Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her.
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
The author in that paragraph doesn't speak at all about women's incapability to do those things. They are merely pointing out the distance in which men will go to impress a woman.
Originally posted by: alien42
"the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction."
i have never heard that before.
Originally posted by: Whisper
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
The author in that paragraph doesn't speak at all about women's incapability to do those things. They are merely pointing out the distance in which men will go to impress a woman.
The leap being that those things were all done, at least in part, to impress women. It's possible, yes, but it's still a leap without any actual support.
Originally posted by: Pandamonium
I read the intro and skimmed through the points; it was trash.
Off the top of my head:
1) Biology doesn't define behavior. We don't even understand how most of our enzymes spontaneously fold themselves. Who is any scientist to draw lines between biology and behavior?
2) Correlation is a statistical tool. It is not proof of anything. (See argument for primate mating size) Causation is what we care about, and this article offers no evidence for causation.
3) This one's good. See point 10, where they write about how men are interested in short term sex more than women are. There's good reasoning behind why that might be evolutionary, but what kills me is how they prove that men want sex more. Read it for yourself.
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: Whisper
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Anyone else think that article is mostly pseudoscience nonsense? And a bit sexist as well.
Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The author speaks as though men are the only ones who are capable of these things.
Women have done all of the things mentioned in this paragraph. Were they all just confused as to what their gender role is?
The author in that paragraph doesn't speak at all about women's incapability to do those things. They are merely pointing out the distance in which men will go to impress a woman.
The leap being that those things were all done, at least in part, to impress women. It's possible, yes, but it's still a leap without any actual support.
It's a leap to say that every time each of those tasks is accomplished is to impress women, but it's not much of a leap to say that there is at least one example to suit each of the mentioned scenarios.
I think you guys are taking the leaps rather than the author.
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Pandamonium
I read the intro and skimmed through the points; it was trash.
Off the top of my head:
1) Biology doesn't define behavior. We don't even understand how most of our enzymes spontaneously fold themselves. Who is any scientist to draw lines between biology and behavior?
2) Correlation is a statistical tool. It is not proof of anything. (See argument for primate mating size) Causation is what we care about, and this article offers no evidence for causation.
3) This one's good. See point 10, where they write about how men are interested in short term sex more than women are. There's good reasoning behind why that might be evolutionary, but what kills me is how they prove that men want sex more. Read it for yourself.
The study just confirms what everyone knows. And I know exactly what the response will be: "my wife/GF likes sex just as much as me!" Well great, you found one case. And hey, maybe you know 2 or 3 nymphos. That's fine. Maybe you know 10. Great. But you're the exception, not the rule.
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: Pandamonium
I read the intro and skimmed through the points; it was trash.
Off the top of my head:
1) Biology doesn't define behavior. We don't even understand how most of our enzymes spontaneously fold themselves. Who is any scientist to draw lines between biology and behavior?
2) Correlation is a statistical tool. It is not proof of anything. (See argument for primate mating size) Causation is what we care about, and this article offers no evidence for causation.
3) This one's good. See point 10, where they write about how men are interested in short term sex more than women are. There's good reasoning behind why that might be evolutionary, but what kills me is how they prove that men want sex more. Read it for yourself.
What's wrong with the method? What are they supposed to do, take a survey?