Thread: When is a strong, positive female not a strong positive female?

I don't think slave driven is the right set of words, it's the having to do everything perfectly that is.

And no one is perfect - even i have some faults!! I have an Irish Passport!! YESSS,

Originally Posted by patsycat

I have an Irish Passport!! YESSS,

Originally Posted by billy the kid

Originally Posted by patsycat

I have an Irish Passport!! YESSS,

Tee Hee. And that comes from being born in Ireland to Irish parents and grandparents.

Not like silly Merkins who had a grandaddy that came over on a boat.

Originally Posted by misskit

So if a woman is only able to conceive one time per month, and one man is not available(out fishing or chasing women ), another one is. I don't see how you think it would not increase her chances of pregnancy.

Originally Posted by misskit

Why would she not? If a female mates with a sole male carrying an unseen genetic defect, all her children would be in danger. If she has multiple mates this would not happen to the whole group.

Come on MissK, you are not being serious. Humans are a pair bonding species (because of the length of time it takes to grow a human child to adulthood). Women are much more incentivised to build a pair-bonded relationship than to casually sleep with the nearest male of the moment in order to procreate. The urge to pair bond is evolved. It is not an arbitrary social structure which you can casually dismiss to pursue some abstract argument in support of a political attempt to reconstruct female sexuality.

Originally Posted by misskit

Our modern culture is based in large part on religions. That is why so many argue, in general, with you about things you always claim are disgusting or immoral are not genetic/evolutionary but cultural/religious and taught.

I think there is a point of confusion about my evolutionary ideas about human psychology. I am not suggesting that they necessarily apply in the 21st century. We live in an artificial environment (of our own making) which is vastly different to the environment in which our respective psychologies evolved. We obviously need to adapt our moral frameworks to work in 21st century globalised society so behaviours that worked well in the stone age often do not work well in the 21st century. It is up to us to democratically agree on what our modern moral frameworks are. I am not suggesting that because I believe the stone age provided an environment in which there was a stronger evolved incentive for males to be unfaithful than females that it is OK in the 21st century for males to be unfaithful. Or that because I believe the stone age provided an environment in which there was a stronger evolved incentive for females who behaved promiscuously to be shunned that we should do so in the 21st century.

What I do believe is that understanding our evolved psychologies will give us a more sound basis for developing modern moral frameworks that will succeed and stand the test of time. We should not bury our heads in the sand about our evolved natures. We are not prisoners of our DNA. Progressive western societies place a much higher moral importance on personal choice, individuality and freedom than any society before in history and we are intelligent enough to adapt our social structures to fit these modern moral frameworks. That is progress and I celebrate it.

Looper, if pair bonding is so important, then why are so many of us so damned bad at it? I think too much importance has been placed on it. Long term sexual pair bonding (romantic love) is illusive for most. Just look at the number of fathers all over the world, in every culture, who abandon their wives and children.

I don't think it is a matter of Western progressive morals putting higher importance on personal choice. I think it is the shedding of religion-based morals and cultural myths allowing more room for instinct. Women crave sex just as much as men and if the "slut" handle were done away with, females would behave on par with males.

When is a strong, positive female not a strong positive female?

... when she is on the tip of a blokes tongue.

Originally Posted by misskit

Women crave sex just as much as men and if the "slut" handle were done away with, females would behave on par with males.

only women among women seem to care about the "slut" handle,

all men love "slut" and will never complain about it, unless they are not getting any of it

^ Or married to one.

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Or married to one.

that could be a problem, indeed, as only men have the right to fool around when married, not women. Question of principle.

Originally Posted by misskit

Looper, if pair bonding is so important, then why are so many of us so damned bad at it? I think too much importance has been placed on it. Long term sexual pair bonding (romantic love) is illusive for most. Just look at the number of fathers all over the world, in every culture, who abandon their wives and children.

The newly culturally developed social freedoms of the last 100 years mean that pair-bonds tend to break down quicker than they used to when a bored partner thinks about the individuality-centred (new moral framework) alternatives to being stuck in their stale relationship-based role however there is still an overwhelming instinctive urge among humans to form a committed pair bond when thinking about having children. Do you not agree?

This is probably more true for women than for men. I think women get the instinctive baby bug stronger than men do. Men tend to grow into parenthood. Once a broody woman finds a guy who she thinks could be father material she will stick to him like a limpet. We call these these instinctive urges love for our partner. Do you deny that this raw and powerful pair-bonding emotion exists and dismiss it as cultural construction?

Maybe our cultural institutions will have to adapt to the newly invented experimental social freedoms of the 21st century but pair-bonding is in the DNA.

The reason is that human children go through a very long phase of post-natal development. They need to to be fed and clothed and they need to learn how the world works. It would pay evolutionary dividends if a man had an evolved urge to stick around his partner while the child is developing so he can give his own DNA the competitive developmental boost it needs.

These urges are in the psychological DNA. We call them love for our children. Are you now going to claim that a parent's love for his or her children above other peoples children is a social construction that we can sweep away with the 21st century cultural broom to make way for your brave new world? Open your eyes and look at how parents interact with and express feelings about their own biological children versus other children.

The fact that a second pregnancy and child will be along while the 1st is still being nurtured is where human long term pair-bonding comes from. Pair-bonding is in the DNA.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

all men love "slut" and will never complain about it

They will complain about it if they see it in a woman who one of their male friends or relations is considering as a partner for reproduction.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by misskit

Women crave sex just as much as men and if the "slut" handle were done away with, females would behave on par with males.

only women among women seem to care about the "slut" handle,

all men love "slut" and will never complain about it, unless they are not getting any of it

Brings to mind a video I watched recently where someone was doing interviews at one of these stupid feminist 'slut walks' you may have heard of.
They asked a group of 3 guys (not your SJW types) why they were there.
"oh we're here for the slut's"
Yeah, go the sluts, we're all for the sluts".

Zara Holland On Losing Her Miss GB Title After Love Island Romp

Here is a strong positive woman promoting a woman's right to make her own decisions on her sexual matters.

Your a boring bastard nervice nelly nerverna
How the fuck have you got over a 100 posts
A strong women is the one sucking my cock
Red that ye tit

Originally Posted by Neverna

Here is a strong positive woman promoting a woman's right to make her own decisions on her sexual matters.

Letting strangers grope her breasts in a public square is just an artist who has run out of ideas turning to the lowest common denominator of sex as a way to get attention.

Would you put your hand inside her mirrored box, Looper?

"While men have been known to wear their sexualities on their sleeves, women have been taught and trained to be more coy. According to studies by Meredith Chiver, and here discussed by Daniel Bergner, the way society thinks of women is far from accurate.

Daniel Bergner has spoken before about the societal ideas of women’s sexualities. There are many ingrained ideas of what women do want or should want, such as a safe and monogamous relationship, that makes digging into the scientific research very appealing. In experiments, however, women proved quite different from their stereotypes."

Daniel Berger: The Science behind Women?s Sexual Desire | Big Think

Deja Vu all over again.

When you start with the wrong premise you end up in lala land even with logical reasoning.

Looper's premise seems to be that the sexual drive = reproductive drive. This is as flawed as the premise that hunger = survival instinct.

You don't eat to survive, you eat because you're hungry. Same same sex.

The net result is survival of the individual and the species.


Here's an idea I haven't explored. The much-vaunted 'evolved' social sanction of blatant female sexuality is simply because way back when men just couldn't handle their women being so openly sexual and put the brakes on them with culture, religion and whatnot.

Not that culture 'evolved' because women just weren't naturally and openly sexual.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Would you put your hand inside her mirrored box, Looper?

She looks quite tasty and I would be more than happy to grope the inside of her box although I would prefer to do it somewhere quiet than in a public square in the middle of the day.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Deja Vu all over again.

When you start with the wrong premise you end up in lala land even with logical reasoning.

Looper's premise seems to be that the sexual drive = reproductive drive. This is as flawed as the premise that hunger = survival instinct.

You don't eat to survive, you eat because you're hungry. Same same sex.

The net result is survival of the individual and the species.


Here's an idea I haven't explored. The much-vaunted 'evolved' social sanction of blatant female sexuality is simply because way back when men just couldn't handle their women being so openly sexual and put the brakes on them with culture, religion and whatnot.

Not that culture 'evolved' because women just weren't naturally and openly sexual.

That's my stance too, though worded differently.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Neverna

Would you put your hand inside her mirrored box, Looper?

She looks quite tasty and I would be more than happy to grope the inside of her box although I would prefer to do it somewhere quiet than in a public square in the middle of the day.

Sorry dude, I think you're a decent chap, but I also think you are a prude and misguided. Your answer here strengthens my opinion.
You're saying you couldn't fondle (or not....it is hidden in the box) her breasts or vulva.

I would happily fondle her breasts or vulva either inside a box or not inside a box with or without mirrors on it. But I would not do it in a public square in the middle of the day with kids running around. Would you fondle your lady's breasts in a busy public square in the middle of the day?

Sex is an act normally carried out discreetly in private for good reasons. 'Artists' who think they are making a profound statement by simply offending normal public sensibilities about discretion around sexual activity are sad examples of their trade.

Inside the box IS private. Nobody can see (or truly know) what's going on in there.
Also....she's not your lady nor mine.

^
Don't be silly. If there's one of these boxes in a public place:

It's no secret what category of activity you're going in there for; even if the precise details are occluded.

I take FlyFree's point, but I don't think it's quite correct.

They're differentiating between:

"tactica" = "stratega"

I haven't made these words up. Tactica I believe is a term in evolutionary psychology and describes the specific response to a specific stimuli - "reaction", if you like. Stratega is like the context in terms of overarching inclusive fitness / adaptivity.

So like, the core survival drive is not a thought processes but a chemical reaction like rust. The stratega by which you achieve that are the adaptations to improve inclusive fitness (i.e.: probability of maintaining survival).
So the formation of groups is one behavioural adaptation, such that the group itself becomes like an organism, and interactions between members become self-regulating, and this results in tactica being refined, with defective tactica being selected out.

The notion of cultural conflict is quite similar to the idea of a disease infecting the group body and cells of the body fighting it off to maintain inclusive fitness... this is where all those "-isms" interfaces derive from - but a lot of them are not choices but reactions that in the context of inclusive fitness are rational.
So for example, and this has been tested in a formal study, babies respond differently to different races - and this is just a practical safety adaptation, and a way of the baby confirming that they are safe (it's not a thought process, it's an adaptation, which means those members of the species that had this behavioural mutation survived more than those that didn't - there's no judgementalism in genetics, it's just cold unemotional filters).
So turning to sex, tactica responses that seem to protect the reproductive process is rational in the context of inclusive fitness where this process can be under threat from unpredictable events or external actors. So for a third-worlder, closeting women and being prudish is rational; but in a north-west-european society it's less so. We seem to have retained an underlying selected-for sense that without a superficial set of rules and guidelines, that order will break down, and boundaries break down, and ancient threats emerge - the thin end fallacy it may be in intellectual terms, but in evolutionary psychology it's selected for within us, and it follows that the behavioural mutations that deviate away from this are in the minority because they have not been selected for. By the same token, there is a case for sexual deviancy in inclusive fitness as a normal process of mutations experimenting to allow other options... nature is like a blunderbuss and fires every option and whatever works is whatever works... sodomy is a particular problem in that, clearly it doesn't result in reproduction, but it does seem to play a role in social regulation in some societal systems. It makes no sense in the context of the reproductive drive unless you conclude that it helps protect the integrity of the group organism as a whole, even though on a tactica level it's a maladaptive/malfunctioning sexual drive, in the same sort of way that pushing food up your bum doesn't really result in quenching hunger, but it might make people laugh which results in lower risk of the group as a whole descending into self-destructive conflict and aids social bonding.

...off the top of me head, any road.