Do males desire females more, or vice versa? (And why)

For what it's worth, I don't know much about ancient society, I'm just using that as a hypothetical thought experiment to suggest how the prior popularity of All Women Are Lustful could be reconciled with the notion that modern stereotypes are probably closer to the truth. I'm not claiming to know for certain, of course, but it is what came to mind when Black Humor brought up ancient stereotypes about sexuality in this thread.

To be clear here, this isn't EXCLUSIVELY about sex. This is about both sex and romance, because the two subjects, though not the same, are interconnected, and may as well be discussed in the same thread. From what I gather, the more popular stereotype about sex is that men want sex with women more than women want sex with men. I agree with this stereotype, and will go into detail later. As for romance, I can't tell whether the "guys want girls more" or "girls want guys more" stereotype is more popular in that context, but personally, I would go with the former. Overall, I think men want women more than vice versa, both sexually and romantically.

For why I think this, let's look at both the input (causes) and output (effects) of such differences.

Input would be things like human nature. Well, what drives human nature? When we talk about nature and nurture, we need to remember that nurture itself is a result of human nature. That alone suggests it comes back to nature on some level or another.

First off, there's the notion that eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap, hence women will be biologically inclined to be more selective of sexual partners and men would be more inclined to spread their seed. When we look at species other than our own, it seems more often the males are trying to have sex with the females, while the females are fending them off like pests. I'm not suggesting it's quite this extreme in human society, but I do think that, given the common ancestry, it would tend to be in the same direction for humans.

Of course, this just applies to sex so far. But romance eventually boils down to the emotional side of sexual attraction, which is why I expect the overall direction of sexual desire to correspond with that of emotional desire.

Output would be things like attitudes. Double standards like those in the context of forced kissing, romantic stalking, and even sexual abuse. They are listed in descending order of my tolerance for such double standards, but are all influenced by a similar idea; a guy not wanting to be kissed by or be chased by or have sex with a girl is odd and/or ungrateful.

For something milder like forced kissing, I recall growing up with things like Honey We Shrunk Ourselves, where a guy kissing a girl without her permission is treated pretty much as sexual harassment, whereas I'd have sworn some of what I grew up with had girls kissing guys without their permission in contexts ranging from "opening his mind" to girls, to being "karma" for him thinking that Girls Have Cooties. (Though the latter strikes me as rather spiteful.) Again, we're dealing with something I'd consider mild and I'd guess other guys would consider mild, so this is more of an example than a complaint. I don't think it'd be so popular if guys minded forced kissing as much as girls did.

Stalking and rape... well, double standards there are ones I'm less fond of (especially the latter given the potential consequences) but they outline their own double standards on their own pages.

But putting aside the double standards, what about expressed attitudes towards sexual and romantic desire? I often hear of women saying that a women needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle. How often do we hear of men saying similar things about women?

"I often hear of women saying that a women needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle. How often do we hear of men saying similar things about women?"

This is bitterness speaking. It's culturally ingrained in us that a single woman is a failure, and that a single guy is on top of his game.

"as a fish needs a bicycle" That would be 100% true... unless the woman was straight. Then it'd be true... Aside from sexual needs.

Having sex is a biological need, like eating or sleeping. You get all kinds of fucked up in the noggin' when you don't get any for a long time. If those women are straight, they'd eventually need men for sex.

Sexuality not being a factor, men could think pretty much the same of women. Aside from the sex, there's nothing a Love Interest can provide that is not provided by the bros at a lesser cost.

Same thing, same reasons, really.

We might not "need" each other aside from sex... Then again, thing is, we do need sex. And for some reason, humans as a whole prefer to have sex with people they're close-ish with. Or perhaps it's the sex itself that causes the bonds. Eventually, even though they're sort of inconvenient, relationships form.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:35:45 PM by SavageHeathen

"Aside from the sex, there's nothing a Love Interest can provide that is not provided by the bros at a lesser cost."

Good to know you're so open about your intimate thoughts and dreams with all your bros as opposed to one trusted partner.

Nah, I'm not generally open about those with nobody unless weed, beer and parallel navel-gazing are involved.

I meant that friends provide companionship an an outlet for expression, too. I mean, aside from sex, there's few a couple provides and friends don't... Is it?

(gotta admit, most relationships I've had have been of the fuck buddies variety, so I might have been missing on some stuff closer bonds have)

edited 8th Jun '11 7:29:47 PM by SavageHeathen

If people need sex, are monks inhuman?

All kinds of fucked up?

edited 8th Jun '11 7:27:49 PM by SavageHeathen

But aren't we all in one way or another?

I dunno, I think sex is a little overrated... loving yourself is perfectly fine.

Are your bros willing to share bank accounts with you? You must have some fine friends.

True enough. But we're getting all Yack Fest-y.

Not all relationships involve shared bank accounts. You must be thinking of marriage.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:30:52 PM by SavageHeathen

Nope.

Sex is a biological imperative, not a biological need. Lack of sleep, water, oxygen will kill you; your inability to find a sexual partner won't.

Cultural values don't change overnight. It's not like all the men of Ugh-Blah-Urgha valley gathered together for the sole purpose of deciding what their values, present and future, were going to be.

"Okay, so for the first century, we've gotta make sure that women only pick berries in the field, while we men can go hunting. In the second century, we'll try out your idea and switch them around. That's fair, right?"

It doesn't happen that way. Our cultural perceptions of gender are the product of religious, political, and social factors, among other things.

Before I read this post:

I didn't read the actual post except for the first couple of sentences, so I'll just say that the title to this thread is stupid.

After I read this post:

The title is still stupid. What you have described is a cruel double standard, and a rather old one at that. I say it needs to be tossed.

I was arguing for they need/desire each other about equally, but I took the occassion to joke about the whole issue.

I thought the deal was that females merely appear on average to desire males less, as a result of females having stronger disincentives against openly expressing and seeking satisfaction of said desires.

Yeah... I'm a woman who desires women more than men. I desire men too, I'm just a little more picky about it. Giant, manly, bulging muscles are unacceptable to me. Being a healthy weight and having a cute face to go along with a cute personality is enough.

Women have to be more careful when going about looking for men because 1) Whether intentionally or not, they can get you pregnant and 2) They are physically stronger and can be more intimidating than women, so once a girl enters an abusive relationship with a man it's surprisingly hard to leave.

Of course, Neo will probably use this as proof that women are always Chaotic Evil or something.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:38:47 PM by LilPaladinSuzy

Already refuted the sex parts over on the other thread, so I'm just gonna link you to it.

EDIT: Also, a relevant quote from Lysistrata:

edited 8th Jun '11 7:44:02 PM by BlackHumor

@OP: Didn't Morven already warn you about this crap? Come on man.

Can we get a lock here?

Probably for the best. There's not gonna be a lot of meaningful discussion, and there's gonna be lots of mindless rambling and blathering about semi-related stuff. It can't be helped: This properly belongs in Yack Fest.

edited 8th Jun '11 7:45:40 PM by SavageHeathen

Yes, really would be nice if you could leave off the gender threads for a bit like you were expressly asked to by a mod, neo.

Locking.