Just seeing if stats on this forum back up something I read elsewhere.

The hypothetical scenario is this:

"An attractive stranger offers to have sex with you for one night, with no strings attached. Would you take up his or her offer?"

For clarity, by "no strings", I mean there would be no adverse consequences apart from any possible moral or other misgivings you might personally have. In other words, in this hypothetical situation, if you have a partner already, assume they would not be upset if you took up the offer. Also assume nobody would criticise you for taking it up if you chose. Finally, assume that this is a one-off offer, after which your life would go on as normal, with no obligation arising to the offeror.

Assume also that the stranger is of the sex you are normally attracted to.

You might like to speculate on what you think the outcome of the poll will be, and, more importantly, why.

This is posted in the "Human Science" forum. The science part will follow a little later.

With a partner already at hand - No

Without - Your place or mine baby?

Ofcourse this situation only exists in dreams as there are always strings attached one way or another.

hypertheticly speaking i think the response will be 50-50
:)
in reality the response would be hard to derive as it seems women lie more about sex than men in such situations
and men tend to over state their enthusiasim
as is the stereotypical sociatal frame of the situations...

:)

I've had it happen! I was doing a bet that a men would fuck anyone that asked and that a girl would not, so she asked me and sat on my lap… I was very embarrassed, I don’t think I would have done it if I was not trying to prove my point, sadly though she back down, oh that and we were in a high school class room don't think it would have worked :o

I'd do it.

in reality if your freinds were going to find out..
then the numbers of answers would be swayed by gender quite alot i think

men claim to
women claim not to
publicly
i have often wondered if the number of women claiming to have not had sex with a 'greater number' of men is equal to the amount of men who claim they have had sex with women that they actualy have not had sex with
:)

"An attractive stranger offers to have sex with you for one night, with no strings attached. Would you take up his or her offer?"


Yes.


This situation is the earthiest ideal- no thinking involved.

Something similar happened to me once. I reacted basically the same way, and the results were pretty much the same as yours. The girl's a friend of mine, was then and is now, she's pretty flirtatious but she never went as far with me as she did then, so I wasn't exactly sure that she was serious.

Hypothetically I'd say yes but I don't think I can really know unless it really happens. In our civilization this type of thing, that is, an attractive person just asking you for sex out of the blue, is not a common [enough] occurence.

Nope...

Life is no fun without complications.

Or something like that anyway...

women get aproached by men they do not know and asked to have sex with them (in bars)
homosexual men are also approached by other homosexual men
and asked to have sex (in gay bars)

what does not realy happen is a women approaching a man who she does not know and asking to have sex with him

the all important aspect that most overlook is that it is posed as a question from someone you do not know!

and when that comes to women making the first move
LOL
not likely
long way to go before society gets that evolved
(note it is for a one off casual sexual encounter.. not a gold digging enterprise)

:)

Hmm... not too many responses so far, but...

Evolutionary psychology (that's the "EP" part of the thread title) predicts that men will tend to accept this type of offer, while women are more likely to decline.

The reason is that the best reproductive strategy for males is to mate with as many females as possible, thus distributing their sperm widely. However, females need to be picky in choosing their mates, due to the time and energy required to gestate and raise their children. Hence, for males, an offer of no-strings sex is attractive, whereas for females it is pretty much always available and so no big deal.

This is a generalisation, and obviously does not apply to every individual.

James R
:D
what women were you trying to not offend ?
quote
whereas for females it is pretty much always available and so no big deal.
---
to stay inline with your hypothesis it should be...
women will refuse an offer of no strings attached sex because they must have protection and support during the gestation and raising process of the reproductive cycle

however it is obviousely very true that in this age women have in genral the availible resources to support themselfs without the requirement of the male to support them

it just does not sit well with some who act in a hypocritical manner and and play both sides of the evolutionary concept
aside from the obviouse widespread distribution of those who seek money or social status in its place as a stage in their own evolutionary process as all things go through
such things are in both genders

:)

ripleofdeath:

If I have offended anybody, I apologise; any offence is unintended.

<i>to stay inline with your hypothesis it should be...
women will refuse an offer of no strings attached sex because they must have protection and support during the gestation and raising process of the reproductive cycle</i>

That's part of what I was talking about.

<i>however it is obviousely very true that in this age women have in genral the availible resources to support themselfs without the requirement of the male to support them</i>

Single parenting tends to be more of a struggle than dual parenting, I think. Also, what you have said only really applies in first-world countries. However, even if what you have said is totally true, it doesn't affect the basic argument above.

<i>it just does not sit well with some who act in a hypocritical manner and and play both sides of the evolutionary concept
aside from the obviouse widespread distribution of those who seek money or social status in its place as a stage in their own evolutionary process as all things go through
such things are in both genders</i>

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you please explain in more detail what you find hypocritical about the position taken by the evolutionary psychologists?

I'm not intelligent enough to get too deep into the EP facet of this conversation, but I'll just say that I'll decline that offer. I'm male...and sex with a complete stranger just doesn't seem desirable to me...

But maybe I'm just picky. ;)

Really hard to answer james. I dont really see how a complete stranger could be attractive. You gotta get to know someone a bit to want to have sex with them dont you? Or even to know they attract u?

I suppose if there was such a thing as love at first sight and immediate chemistry bewtyeen people and i could imagine myself unmarried then i might say yes. Instinct is very powerful.

But even so i think i might well feel negative repercussions because i would be unlikely to want just once with someone i found attractive. So that could make me say no. Mayeb it might depend on the strength of the attractiona nd the likelihood i placed on him being still around in the morning. And if he talked to me like he liked me as a person.

I'm female.

I think what i said probably supports your theory stuff.

It depends how attractive the woman was.

Which gives me a thought....

If you are a ("alpha") guy, a male who's genes are rated highly by females, would you have sex with an obese, fat women of poor genetic stock if she propositioned you on the street, "no strings attached"?

I would say "no". I would suggest common sense says "no". I might propose that the statistics would say "no". Brad Pitt wouldn't shag Oprah (yes Oprah is attractive. no he wouldn't have sex with her, would he?).

Most "hot-rated" men would prefer to wait for a better model of female to come along than fire of a round of genetic bullets into the womb of any hedge-bedraggled female. Where no better models are available EVER, one might imagine a good proportion of those alpha males would still refuse the offer for a good while, if for ever.

This suggests some males are willing to voluntarially withdraw from mating - will withhold their genes - in order not to "dilute" their genes in a mix with an inferior set of chromosomes. Just like females do, and which leads to the EP prediction that they would respond, on average negatively to the above question.

Given the time/energy/health (sex-traded diseases) saved from abstaining from sex, why is the "men bang everything on offer" model so frequently cited? Men might be shown to have instincts against going "too low" if it were shown men can be significantly less turned on by some females compared to others that they are physically unable, or have difficulty, mating with them.

Has such a study been done? What is known about female mating standards? What is known about male mating standards? We all assume nature has given women standards. Has nature given men standards too?

ele:

I think your response would indeed be very common among women.


Candide:

You've made some very good points. Of course, my basic scenario here is simplistic. It asks a simple question, stripped of many real-world complexities which affect people's decisions. In reality, it is impossible to separate many other factors in the decision process. So, I guess this thread aims mainly to get a feel for whether the EPers are on the right track or not.

Disclaimer: I'm not a die-hard EP proponent myself, and I'm in no way claiming that a decision either way here would be "right" or "wrong" for any person, male or female, whatever they decided. I occasionally start these kinds of threads just to see what grows out of the discussion - maybe because I haven't considered the matter in too much depth myself, and I want to get a few other points of view. It is always interesting to hear other points of view.

James R
i was making a joke in regard to,
"you trying to 'not' offend any females" ... :)

i get the impresion you did not follow my line of theory as a correllative prerequesit to the conceptualisation of such thought processes being enganged to answer a question like this regardless of the reality of the situation
anywho...

what is sex is, a fairly rellevant question to pose as a base for
the interpretation of the data
as is often the case the quality of the data is of little importance if the interpretation is flawed or the interpreter is biggotted/pre-disposed to an inferance without self analysis skills

Candide
you raise a good point :)
however it is not one that is welcomed by popular opinion, so
unlikely to be identified easily
and more likely to be placed in the realms of mental illness rather than any form of correlation to the similar trait in females

in females it is part of nurture STRONGLY reinforced from an early age prior to sexual activety with a heavy leaning on ability to produce money and hold social status
girls start playing with dolls that represent the best mating styreo types prior to puberty with reinforcement from the parents
of the importance of these factors
in males it is only part of nature and is reinforced by superficial/fashionable looks rather than any concept of quality genes

a couple of things would need to be added that would include making it immpossible for the female to get pregnant
and including that the person was a look alike to who the questionee was most attracted to
although i guess things like that are often outside the ability to think of in real terms becuase it is soo incredibly unlikely to happen so people have no experience of how they would act and what potential choices they may make in that specific situation

:)

JamesJ,

"Disclaimer: I'm not a die-hard EP proponent myself"

EP reveals human nature and we shouldn't be ashamed to admit what it says about ourselves. Sure, turning the microscope on ourselves will never explain all human behaviour, every minute of the day, but explanation of human behaviour would not exist without it - EP's an invisible scaffolding that holds up - perhaps back - human culture.

ripleofdeath,

"however it is not one that is welcomed by popular opinion, so
unlikely to be identified easily
and more likely to be placed in the realms of mental illness rather than any form of correlation to the similar trait in females"

when you get the video of Oprah bouncing over Brad Pitt like a student riding drunk on a spacehopper post us the news here. we could do with the insight (but not the video... thanks) as it might provide some evidence for the claim alpha males would daisycut any old bearded lady that might beckon them into a back alley. Yeah, right, and pigs fly.

Like women, men go for the attractive model first and are prepared to decline short term offers for a better long term pay off. It is true women see attractiveness through the glasses of status as a guide to resources, men through the glasses of physical beauty as a guide to fertility. However, vice versa is also true. A male would be highly interested in one-off "screwing" a Chelsea Clinton type with her OWN status and resources (to bring up his "silver spoon" gene-machine at no expense to himself) and a women of means would be interested in one-off "screwing" a Governator lookalike down a back alley (on the logic without need for resources or status, a women will accept beautiful-genes if handed on a plate, to complete the package). Men and women can play the same mating game at different times. Although, on average, I would agree men are more likely to accept "lower standards", and short term offers over nothing at all.

Oh, it is not "mental illness" that causes a female/male to turn down a another's affections (although it might be to turn down you :D i don't know), it happens all the time in the real world, and it's explanation is that the other's biological/social make-up doesn't stimulate the female/male's sexual mechanisms sufficiently. Those peripatetic information-lumps who can't do that are silently eliminated from the gene-pool, over evolutionary time. Unless, of course, they resort to physical aggression - but the evolutionary basis of rape's far too controversial a subject for this thread.

Present Alcohol consumption and the general ongoings of the day lend a big hand in the final decision.

Some of us are quite lusid and accepting under the influence.

alcohol + dark rooms + blinding flashing lights +music so loud you can't hear anyone speak.

that's leveling the playing field.

mating fitness in a nightclub becomes a question of ability to maintain the right level of alcohol in the bloodstream long enough to collide with someone of the opposite sex. not so low you can't stand the sick stench on the floor and have to leave; not so high that you're lying in it. :p

does foreplay count?
/jk
not.

:rolleyes:

The EP take on that would be a female wants to test the male to see if he's got what it takes to woo a female that digs her heels in. If he can woo her male offspring would stand better chance of passing genes on facing similar females. The attention of one male might also attract the notice of other males (it's known that, for men and women, people are rated more attractive "road tested" if they have a partner, and presumably in a similar way if they are standing next to a prospective mate) providing some mate-competition. Which is also nice because, apart from anything else, it's very flattering

Candide
you have reached into the fire to grab the blazing end of the stick in the assumtion it was the end meant for you while i was mearly adding fuel and moving it around a little
hhmmm

quote
when you get the video of Oprah bouncing over Brad Pitt like a student riding drunk on a spacehopper post us the news here. we could do with the insight (but not the video... thanks) as it might provide some evidence for the claim alpha males would daisycut any old bearded lady that might beckon them into a back alley. Yeah, right, and pigs fly
---
you completely lost me on this one!
im not sure you are now talking about the same subject...
as men and women both have different sexual drive hormones and systems that are also affected differently by similar nurture systems.. functional and disfunctional


you must be able to define the difference between
disfunction
social peer presure
nurture influence
methods of acceptable practice within a given social setting

and then be able to calculate these in accordance of the varied range of most likely stages of disfunctional progresion through stages of evolution mixed with self discovery/healing and conformist doctrines of therapy

and im leaving it short in that outline
try not to assume i am being negative just because most others seem to act that way in a default setting

forplay is negated by need to urgently mate in animals
attempting to assimilate traites of chimps to humans is often done but rarely defines the real set of values and guides that may be required
i.e would you define bondage and discipline as normal mating rituals.. inspite of what is considered normal this may be a pre requisit in some people

the definition of normal and disfunctional is a complicated concept

:)

I am sorry, don't know where you are coming from. Without that knowledge I won't know how to respond without randomly grabbing hold of something hot, again. What are you claiming, exactly?

By your words you mention "nurture" and "disfunction" and "peer pressure".


I will guess...

You saying thoughts about sex, and sexual arousal, are socially constructed? You're a Postmodernist? Cool, it's sunday, let's have some fun!

hmm... Does a women not like a man, a man not like a women, not due to partly unconscious biological reactions in their bodies traced to their genes but due to what they've read in the last issue of Maxim or Paris Match?

Well, I would say sex patterns would require partially biological and partially social explanations.

eg. Mimicing million dollar supermodels, women who are slim have a sign of high status - their life is easy they don't need much food or energy because people do stuff on their command. Men will find women of high status sexually attractive because slimness is a sign of status (slimness itself is not especially sexually attractive, it could be sign of infertility). A few hundred years ago plumper females were sign of high status, as well-fed women stood out against the starving masses and indicated they had servants and resources at their command, attractive for a male seeking a good carer for his baby. In this example the amount of fat a women carries can affect her status (and sexual attractiveness) and this status is a product of culture - Maxim and Paris Match. However, the logic that a male would find a women of high status attractive is biological - good carer for his baby.

Sex patterns require partially biological and partially social explanations. :cool:

"i.e would you define bondage and discipline as normal mating rituals.. inspite of what is considered normal this may be a pre requisit in some people."

It's about biology getting turned on. Social affects can play a role too in this. What's so hard to get over?


I am still waiting for you to explain why Brad Pitt would unlikely be found in bed with Oprah :o , and more likely be found in bed with a fit, young female of reproductive age. :)

blah blah blah

you needed an edit for that? :eek:

you post has moved into the realms of childish levels of
self absorbed ignorance
i was just being polite
and editted a rather long therapeutic bitch about how such things are retarding to discusions when people dont know how to ask questions when they do not understand blah
make then assumtions of negativety blah
then seek to find supremicey blah

in all just
blah blah blah

Quote
I am sorry, don't know where you are coming from. Without that knowledge I won't know how to respond without randomly grabbing hold of something hot, again. What are you claiming, exactly?

By your words you mention "nurture" and "disfunction" and "peer pressure".


I will guess...

You saying thoughts about sex, and sexual arousal, are socially constructed? You're a Postmodernist? Cool, it's sunday, let's have some fun!
---
it was difficult to read past this point as it has discredited all merit i had placed in your previouse posts in this thread

i was just jugling the idea of if i should bother to respond at all
well i give you the benefit of the doubt on that one
so a short explanation you now have

i get the distinct impresion you have a pre determined idea of what i am going to say
so you then interpret all that i post as being representative of that point and ignore the words inbetween and the context of the whole post

i will leave it at that
as it is going way off topic

last point of reference was by thread starter
RE:
Evolutionary Psychology

quit complaining and join in. say something interesting, justify it.
don't waffle!

quote
Candide
quit complaining and join in. say something interesting, justify it.
don't waffle!
---
well isnt that intellectual then
very evolutionary
ohh wait what are we talking about
people who are millionares having sex with each other
or you making statements about something you seem to be completely out of your comprehension level

quote
Candide
I am still waiting for you to explain why Brad Pitt would unlikely be found in bed with Oprah , and more likely be found in bed with a fit, young female of reproductive age.
---
this question is soo rooted in steretypes it is completely rediculouse to use a reference

why dont you ask an intellegent question ?
i have no interest in arguing with school students
Quote
Candide
The EP take on that would be a female wants to test the male to see if he's got what it takes to woo a female that digs her heels in
---
this statement is rooted in part, of your own world view of your own personality by what you define as most desirable of your specific personality
it has no place in current evolutionary psychology
when you try to recalobrate your own issues with the fundermental drive aspects of cavemen type behaviour and reproduction activeties...

soo
as i said before
ask a sensible question if you wish to have a current and relavent answer

youve had your taste of arguement now
but there is nothing to win!
how does that make you feel?

Well, so far the poll results seem to be supporting the ideas of evolutionary psychology, I think...

If he can woo her male offspring

What, he's Michael Jackson?

It would be interesting to put a face on the statistics. When we each respond to the test we mentally picture ourselves in the situation being propositioned and think through what our response would be to the person propositioning us. It is important to know what the typical man and women's mental picture is of the propositioner as this could reveal a weakness in this test.

Would men take Oprah Winfrey as eagerly as Pamela Anderson? In the back of the average man's mind when they imagine a female propositioning them on the street, I bet a foil-wrapped christmas candy she's the Pamela Anderson type. This affects the survey results, as what man would not want to have sex with the Pamela Anderson type? Women, on the other hand, are more likely think men who proposition them on the street are creepy, desparate and possibly a psycho rapist - I'd bet a swig of brandy on that one. This affects the survey results.

The weakness in this test is that it does not pick up on Man's Standards (no bearded ladies) and it does not pick up cases where Women's Standards would be lower (a man she knew to be married, and was film star attractive).

discuss Etc.

Sometimes when people say they don’t believe or agree with something what they really mean is that they don’t like it or disapprove with its implications.
In this instance, those who disagree with Evolutionary Psychology are really expressing a dislike for the consequences of this line of hypothesizing, just like those denying or disagreeing with Evolution Theory, in general, are expressing a dislike for the implied premises of that theory.
If you are a 'romantic', that is purely emotionally motivated, then EP can be distressful just like Darwinism can be distressful to a religious mind that needs Creation Theory and the idea of a conscious, caring, omnipotent, involved, absolute ‘good’ God to deal with existence.
I’m not saying a monogamous and loyal relationship is not possible but that it is dependant on the standards and quality of each individual.
A person with low standards will find it difficult to remain loyal to one mate just like an individual with low nutritional standards will find it difficult not to consume every kind of meal it is exposed to. Obesity can be seen as a sign of lowered personal standards [You are what you eat]. Inversly a person with heightened pride and self-worth will find it difficult to justify fucking every person they have an opportunity to driven only by their physical or psychological need, regardless of quality.
Here also the aspect of opportunity comes into play.
Keeping with the ‘food’ metaphor, a person with little nutritional choice will consume any food it can get his/her hands on and in this way expose his/her desperation and access. Likewise a person with abundant sexual choice, for whatever reason, will be pickier and more selective with the type of person they choose to have sex with and/or procreate with.
For instance, a model will be more sexually ‘difficult’ whereas a fat and ugly woman with low self-esteem will screw any man that looks her way.
Quality of need is dependant on quality of mind. The lower the quality of the mind the less its standards and the more it is reliant on quantity; the higher the quality of mind the more it focuses on quality and the less it is interested in quantity.
This is also true in every area of human interest besides sex. Knowledge and belief are directly affected by this rule. For a lower quality mind any argument feeding inner need is enough to be convincing, for a higher quality mind the requirements become more stringent and scepticism always remains as a necessity.
The quality of mind, we may say, can be measured by the arguments it needs to become convinced, as the quality of ego can be measured by the quality of person it is willing to fuck and as the quality of being can be measured by the degree it is willing to debase its dignity for survival.
The realtionship between quantity and quality is revealing and exact.

It is obvious that males are more sexually promiscuous than females, for the reasons already mentioned, and that females exhibit a more careful approach to sex, not because they are morally superior or less sexually motivated but because intercourse for them has more profound and long-lasting results and so must be conducted with more care and selectivity.
Of course an individuals, whether male or female, approach to sex also reveals his/her deeper opinions of self. For example the less one values himself/herself the more easily they settle for what they can get or enter into relationships thoughtlessly and superficially, find self-worth through sexual or material acquisitions- thinking of sex as a means to prove their own genetic value to themselves and the world- and are willing to indulge in sex on every opportunity and with any partner.
A ‘slut’, being of either gender, is a person that values self so little that it can only find solace and inner peace through being wanted or through continued reaffirmation of their attractiveness, in other words through how they are seen by others.
An ‘empty’ spirit strives to fill itself from external sources and is burdened with the uncomfortable fact that this can never be done completely. The only real source of fulfillment is an internal one. Here also we witness the ‘modern’ ailment of spiritual emptiness which exposes itself by the western trend towards materialism and consumerism; including sexual consumerism.
People feel so empty inside, in our ‘modern’ sophisticated world, that they start feeding this emptiness with food and luxuries and money and sex and alcohol and drugs, never finding the fullness they need and sometimes blaming themselves for it.

This thread fails to be precise in that it neglects the basic fact that for women aesthetic appeal is only a starting point, which exhibits genetic health but is not enough in itself to justify the risk of impregnation. For women the intelligence or mental/psychological health of the male is as important, if not more so, than any physical appeal and this mental fortitude, unlike physical fortitude, can only be deduced and measured through prolonged contact and through the evaluation of the males intellect through his ability to flirt, his charm, and his wit as expressed through humour and creativity and also through his economic and social status.
EP is precise and accurate but indulging in it in such simplistic ways does not do it justice and diminishes its value.

if that is two cents, can i borrow a quart? :D

"For instance, a model will be more sexually ‘difficult’ whereas a fat and ugly woman with low self-esteem will screw any man that looks her way."

The most attractive girls (intelligence and looks) often have very low self-esteem and relatively plain girls (ditto) very high self-esteem. Apparently it depends more on the individual personality as much as genes how "sexual" a person is. Actually, if you are relatively plain every guy and his wingman thinks he has a chance (it is well-established most people believe they are above average in attractiveness) and you will get attention from all these guys and be very happy. If you are very attractive only the guys who think they stand a chance will spoon-feed the chat up lines and, as that's a lower proportion of the guys who chat to the plainer girls, for those of certain personality the comparative lack of attention can get depressing.

It doesn't strike me as necessarily right that "fat and ugly woman with low self-esteem will screw any man that looks her way". I am distrustful of absolute, stereotypical statements, cut out of a Lad's mag.


"The lower the quality of the mind the less its standards and the more it is reliant on quantity; the higher the quality of mind the more it focuses on quality and the less it is interested in quantity."

Put two high quality minds together and you will get disagreement even on this.


"It is obvious that males are more sexually promiscuous than females"

Is it. I've always wondered. Who are they having sex with, if they are not all engaged in park toilet relationships or having sex with prostitutes?


"For women the intelligence or mental/psychological health of the male is as important"

From an EP perspective intelligence matters as does looks, physical strength, status and fatness of wallet. As women gain command of resources, status and power this logic increasing works for men's view of a female's attractiveness too. (Another thought experiment: Kate Moss in a Council Flat vs Chelsea Clinton in a Millionaire's Mansion? All things being equal, I think our Brad Pitt, after rejecting Oprah's pushy advance, would consider his gene-packet better off with Chelsea Clinton as a mother. Of course, he has the freedom to choose otherwise).

soo
if we are to take a working example of what is determined to be in the fundermental group of desirable ... or innitiator prerequisits
for mating then can it be logical to use this for sexual interaction where there is no intention or desire to reproduce

and
given the extreem materialisation of the working model of consumerism being a relative educational/indoctrination influence
what can we lead to in a form of E.P on the basis of genral disfunction if we are to purify the concept of the mating E.P ?

intellegence Vs brain washing
what is most desirable Vs what is most taught or conformist

e.g
given a certain range of intellegence what status does social status and collected materialism represent than a hypocrasey in a working model

what triggers may motivate a disfunctional response to a condition that may confound some basic principals that could be fairly grouped with the more upper end of reproductive E.P

stereotypes are often a default for most in a disfunctional developmental situation

materialism is a fundermental part of gathering enough food for the winter and for supplying resources for child raising

intellectualy speaking, ... what is the stereotype?
i dont think you will find one
you could say doctor hopefully not lawyer
but in reality these feilds of trades have no longer the intellectual
frontier type people in them in genral
so one can easly assume there is a certain amount of setling for second best while pretending to be a first choice

like a profesional athleet
what good is the high income if the father is injured too much to father the children

most often the fundermental concepts that most use and accept in this manner are hypocritical to the point of making the entire theme just another womens magazine for blokes
but then people are more then not wanting a self reasurance than a real education
which is also a disfunction
:)

Maybe EP was popularized by an ugly guy who wanted everyone to think it was okay to have sex with an ugly guy, as long as he was rich or something.

QUOTE
BigBlueHead
Maybe EP was popularized by an ugly guy who wanted everyone to think it was okay to have sex with an ugly guy, as long as he was rich or something.
---
by E.P
i assume you mean Evolutional Prostitution ?

James R
not trying to be rude... dude!
but maybe you should have a few filter questions for your survey
specialy considering you only have 4 female marked responses
:)
statistics are not very usefull when they are not clearly self defining
:)

I guess we have learned that women don't like to participate in polls about EP and casual sex.

Where by "learned", of course, I mean "gathered an extremely small and possibly misleading amount of evidence in an uncontrolled experiment on an undocumented population."

Riple: Well, you do know that one of the tenets of EP is that all women are specially evolved not to have any money...

To BigBlueHead
Maybe EP was popularized by an ugly guy who wanted everyone to think it was okay to have sex with an ugly guy, as long as he was rich or something.
This is 'The Head' trying to insinuate that he's attractive.
Still grasping on to your romanticism and idealism huh?
Still living in your delusions where all men are created equal, men are the same as women and race means nothing.
Still holding on to the ideals that make you feel safe and contented where political-correctness is used to enforce an Orwellian thought control over mans real nature.
Still Christian.

To Candide
The most attractive girls (intelligence and looks) often have very low self-esteem and relatively plain girls (ditto) very high self-esteem.
In what universe?
All human beings are insecure to some degree, when we speak of differences we speak about degree not substance.
Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule that only serve to prove the rule itself.
I accept the contingency that character and psychology play a large part on how someone feels about himself/herself, but an attractive woman through time grows to believe the fawning and admiration as proof of her value as an individual. An attractive woman, who also happens to be intelligent, may dismiss it as value based on superficial criteria and therefore not be overly affected by it but an attractive woman who is average or below average in mental strength will grasp on this adulation and raise herself to the heights of arrogance and egotism based on nothing more than surfaces.

If you are very attractive only the guys who think they stand a chance will spoon-feed the chat up lines and, as that's a lower proportion of the guys who chat to the plainer girls, for those of certain personality the comparative lack of attention can get depressing.

In other words you will attract higher quality individuals or individuals with the delusion of higher quality which sometimes is good enough since human relationships depend just as much on pretence as they do on essence.
It doesn’t matter if you are actually of quality but believing yourself that you are makes you so anyways. It is a sign of mental health expressed in self-love and confidence. But of course having the balls to go up to an attractive woman isn’t enough, you must also have the substance to follow through and prove your actual worth in conversation and action.

That's why women need more time in making commitments but when they do make them they launch themselves in them wholeheartedly and completely.
Flirtation and wooing is a process of evaluation, mostly for the females benefit since the man has pretty much already decided by commencing the process itself.
Man sells, woman buys. You can think of the initial attraction and the flirtation that follows as a haggling mechanism.

interesting thought...
i wonder what percentage of men feel their masculinity is challenged by there female partner earning more than them
i always find that quality comedy
:D

WANDERER
what i find quite funny about the whole concept you mention on the men selling and women buying
is the contradiction of women who get upset at the constant sales pitchs yet never seek a purchase..
only waiting for the right one to appear
soo much for the evolution part of that
no major difference in the men feeling threatened by a women making the first move
very caveman like .. but still a major thing in most societies
cave man and cave women seem to go well together i guess,
they just dont get on well in societies that wish to be non violent

WANDERER sez:
This is 'The Head' trying to insinuate that he's attractive.
Still grasping on to your romanticism and idealism huh?
Still living in your delusions where all men are created equal, men are the same as women and race means nothing.
Still holding on to the ideals that make you feel safe and contented where political-correctness is used to enforce an Orwellian thought control over mans real nature.
Still Christian.

This is the WANDERER trying to show that he knows anything.
Still believe you know "the truth", eh?
Still trying to pretend you can seperate social pressure from instinct?
Still believing that the way things look to you is the only way they can be, because human imagination could never extend to anything as impossible as social development.
Still pretending you can read me like a book, and still spouting that shit. I hope your mamma loves you.

So, maybe you want to explain to me why men are supposed to "naturally" have more money than women? Why the supposedly natural arrangement of pair-bonding would not be totally confounded by social support?

Or, maybe you could tell me how it is that you know with great certainty that a psycho-sociological theory with little scientific evidence to support it is nonetheless "the truth" and explains every aspect of our life?

"Riple: Well, you do know that one of the tenets of EP is that all women are specially evolved not to have any money..."

hehe, you fibber.

i'll tell you something. did you know evolution has designed women to be especially functional carriers of the shopping basket? true, I kid ye not. physiological fact: female arms/elbows kink out at the side in a way that mens do not, so they do not bash against their sticky out hips (*hum* which men do not have). according to the Happy Shopper theory of human origins this is because that posture enabled more effective gathering of fruit (a greater calorie load per carry, hence survival edge for the adaptation).

Awesome!

what i find quite funny about the whole concept you mention on the men selling and women buying
is the contradiction of women who get upset at the constant sales pitchs yet never seek a purchase..
Dear friend, this is more a social issue than a gender one.
You see, we live in a time where generations have been brought up on TV illusions and pop-culture and where basic needs being fulfilled is taken for granted. This pampering of society has debased it, on the one hand, and made it expect more than it deserves.
How many times have you heard children being fed that bullshit line: "You can be anything you want if you try hard enough"?
What a bunch of crap that is.
We have entire generations being raised on heightened expectations and the idea that they deserve things just for being alive. Eventually reality slaps them in the face and they start feeling insecure because they can’t get what they think they deserve. Drugs, alcohol and escapist entertainment are their only avenue of escape then.
Those women that never buy, that you mention, expect more or have such a high regard for their superficial potential that they turn away from anything with any flaw. It’s the ‘princess’ effect.
Men suffer from something similar.

This is the WANDERER trying to show that he knows anything.
Still believe you know "the truth", eh?
Still trying to pretend you can seperate social pressure from instinct?
Still believing that the way things look to you is the only way they can be, because human imagination could never extend to anything as impossible as social development.
Still pretending you can read me like a book, and still spouting that shit. I hope your mamma loves you.
Who's pretending?!!!
Your hypothesis rests on how you define 'Social development'.
What for you is development for me may be degradation.
I'm not here to sell my ideas but to test them.
I don't say I know 'truth' I say my truth is better than yours.
It's called survival of the fittest. I'll put up my views against yours any day.
Here you display your total ignorance by evoking the concept of an ‘absolute truth’ to create a straw man.
I never ever said I know any ‘truth’ or that anyone should accept my views as such, I say my views are more complete, thorough and noble.
I claim superiority not perfection. Prove me wrong.
So, maybe you want to explain to me why men are supposed to "naturally" have more money than women? Why the supposedly natural arrangement of pair-bonding would not be totally confounded by social support?
Why, Blue Head if you can’t answer such a simple questions on your own then no wonder you exhibit such ignorance and delusion on the subject.
In our modern world wealth has replaced muscle and talent as a sign of worth and it is also evidence of access to resources.
If that confuses you then you should give up speculating on the matter.
Pair-bonding my dear ‘Head’ is beneficial to society. It erases the potential of non-participating rogue males, with nothing to lose from threatening its existence.
Have you ever seen a documentary on lions?
By giving all males, regardless of quality, access to procreation that they would not normally have [made possible by taking away female sexual choice] you make them participants, investors and therefore defenders of the status quo; just like you are.
This makes for a more stable construct but in time it degrades the genetic pool by allowing the weak and stupid to propagate their genetic inadequacies and to spread their genetic inferiorities.
That’s why ‘modern’ man is becoming more and more reliant on medical breakthroughs to makeup for this genetic degradation and this is also why ‘modern’ man is becoming more and more reliant on technology and society to survive.
We are becoming institutionalized as a species.
Did you not read my 'Feminization of Man' essay? Read it again.
Or, maybe you could tell me how it is that you know with great certainty that a psycho-sociological theory with little scientific evidence to support it is nonetheless "the truth" and explains every aspect of our life?
I, dear 'Head', am less reliant on the thoughts and evidence gathered by third parties as you are. I depend more on personal observations and evaluations whereas you depend on reading statistics and science conducted by others.
The sooner you realize the limitations and prejudices of science the sooner you will realize that your senses and personal efforts are much more dependable.
Experience is the only truly reliable source of information, if that.
Those that rely on the work of others indirectly express their own inability to perceive and to evaluate. When you believe anything with no personal effort you are believing in it on faith.
Sounds like you've replaced science for religion to me.
I’m not saying science is worthless but that it isn’t perfect and that it often has ulterior motives derived from human imperfections. How you ask a question and what question you ask usually determines what results you get.
If you can’t grasp how the observer affects what is being observed, as was noted by Nietzsche's and Democritus' Perspectivism and reaffirmed recently by quantum physics, then I cannot help you.
We are all limited by our own genetic pat and our past environmental influences.
There is no 'truth' only higher and lower perspectives on 'truth'.

homos genos elbo-is stick out-tis :D
could be selective breeding
could be for carrying children under them as they sit in a tree

ug ug ug

could also be for easyer cleaning of the cave floor
pushing a vacuumcleaner
cleaning toilets

or...
less developed for upright movement as they leave all the heavy upright work to the males

my best guess is it is just women being too lazzy to develop properly :D

Riple, please tell me you didn't just say women are too lazy to evolve...

I, dear 'Head', am less reliant on the thoughts and evidence gathered by third parties as you are. I depend more on personal observations and evaluations whereas you depend on reading statistics and science conducted by others.
The sooner you realize the limitations and prejudices of science the sooner you will realize that your senses and personal efforts are much more dependable.
Experience is the only truly reliable source of information, if that.

Yeah, go dance around outside Plato's cave, whatever. Do you really think that these ideas are yours? These experiences are yours?

Yes, science is biased in its application, although the biases are not always obvious... even Ruth Hubbard boned that one out when she slipped and said women should bring their unique feminine traits to science.

On the other hand, the experience of your own senses has a number of problems:

1) it's such a small fraction of the world at large that it's difficult to believe that it's representative

2) it's also biased in ways that you generally don't realize; it's impossible to overcome these biases entirely and difficult to even understand that you have them - see the aforementioned Ruth Hubbard in <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807004316/qid=1072818198/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_0_9/701-3636883-1195517">Exploding the Gene Myth</a>

With respect to scientific studies, which should be your real source of third-party information (rather than, say, what you hear on the news) the problem with them is that you need to know how to pick out the important parts - the data and the experimental apparatus and procedure. Most news reports and other glosses will go the conclusion which is a big mistake, since the conclusion often draws a misleading result from incomplete data even in the best studies.

But, all the same, the reason why these studies are biased in the first place is because they are translations of other people's experiences. With a lot of effort you can pick out a few of their biases, and their different viewpoint might compensate for your biases... it's still a gamble, but going it alone is more like a sucker bet.

Have you read many actual papers on this stuff? I warn ya, the ones I read are pretty dry...

But MOST IMPORTANTLY just because you have arrived at a conclusion from anecdotal evidence or even a priori doesn't mean that the conclusion is in any way representative of the actual arrangement of things.

With respect to wealth as a demonstrator of desirability for mating, I think this is a real mistake; few people believe that wealth has anything to do with genetics. If I follow the evidence of my own senses, the rich people I knew, even the ones who worked for the money themselves, still fell ass-backwards into their position and it had little to do with talent. More often the truly rich inherit their money and are patently undeserving idiots...

But, if social pressures have changed the arrangement of our interactions so fast that we are now able to subordinate our impressions of physical attractiveness to desire for money, how can we draw any conclusions about the nature of human beings on a genetic basis? (This goes along with my previous question about pair-bonding being destroyed by social welfare, which you failed to answer even though it's legitimate...)

But all the same, Which brings me to my greatest criticism of your viewpoint: what are you going to do about it?

EP works great as long as you're an unthinking automaton, but if you've really figured out how it works then your duty as a free agent is to start a human breeding program and promote the best traits in humanity, whether or not they are your own. This is your new goal, and your intellect should pursue it with the same fervour that the unthinking pursue reproduction.

Well, you're now cursed with the unholy knowledge. Go! Promote the genetic improvement of humankind as you would have promoted your own genetic material! Because if you're right then, now that you know, doing anything else is no more than rattling your cage. Normal human behaviour has become failure for you. It's good that you can see the bars... now it's time to try and get out.

Yeah, go dance around outside Plato's cave, whatever. Do you really think that these ideas are yours? These experiences are yours?
It's the best I can do.
Can you do more?

1) it's such a small fraction of the world at large that it's difficult to believe that it's representative

2) it's also biased in ways that you generally don't realize; it's impossible to overcome these biases entirely and difficult to even understand that you have them - see the aforementioned Ruth Hubbard in
1} But they are mine.
I am a human being I therefore share in the experienceof being a human being.
When you take a smple are you extrapolating general rules from a fraction or are you just analyzing the sample itself?
Isn't all science and all human knowledge based on finiding patterns and rules from a limited amount of information?
2}That is why I remain sceptical even towards my own views and perceptions. this is why i test my perceptions against those of others in debate and discussion.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY just because you have arrived at a conclusion from anecdotal evidence or even a priori doesn't mean that the conclusion is in any way representative of the actual arrangement of things.
Nor does it mean that it is not.
Besides, like I've said, I'm claiming perceptual superiority not perceptual perfection.
What is "the actual arrangement of things", what is "rality"?
I am the constructor and the creator.
I choose to create a nobler 'reality' than yours. I choose to return man to his nature.
I CHOOSE!!!!!!!!!!
The essence of free-will.

With respect to wealth as a demonstrator of desirability for mating, I think this is a real mistake; few people believe that wealth has anything to do with genetics. If I follow the evidence of my own senses, the rich people I knew, even the ones who worked for the money themselves, still fell ass-backwards into their position and it had little to do with talent. More often the truly rich inherit their money and are patently undeserving idiots...
And this is exactly why society is degrading mankind.
Perhaps I should have been more precise: wealth has substituted mind and body as a sign of quality, this does not mean it is accurate or reliable only that it has been proposed and propagated as the socially desirable trait to judge value, which serves society by maintaining the status of servitude and unthinking work amongst the rabble.
This is why women often marry rich and then cheat with more ‘attractive’ males if they can. They ensure access to material for their future offspring and then seek genetic quality as well.
If it weren’t for a well established system of moral codes no woman would remain faithful to one male for long.
What is fundamentally wrong with civilization is that it needs to maintain stability by enabling status and power to be inherited and not earned, as it is in nature.

Besides true monogamy can only be possible amongst the higher intellects who have fewer options, if they are to maintain their dignity and distinctness, and who truly understand what love and loyalty really are.
Only those that understand things can truly appreciate them and value them

But, if social pressures have changed the arrangement of our interactions so fast that we are now able to subordinate our impressions of physical attractiveness to desire for money, how can we draw any conclusions about the nature of human beings on a genetic basis? (This goes along with my previous question about pair-bonding being destroyed by social welfare, which you failed to answer even though it's legitimate...)

I don't fully comprehend the question.
Intellectually we are indoctrinated into a value system but instinctively and intuitively we are still driven by more basic and primitive criteria.
If you ask the common man he will be unable to tell you why he wants what he wants, he just does. Intellectually he may know that money offers him opportunities and choices and power and respect but why it does he is unable to describe.
The ingeniousness of social coexistence is that it diverts already existing drives into new focuses, so the natural drive to dominate and to procreate can be diverted to a surrogate want of monetary wealth. It’s the same drive focused on a new desire.
Everyone knows that money can bring you power, respect and access to more females but they tell themselves that it is for other reasons. It’s the basic animal drive for power only here it is diverted into methods that also benefit a social system that needs hard working, creative, disciplined and ambitious individuals working for its behalf. The disciplined, conforming individual slave is then rewarded with some of the perks offered by the system to all that fall inline and remain loyal to its premises.
If you go against it you wind up dead or in prison. So the human intellect has been completely preoccupied by the notion of belonging and adapting to an artificial human construct, called civilization, as opposed to a pre-existing one called nature. Most human brain power is now focused on how to fit in to the system and benefit from it.

But all the same, Which brings me to my greatest criticism of your viewpoint: what are you going to do about it?

EP works great as long as you're an unthinking automaton, but if you've really figured out how it works then your duty as a free agent is to start a human breeding program and promote the best traits in humanity, whether or not they are your own. This is your new goal, and your intellect should pursue it with the same fervour that the unthinking pursue reproduction.

Well, you're now cursed with the unholy knowledge. Go! Promote the genetic improvement of humankind as you would have promoted your own genetic material! Because if you're right then, now that you know, doing anything else is no more than rattling your cage. Normal human behaviour has become failure for you. It's good that you can see the bars... now it's time to try and get out.
As in the case of alcoholism and drug addiction, the first step to sobriety is acknowledgment of the problem or acceptance of it.
Just by knowing you’ve made a first step towards extracting yourself from the harmful implications.
But who said you want to enlighten all of humanity?
Self is above all else. If one is clever enough he/she can create an environment by which he can realize his desires and goals or at least try to. Nobility is found in the attempt not always in the success.
What define us are the things we want and the things we believe not always the things we have.
One can create an oasis within the desert if he/she is lucky and persistent.
You can attempt to get out of your prison or you can seek out like-minds and brothers to take advantage of what is within, if you cannot escape.
This all depends on what you, not society but you, really wants.
For example if you know that wealth is how men are controlled and harnessed to the social wheel then you can only value it enough to acquire the things you desire and no more.
How many human beings want money for money’s sake, believing it will bring them happiness?
How many find out too late that it was a fools errand and that they were duped and that what they really wanted was more easily acquired and readily available?
How many want things they don’t really need and strive for things that they do not want?
Being a master begins in the mind, with awareness, as being a slave is existing in ignorance and delusion.

I'm not talking about enlightenment... I'm talking about genetic inheritance, the currency of EP. Playing the caveman is all that you can do if you never think about it.

BUT

Once you realize the motivations that drive you to do the "human" things that you do, you're stuck with pretty limited choices, unless you just want to hide your head (continuing to be a caveman).

FIRST OPTION - Revised caveman technique.
Disperse your genetic material through a more efficient method, such as being a crooked fertility doctor or marrying many people of the opposite sex.

SECOND OPTION - Enlightened genetic being.
Promote the genetic robustness/variety/other helpful emergent property of the human race through selective breeding of the most suitable individuals.

THIRD OPTION - Find Another Metaphor.
Abandon EP for some other value system, which breaks the entire point.

Which is your preferred option? From the EP point of view, one would think that number 2 would be the most fitting... but that's my opinion.

BigBlueHead

one could ask
"do we define our selfs by the path of least resistence"
the nature of the concept of resistance is a funny topic :)
as most define self worth by materialism
so the question is outside a great number of people to be able to consider in its purity to come to a conclusion that is void of self justification

Riple: the economic improvement of our situation as humans still represents a change whether we choose to value it or not - why do you think affluent countries have such low birth rates? They don't need the children as much. Economy makes necessities into choices and choices into whims. Monogamous sexual relationships may fall by the wayside as well, once we have less to fear - who's to say what money will do to all of us, even if we pretend it doesn't exist?

Wanderer: I am still waiting. You are alive right now, you are acting right now. Are you talking about nobility and enlightenment and still acting like a caveman? EP gives the passing on of genetic material as an unconscious drive, not a conscious one; once you realize that this is a motivation you should strive for better immediately, not eventually. You need an enlightened plan about passing on your genes, an enlightened plan about the meta-passing on (improvement/change of the human race in the way you think it most needs genetically), or a new story of human motivation so that you can continue developing.

I find the whole idea very horny, like some live fantasy, esp as there would be no strings attatched and no one would get hurt in the process, but, there are are two reasons why I have to decline. 1) SexTransmittedDiseases or AIDS 2) I might get addicted :D Let sleeping dogs lie I say.

haha, i'm not a bird. i don't need a male to find me worms while i tend my nest. since i don't expect anyone is going to be reproducing from this encounter, the whole evolutionary interpretation in bunk. i should assume birth control is part of the hypothetical situation.

however, there is always the possibility of disease. if an attractive stranger is offering sex, i'd be more than a little suspicious. so my answer is no, unless it's a samantha-like encounter where the strangers are disease tested first.

if the stranger was assumed to be completely disease free, there is always the matter of : am i attracted to him? an attractive stranger doesn't mean they are attractive to me. i'm attracted to smart guys, especially ones good at math. how would i know that without talking to him first, in which case he'd no longer be a stranger? i prefer stringless encounters with friends.

i answered no.

I'm not talking about enlightenment... I'm talking about genetic inheritance, the currency of EP. Playing the caveman is all that you can do if you never think about it.

BUT

Once you realize the motivations that drive you to do the "human" things that you do, you're stuck with pretty limited choices, unless you just want to hide your head (continuing to be a caveman).

FIRST OPTION - Revised caveman technique.
Disperse your genetic material through a more efficient method, such as being a crooked fertility doctor or marrying many people of the opposite sex.

SECOND OPTION - Enlightened genetic being.
Promote the genetic robustness/variety/other helpful emergent property of the human race through selective breeding of the most suitable individuals.

THIRD OPTION - Find Another Metaphor.
Abandon EP for some other value system, which breaks the entire point.

Which is your preferred option? From the EP point of view, one would think that number 2 would be the most fitting... but that's my opinion.

sociobiology and ep proceeds from the notion that human behaviour and cognition is a product of genes interacting with an environment which can 1. affect the phenotypic expression of genes (nutrition and height), 2. be essential for the expression of genes ("language learning window" in which children must be exposed to language or not form neural connections necessary for language) and 3. which may determine which genes prodominate the genepool over time (what happens if a big foot descends from the sky and crushes Canada. that's the end of the line for "canadian genes" /jk) . so you present a false dichotomy. very entertaining to watch you froth at the mouth at proper scientific approach to the study of human social behaviour. makes me interested in what "value system" you believe solves all humanity's problems (many of which will be rooted in our genes interaction with culture).

to answer the thrust of your question, sociobiology and ep simply doesn't have a moral standpoint toward genetic engineering - it's not a philosophy, so it is unfair of you to judge it as one (and one of your worse imaginings at that). it is an approach that helps reveal the facts about human nature and that where it ends.

I'd do it. One more point for EP :p

hypertheticly speaking i think the response will be 50-50
:)
in reality the response would be hard to derive as it seems women lie more about sex than men in such situations
and men tend to over state their enthusiasim
as is the stereotypical sociatal frame of the situations...

:)
A side word point.

Women don’t lie about how many sexual partners they have.

Men who have a large number of sexual partners tend to be heavily involved with prostitutes, and since prostitutes numbers of sexual partners weren’t included in the original study the numbers for women’s sexual partners got shrewd.

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20000912004746data_trunc_sys.shtml
:p

Candide: Two comments.

EP does have a moral dimension because it supplies "natural" motivations for actions that may in fact be caused by social pressures.

Furthermore, anything that reveals "facts of human nature" is by definition a philosophy. I would submit that EP only reveals a metaphor for human nature, not "facts", because it is an interpretation.

BUT

Even if you accept that it's fact, if you believe in your own free will, you can no longer claim ignorance of your own failure to maximize your own genetic potential. So, what're you gonna do?

Maybe WANDERER would agree, maybe not, but I'll say it.

ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDY HAS A MORAL DIMENSION.

Candide: Two comments.

Maybe WANDERER would agree, maybe not, but I'll say it.

ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDY HAS A MORAL DIMENSION.
Obviously.
all human action and thought has moral dimension.
But which is higher and which lower is at the crux of the debate.

my guess is that the majority of the voters will suffer from severe religious or moral qualms, and in turn give it a thumbs down. but i say: Hedonism ahoy!

Weebee
interesting point
how much could we then continue in seriouse debate on the amount of women who have had sex to gain employment or better employment options along with the more commonly understood prostitution..
would this have a even larger effect on the statistics? ...
i think so!
and so in doing so in the labeling of this sexual encounter being a transaction the same as in normal prostitution.. then one could easily argue that the men on the recieving end would also be clients and relate to the figures regardless if they were aware of the intent and outcome as desired by the women
very complex on a data collection bassis
:)

wait wait. do women really do that? i wouldn't think so, because what man is idiot enough to promote someone simply because they slept with them? that is terrible for business. a man of power making staffing decisions so recklessly should be in charge of little more than the fry machine at burger king. it is probably a myth that came out of a culture of sexual harassment, i.e. sleep with me or you're fired.
my father made a comment suggesting that a female superior of his (a terrible terrible thing for such a sexist man) only got that far along by sleeping her way up. my indignant response was along the lines of 'why did you spend all that money sending me to college if the only way to get ahead is to sleep my way up?'

ripleofdeath,

>how much could we then continue in serious debate on the amount of women who have had sex to gain employment or better employment options along with the more commonly understood prostitution..would this have a even larger effect on the statistics

You couldn’t. –would need to be another study. :p


Federal work place survey of sexual harassment in 1994, 4% of female and 2 % of males reported having been assaulted or being the victim of attempted rape in the work place. http://www.mspb.gov/studies/sexhar.pdf

ok ok :)
SwedishFish
nice retort to your father by the way !
that rocks!
weebee
im not talking of sexual harassment
i guess i am also skirting another concept also, ... to be fair :)
note how many people claim that mating or coupling of female to male is driven on a
basis of how big his pile of money is / social status
i am being sneaky in my application of the wholistic conceptualisation
imagine the sterotype example
the cheerleader girl who does not realy want to have sex .. the loner girl who does not realy want to have sex
but does to be popular, and accepted
she has just turned herself into a prostitute in that single action by definition of emotional values (no different in males RE peer presure to fit in)
how often do we see this normalised by mainstream media?
is it realy true, and if so to what REAL amount?
(notice im staying in theme and not wondering into the scary realms of male sexuality if your not talking size OR duration, then often you are talking to a brick/yourself[another steretyope])
as far as the sexualharrasment is concerned ..
the real figure of sexual harasment would be far higher than that firgure above
it would be closer to 15 to 20 % of females and 5 to 10 % of males
one in five females and one in ten males...
a male that sexualy harases women does not usualy just do it to one women and there is always a larger % of non reporting also
a male reporting sexual harasement is often ignored and or laughed at
and is also expected to accept it as posative reinforcement

all is reduced down to a simple concept
based on the motivation to engage in sexual activety
and then what is used as reinforcement in self awarness of the sexual interaction

another stereotype is also within the realms of sexual disfunction by suggesting or labeling women as sluts and men as perpetualy unfaithfull

if this is the excuse used to justify things.
like your fathers comment SwedishFish ...
then obviousely we can expect two basic issues for a start
one
sexual disfunction
two
biggotry in some form which will lead to self actualisation and or reinforcement in some manner which always effects many and most normal day to day interactions and actions

:)

I did not understand much of your post -maybe because I’m tried and stressed…..
I posed the figures for SwedishFish as an indication that sex does occur in work places, at least for one of side of the participants. Whether better employment occurs has not been shown. There are also the statistics for office marriages and things. Office flirtations are common place.

‘the real figure of sexual harasment would be far higher than that firgure above
it would be closer to 15 to 20 % of females and 5 to 10 % of males
one in five females and one in ten males...’

the figures were just for work place harassment which was an actual assault or rape. That’s not a pat on the bum, it’s a hand down your knickers…and as a result it maybe shouldn’t be considered sex. I don’t think that the figures are double in the work place, at least not in my social arena, the more it occurs the higher the lighlyhood it will come out. I have heard the 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her life, and I do believe that this has value.

You wrote in your earlier post ‘and so in doing so in the labeling of this sexual encounter being a transaction the same as in normal prostitution.. then one could easily argue that the men on the recieving end would also be clients and relate to the figures regardless if they were aware of the intent and outcome as desired by the women, very complex on a data collection bassis’.

I might miss understand this. There are feminists who argue that sex is always a transaction, but I do not think that the term prostitution can apply in the same way to both monetary and emotional transactions. Your point, I think, is that the woman at work is undertaking a employment transaction, however I do not think that Bill C. said ‘give me a blow job and I’ll get you a job.’ Wanting a better job may be one factor which leads a woman to sleep with her boss, but I think it unlikely that it would be the only factor. Other factors may include; lack of alternative jobs, being turned on by power, being attracted to him as a person…..

The study I mentioned before asked ‘how many partners have you had in the last year’ to men and women. Your point would not change these statistics of this.

Ha! Just remembered something, my current boyfriend used to be my boss…we never flirted at work and it only started because I went and saw his band, I then saw the real him and we kept it out of the office. . .assuming the obvious isn’t always the best policy.

"Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it's one of the best." --Woody Allen


Too bad so many polls only measure some quality related to their wording. Better results might be obtained by asking a question along the lines of, "Would you consent to have an attractive stranger provide you with a sexually satisfying experience?" Almost any guy could have a fine empty experience with an attractive woman (or an inflatable doll for that matter), but unless the stranger is committed to providing the woman pleasure, there are fewer guarantees she would find the experience worthwhile. So, along with guaranteeing "no strings", satisfaction should also be promised.

The results of the poll may also be influenced by the percentage of each population (male/female) that feels comfortable naked around a stranger. That could certainly be tied to reproductive strategies. I.e., a guy might feel comfortable getting naked around a stranger once the social contract "we're gonna do it and do it now!" has been ratified, since there is no down side to being viewed as repulsive afterwards. If the female strategy is generally to capture a mate, then revealing themselves to be even momentarily unattractive might seriously affect their decision to get naked even if it is just a one time fling.

Some studies have shown that women like "bad boys" when they are most fertile, but seek "faithful types" for the long term. I can't seem to locate the exact studies on this, but here is one claming something similar that uses "masculinity" as a gradient:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/376321.stm

-DnT

P.S. Not that I'm a gamer or anything, but I was so sure that "EP" stood for "Experience Points". You should definitely get some serious EP for bonking. ;)

I think something else that should be taken into account is the fact that some people already have a partner and wouldnt cheat on them even if there is no chance of them finding out. If your already with someone you believe to be perfect and are in love with then why would you need anyone else?? I think the question at the beginning of this thread needs to be investigated as to what people with/without partners said in reply.

Had the chance, didn't take it, have felt stupid about it for years afterwards. (there is more than one kind of sexual regret)

Chance to replay that scene? Hell Yes, I'd do it.

think ur 1 of the few who regrets not doin it, most regret it if they do