I think Pook got it wrong: LTR=Dionysian Path, STR=Apollo Path

[Walldorf]

Hello Short Timer,

You wrote:

"Ah but you mean, "act masculine" and that's were this idea of yours falls apart. If looked at from a historical perspective the 'ideal man' has changed over recorded history. Shall I be the ideal man of Confucius who would have me serve a master? Or shall I be the ideal male of Ayn Rand who would have me hold no god before myself and no authority above my own reason?"

I guess hereby you just proof Pooks point. Every ideal of a man in mankind was artificial. Some was "closer" to nature, some was further away. I guess one should "be a man" in whatever way oneslef thinks is the ideal man, based on one's knowledge about nature. Even the nice guy thought he would be the ideal man, but ultimately failed, because he does not understand anything about nature, or at least not about those things in nature, which were important to him. So as far as i can see it, understand what you want from life, understand nature and then try to become the "best man one can be". By the way, that is one reason I like this forum, i constantly get new ideas about who I could become...

Rant over...

Wal

 

[ShortTimer]

Hola Walldorf

Originally posted by Walldorf
Every ideal of a man in mankind was artificial. Some was "closer" to nature, some was further away. I guess one should "be a man" in whatever way oneslef thinks is the ideal man... understand nature and then try to become the "best man one can be".

My general point is this: evidence from the field of psychology points to the fact that human beings don't have a nature. At least not in the way that word is normally meant. We are flexible and adaptable beings. The two-parents and a child family unit is not natural, women wearing skirts is not natural, war is not natural.

All of these are artificial institutions in the sense that human beings can live in different ways that don’t involve them. We can find examples of people living in tribes and communes, we can find men wearing skirts (kilts), and once upon a time there were American Indian tribes that didn't have a word for "war."

Human behavior is very diverse across the species, and yes all of the cultures and ways of being think they are the "natural" way to do things. Confucius thought it "natural" and that you were "being a man" when you served the state. Rand thought it "natural" when men built businesses and supported individual rights.

So when Pookums, or anyone for that matter, says "be a man" they are really saying "be what I think is a man" and are not making some proclamation handed to them from on high. There is no natural or one best way to act masculine. Yes, as a male I will probably share certain characteristics with all other males of my species. You can probably even predict some of my behavior because I have a penis (like I'll pee while standing). But to just tell me "be a man" with no context is to not say anything at all.

Pook may be a good writer, but his vague platitudes and casual dismissal of years of study by the scientific community is a disservice to any theory he would present us with as well as a disservice to readers who take him seriously.

No doubt he would say that he has no theories and no philosophy, that he is just holding a mirror up to nature, but that just tells me he has not really investigated the subject. Reality cannot be directly experienced; everything you know about it is filtered through your senses and brain. Because of this the philosophy of science tells us that we can only ever be 99% sure of anything we believe. But don't mistake that 1% as some kind of loophole for all kinds of crazy theories and ghosts and hobgoblins, instead it is the recognition that we are mortal and flawed and can be wrong. All knowledge is tentative and can be changed when better evidence comes along; there are no absolutes. The best we can say is "this is what the evidence points to." (For the single logician who reads this post, no I'm not trying to open the door for the supernatural.)

So when iPook says he is holding a mirror up to nature and that he knows better than those who have done actual research into human behavior he is failing to recognize that nature (our environment to be specific) does not “tell” us how to be masculine. In fact it tells us nothing at all, we have to discover truths because they are not handed to us; and we have to discover how to lead prosperous lives because it is not dictated to us.

 

[icepick]

Wow shorttimer, you are really overthinking this.

Anyway, here is something to think about.

What is the MAIN biological sexual quality of a man as compared to a woman?

I would say it is the increased amounts of testosterone.

Have you ever started a 'workout program'? That has been proven to raise testosterone levels.

The difference in behavior between the lifting guy and the non-lifting guy is what I would call "masculinity". (The behavior will change naturally, considering the boost of testosterone you will have.)

The more masculine you are, the more of a "man" I would say you are.

How you DEFINE "masculinity" can be a bit dicey to describe, but there is a difference between the testosteronized guy and the skinny-nerd-guy who doesn't eat (very low testosterone guy.)

Becoming "more masculine" (or more feminine if you are a woman) isn't really "politically correct" or "moral". However, the philosophies of political correctness or morality have no place whatsoever in the realm of human sexuality.

Oh, and about the "research into human behavior" stuff...

You ever heard of 'experimental bias'? How about the proverb "figures lie and liars figure"?

Socialogical experiments are FULL of erronious conclusions and meaningless data forced into a mold of how the experimenters THINK people should work.

Many times, these guys are just pissing in the wind. (Besides, LOOK at the people who are probably writing up the data! Many scientists and "smart people" are probably the blindest to sexuality. Remember all the nerds in high school! Would you give any credence to thier conclusions about human nature?)

 

[b's nuts]

I didn't even read more than 2 paragraphs into the first post, you guys have way to much damn time on you hands.

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by icepick
Wow shorttimer, you are really overthinking this.

I have a giant throbbing brain; I must do something with it. *shrug*

Originally posted by icepick
Anyway, here is something to think about.

*thinks*

Originally posted by icepick
What is the MAIN biological sexual quality of a man as compared to a woman?
I would say it is the increased amounts of testosterone.
Have you ever started a 'workout program'? That has been proven to raise testosterone levels.

I'm not sure I agree this is the main quality, but I'll run with this.. No, I haven't been on a program PROVEN to increase testosterone. I do run daily as well as doing morning, midday, and nightly push-ups and sit-ups and stretching. Not sure if that would count though.

Originally posted by icepick
The difference in behavior between the lifting guy and the non-lifting guy is what I would call "masculinity". (The behavior will change naturally, considering the boost of testosterone you will have.)

The only thing more testosterone in a system has show to do (in regard to behavior) is to increase aggression and sometimes make you feel good about yourself.

Scientific research also shows that aggression and other psychiatric side effects may result from abuse of anabolic steroids. Many users report feeling good about themselves while on anabolic steroids, but researchers report that extreme mood swings also can occur, including manic-like symptoms leading to violence.

You can find that here.

Sure, increase in natural testosterone is different than steroids but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say more testosterone = more aggression. Perhaps even more self-confidence, but do you really think aggression + self-confidence = masculinity?

Originally posted by icepick
The more masculine you are, the more of a "man" I would say you are.

How you DEFINE "masculinity" can be a bit dicey to describe, but there is a difference between the testosteronized guy and the skinny-nerd-guy who doesn't eat (very low testosterone guy.)

I am so glad you brought this up. Honestly. Over the summer I had a very interesting internship. I was working as an intern for the State Police and got to see what a lot of people would think are a bunch of "alphas." Sure they were big, bald and could whoop some ass, but almost every one of them was having women troubles. Of them all only two didn't complain about their wives. You know what was interesting about those who didn't complain? Unlike the others they still looked youthful (even at 40+), had their hair, were comparatively (comparatively I say -- please remember the environment) mild mannered and their hair wasn’t going gray.

What's so interesting about that? Those who were having problems were balding or downright bald, aggressive, and loud. Not that they weren't great guys don't get me wrong.

You know what early baldness (or baldness in general) and aggression and being loud usually mean? It means you have high testosterone. With low testosterone you'll have people who also lose their hair, but they are scrawny and meek. But these other guys, the guys who had their hair were displaying what would be more like mid-range testosterone levels.

Point being, someone doesn't have to be 'all alpha' or nothing. There is more to men than jocks and nerds.

Originally posted by icepick
Becoming "more masculine" (or more feminine if you are a woman) isn't really "politically correct" or "moral". However, the philosophies of political correctness or morality have no place whatsoever in the realm of human sexuality.

You won't see me defending political correctness. Political Correctness is a use of language that pretends to communicate but does not. It is the redefining of terms so that dissent against those who define what is 'politically correct' is not possible.

Originally posted by icepick
Many times, these guys are just pissing in the wind. (Besides, LOOK at the people who are probably writing up the data! Many scientists and "smart people" are probably the blindest to sexuality. Remember all the nerds in high school! Would you give any credence to thier conclusions about human nature?)

So if you meet a psychologist who is bulky and gets laid a lot you’ll believe him faster? Let's see: will I give credence to someone who has researched a topic or someone who just feels something is right? Hmmm....

 

[Lionheart]

Damn it!

I always miss the good posts, must be because you yankees are posting while I'm sleeping

 

[icepick]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
No, I haven't been on a program PROVEN to increase testosterone. I do run daily as well as doing morning, midday, and nightly push-ups and sit-ups and stretching. Not sure if that would count though.

No. That don't count.

The only thing more testosterone in a system has show to do (in regard to behavior) is to increase aggression and sometimes make you feel good about yourself.

You can find that here.

Sure, increase in natural testosterone is different than steroids but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say more testosterone = more aggression. Perhaps even more self-confidence, but do you really think aggression + self-confidence = masculinity?

Steroids are probably just a little bit different. Like an overdose of testosterone.

For example, a little bit of alcohol will loosen you up, but an overdose will knock your ass out.

Anyway, the use of the term "aggression" proves my point here. Kind of has a negative connotation doesn't it? Instead of the word "aggression", they COULD have used "strength". Only...that has a positive effect, and...hmmm...who is doing the research?

Skinny, passive (non-aggressive) scientist guys maybe?

What is the opposite of aggression? Passivity. I ask you, how many hot women will put up with a PASSIVE guy? How many women will put up with meekness?

You DON'T have to be alpha-super-tough guy, but you CAN'T be meek, sickly, androgynous guy. This is all that is meant by "be a man".

"Be a super-man" is never said. And for good reason:

I am so glad you brought this up. Honestly. Over the summer I had a very interesting internship. I was working as an intern for the State Police and got to see what a lot of people would think are a bunch of "alphas." Sure they were big, bald and could whoop some ass, but almost every one of them was having women troubles. Of them all only two didn't complain about their wives. You know what was interesting about those who didn't complain? Unlike the others they still looked youthful (even at 40+), had their hair, were comparatively (comparatively I say -- please remember the environment) mild mannered and their hair wasn’t going gray.

What's so interesting about that? Those who were having problems were balding or downright bald, aggressive, and loud. Not that they weren't great guys don't get me wrong.

You know what early baldness (or baldness in general) and aggression and being loud usually mean? It means you have high testosterone. With low testosterone you'll have people who also lose their hair, but they are scrawny and meek. But these other guys, the guys who had their hair were displaying what would be more like mid-range testosterone levels.

Point being, someone doesn't have to be 'all alpha' or nothing. There is more to men than jocks and nerds.

I usually don't see the big, bald, tough "alpha" guys with the beautiful women. I usually see the beautiful model-type women with the pretty boys. BUT these guys still have an element of 'toughness' to them.

Many people on this forum could probably be the guy that gets all the hot women. All they need to do is just up the "maleness" since they probably already have the 'boyish' thing down pat.

You are right though. I would say that most guys that hot women go crazy for are in the *middle* of the pack when it comes to testosterone.

You think we say that you need to be a man to the extreme. All we say is that you need to be a man period, seeing as what happens when you are not a man at all.

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by icepick
Anyway, the use of the term "aggression" proves my point here. Kind of has a negative connotation doesn't it? Instead of the word "aggression", they COULD have used "strength". Only...that has a positive effect, and...hmmm...who is doing the research?

Or maybe aggression was chosen because that's what it is. Don't body builders on ze juice sometimes go into berserk rages? Do you honestly believe that if you were injected with enough testosterone you wouldn't go berserk too? If that's the case then where on your sliding scale does it go from "strength" to "aggression"? Or maybe aggression was the best word to describe it to begin with.

Originally posted by icepick
Skinny, passive (non-aggressive) scientist guys maybe?

Hmm... and what of it? Them being skinny invalidates their arguments how, exactly? Oh that's right, it doesn't. I'm sure you'd say they were biased, in which case it's clear your mind is closed on this matter.

But on this topic you really need to get out more and meet more scientists. Sure you'll find the stereotypes you're looking for, but that's not all you'll find. The PHD who runs the computer crime department at my school is an ex-FBI agent and still tough as nails. A while back my neuro-anatomy professor was taller than me (I'm 6'), hit the gym regularly and was into martial arts. My "geeky" philosophy professor was into martial arts too and a Vietnam vet. My human sexuality (psych class) teacher was retired Army/ ex-hippy (donno how he got that combo). Yeah, these guys sure fit your description.

Originally posted by icepick
What is the opposite of aggression? Passivity. I ask you, how many hot women will put up with a PASSIVE guy? How many women will put up with meekness?

The opposite of aggression is not passivity. You can be non-aggressive but not passive at the same time. Let's say you're at Starbucks and someone else picks up your drink if you say "excuse me, but I think that's my drink." I think it's fair to say most people don't think of that as aggressive because you're not being a ****. But it's not passive either... it's called strength of character and that's something that testosterone alone can never give you.

As for the women, well I'm sure each has her personal requirement for what kind of man she wants.

Originally posted by icepick
You think we say that you need to be a man to the extreme.

You're right I do because that's the impression I've gotten. Perhaps my personal experience has colored my vision when I hear someone say "be a man" as to what they mean.

It's like when I hear someone refer to another as being "immature." It makes my skin crawl when I hear that word because when it's usually said the person is often really saying "I feel that I am better than you and am pointing that out by letting you know you are the dirt beneath my feet." My experience with some rather nasty snobby people has no doubt colored my view of that word.

 

[icepick]

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Or maybe aggression was chosen because that's what it is. Don't body builders on ze juice sometimes go into berserk rages? Do you honestly believe that if you were injected with enough testosterone you wouldn't go berserk too? If that's the case then where on your sliding scale does it go from "strength" to "aggression"? Or maybe aggression was the best word to describe it to begin with.

Alright.

Too much of something is almost always a bad thing. Too much "strength" (sorry for the generic term) is "aggression".

For example, relate it to:

1. Being a pushover and letting people walk all over you.

2. Standing up for yourself and your views no matter what people say or do.

3. Imposing your views upon other pepole by force.

These 3 options have to do with a sense of self and a sense of your values. Option 1 is the "passive" while option 3 is the "aggressive".

Option 3 is the overdose. ANY incremental move from option 1 to option 3 COULD be classified as an "increase in agression".

Given an "overdose" of sense of self, most everyone will end up on the "aggressive" option 3, thereby enticing the experimenters to call it an "increase in aggression".

If it was not such a massive overdose, most people would probably end up at option 2. Then the experimenters would probably call it an "increase in self confidence."

THIS is what I mean by experimental bias. I don't mean it in a bad way. EVERY experiment is biased one way and you just have to choose which bias you would rather listen too.

I would rather listen to the data through the bias filters of successful people who are getting the hot chicks! Most likely, this does not include scientists/sociologists.

So where do we get our data then? How do we know about how people act?

We know from our own experiences.

So I say to you shorttimer, "be a man" and tell me how it works out! (No, steroids does NOT count. Anything that shrinks your balls I would say is not quite 'masculine'! )

The opposite of aggression is not passivity.

Alright, fess up. Your'e Demon arent' you. You are just trying to argue for the hell of it, right?

I am pretty sure that aggressive and passive are polar opposites. To me it seems you are playing a case of devil's advocate and trying to say such things as "the sun doesn't exist".

I mean, cmon! If I said that the opposite of aggression is not passivity, you would probably be f*ckin' quotin' websters on me man!

English is the only language I know. Let's stick to it bro.

You can be non-aggressive but not passive at the same time. Let's say you're at Starbucks and someone else picks up your drink if you say "excuse me, but I think that's my drink." I think it's fair to say most people don't think of that as aggressive because you're not being a ****.

Yes but isn't saying "excuse me, but I think that's my drink." MORE aggressive behavior than letting the person just take your drink? Isn't it MORE passive than punching the person in the face and kicking them until they kiss your feet in apology?

You don't have to be aggressive to the MAX, you just have to be MORE aggressive than the MEEK. (Which wouldn't nessacarily be classified as "aggressive" by most people.)

But it's not passive either... it's called strength of character and that's something that testosterone alone can never give you.

I think things like "character" are something like personal choices that don't have much to do with the gut-level sexual attraction. This is when your own values come into play.

But that is a TOTALLY seperate discussion.

You're right I do because that's the impression I've gotten. Perhaps my personal experience has colored my vision when I hear someone say "be a man" as to what they mean.

It's like when I hear someone refer to another as being "immature." It makes my skin crawl when I hear that word because when it's usually said the person is often really saying "I feel that I am better than you and am pointing that out by letting you know you are the dirt beneath my feet." My experience with some rather nasty snobby people has no doubt colored my view of that word.

Cheer up mate! Not everyone in this world is a d*ckhead!

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by icepick
"the sun doesn't exist".

There is no spoon.

 

[Superman X]

One of the best threads sosuave has ever produced....Cesare, PDX, Pook, icepick -- you all had good points.

 

[Lionheart]

"Too much "strength" (sorry for the generic term) is "aggression"."

The Truly Strong are Never aggressive.
The Truly Rich are never flashy.
The Truly Intelligent never need to broadcast it.

You can only expect immodesty, flashiness and aggression from the weak.

On a quick tangent, Pook said something about intellectualism being for the egotistical, I could probably agree with this, as it is just physical confidence gone sour, it is open rebellion in the same way that goths are an alternative lifestyle, the aformentioned cultural movement is all self-righteous in it's principles, people who disagree are not people who hold a different opinion are not agreeing to disagree, but are closed minded
In the same way lntellctualism is a direct over compensation for not having control over one's life in a physical way, it has just had more time for people who would consider themselves intellectual to become self-righteous.

"I am pretty sure that aggressive and passive are polar opposites. To me it seems you are playing a case of devil's advocate and trying to say such things as "the sun doesn't exist"."

Aggressive and Timid are more what I would have called the polar opposites you talk about, passivity, to me suggests more in the way of apathy, although from a point of principle, that is probably worse

And often, the middle road is the best road to travel.

Plus remember that society's conditioning makes us passive, by preventing us from punching the aforementioned drink-stealer in the face, we would prefer more to just leave it - even if it is a matter of principle!

"You don't have to be aggressive to the MAX, you just have to be MORE aggressive than the MEEK. (Which wouldn't nessacarily be classified as "aggressive" by most people.)"

True, just operate from a sense of 'justice', don't be an *******, don't attempt to control people around you (as that in it's self is a form of insecurity), but if someone wrongs you then stand up for yourself!

"Cheer up mate! Not everyone in this world is a d*ckhead!"

Absoultely!

Good people are actually the norm, 95% of people are still good, it is just that people who are bad have more of an effect on us, people doing and acting in the way that they should be are invisible.

Don't lose your faith in people, a combination of the wankers that I have to deal with in Hull, and my lack of success with women has made me become somewhat misanthropic, I have recognised this in time and decided to try and do something about this

Great Discussion!

 

[Lionheart]

Just a quick follow up on what Waldorf said...

"I guess hereby you just proof Pooks point. Every ideal of a man in mankind was artificial. Some was "closer" to nature, some was further away. I guess one should "be a man" in whatever way oneslef thinks is the ideal man, based on one's knowledge about nature. Even the nice guy thought he would be the ideal man, but ultimately failed, because he does not understand anything about nature, or at least not about those things in nature, which were important to him. So as far as i can see it, understand what you want from life, understand nature and then try to become the "best man one can be". By the way, that is one reason I like this forum, i constantly get new ideas about who I could become..."

I very much agree with what you have said.

It is not that every idea is artifical, but everyone else has there own idea.

There are 2 Zen teachings that apply to this situation.

"The only person who can truly understand an idea is the man who thought of it!"

Everyone subsequentially develops their own understanding of an idea, even if it is someone else's idea.

"Whenever a man totally and blindly follows another man's ideas, then he is in fetters."

This is a teaching of Zen Master Lin-chi, for me it holds a lot of weight, althought that is my interpretation, it might mean ****-all to you.

When it comes to living your life, socialising, thinking or any sort of 'life science', then in order to truly become "Free", you must develop your OWN SYSTEM and interpretation, in the beginning of your life you are not advanced or experienced enough to create your own interpretation of the universe.

For a while, you use other people's definitions as a starting point, until you are ready to create your own, when you have begun to create your own worldview, then the only person who's opinion on it truly matters is your own, nobody will ever understand your worldview 100%, and no one should, let them get their own damn opinions!

""Ah but you mean, "act masculine" and that's were this idea of yours falls apart. If looked at from a historical perspective the 'ideal man' has changed over recorded history. Shall I be the ideal man of Confucius who would have me serve a master? Or shall I be the ideal male of Ayn Rand who would have me hold no god before myself and no authority above my own reason?" "

You must be your own ideal man.
While you may borrow in parts from Ayn Rand and Confucious, there is nothing wrong with this, there is no such thing as a 100% unique idea anymore, parts that you like, or appeal to you might as well be stolen, by recycling them you save yourself effort and still stay true to your own worldview.

This applies to all perceptions of the world, although it does not apply consistently.

A good example is Physics, why study and experiment and theorize for 40 years about nuclear and particle physics when you can just pickup a book and read what Einstein found out?

Things which are absolute and have therefore been proved in the past have no consequence, just stand on the shoulders of the original thinker and discover new things!

There will never be no 100% absoulte definiable reality when it comes to affairs of the body, mind and the heart.

So find out what you want and what you believe in!
But no situation is static so remember to keep an open mind in order to refine your beliefs as you need, as it is the purest form of arrogance to believe that you can ever be right about everything, let alone first time.

Lion.

 

[AMF]

I think the central debate in this monumental thread is

"Can you define masculinity."

The answer is NO.

"Masculine" and "feminine" are GENDERS. "Gender" is socially constructed, contingent upon historical, sociocultural and moral context.

"GENDER" is not the same thing as "SEX." Sex, unlike Gender, CAN be defined. Your SEX is male, but your appropriated and imposed social role - your GENDER - is masculine.

ShortTimer said that psychology tends to show humans do not have inherent nature. Infact biological, and evolutionary psychology in particular, show that fixed SEX roles have evolved out of biological necessity.

The male's biological role is to maintain the QUANTITY of the gene pool, and the female biological role is to maintain the QUALITY of the gene pool.

So; it is in male NATURE to "spread the seed", have multiple partners, and on some level be aversive to commitment, to just one. Oneitis limits the gene pool.

It is in female NATURE to be selective, discriminatory (in the full sense of the word) and keen to commit. In this way, the female is supposed to be able to guarantee the healithiest, most prosperous offspring, and the most secure environment in which to raise them. This is why women are attracted to male STATUS.

THIS is about the extent of our NATURE.

The rest is all dependent on your sociocultural context.

If gender is removed from all social context, logically the only definition possible would be, "as close to the biological sex role as possible."

Although society prohibits you acting like a primordial caveman, nonetheless the essence of "acting" rather than "thinking" endures.

Thats why we need to only learn what we need to, then GET OFF THE COMPUTER and start putting it all into practice.

And never look back.

 

[drixsa]

did someone actually say that you need to lift weights to be a man?

and to do it a certain numbers of times a week?

wow so this whole "man" thing must be pretty exclusve to the 20th and 21st century!

 

[AMF]

Drix,

The need for a toned, muscular physique is certainly implied in society's view of maculinity. Again another status symbol, perceived as a marker of power, security and potency.

Yeah i guess lifting weights is a fairly recent development, but its really just the modern way to achieve the physique which potent, powerful cavemen would have had naturally anyway, by virtue of their status.

 

[drixsa]

thats fine but lifting weights does not make a man even if society implies it

i happen to be into working out quite heavily and thus have met many different ppl from many gyms, a lot of males not a lot of men

i do think that society says that in order to be healthy you need to lift weights

and i also think that society says that in order to be attractive you must lift weights

also society is hypocritical and a rediculous standard to live by

society is going down the hell hole.

 

[AMF]

Amen.

 

[icepick]

Lionheart:
The Truly Strong are Never aggressive.
The Truly Rich are never flashy.
The Truly Intelligent never need to broadcast it.

You can only expect immodesty, flashiness and aggression from the weak.

This sounds real nice and pretty, but it is not true.

Not everyone is a modest winner. There are a few people who are "good" and LET EVERYONE KNOW. They are flashy, and they broadcast thier skills.

I don't know if you have ever heard of Muhammed Ali (boxer) or Barry Bonds (baseball), but these guys are/were ****y MFers that told everyone that they are the best. And they WERE the best.

Success and modesty have NO correlation whatsoever.

You will NOT be rewarded for having "good morals" or a "nice personality".

Many of you guys don't seem to realize that bragging or being ****y does NOT mean that you are AUTOMATICALLY a failure.

Some people just like to run thier mouth.

AMF:
So; it is in male NATURE to "spread the seed", have multiple partners, and on some level be aversive to commitment, to just one. Oneitis limits the gene pool.

It is in female NATURE to be selective, discriminatory (in the full sense of the word) and keen to commit. In this way, the female is supposed to be able to guarantee the healithiest, most prosperous offspring, and the most secure environment in which to raise them.

I think I disaggree with this "oh so popular" interpretation of the male/female sexual needs.

What about oneitis/love/infatuation. We decry it as "wrong" here, but the truth is that it DOES happen ALL THE TIME in real life to people that have never heard of this site. Infatuation is not something that is wrong with society though, it is just there. Even Shakespeare writes about it in all his plays. From the male point of view.

I actually think that males are more selective. They (subconciously?) PICK who they 'fall in love' with, and they go after her. The woman is partially receptive to most men, but WAITS to see who comes after her, and THEN she slowly falls deeper into "love".

Biologically, I think humans are set up more for short 5-10 year relationships. Actually, I think the way things go down in real life ARE what humans are biologically predisposed for. That is, a few 1-2 year relationships, maybe a little cheating on both sides, culminating in a long 5-10 year, and then starting all over again.

This "spread the seed" theory as being the natural/optimal/main point of male sexuality, I really don't buy.

drixa:
did someone actually say that you need to lift weights to be a man?

and to do it a certain numbers of times a week?

wow so this whole "man" thing must be pretty exclusve to the 20th and 21st century!

Well, the point is to UP the testosterone of us girly men.

We happened to be born without the naturaly super-high levels of testosterone.

Lifting weights/eating lots of meat is ONE way to raise those levels.

thats fine but lifting weights does not make a man even if society implies it

i happen to be into working out quite heavily and thus have met many different ppl from many gyms, a lot of males not a lot of men

i do think that society says that in order to be healthy you need to lift weights

and i also think that society says that in order to be attractive you must lift weights

also society is hypocritical and a rediculous standard to live by

society is going down the hell hole.

I don't think society says that you have to lift weights.

Actually, I think there is kind of a negative connotation. Like "oh, a muscle-head-jock!"

Lifting weights don't make you a man, but it helps if you are skinny, scrawny, and dorky looking.

 

[drixsa]

Originally posted by icepick


I don't think society says that you have to lift weights.

Actually, I think there is kind of a negative connotation. Like "oh, a muscle-head-jock!"

Lifting weights don't make you a man, but it helps if you are skinny, scrawny, and dorky looking.

actually this is a reason why society is so hypocrital b/c on one hand it tells you, you need to go to the gym to get into good shape, but if u workout too hard then are crazy and not a "normal person"

yes weights can help your outter image but all it really does is hide your inner image better than anything else you can do