I understand how this doesn't seem to be choice, but it still is, even though It may only be a choice of which negative is the less heinous. In these cases, which have admitted complexities, it's the societal and familial pressure which determines her willingness to adhere to custom. Still, she does choose to adhere to cultural customes. Add the fact this is still a minority when related to all sexual activity in all cultures and even the animal kingdom.

I'm using the word choice in it's absolute meaning. ie, any time she has the option of saying no and doesn't, in other words it's rape or choice.

I realize it seems much more complicated than that, but bottom line is, I don't think it is.

The only real argument that I see, is if women were doing the pursueing and males therefore have the option of saying yes or no. This happens, no doubt, but it still lies within the minority and therefore doesn't address my statement that women drive evolution. That would have to be the majority, by definition.

Statutory rape is rape. Period. At least when discussing 13 year olds. Lacking the maturity to make a sound decision, these 13 year old girls are rape victims. Still, this must lie in the minority of all sexual acts, so is irrelevant to the question.

I'm holding women accountable to a larger degree than you are. Your position is much more sympathetic to females. Yes, I do feel some amount of sympathy for the more unequal situations women find themselves in, in some areas of the world, but I'm not argueing whether it's unfair, only whether it's consent.

Depends on how good you are at managing the social framework and manipulating the rapists. Some prison bitches are supposedly happy, and considering that they can often negotiate for the best perks and protection, it's no wonder. If they don't mind "doing their duty," they have it better than just about anybody else.

Remember that the gay rapists will tend to compete, and that will tend to result in relatively stable equilibria - no group can entirely overstep its bounds, because that would make enemies of all the other groups (and no one group can stand up to all the others at once). The platform of general conflict tends to mean that, assuming you're a valuable asset, you can drive the factions into a bidding war.

One faction can take you as an unwilling prisoner, but it will have to expend resources to do so, and there will always be a significant risk that you'll be captured by some other faction. If they can recruit you, they take on less risk and lower costs.

Plus being in an intimate space with a gay rapist can allow you to develop attachment and psychological influence. Men are dumb about that - through most of history, for example, the wife has been considered property of the husband, there has been no such thing as "rape" of one's wife, and so on. In other words, the husband had more or less absolute control and the capacity to physically make the wife do what he wanted.

And yet, the archetypes of the henpecked husband, the ambitious, upwardly-mobile wife, and even the "Cleopatra" figure all go back as far as human history. Women are good at turning things around on men and achieving the upper hand, even in conditions that strongly favor the man.

But generally, yeah, I'd rather have massive amounts of coercive power (be able to kick everyone's ass) than massive amounts of sexual power. On the other hand, the average man probably had very little of that. Women have basically all of the biological value, so behavior that's wholly destructive toward women can't be stable. Most men likely died before reaching adulthood, men on the bottom rungs of society were just **** out of luck, and men on the losing side of a battle were summarily slaughtered (their women were taken as slaves - so they got to survive - and many codes of law even provided that the captor was responsible for providing for them).

In the world of early civilization, having enough food to eat was a luxury, and one that women were much more likely to benefit from. Being the top male might be best in a society of gay rapists, but being desired by the rapists is a lot better than being a weak rapist. Given something like a veil of ignorance condition, I would choose to be an attractive victim well before I would choose to be a random rapist.

"No means no?" Tsk. We all know better than that, dear.

Having to initiate a conversation doesn’t seem like a proper justification for this. I am not sure if Jessica Alba actually holds more power in terms of choice than Bill Gates. In terms of physiology and behaviour it seems to be the women who are primarily the peacocks: unnecessarily large breasts, lighter skin colour, larger degree of hairlessness, silly clothing, silly jewellery, silly make-up and etc.

I tend to hold the ones who hold power accountable over those who don't.

Is this true? I know women survive famine better, but they also store fat better.

It's consistent with the data available. Certainly male mortality is always a few steps higher than female, as I mentioned some bodies of law require men to provide for their women (and polygamy tends to mean high-status men have whole harems of women - fewer women available to other men means the men successful enough to put food on the table were probably the ones who got to have wives), women actually need lots of food ("lots" relatively) to be reproductively viable, and fertility has always been valued, etc. And the prevalence of cultural trends like "women and children first" suggests to me that men are usually the ones who have to bite the bullet.

But it's not like there have been detailed records up until recently. I know that generally in modern societies, men are more likely to be homeless, men have to work the dangerous jobs (often men are the only ones who have to work at all), etc.

Not going to dispute this, but I think I would still rather be a random man in any time of history than a random woman. It might be better to be median woman than median man, but I would say overall eu is on men's side.

I think EU hits diminishing returns very quickly. I'd take a guaranteed position 60% down the ladder over a random position centered on the median any day. Avoiding the bottom 20% is huuuuge iyam. Whereas being on top of the ladder doesn't seem very interesting to me.

I mean, think about it - plenty of criminals were tortured to death. I wouldn't even take a "life of misery and starvation followed by torture" and "richest man in the world" coin flip, and in reality your likelihood of falling into the former category is much higher than that of falling into the latter.

With women, the high likelihood of rape has to be balanced with lower likelihood of murder, accidental death, and torture, but I still take female pretty much every time in every era.

I don't know. Being tortured to death is at most just a few hours of your life. Long-term mental well-being seems more important to me. Women tend to be more depressed and all that.

Higher rate of depression, not "more depressed." In terms of well-being, women tend to beat or equal men (in countries where there are measures, which may exclude those worst for women). Males have higher rates of schizophrenia, psychopathy, addiction, autism, and other nasties (higher rates of many disorders largely due to having only one X chromosome, which heightens the overall likelihood of genetic defects). Men are also many times more likely to kill themselves and to be the targets of violence.

Doesn't sound like male is good for well-being, I think females have males beat by a lot. But it's somewhat subjective due to limited information.

(Also, I think a few hours of a painful experience can be a bigger impact than you're suggesting. I've had 3-minute panic attacks that I would have given months of relative happiness to prevent.)

Obviously a quite extreme example as I think Taliban would rank pretty bad even historically, but I think I read that the rate of serious depression among women under Taliban rule was something like 95% by a survey. Women have more suicide attempts and higher rate of self-harm. Men actually report higher satisfaction in life. In countries with poor women's rights, the rates of domestic abuse are pretty sick.

Yes, I suppose we do. How about a woman saying no, but meaning convince me, or ravish me, and who ultimately "capitulates" (we know it isn't really capitulation, because this female never had the intent to refuse, only to induce greater seductive efforts by the male). She intends to fullfill her fantasy of male powerlessness before her overwhelming sexual appeal, by racheting up the stakes. Now the male can choose to forgo this party (I'm convinced men actually pick up signals this game's in play, otherwise more would simply walk away), or consent to the price being asked, verification of her sexual desirability, even when the cost includes a potential rape charge.

This scenario definitely defines the female as more sexually powerful. Despite appearances, everything is her choice. The poor male is left either with an erection and no place to put it (by refusing to play) or willingly acknowledging her sexual charms are such that he'll jump through personally dangerous hoops to posess her.

I wouldn't worry about copying alphas because I bet you will just miss out on the things that make your life more balanced based on who you really are.

Pick up a copy of Mindsight by Daniel Siegel.

I am sure. They don't make anything like a pedometer to keep track of number of partners...

Anyway, it seems that in older generations there is quite a bit of revisionist history when it comes to "more innocent times." The drive to put boy parts and girl parts together largely trumps social concerns.

The bigger problem is getting attached to the potential swine. As a fellow divorced person, I would say that it was not a problem of bedding my ex, but only a problem of wedding her.

I thought you meant it in the religious sense...

I meant, once a gal gets pregnant, she loses any way of becoming pregnant by a more suitable man for quite a bit of time...

From an evolutionary point of view, this is correct. However, "born and reproduces" is probably a factor. I can't imagine that children of rape are cared for nearly as well as voluntarily conceived.

Not sure how the numbers work out. Completely sure that it is unimportant for anything resembling morality. Also pretty sure that rape is a suboptimal evolutionary strategy or can be made suboptimal.

I do tend to agree.

I wouldn't say undue efforts at convincing are nice, but they do not rise to the level of reprehensible... Some of the more emotionally fragile girls seem to find the undue efforts to be upsetting and don't get over it for years though, so I am unsure...

We don't actually need to worry about such things. Vaginas and penises are nearly equally common.

We are largely a pair-bonding lot. Ever walk around a Walmart? Ugly people have just as good a chance (specifically, nearly guaranteed) of getting a mate as the pretty folk.

Are you trying to point out that you have to demonstrate fitness in order to get your first choice in mates? Even Ricky Smith gets a girl in the end. Not his first choice, but nonetheless, a girl. Please note that Ricky's gal was not even considered as a mate by any other character. (<--Better Off Dead reference.) Ugly people do ugly people. Pretty people do pretty people.

Or are you trying to point out that boys have less personal cost in mating? Men can't lose more than a night by mating, as long as they are willing to walk away. Seems rather fair that I don't demand too much for my sperm. I've got plenty to go around. I doubt that you can find an argument that 100 pennies should be worth more than a dollar. Add in that men have 100 pennies on average, and women a dollar on average, and your power argument falls into dust.

(Wait, maybe my sarcasm detector is busted...)[/QUOTE]

The words "self and "reported" and the hyphen inbetween were key.

Long-term monogamy isn't particularly common. Four years per serial monogamous mate seems to be the mostest average-ish.* Still, for every male released from serial monogamy, a female is released also. One-to-one relationships don't tend to lead to strange economic circumstances.

Where polygamy allowed, you will find a larger number of males at war with another group (causing a dearth of males), and when culture persists despite lack of war, stolen kisses predominate.

However, we (me, you, specifically) don't need to worry too much about such things in excusing our number and quality of mating partners.

*I would say that those who last longer have done particularly well in repeatedly making the same 4-year pair bond. Most of us screw this up the first couple or more of go arounds.

That's quite the fantastic scenario. Of course, in the real world the real man has the power in this spot. All he has to do is......

Wait, I've sworn an oath. Never mind.

Melodrama is far superior to boredom. You get to examine your own thoughts and their thoughts. There's nothing I like better than a good conversation.

I don't know that referrence, except having something to do with westerns. Of course I'm not a western kind of girl. The strong silent type isn't my first choice.

The ups and downs just give us a chance to play around a bit. Having a stable baseline creates continuity.

I've always been curious about that. Men know strippers are there to make money, and everything they do is intended to further that goal. What's so appealling about that? I would've expected strip clubs to decline in number with the upswing of female freedom in sexuality.

I have a friend (whom I respect a great deal), and he's always said he wants to be involved with a stripper. The only justification I can see is the desire to obtain freely what everyone else pays for. But you still have to talk to them. How can that balance out?


I'm still thinking about a thread we had with question of mankinds uniqueness in relationship to everything else. Obviously their DNA determines their degree of difference, but how does the neural connections fit in? Does it make us more unique?

When I was very young, I decided I'd found the answer to this question. If there are multiple universes, and every decision tosses you into a new one. Plus every possible combination of actions exists within these infinite universes, then man could both have free will, and every possible outcome would be known. At the time it meant God could be omnicient and man could have free will. I've outgrown believing in God, but it's still an interesting concept.

I can't wait till you can come visit. Strip clubs may not be the most entertaining venue, but I'll find something to tickle your fancy.

Words from the wise to the curious. Being insane might be kind of interesting.

Imagine if they did. How would it effect rates of promiscuity? If every woman wore a sexometer, and was fully aware every partner would be displayed on her facebook page, would this increase or decrease total number of partners? I guarantee it would effect type of partners.

Yea, it's kind of like the "false memories" (or something like that) where emotionally distressed, allegedly sexually abused, people tend to falsely remember details of molestation under hypnosis, except in that case, it's designed to remove responscibility for distress, where in the case of elderly people, criticizing current events in favor of nostalgic memories of their own youth, is avoiding a sense of envy for modern society, and enhancing their own feeling of being lucky in the time they lived, while maintaining a sense of superiority for the way they lived it. It's all self delusion.

Either way the memories/thoughts are mere illusions. No doubt there was more sex that was less satisfying than reports would have you believe.

Or more clearly the act of terminating the wedded part of it. Oh yes, I can identify with the feeling, although I will confess, after a little time passed, and fury (plus guilt for feeling furious when I was the one wanted out)abated, I saw my husbands for what they were. Nice people whom I lacked the maturity to realize were incapable of satisfying my long term needs. Although there was that one literal oinker, who I'd have unwaveringly traded for a good pork chop, and remained certain I got the best of it.

Naa. I attended a southern babtist church as a pre-teen, but even then cared more for the field trips and summer craft fairs than any sense of knowing a creator. I feel lucky even this aspect of religiousity was quickly squelched as I became more knowledgable of science, and some of the more rediculous, even self denying, aspects of christianity.

I don't understand how anyone could believe the commonly perpetuated myth without completely shutting down their brain to any other thoughts or outside input.

I guess I need to take more care to ensure I'm communicating clearly. lol

Any difference in overall rates would be small, I think.

Probably not overall. It would certainly change the odds of friending one's parents.

I think it would effect the type towards an overall betterhood. I think this is clearly true on the extremes. People who have a paraphilia for virginity (aka, silly religious folk) would be better off knowing ahead of time, for instance.

I can only think of one person who would not benefit overall.


Exactly. I expect that at some point me and you will pine for times when people discussed things soberly on the internet.

Don't know about the satisfaction part. Certainly, there was more sex than admitted.

Well said.

In other words, you had social needs. You are certainly lucky that your social needs have been met, despite your rational needs.

In other words, they had social needs. They are certainly lucky that their rational needs have not gotten in the way of their social needs.

That would take at least 1/2 the fun out of this.

I don't know, I see it a little differently. Most women I've overheard discussing their secret liasons, (I seldom actually have this conversation with women, (or any other to be honest), take serious pains to keep their slumming silent. (the details are whispered about in bathroom stalls) Don't forget, a woman's status among both males and females is highly correlated to the male she's ****ing.

And one's spouse. Not to mention the necessity of keeping ones password safely tucked away from prying eyes.

Paraphilia: atypical or perverse desires. lol Great way to describe the desire for virginity! It seems to me these men just want to ensure she has nobody to compare them too.

I've been unsuccessfully racking my brain. Who would that be?

No doubt we'll pine, even more, for the times we discussed things not so soberly, while not so sober.

I think exaggerating a partners talent is pretty much a universal attribute. It enhances his status, (and hers, for taming such a catch).

Oddly enough, you've encouraged me several times to examine my misanthropy more closely, only to find it lacking.

A very generous method of making sense out of the non-sensable.

Um humm. I think so too. (but will never admit I admitted it).

Perhaps incorrect of me to ask here, but how is beauty/physical attraction actually measured anyway?

There are underlying features that are deemed attractive in the majority of cultures, such as decently sized hips/breasts. Some features are deemed attraction based on more individual reasons, whether that is because of a stereotype being correlated with that feature which meets one's perfect match template(based on what one hates and loves about themselves) or some ego related reasons, or because of biodiversity reasons, the latter is what intrigues me the most. As silly as it may sound, why wouldn't people be attracted to people who have features that deem them not to be healthy/child-bearing/strong for this reason? Or are some people actually attracted to this? From what I've read, these underlying features people are attracted to arise from sex hormones(estrogen/testosterone) If this is so, why doesn't people produce more of these to give them a edge?

Yes I'm aware I'm naive



As for the whole arousal talk, I stumbled across a theory yonks ago which gave explanation to everything you guys mentioned. However, I can't find any references to it =/ I suspect it was from my Psychology text books back at high school.

Anyway, goes like this: there's a switch between different arousal modes, one is for when parasympathetic nervous system(rest and digest) and the other is nervous system(flight or fight) One can only be sexually aroused when the parasympathetic nervous system is activated. The arousal levels between the two states are equally congruent(for a lack of a better word) with each other, meaning if one increases their sympathetic nervous arousal levels by 80 points to let's say 100 via a threat, than when the threat is deemed to be no longer present and consequently the individual is now in the parasympathetic nervous system mode, his arousal levels are now at 100, meaning he/she really wants to ****; the arousal levels between the two modes are directly and uniformly proportional to each other, they're the same.

Let me begin by clarifying some of your terminology. The central nervous system is comprised of the brain and the spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is all the other nerves, conduits, etc. Within the central nervous system, you have the Autonomic nervous system, which contains a further devision into sympathetic nervous system (SNS) or fight or flight ( primarily controlling adrenergic chemicals like noreppinephrine) and parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), which is the rest/digest action (essentially bringing the body back to normal from it's fight or flight response) It's called the cholinergic response and the primary neurochemical is acetylcholine. These two systems work in opposition to each other, to maintain a balance which is useful to the momentary state. Blocking either response will result in the other (and it's corresponding symptoms and signs) to take precidence.

I'm a little confused by whether you mean just sexual arousal, or system stimulus. Neither of the systems operate in a vacuum. Both are dependent on each other to establish the preferred baseline, and independent of each other in acting on the body's signaling hormonal status. Both act concurrently. I assume you're aware of their physiological actions.

I've never heard of sexual arousal acting only within the parsympathetic activation, and seriously doubt it's true, because physiologically, sexual stimulus activates the SNS, (remember the elevated pulse, respirations, and blood pressure?). PNS returns these to normal levels. I've heard the SNS activates erection while the PNS induces orgasm, making both highly necessary and desireable. I doubt it's an on/off switch, but a balance maintained by inducing appropriate response.

You were talking initially about how sexual attractiveness occurs within the framework of evolutionary suitability. Obviously you're aware of the standard answer of evolution. ie, we are attracted to symmetry in face and form, and respond to sexual and secondary sexual characteristics. These tend to demonstrate healthy reproductive ability. But there's more to it than that. Apparently the easiest method of determining pair-bond suitability is to compare aspects of genetics which determine the immune sytem. Each couple having no duplicated immune markers, indicates twice as many elements of immunity in offspring. Duplication leaves one susceptible to the diseases lacking immunity markers.

But we don't have to do lab tests to determine genetic viability. These markers are recognized by us as scent. All we have to do is sniff. Have you ever met someone who just smelled good to you? This indicates fewer genetic duplications, and a healthier reproducing pair-bond.

Now let's talk about the social determinations of beauty, aka, the Miss Universe contest. There are certain criteria, accepted by the judges to determine attractiveness, Things like an oval face, long neck, small feet, a certain waist-to-hip ratio (saw a tv program on it once.) These attributes themselves, probably originated from evolutionary foundations, but they're now accepted as cultural signs of beauty.

You aren't naive. You have more knowlege already than the vast majority of people. I wish I could tell you more, actually I wish I knew more myself. Hopefully someone more knowledgable will come along and enlighten us both. In the meantime, maybe this will give you something to think about.

I'm quite confused about what you mean when you say, "system stimulus" What system and what stimulus?

hmrmmm, to be honest I cannot remember for sure if my books actually stated it was a switch, it was how I seemed to store it though, quick glance through Wikipedia doesn't mention it either. Makes me question if my whole belief of it all is incorrect. Perhaps there's opposing forces at play and arousal levels are indicative of which (para)sympathetic nervous system is having a more effect, but than how would sexual stimuli differ from threatening, aaaaaah, hence the above talk. My original theory could still be valid; It could be somewhat of a switch; when approaching female for sexy times, there's the arousal levels arising from the sexual desire brought on by the parasympathetic system, but it's constantly flicking(alternating?) over between the states as the threat of pissing someone of for approaching said female is brought to mind, and perhaps once the script has been executed it doesn't immediately stop, but that doesn't factor in the whole SNS being responsible for erection thing, which I find bizarre


Find it somewhat amusing that you make a assumption that I knew all that, then proceed to teach me it all.(seriously pondered on deleting this as wasn't sure if it was douchey, was it douchey?)I didn't realise that the immune system compatibility was such a strong force; how valid was your source? I also wasn't aware it worked it worked in terms of markers covering certain diseases, interesting.


The very act of them judging beauty and reporting it influences the perceptions of beauty. I don't believe all beauty standards are based on some physical evolutionary fundamentals, I think some are created via socialisation.

It sounds like a western, but it's set in the modern day. Paul Newman goes to prison and deals with an existential crisis.

Well, stability and unpredictability in terms of mood are both double-edged swords. Too much instability or a too-low baseline don't end well. Though, I've always been attracted to emotional instability (or something that tends to go along with it, at least).

"Female freedom" doesn't mean every guy is getting laid. On the contrary. Regardless, looking at partially-clothed women is fun, and I imagine that's why most men go. On the other hand, looking at partially-clothed women results in a very strong desire to touch partially-clothed women, and it goes on from there. I'd rather stick to porn, porn doesn't ask for more money.

I've never understood an attraction to strippers per se, or even lap dances or things like that (without a happy ending). In some cases a naive guy might assume strippers are freaky or good in bed. I guess some guys get a buzz from the trashy type, and for some guys there's just a heavy attraction. I don't think dating a stripper generally accords much respect among men - at least outside of certain circles (usually not the more sophisticated circles).

Then again, there are plenty of exceptions. It doesn't seem very masculine to me, but I suppose a lot of guys see strippers as objects of desire, and dating an object of desire may pump the guy up. I've never seen strippers that way - to me they're usually the undesirable types. A lot of men look at strippers, of course, but that's because the more desirable types rarely take their clothes off in public. But my taste in women runs almost opposite strippers, so maybe I'm too biased to reasonably speculate.

Well, it's not the only complex biological system around. Obviously it does some things that other don't do, but I still think the idea of something intrinsically "special" is baseless. "Special" is a classification that human beings apply, not some otherworldly attribute of a particular object. I guess that makes humans the arbiters of "special," which means human beings are as likely to be considered "special" as anything, but I still say it's a relative classification.

Using the terminology accepted here in SMP, that would just be a form of determinism.

I'll have to get around to it, I've been nearly killed by a bunch of new video games lately, but I'm getting there. It takes me a long time to set down roots in a new place.

I've had too much experience with it to think I'd like it. Partly I value control too much. Though I think it's a continuum, really - a little insanity just means your delusions and hallucinations are off the beaten path, a necessary quality in anybody who isn't boring.