The posts here seem to be focused on why it would be considered unusual, but let's not conflate that with it being considered bad. Unusual can be good. (It's unusual to be a professional athlete, but most people wouldn't consider that a bad thing.)
As for the male being the hunter, and the female the hunted, even then turning down sex would not imply he was the hunted any more than accepting it would. It just means the hunt was less successful.
As for being mistaken for gay, the problem there is not just the homosexuality in and of itself, but the added implication that if the guy identifies as straight, then being gay would in turn imply being either dishonest or in denial. * Though at least in that case, the conclusion sort of has something to do with the premise, even if it doesn't quite follow, which is more than can be said for associating things like sentimentality with homosexuality.
Odd thing is, I myself am a little biased against the decision to turn down sex, partly because I think there is probably some truth to the notion that males are hornier than females, (even if not as much as society claims) and in turn I'm inclined to think of the opportunity for sex as something a guy should at least appreciate. This doesn't mean I consider it unmanly to turn it down; I'm not very fond of conventional notions of manliness in the first place. It doesn't mean I think the males should be the ones doing the chasing; on the contrary, I would think that if the females are doing the chasing, that would be easier for males if only because they would have a bit more assurance that the females they are being paired with really are into them. * I guess it really depends on the reason for which sex was turned down; fidelity to a current partner is honourable; avoidance of significant physical risks is wise; yet without a given reason these kinds of things don't necessarily come to mind so quickly.
So here I am, a guy with my own mild biases against one thing, questioning the assumption that popular opinion looks down on the same thing; then again, I'm not most people. Also, the things other people supposedly find bad about it are things I don't necessarily consider bad things. That's... interesting, to say the least.
...
On a sidenote, as I typed this post Loni Jay's Rarity beret avatar was stuck in my mind, and I think I am now permanently inclined to associate this conversation with it, and/or vice versa. o.o
edited 10th Mar '12 8:18:08 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartHonestly, I don't see the issue with it. I never have. I know for a fact that, personally, I couldn't sleep with anyone I wasn't genuinely attracted to - in terms of personality and actual, romantic attraction - without feeling terrible about it later. I learned this from experience, and it only took the one time before I started avoiding opportunities for that circumstance to arise again.
I've always wanted a relationship and emotional connection with a girl well ahead of wanting to just get laid. Sex is certainly good, but without actually caring about the other person, it doesn't mean anything to me. And why should I waste my time on something that doesn't mean anything to me?
As to the perception... my personal stance is that sex is entirely a personal thing. You either go for it for your own reasons or you don't. If you don't, well, oh well - you made a choice. It's none of my business why.
Perhaps I'm just less judgmental than some of my friends, though.
"Lock up your girlfriends, lock up your wives, Grim's on the loose so run for your lives." - Pyrite![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Classical conditioning at its finest.
I am not convinced that the idea that males are hornier than females has much merit. It certainly is the prevailing narrative right now, and I know of no hard data either way; but I am rather confident that this is one of the cases in which individual variance greatly outstrips any possible difference in average.
Both males and females run the whole gamut from "asexual" to "sex addict", with most falling somewhere in the middle: even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the male average is higher than the female average, it would not follow that a randomly selected male would be, with high probability, hornier than a randomly selected female.
And yes, that beret is rather striking.
EDIT:
Let me make a numeric example, just to make it clear what I am talking about: suppose that there are only four males and four females in the world, and their "horniness ratios", on a 1—10 scale, were
1 6 8 10
and
1 4 9 10
respectively. Then the male average is 6.25 and the female average is 6, and therefore it is true that males are, "on average", hornier than females. However, in such a universe, it would be a very bad idea to go and assume that any male is hornier than any female.
edited 11th Mar '12 12:01:50 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.It's almost impossible, I think, to distinguish the general discourse and cultural narratives of these ideas from actual biological substance that generates behavior.
At least for us, laymen, perhaps evolutionary biologists and psychologists/culture-theoreticists/anthropologists working together could start to distinguish between the two.
And neither can I tell which of these factors are more prevailing in modifying behavior.
So what I am saying is that without knowing all these things I couldn't care less about how it is perceived males or females should act in regards to expressing their sexuality and every personal interpretation is to me equally valid.
'It's gonna rain!'![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
But even in your sample, it still means a random pairing is more likely to involve a hornier male than to involve a hornier female; and that how much more likely is proportional to difference in average. I don't know who suggests that every male is hornier than every female.
But again, all this still doesn't necessarily imply that it would be seen as a bad thing so much as an unusual one.
edited 11th Mar '12 9:48:34 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartI think it usually is seen as a bad thing. I know it certainly is in the circles I run with. That's to be expected in a macho, male-only environment like the Infantry. We are expected to adhere to the "normal" standards of manliness, and many of us try to. I believe I mostly do, but that's more because I've always been that way rather than trying to fulfill the role expected of me. At least, I hope that's the reason, although I won't rule out subconscious fulfilling of expected stereotypes. I certainly have some hobbies not generally deemed "normal" or "acceptable" within my sub-culture. Specifically, comic books, tabletop games, art, cooking, and TV Tropes. But I guess an aggressive personality, shooting, fighting and general alcoholic debauchery outweigh those "weird" pastimes.
Sorry, starting to go into a self-centered tangent there. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that yes, turning down sex is very much considered bad in many male-dominated circles, especially the Army. I personally don't see anything wrong with it as long as there's a good reason for it, like religious concerns, or now that the Army changed the rules, homosexuality. I do become suspicious when men say they "just didn't feel like it" and don't give any kind of concrete reason, though. Personally, I've turned down sex a few times but always because the girl wasn't attractive, she was married, or I was focusing on another girl who I found more attractive for whatever reason. There was another officer in my old unit in Germany who was a virgin at 25, but for religious reasons. Most of us respected his choice, even if we didn't necessarily agree with it or understand the ability to even remain celibate, but there were a few guys who weren't understanding. They saw his self-imposed virginity as a sign towards possible homosexuality, which they thought of as a bad thing. The guy was very big and strong, weighing about 230 of solid muscle, and he could get aggressively "affectionate" when very drunk. That was also supposedly a gay sign. I didn't agree at all, since I knew him well.
@Joyce: Very, very true. The few women I've turned down were not happy about it. Sometimes I've said yes when I didn't really want to, just to avoid the trouble that would result from saying no. I guess society sees a woman being rejected sexually as even worse than a man who rejects her. Since women are supposed to be the hunted, when they hunt they better get what they want. So when they don't, it's like the ultimate slap in the face.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.It's completely irrelevant anyway.
Most of evolutionary psychology is bs anyway, but even if not it would make no difference. It doesn't matter if it's biological or cultural. The problem is making such group categorizations in the first place! Why would it any matter if men or women are hornier? Why not look at individuals, regardless of group?
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficIn any case, it is human nature is to categorize people. Age of consent laws are not based on individual maturity, they are based on social standards of when one is to be mature based on averages relating to age. If someone had sex with a significantly less mature person of the same age, they could say it is not their fault the other person is less mature. *
Ideally, we should encourage people to see each other as individuals, rather than parts of a group, but in reality there's only so much we can do about that.
As for dismissing evolutionary psychology as BS, it seems misguided to dismiss a whole means of reasoning about human nature. It is not an inherent conclusion. If you disagree with a specific conclusion that happened to be promoted with it, refute it on its own merits, or even just cite someone else's counterargument. Dismissing it is not the same thing as refuting it.
edited 11th Mar '12 11:06:56 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartWell to be honest, I've never seen that attitude myself within my social circles. Perhaps I just randomly were with people who didn't feel this way, but while I keep seeing the stereotype from America that "men must be heterosexual, lose their virginity at an early age and must never turn down sex", I've never actually seen it in real life. In fact, where I am, men/women are treated equally and expected to accept sex as part of a consensual relationship, "sleeping around" is seen as bad for both males and females.
So really, I don't think the attitudes about who should be having sex and when are at all universal.
Well I prefer not to name too much personal information for any discussion but basically Greater Toronto Area and surrounding cities. Within this area, I'm sure you can find people who think a man "gay" for turning down sex but it all depends who you hang out with. Also, immigrant communities tend to heavily frown upon men having a lot of random sex (but not necessarily frown upon sex before marriage).
Actually, whenever I go down to America I'm regularly surprised but what I view as an excessively "I'm not gay"/macho society. As if a man has to regularly declare his heterosexuality.
In my experiences, people actually respect if your personal beliefs are why you keep chaste. It's when you avoid the question that you are ridiculed.
Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!Tons of places! Essentially from anywhere!
Or to put it another way, where do you think the social pressures for girls to wear pink came from? Cause it sure wasn't from biology; as far as I can tell from historical sources it is an entirely arbitrary norm set mainly by WW 2 era department stores and totally could have gone the other way quite easily. In fact, if you examine gender norms in detail, you find this kind of arbitrariness in almost every case. In this case I could quote to you from medieval joke books and ancient Greek plays that imply women have equal or greater libidos than men, respectively.
edited 11th Mar '12 6:01:23 PM by BlackHumor
![]()
Black Humor, saying it extends back to biology is not the same thing as claiming the real differences to be exactly identical to perceived ones. If someone looked at an independent pendulum (ie. not part of a clock or anything like that) slowly swinging back and forth, and claimed it was pushed to one side or the other at some point or else it would be pointing straight down, doesn't mean they're claiming it started from the same side it was at when they said it.
And like a pendulum doesn't spontaneously move just from hanging there, with no differences between the sexes, from what would people get the impression there was one? Perhaps some people overestimated the difference, or perhaps in trying to correct for that sort of thing people went too far in the other direction. Point is, one way or another, it eventually boils down to biology, as that is ultimately the core of the difference between males and females to begin with.
I happen to think this particular difference is in the same general direction as the perceived one, * even if not necessarily to the same extent, but I am also willing to at least look at reasoning why it would be the other way around.
... but let's not conflate thinking there is a biological reason for perceiving a difference with thinking the biological difference is the exact same as the perceived one. More to the point, not everyone who agrees that biological differences should at least be discussed instead of ignored agrees on what those differences are.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Has there been any actual data supporting the evolutionary biology claim though? And how did they filter out the cultural influence and what is the scale of such study?
I vaguely remember a New Scientist article talking about how the field of Psychology is beginning to realize that quite a lot of their experiments are skewered towards middle class white people, because usually they get their samples from university students.
Just throwing my two cents in real quick about something that was commented on earlier in the conversation - it can actually be a bad thing for a straight male to be thought of as gay. Not in a moral way (or at least, it shouldn't be), but if word gets around that you're gay, you might find it significantly harder to attract the attention of females that you do want to sleep with. So I can definitely understand not wanting to be thought of as gay; it doesn't require homophobia, just pragmatism.
Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

That pretty much sums up human social interaction, in that case.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.