feel like a guy just wants to get into my pants; I don't want to be his masturbation tool, typically.

If you drop the end goal of sex consciously, but continue to interact in ways that are affirming of someone as a person, that builds a connection that might actually go where you'll enjoy it going, at some point.

Otherwise, it's more a "Get your F'ing hands off me and leave me alone, creep."

I'd like to add that part of the problem lies with the way men value themselves. If you're trying to hit on a woman and she calls you a creep or drops hints that you're being creepy, that's probably your cue to disengage. However I don't think one should take it personally. You're a man for fuck's sake, you shouldn't be ashamed of your sexuality and rejection shouldn't cause you to spiral into an emotional meltdown where you're afraid to approach women all together. A man's sense of self-worth shouldn't be tied to what women think of him, and a man shouldn't see a woman as something that will complete him.
.

I love this post.

Yes, I think some women need to grow up a bit and see men realistically. Men have drives. It's the same energy that goes into everything, not just sex -- including work, and art, and protecting/caring for others, and whatnot. Sex is part of it. Accept it.

At the same time, men can just man up a bit too. So there are women giving you crap JUST because you have a sex drive? Examine your behavior and make sure you're not being an actual "creep' about things, but it's okay to have needs. We all eat, shit, drink, bleed, sweat, breathe, and a host of body functions based on our physical design. No need to be ashamed about that, just be respectful and understanding of women who don't want to be your sex partner.

 

[Duxwing]

At the same time, men can just man up a bit too. So there are women giving you crap JUST because you have a sex drive? Examine your behavior and make sure you're not being an actual "creep' about things, but it's okay to have needs. We all eat, shit, drink, bleed, sweat, breathe, and a host of body functions based on our physical design. No need to be ashamed about that, just be respectful and understanding of women who don't want to be your sex partner.

Exactly!

-Duxwing

 

[Montresor]

Most women are dying for me to talk to them.

 

[Rocco]

Or perhaps women feel societally obligated to call men creeps as a matter of maintaining their personal image, basically there's a binary choice, either a woman doesn't condone a man's sexuality at all, or if she does she implies sexual interest in him. So not wanting to imply interest she's forced to call him a creep, there being no precedent for not showing interest or ignoring him, which is likely due to men being persistent, which in turn could be due to certain women requiring persistence, which is due to interested men being readily available, etc, doesn't matter.

Brilliant deductions. I love this post.

If I could go a tiny bit OT and selfishly rant for a sec... I always feel a bit alienated from these discussions. Mostly because it usually devolves into a flamefest of some sort, but also because I have yet to really figure out how to apply all of this wisdom to my own situation.

I'm a decently attractive guy and very personable, funny, caring, blah blah... but at 5"6' and 120lbs, not exactly a prime specimen of masculinity. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (or at least confirmation bias), but I always feel like I've been dealt a bad hand in the love department. I'm not the typical fawning "nice guy", but I still have much experience occupying the "friend zone". It seems like ANY expression of sexuality will be met with trepidation and patronizing assurances of my attractiveness and "good person"-ness.

The exceptions have only been with women outside of my standards of physical attractiveness. I've tried going for it despite this fact, but it doesn't ever work out.

</rant>

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Your only a creep if you're ugly. ^_^

 

[Jennywocky]

Brilliant deductions. I love this post.

If I could go a tiny bit OT and selfishly rant for a sec... I always feel a bit alienated from these discussions. Mostly because it usually devolves into a flamefest of some sort, but also because I have yet to really figure out how to apply all of this wisdom to my own situation.

I'm a decently attractive guy and very personable, funny, caring, blah blah... but at 5"6' and 120lbs, not exactly a prime specimen of masculinity. It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (or at least confirmation bias), but I always feel like I've been dealt a bad hand in the love department. I'm not the typical fawning "nice guy", but I still have much experience occupying the "friend zone". It seems like ANY expression of sexuality will be met with trepidation and patronizing assurances of my attractiveness and "good person"-ness.

The exceptions have only been with women outside of my standards of physical attractiveness. I've tried going for it despite this fact, but it doesn't ever work out.

</rant>

What age range of women are you dealing with? Just curious.

 

[Cognisant]

If you drop the end goal of sex consciously, but continue to interact in ways that are affirming of someone as a person, that builds a connection that might actually go where you'll enjoy it going, at some point.

How exactly is that achieved? Rather why is it not implicit?

I mean if a guy came up to you, asked you what you were doing later and casually offered sex, well I get the impression that most women would find that offensive, as if the offer itself implies she's a slut, but he's the one offering so how could he judge?

Whether it's societal or psychological women seem to require men to work for it, and for those that aren't particularly charismatic or attractive this can lead to a rut whereby most of the time a guy isn't motivated enough to try, until he is, whereby with sex on the mind he can't focus enough to play the game right, leading to a destructive cycle of failure, self hate and possibly even resentment.

Which I guess explains a lot of the pornography out there, I honestly don't think any healthy person finds themes of domination or brutality arousing, so the apparent prevalence of it is something I think that as a society we should be worried about.

 

[Jennywocky]

I mean if a guy came up to you, asked you what you were doing later and casually offered sex, well I get the impression that most women would find that offensive, as if the offer itself implies she's a slut, but he's the one offering so how could he judge?

*shrug* I'd likely say no thanks. The implication that I'm a slut is a secondary response, once I have time to think about it. So do you mean by "being a man with a man's drives" means walking up to women you don't know and asking them for sex? Maybe we need to define exactly what a man's sex drive is that should be viewed in a healthy and casual manner.

As a similar thing, let's say I walked up to you without us ever having met before and said, "Hey, can I have that sandwich off your plate?" just because I happen to feel hungry all the time. After all, hunger is a legitimate need, although it can be abused. Would that seem presumptuous of me? Why or why not? Should men respect my hunger or would they think I have boundary issues?

Whether it's societal or psychological women seem to require men to work for it, and for those that aren't particularly charismatic or attractive this can lead to a rut whereby most of the time a guy isn't motivated enough to try, until he is, whereby with sex on the mind he can't focus enough to play the game right, leading to a destructive cycle of failure, self hate and possibly even resentment.

Well, maybe we need to discuss drives in general and whether it's mature/healthy to seek to satiate those drives when they occur just because they exist, or whether it's healthy to express/indulge them in moderation, etc. Sex is one of those unfortunate drives that demands two people, typically -- although the reality is that you don't need anyone else to get your rocks off, as much as I don't need to eat off your plate in order to pig out.

How about that dimension? Maybe sex is the "best" outcome, but are women truly necessary for you to get your rocks off? And if not, then what criteria is required so that a woman would want to be involved?

 

[Cognisant]

*shrug* I'd likely say no thanks. The implication that I'm a slut is a secondary response, once I have time to think about it. So do you mean by "being a man with a man's drives" means walking up to women you don't know and asking them for sex? Maybe we need to define exactly what a man's sex drive is that should be viewed in a healthy and casual manner.

It's just an example, if you want to be picky lets say it's a man you know but aren't in a relationship with, the point I'm getting at is that if a woman did the same to a man, well he would be guarded because it's not normal behaviour, but it's unlikely he would say no simply because she hasn't made an effort to seduce him yet.

As a similar thing, let's say I walked up to you without us ever having met before and said, "Hey, can I have that sandwich off your plate?" just because I happen to feel hungry all the time. After all, hunger is a legitimate need, although it can be abused. Would that seem presumptuous of me? Why or why not? Should men respect my hunger or would they think I have boundary issues?

I share food, indeed when it's a treat and it's something that I can share I make a point of offering, it would be rude to eat M'&'M's in front of somebody and not offer them any, unless they already have food of their own, but if I have a sandwich and I'm hungry too I'll probably say no, or share if you're really insistent, for all I know you might be more hungry than I.

Not the best example for your point I think, food being a nessecary for survival and all, so if someone's desperately hungry I think anyone would feel obligated to feed them unless they're starving themselves.

 

[Cognisant]

Well, maybe we need to discuss drives in general and whether it's mature/healthy to seek to satiate those drives when they occur just because they exist, or whether it's healthy to express/indulge them in moderation, etc. Sex is one of those unfortunate drives that demands two people, typically -- although the reality is that you don't need anyone else to get your rocks off, as much as I don't need to eat off your plate in order to pig out.

How about that dimension? Maybe sex is the "best" outcome, but are women truly necessary for you to get your rocks off?

I think there is a pheremonal component, from personal experience in the absence of women the drive does fade away, however frequent exposure, particularly in the not-quite-having-sex-yet stage of dating it becomes stronger, which if prolonged can become torturous, probably as a mechanism to prevent men being strung along.

There's also a "think about elephants" effect, the more a guy thinks about sex or is aroused in general the harder it becomes to not think about it, which I suppose is meant to motivate a guy when women are around to actually do something about it, however particularly in modern contexts where there isn't always an appropriate thing to do this motivation just builds, and builds, and builds, until a guy either finds some distraction, does something stupid, or collapses into depression.

In regard to these two factors getting ones rocks off isn't always effective, indeed in the latter case it can be quite counterproductive, a temporary relief that only makes matters worse, and all of this is simply because if men didn't need women the species would have died out long ago, or at very least those men would have been bred out by the more motivated ones.

Ideally someone would come up with a pill that blocks the female pheromone receptors or cripples the drive in some other way, or a drug that scratches the proverbial itch (actually I think that's cocaine, I hear it affects the same regions of the brain) or, and this is the least likely thing to actually happen, society learns to accept that men and women are different, with different needs, created by opposing evolutionary forces.

At very least if women are going to serve in the military, I'm sure they can do the job, a person's life is worth no more or less due to their gender, but putting men and women on a submarine where air is recycled and people use bunks in shift that's just obviously a dumb idea, especially if you expect them to be focused and professional 24/7.

 

[Cognisant]

And if not, then what criteria is required so that a woman would want to be involved?

I have no idea, I can only consider the inverse and project, but y'know I'm a dude, as was one of my earlier points we don't need convincing, if a chick doesn't need to have sex with me but wants to anyway I would need a specific reason not to automatically jump into bed.

Which is not to say women are wrong for not being like that, as I also said we're shaped by different indeed conflicting evolutionary forces, it's regrettable but that's biology.

Now if we were all robots...

 

[Montresor]

The part I find funny is a woman can have a man earn access to her body over a period of 2-3 weeks ... and then give it up in 3 hours to somebody else!

 

[Rocco]

...what criteria is required so that a woman would want to be involved?

Haha. Excellent turn of phrase. I lolled.

What age range of women are you dealing with? Just curious.

From a few years younger to a year older than me, during different periods of my life. Late teens to mid 20s. I'm almost 28 now...Man, it's been a long time since I tested the waters. You might have a good point.

The part I find funny is a woman can have a man earn access to her body over a period of 2-3 weeks ... and then give it up in 3 hours to somebody else!

Are you more likely to be the first or second bloke? And how does that affect your opinion of women in general? Of yourself?

 

[Jennywocky]

From a few years younger to a year older than me, during different periods of my life. Late teens to mid 20s. I'm almost 28 now...Man, it's been a long time since I tested the waters. You might have a good point.

yes, younger women (as well as younger men) often are saddled with a lack of varied experience and untested expectations. That's just the way of things, there's nothing wrong with it, we just need experience. We often think we want/need certain things in a partner that, after we gain some wisdom, we realize isn't as important to solid relationships as we thought. There's a strong need for validation; younger women often find validation in having a rich, handsome, or competent guy find them attractive, for example.

Anyway, as we get more experience, we change our expectations and learn to appreciate other things, perhaps. Sometimes we even just need to get to know ourselves better and what we actually need vs what we thought we wanted...

All of which means, at least maybe the friend-zoning for superficial reasons might diminish.

Now if we were all robots...

if we were robots, we'd be full of screws!

 

[kvothe27]

Isn't it a matter of supply and demand? Males in demand will not be viewed as creepy and the supply of non-creepy males is determined by conditioned perceptions via the media, probably testosterone levels, etc. I read a study a while back demonstrating that women are more attracted to males who are already in relationships than single males.

This might mean that males who are in demand don't have to put forth as much effort -- that is, they can be meaner and less caring about the women they're courting, if they so choose. On the other hand, males who aren't in demand have to compensate in other ways, such as perhaps being nicer, phoney, etc., which may perpetuate the image of these males as being creepy.

 

[Jennywocky]

Not the best example for your point I think, food being a nessecary for survival and all, so if someone's desperately hungry I think anyone would feel obligated to feed them unless they're starving themselves.

Well, sex is a different kind of drive compared to the others -- you need two people, it's not something you can satisfy alone. Sex also for many people involves a degree of emotional and physical vulnerability. For women, who physically can be overpowered by a male of equivalent size due to muscle mass differences, it can be disconcerting have a stranger approach for purposes of success. If I say no, will he accept that? Who is this person? Can I trust him? Should I avoid him? etc.

Our culture has set up certain locations where people can go and advertise that they are interested in sex without strings attached -- bars, clubs, frat houses, Craigslist, etc. This is because women who do not go to those places aren't typically expecting or wanting to be approached by strangers for sex. if you 'cold call' a woman for sex, without establishing a rapport involving some degree of trust first, you can expect these kinds of underlying assumptions/attitudes playing into things.

 

[Duxwing]

Well, sex is a different kind of drive compared to the others -- you need two people, it's not something you can satisfy alone. Sex also for many people involves a degree of emotional and physical vulnerability. For women, who physically can be overpowered by a male of equivalent size due to muscle mass differences, it can be disconcerting have a stranger approach for purposes of success. If I say no, will he accept that? Who is this person? Can I trust him? Should I avoid him? etc.

Good thing I'm scrawny, then!

Our culture has set up certain locations where people can go and advertise that they are interested in sex without strings attached -- bars, clubs, frat houses, Craigslist, etc. This is because women who do not go to those places aren't typically expecting or wanting to be approached by strangers for sex. if you 'cold call' a woman for sex, without establishing a rapport involving some degree of trust first, you can expect these kinds of underlying assumptions/attitudes playing into things.

I'd like to go back to the sandwich analogy for a moment. Someone asking you for your sandwich is asking you to alienate resources from yourself to them, while someone asking if you want to have sex with them, fear of rape notwithstanding, is offering something of value: namely, the pleasure of intercourse. Hence, the two ideas are incompatible, for sex should never be given out of pity or compassion, but enjoyed by both partners. Yet you used the example anyway, so do you feel as though women lose something in having sex?

-Duxwing

 

[Absurdity]

I'd like to go back to the sandwich analogy for a moment. Someone asking you for your sandwich is asking you to alienate resources from yourself to them, while someone asking if you want to have sex with them, fear of rape notwithstanding, is offering something of value: namely, the pleasure of intercourse. Hence, the two ideas are incompatible, for sex should never be given out of pity or compassion, but enjoyed by both partners.

Dux you should be a professor of economics.

Yet you used the example anyway, so do you feel as though women lose something in having sex?

Well once they play that card with a guy they haven't got much else in terms of power in the relationship (even if it's really good, there's always diminishing returns).

And if you have more... traditional sympathies there's the idea that their chastity and purity is diminished. As much as most modern, feminist-friendly men hate to admit it, the idea that women tend to lose a good deal of their attractiveness once they're perceived as sufficiently "used goods" is tough to shake.

Double-standard? Yes. Life's not fair.

 

[The Gopher]

I have been called creepy once. Which is odd most girls die for me. Although it was in a situation where I was just talking with absolutely no intention of sexual interest and she immediately asked me to dance right after. Talk about mixed signals.... "Dude you're creepy dance with me" (Not exact quote but it was implied) I later wondered if I was being creepy by not acting normally and making advances on her.

Anyone have any ideas?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have been called creepy once. Which is odd most girls die for me. Although it was in a situation where I was just talking with absolutely no intention of sexual pleasure and she immediately asked me to dance right after. Talk about mixed signals.... "Dude you're creepy dance with me" (Not exact quote but it was implied) I later wondered if I was being creepy by not acting normally and making advances on her.

Anyone have any ideas?

I was once called creepy by a woman I had no sexual interest in. It is like you can't have a casual conversation with some women without them thinking you're trying to make an advance on them.

 

[Absurdity]

Anyone have any ideas?

Could be that she found your strangeness attractive

It is like you can't have a casual conversation with some women without them thinking you're trying to make an advance on them.

Feminazis

 

[Hadoblado]

I have been called creepy once. Which is odd most girls die for me. Although it was in a situation where I was just talking with absolutely no intention of sexual pleasure and she immediately asked me to dance right after. Talk about mixed signals.... "Dude you're creepy dance with me" (Not exact quote but it was implied) I later wondered if I was being creepy by not acting normally and making advances on her.

Anyone have any ideas?

I think we've found the cause for concern.

Seriously though, it sounds like a power play to me. It's the sort of thing I'd do if I were a girl. Take away their comfort zone and assume control of proceedings.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Why do you have to be hitting on someone to be considered creepy? Those behaviors aren't inextricably linked.

I have no idea, I can only consider the inverse and project, but y'know I'm a dude, as was one of my earlier points we don't need convincing, if a chick doesn't need to have sex with me but wants to anyway I would need a specific reason not to automatically jump into bed.

Which is not to say women are wrong for not being like that, as I also said we're shaped by different indeed conflicting evolutionary forces, it's regrettable but that's biology.

Now if we were all robots...

By this logic, homoeroticism is the answer since the pair's biological urges are in permanent sync instead of conflict. Ho yay

Women are definitely a lot more appealing for serious relationships.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I tend to be more of the opinion that it's not that a man is expressing his sexual needs that is the problem, it's the manner in which he does so. I've observed that guys almost as a rule are either clueless, clumsy, awkward, or crude, or any combination of these when it comes to this expression. "Creepy" in this context is a perception of a display of unwanted sexual interest or advance.

Yes, how a person conducts themselves while flirting/dating is important, but how constructive is labeling a group of people with an overused subjective, and thus meaningless, term? It's implied that it's wrong to be attracted to someone unless they're attracted to you, which makes no sense.

However it is entirely possible to interact and flirt in a non sexual oriented way, and then to proceed accordingly as the situation or reaction warrants. Hitting on a woman doesn't have to be about trying to get into her pants, it can simply be just having fun.

If guys could replace the 'women-sex/getting laid' association with 'women-having a good time/enjoying the interaction' it would largely do away with 'creepy' behaviour (or perceived unwanted sexual interest/advance), and rather ironically there'd probably be more sex too. When just going out on a limb the odds are stacked unfavourably, but if there is some kind of sign of further interest before 'expression', it's quite the opposite.

I agree with the 'have a good time' approach, I honestly can't see me trying any other method. Though personally I still don't know the line between becoming romantically comfortable with someone versus being perceived only platonically.

Isn't it a matter of supply and demand? Males in demand will not be viewed as creepy and the supply of non-creepy males is determined by conditioned perceptions via the media, probably testosterone levels, etc. I read a study a while back demonstrating that women are more attracted to males who are already in relationships than single males.

Well on one point, I think it serves as a standard of reference, being in a relationship makes you seem trustworthy, capable, valuable etc.

Your only a creep if you're ugly. ^_^

Sure that's the simple conclusion , but women are individuals and they have their own specific preferences for intimate interaction, the level of social success a male should have, and what is physically attractive about a male. There is no one-size fits all approach or physical look, and because you can be faulted just for being honest about your intents and desires one has little chance but to play this guessing game of subtle seduction which can be a huge waste of time, resources and energy.


Actually this could go off on another topic about the differences in physical attraction for males versus females.

Why do you have to be hitting on someone to be considered creepy? Those behaviors aren't inextricably linked.

You don't. From the article:

If I stroll down a city street or take public transit alone, I can count on being approached by men I don’t want to talk to. If I walk home after dark, I can’t help fearing assault—so much so that if a man or group of men come near me on the street, I feel my heart lodge firmly in my throat until they pass.

Obviously, most people aren’t rapists, and as HughRistik says: “I don’t think an individual man deserves to feel that his sexuality is toxic merely because he is a man and other men have displayed their sexuality in toxic ways.”​

You can just be walking down the street minding your own business. If you mean outside of sexual/intimate situations, you still don't have to be, but I don't see the relevance for the topic. Could you elaborate?

 

[The Gopher]

I think we've found the cause for concern.

Seriously though, it sounds like a power play to me. It's the sort of thing I'd do if I were a girl. Take away their comfort zone and assume control of proceedings.

Heh, I thought I used the wrong word...

Why do you have to be hitting on someone to be considered creepy? Those behaviors aren't inextricably linked.

You don't have to be but I am CLEARLY the least creepy person around... Besides while not mutually exclusive in the environment we seem to be discussing it has almost become so.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I was responding to proxy.

I was once called creepy by a woman I had no sexual interest in. It is like you can't have a casual conversation with some women without them thinking you're trying to make an advance on them.

You don't have to be hitting on someone to be found creepy.
Although it does help.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I was responding to proxy.

You don't have to be hitting on someone to be found creepy.
Although it does help.

The more I think about it, it seem like the woman probably just didn't want to talk to anyone and chose an aberrant way to communicate this.

 

[Jennywocky]

I'd like to go back to the sandwich analogy for a moment. Someone asking you for your sandwich is asking you to alienate resources from yourself to them, while someone asking if you want to have sex with them, fear of rape notwithstanding, is offering something of value: namely, the pleasure of intercourse. Hence, the two ideas are incompatible, for sex should never be given out of pity or compassion, but enjoyed by both partners. Yet you used the example anyway, so do you feel as though women lose something in having sex?

Well, don't overreach. I was just trying to compare needs on the fly, but it's apparent that sex is a little different than other needs that can be gratified without participation by another person.

Someone else has mentioned, though, that sex is the one thing a woman can hold over a man. Men will do a lot to bed a woman they're attracted to. So yes, a woman does lose power when she agrees to sex. Not that it's necessarily a power to use, as in LTRs using sex as a bartering chip isn't the greatest of ideas. But anyway....

 

[Cherry Cola]

Jennywocky: Wouldnt that sense of power being lost have a lot to with the fact that you do practically lose a lot of power when you're pregnant? I mean our savanna brains aren't coded around condoms and stuff so it wouldnt be strange if some of that remains biologically. We've also got the whole patriarchy issue, which needs an origin however, I just can't see those structures arising without having been there in some more archaic loser form before.

Duxwing: They lose tons of options and take a great risk, and the woman loses control over the man when he's no longer courting.

Male and females have different kinds of sexualities, because they have different reproductive roles.

Women needn't struggle to initiate sex to the same degree, their task being instead to pick a man of sufficient status and power for him to protect her through the resulting pregnancy. Men on the other hand have to prove themselves.

Which leads to them running around like retards creating a bunch of shit like wars and rape, but also cool stuff like jazz music and physics. Women spend less time flexing muscles and creating random stuff to prove their ingeniousness, hence they create less crap but also less good stuff. Working at a school where boys hit puberty... I can't say how obvious this crap is every single day.

Both have cons and pros, to say that men have less control over their sexuality may be true, but one could just as well say that its less a matter of control and more the sexuality itself. Give a woman a mans drive and it's not like she's gonna have some control center in the brain that enables her to rein in her needs, its gonna be the same thing.

Problem is people are uncomfortable discussing sex differences so with issues like the one in the OP, I've found that IRL it's actually getting the cards on the table thats the hard part.

Once that is done it ain't so hard to say that "well okay so male sexuality is a double edged sword, it fuels creativity and agressiveness in an interconnected way. So the reason why the word "creep" exists is probably due to creativity and aggresiveness being weird when their means of expression fails. Although in reality the difference between creepy and fukken hawt is as previously indicated to be found in the eyes of the perciever rather than in some innate quality. Males also help to bolster the word by using it on other men, and they probably also recognize some kind of truth in it. Few are the males who have gone through puberty and the following years without at some point dwelving into dark thoughts concerning sex and violence.

Thoughts are harmless and you cant help them though, so there's really no problem. I would like to see humanity somehow managing to modify herself so that she can keep her creativity and her general drive while cutting of some primitive agressive tendencies. That's basically what you'd need to do. Dangerous road.

 

[Architect]

Cherry Cola makes a number of good points. Specifically I'd say men and women are both slaves to their sexuality but differently. Men's is more transitory/event based (have sex then done) while woman's is ongoing/process based. Men's is also more extroverted which is the point of this article.

Observe girls & women go through puberty and menopause shows me how they are unfortunately probably more slaves to their sexuality then men. Hmmm, how to say it? I think the Siren myths captures the idea.

Men can lose their mind due to sex temporarily, but still go off and change the world (the sailors lured to their deaths by the Sirens but are adventuring around). Women are their sexuality (the Sirens stuck on the island), so they don't lose their mind temporarily because its not an on/off thing, but are fundamentally and permanently changed by it.

 

[Jennywocky]

Jennywocky: Wouldnt that sense of power being lost have a lot to with the fact that you do practically lose a lot of power when you're pregnant?

Well, that's a huge issue of vulnerability on a long-term scale, even aside from anxieties over sexual and emotional vulnerability during intercourse. Having a baby is a huge change in life that persists for years; you want to have someone who will stick around and do the things you're unable to do while caring for a child (or, in a more egalitarian culture, a partner with whom you can trade off when necessary to give each partner some more flexibility when needed). And yes, there's also vulnerability during the later stages of pregnancy.

Male and females have different kinds of sexualities, because they have different reproductive roles.

yes.

Which leads to them running around like retards creating a bunch of shit like wars and rape, but also cool stuff like jazz music and physics. Women spend less time flexing muscles and creating random stuff to prove their ingeniousness, hence they create less crap but also less good stuff. Working at a school where boys hit puberty... I can't say how obvious this crap is every single day.

I agree with this, actually. It's a matter of energy expenditures, and men and women tend to spend their energies in different ways; it's less a capability issue and more of a "bent" issue. It'll be interesting to see what happens in more egalitarian societies that also have access to birth control, how the genders might overlap more in the types of contributions they make to society. In that way, we might be better able to track what is cultural vs biological.

Both have cons and pros, to say that men have less control over their sexuality may be true, but one could just as well say that its less a matter of control and more the sexuality itself. Give a woman a mans drive and it's not like she's gonna have some control center in the brain that enables her to rein in her needs, its gonna be the same thing.

More or less, I agree with that idea too, although there are some structural differences in the brain that might have an impact. Women with higher testosterone behave in a way we consider more "masculine," typically, and have higher sex drives, etc.

Problem is people are uncomfortable discussing sex differences so with issues like the one in the OP, I've found that IRL it's actually getting the cards on the table thats the hard part.

well, you know how that is. I mean, I was hesitant to say some of these things myself, even on this forum, especially as a woman. I mean, there are reasonable people out there, but you're going to run across some people who immediately react defensively and even aggressively because they don't like the idea that there are inherent differences. I mean, we all come from the same biological template, but there are variations in development that prime us to behave in certain ways.

You would think maybe the transsexual crowds could be helpful as real-life experiments, because it's not clear where that identification comes from, but there are notable differences in brain structure typically even without hormonal intervention that suggests their brains are physically primed more like the gender they identify with... so just adding hormones to the mix might not really be what is driving the behavior.

Wish this kind of thing wasn't so complicated to test.

So the reason why the word "creep" exists is probably due to creativity and aggresiveness being weird when their means of expression fails.

True. The intentions might be similar, but the means of expression are appropriate in one situation vs another.

Thoughts are harmless and you cant help them though, so there's really no problem.

I wouldn't say they are "harmless." Visualization is a common technique in preparing and even aligning someone to do something they are uneasy about doing at first. Major crimes against people often possess a visualization period where the person becomes acquainted enough with the behavior (and thinks it through) so that it no longer seems strange or uncertain to them, prepping them to implement it in real life.

I would probably use the emotions analogy -- it's okay to feel certain things, feelings are feelings, but just because you feel it is no excuse to act on it.

i would like to see humanity somehow managing to modify herself so that she can keep her creativity and her general drive while cutting of some primitive agressive tendencies. That's basically what you'd need to do. Dangerous road.

Well, that's a standard issue, such the one between innocence and wisdom, attraction and commitment, wild vs civilized, etc. You want to keep the good aspects of both and walk the pole between them rather than veering toward one or the other.

 

[BigApplePi]

Let's try some theory here:

If small talk is a way to scratch the surface to see if any relationship is eligible to go deeper, then perhaps flirting is a way to achieve the same thing.

Guy: I like that dress, your hair, the way you walk, etc.
Gal: Get lost buster. You are a creep. (This gal has jumped to a conclusion.)
Gal: Thank you. I bot it at Lord & Taylor, my hair stylist is ..., I've always walked this way. (This gal didn't pick up on the flirt ... doesn't have sex in mind.
Gal: Thank you. I like your shirt, you have nice eyes, you look strong. (This is passes the 1st step. She notices you.)

Gal: Gives you a long stare.
Guy: Stares back.
Gal: Looks away. (This is a rejection unless she tries again.)
Gal: Immediately smiles. (This is an invitation to proceed further.)

What are some variations on these?

 

[BigApplePi]

More theory. I just am presenting these thoughts for ideas without much editing so they can be open to dispute.

The intensity of the male sex drive and the interest of the female drive is an evolutionary setup to reproduce with the protection of the family. The male drive is combined with possible female rejection so that this family will be optimum.

There are variables. A weaker male drive allows a female a greater chance to relax and think things over with family durability in mind. A strong male drive indicates a stronger chance of protection in case of danger to the family but with less chance of durability.

Modern civilization breaks up the smooth operation of this procedure. The male no longer has to settle down with one woman as many are available. There is a reduction of the need for family leaving the physical need for sex exposed. The female no longer has as great a need to protect a family as modern society is more caring than primitive society. This leaves the female open to more males, some not as caring.

 

[Absurdity]

Guy: I like that dress, your hair, the way you walk, etc.
Gal: Get lost buster. You are a creep. (This gal has jumped to a conclusion.)
Gal: Thank you. I bot it at Lord & Taylor, my hair stylist is ..., I've always walked this way. (This gal didn't pick up on the flirt ... doesn't have sex in mind.
Gal: Thank you. I like your shirt, you have nice eyes, you look strong. (This is passes the 1st step. She notices you.)

Complementing anything below the neck, especially as an opening line, seems to me to send the implicit signal of, "Hey I'd bang you," a little too strong.

If you really want to get tricky, you could argue that opening with a complement at all puts her on a pedestal from the get-go, but that could just be over-analysis.

As far as your theory on the stare-down, it seems generally correct, but you really can't make any rules about these sorts of things. For one girl, looking away could mean she isn't interested, whereas for another (especially if she knows she's attractive) it could be a challenge.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Hmmm. I always thought that scene was funny.

Am I the only guy who thinks the scene is funny due to making no sense? I mean, he got to die however he wants, and he chooses running away from hot, topless chicks. Or was that the intention of the scene, nonsense?

 

[Duxwing]

Well, don't overreach. I was just trying to compare needs on the fly, but it's apparent that sex is a little different than other needs that can be gratified without participation by another person.

Oh, OK! In that sense, I agree.

Someone else has mentioned, though, that sex is the one thing a woman can hold over a man. Men will do a lot to bed a woman they're attracted to.
So yes, a woman does lose power when she agrees to sex.

Ehhh... maybe. Remember that a guy will only chase her for so long before realizing that he's being used. Hence, agreeing to sex essentially satisfies him for a while and reinforces the behavior that earned him it...

...Eugh. Doesn't holding sex over someone seem awfully manipulative?

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

Although I’ve never pursued sex

I see no difference between pursuing sex and pursuing any other sort of romance. At least, I think the difference is superficial. No matter what sort of romantic interest you have in someone, romantic interest is based at least mostly on sexual attraction. Otherwise you'd be able to be romantic with people you're not sexually interested in. Even if you're not going directly for sex, or think you're not ready, or whatever the case may be, it's always with someone you would bang.

 

[SpaceYeti]

...Eugh. Doesn't holding sex over someone seem awfully manipulative?

-Duxwing

"Seem" nothing, it is. It's one of my biggest problems with society in general, as it's also seemingly encouraged. It's also reversible, though. If a woman ever tries to lord sex over you, remind her that she won't be getting any either, and then don't put any effort into getting laid. Your hand does just fine until she realizes she has no power over you. See how long that shit lasts.

If it's outside of a relationship, then so what? She doesn't get your wiener. She either wants it enough to not be a bitch or she doesn't. Her choice.

Fuck drama.

 

[BigApplePi]

Complementing anything below the neck, especially as an opening line, seems to me to send the implicit signal of, "Hey I'd bang you," a little too strong.

Could we rephrase, "Hey I'd bang you." to "You are eligible to bang"? Personally if I'm attracted at first sight, my mind changes very quickly if they openly declare a personal disinterest. If it's ambiguous though I'm willing to try again.

I think all this is exactly like the small talk. It's a matter of how to make a contact which is deep contact light. One starts out light so that rejection makes no difference to either side: no pain, no guilt. If these things are kept social, who knows? A gal may even be a contact who has a gal-friend who is more eligible.

 

[Jennywocky]

Ehhh... maybe. Remember that a guy will only chase her for so long before realizing that he's being used. Hence, agreeing to sex essentially satisfies him for a while and reinforces the behavior that earned him it...

Well, remember I'm not just talking about wooing, since I was married for a long time; I'm also referring to issues within an LTR/marriage. If a woman wants to use sex for control in the wooing stage, she basically has to keep the rabbit far enough away to not be caught but close enough to remain tantalizing.

Remember too if a woman gives it up too fast, she'll never know whether the guy was really into her as a person and potentially a relationship, or just really into her body. If she's just out looking to fool around, then it's not a big deal; if she's looking for a partner, then it is.

It's kind of the same thing for a guy with power and money, btw. If he's flashing around his wealth and prestige, obviously a number of girls will flock his way ... but I would think it would be kind of lonely after awhile, because he can't determine who wants HIM vs just wants his money and power.

...Eugh. Doesn't holding sex over someone seem awfully manipulative?

Yup. It's usually advised against, in a marriage, as it's a use of power meant to ultimately benefit oneself rather than part of the spirit of mutual giving and working as a single unit.

 

[Duxwing]

Jennywocky: Wouldnt that sense of power being lost have a lot to with the fact that you do practically lose a lot of power when you're pregnant?

Women aren’t that stupid, are they?

I mean our savanna brains aren't coded around condoms and stuff so it wouldnt be strange if some of that remains biologically. We've also got the whole patriarchy issue, which needs an origin however, I just can't see those structures arising without having been there in some more archaic loser form before.

I suspect that patriarchy is simply the result of men, on average, having more testosterone, and therefore being more aggressive, thereby making them more likely to engage in dominating behaviors. Note that this phenomenon would also apply to a low T male and a high T female.

Duxwing: They lose tons of options and take a great risk, and the woman loses control over the man when he's no longer courting.

But why would she want this control in the first place, and how does the attainment of sex do anything but reinforce the behavior that ‘earned’ it? *shudders* And controlling other people seems... wrong. Evil, dastardly, manipulative. But that’s just my Fe talking.

Male and females have different kinds of sexualities, because they have different reproductive roles.

I agree.

Women needn't struggle to initiate sex to the same degree, their task being instead to pick a man of sufficient status and power for him to protect her through the resulting pregnancy. Men on the other hand have to prove themselves.

I’ve never really needed to prove myself; heck, girls have even fallen for me without me knowing, simply because they enjoyed my company. Other guys try to ‘get into’ a relationship with girls that they simply see as attractive without thinking about compatibility, analyzing social cues, or wondering if they have the emotional resilience for the tribulations courtship. And even when their antics work, the relationship falls apart shortly thereafter.

I just look around for interesting people, try to talk to them, and if they’re female and not repulsively ugly, flirt with them. I’ve even come up with a good sorting algorithm for producing the best possible match from an arbitrarily large pool given subjective preferences, and it needn’t only apply to dating, but to any activity involving a choice. It even contains a step for improving the accuracy of your subjective weights!

Step 1.) Identify all girls under consideration and put them into a set called G1.
Step 2.) Eliminate all with ‘dealbreaker’ qualities (with someone else, manipulative, horrifically ugly, etc.) (G2)
Step 3.) Select the one whom you like the best using only your intuition and emotion (C1) and put the rest of G2 into a list according to your preferences (G3).
Step 4.) Measure all relevant qualities of each element of G2 and multiply the values according to subjectively determined weights.
Step 5.) Select the element of G2 that has the highest total score (C2).
Step 6.) If C2 is not C1, and you didn’t learn anything about the elements of G2 between Step 3 and Step 5, then adjust your weights so that it chooses C1 and produces your subjectively determined ordering of G3 and see if you still agree with the weights. If you do, then you’ve learned that what you intellectually thought that you wanted wasn’t what you really wanted, and if you don’t, then you’ve learned that what emotionally wanted wasn’t what you really wanted.

I hope that this model comes in handy to someone.

Which leads to them running around like retards creating a bunch of shit like wars and rape, but also cool stuff like jazz music and physics.

I doubt that sexual forces alone are the cause of those events. Consider curiosity and rage as other drives.

Women spend less time flexing muscles and creating random stuff to prove their ingeniousness, hence they create less crap but also less good stuff.

Are you sure that they aren’t just held down by glass ceilings and sociological forces?

Working at a school where boys hit puberty... I can't say how obvious this crap is every single day.

So you think that the artistic ones make art to impress chicks? I was an ‘artistic’ boy in middle school, and I just loved drawing for its own sake and had no intention to use it as a dating tool.

Both have cons and pros, to say that men have less control over their sexuality may be true, but one could just as well say that its less a matter of control and more the sexuality itself. Give a woman a mans drive and it's not like she's gonna have some control center in the brain that enables her to rein in her needs, its gonna be the same thing.

Problem is people are uncomfortable discussing sex differences so with issues like the one in the OP, I've found that IRL it's actually getting the cards on the table thats the hard part.

Sexual repression is a powerful thing indeed. I suspect that it’s the result of cognitive dissonance caused by not having any practice in thinking about sex under any light but one of erotic arousal.

Once that is done it ain't so hard to say that "well okay so male sexuality is a double edged sword, it fuels creativity and agressiveness in an interconnected way.

Creativity? Eh? I draw all the time, but it’s mostly pictures of men, boys, and guns looking cool.

So the reason why the word "creep" exists is probably due to creativity and aggresiveness being weird when their means of expression fails.

It could also be that someone’s expression a normal need in inappropriate terms is uncomfortable for observers no matter what the need is, e.g.,

“I really need to pour water through my pharynx and down my esophagus so that it can restore the electrolyte balance in my blood.”

“At this juncture I would like to announce that I must leave to engage the peristaltic muscles in my rectum and anus to expel a round blob of feces that has been building inside my rectum and large intestine for the past few ours, as one is in you, made mostly of E. Coli and dead red blood cells, as most human feces are, into a pool of water.”

Just writing that made me want to retch.

Although in reality the difference between creepy and fukken hawt is as previously indicated to be found in the eyes of the perciever rather than in some innate quality. Males also help to bolster the word by using it on other men, and they probably also recognize some kind of truth in it. Few are the males who have gone through puberty and the following years without at some point dwelving into dark thoughts concerning sex and violence.

I thought about them before puberty, too. I remember watching artillery shells rain down on my troops, shooting corpses high into the air while playing a WWII tactical strategy game and singing:

“Bones and guts fly everywhere, everywhere, everywhere
Bones and guts fly everywhere, my fair lady.”

My little brother and his friend make casual cannibalism jokes; the list of exceptions to this rule goes on and on.

Thoughts are harmless and you cant help them though, so there's really no problem. I would like to see humanity somehow managing to modify herself so that she can keep her creativity and her general drive while cutting of some primitive agressive tendencies. That's basically what you'd need to do. Dangerous road.

Those primitive aggressive tendencies are also what let us fight aggressors without having to think or feel, so let’s not go too far on the road to becoming perfect pacifist people (a noble goal indeed!)
-Duxwing

 

[Jennywocky]

But why would she want this control in the first place, and how does the attainment of sex do anything but reinforce the behavior that ‘earned’ it? *shudders* And controlling other people seems... wrong. Evil, dastardly, manipulative. But that’s just my Fe talking.

Definitely -- you need to put a gag on that Fe for a bit. (sorry, I don't mean that as rude, you just seem to be veering a bit here)

Okay, I mean, think about why people do what we do. Basically in life we all start as pretty self-serving, even if well-intentioned. We develop strategies in order to get what we want, protect ourselves, provide ourselves with the essentials of life. We learn to take care of ourselves.

Control strategies are VERY pervasive in anyone, and often we don't even realize we're using them. I mean, either we withdraw from a threat, or we crush a threat, or we seek to manipulate it in some way to defang it. Even compliance is a "control strategy" -- you ingratiate yourself in a way that will lessen the chance you're going to get hurt or deprived. Again these are very BASIC strategies that we often do instinctively without even consciously realizing it or wanting to manipulate others.

So I don't really understand why you're having such a repulsion against the thought someone is using a control strategy. I'm pretty sure I could analyze posting styles and present you with various control stategies you (and others, including myself) use in our posts here. It just is what it is.

A woman in this situation is using a control strategy at worst to fleece a guy, at best to protect herself from being used and abused. That latter is not necessarily a bad thing.