So 95% right makes for a less interesting read, but there's still something I can comment on:
"because it evolved in at least two different species. Human female sexual desire is probably so old, that parts of it evolved in our pre-human ancestors."
OK, yes. But then, why is male sexuality not ambivalent? To explain the difference, one rea…
So 95% right makes for a less interesting read, but there's still something I can comment on:
"because it evolved in at least two different species. Human female sexual desire is probably so old, that parts of it evolved in our pre-human ancestors."
OK, yes. But then, why is male sexuality not ambivalent? To explain the difference, one really needs to focus on causes that *separate* the sexes. So how did humans live, as pseudo chimps and as foragers? Males have been traditionally exposed to much greater danger from hunting, fighting, and raiding. Obviously cowardly or anxious males who panicked or fled in the face of danger faced ostracism and punishment from their fellow tribesmen, and this over time this would create selective pressure on males for reduced anxiety and heightened physical bravery. Females faced different pressures; they are physically weaker than males, and highly vulnerable during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Additionally, females were the primary caregivers to their offspring. They needed to connect emotionally with them to understand their needs and persevere through long nights of tears and tantrums without harming their children, and those who didn't notice threats might fail to protect their offspring, resulting in selective pressure in favor of sensitivity for females.
Today the primary psychological sex difference between men and women (approaching 1 full SD) is on Emotionality, a broad trait relating directly to these differences:
"Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale experience fear of physical dangers, experience anxiety in response to life's stresses, feel a need for emotional support from others, and feel empathy and sentimental attachments with others. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are not deterred by the prospect of physical harm, feel little worry even in stressful situations, have little need to share their concerns with others, and feel emotionally detached from others."
Unsurprisingly, this has downstream consequences on sexuality, such that (for example) people high in Emotionality are less likely to endorse sexual activity without emotional attachment. (Ashton, M. C.; Lee, K. (2008). "The prediction of Honesty–Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (5): 1216)
In other words, this post could have just been titled "The Ambivalent Nature of Female," because Emotionality makes the ladies naturally ambivalent about everything. As an adolescent, a girl I knew was always talking about ambivalence as her baseline emotional state. My first fiancee was ambivalent enough that she never became Mrs. Apple Pie. My sense is that men sort of have to learn that ladies who get angry at you want to get close to you, because even though they're angry, they then become anxious about this, and *then* want reassurance *as* they yell at you. In my experience, this is really not common with the menfolk. If some dude is ambivalent about anything, he's prolly going through some serious s*** right now and needs to be left alone. Don't worry about it. Provided that he doesn't successfully commit suicide with a firearm, you'll see him again a week later. You may then ask him about it, and he'll be like, "Yeah, whatever."
I have another, related, text in the pipeline, called "Woman is the most perverted animal on earth". Maybe I should have merged it with this text in order to make it clearer. Because that was what I tried to say: females are perverts. I think human males are perverts too. Compared to all other animals, humans are hyper-perverts, because we can get away with it to a certain extent while more instinct-driven animals can't. Until recently, females could get away with it better than males.
I think male sexuality tends to be more functional than female sexuality. Men enjoy casual sex more. That's a no-brainer. But actually, men seem to function better in committed relationships too. For men a good relationship is strongly positively related to good sex. For women, the two phenomena are much less related. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1247626. That is, a good relation doesn't automatically lead to good sex for women. Women also become less interested in sex the longer a relationship lasts, while men do not lose interest in sex from being in a relationship, at least not young men. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12049023/
60 % right? Not bad! I will strive for that number.
Concerning emotionality, I don't deny that females are more emotional than males. But I don't think there is any particular link between emotionality and sexual inhibition. I can use my current favorite example Aella. I think Aella seem to be rather low in emotionality. Not unlike myself. Still Aella is convinced that everyone wants to have sex with an STI-free backpacker given enough time, while I am equally convinced that every human being, however STI-free, will always gross me out a tiny bit if I don't get a large chunk of time to get used to him.
From my limited experience of people I would almost claim the opposite. I know at least one highly emotional woman who had a rather wild sexual life with different more or less unknown partners in her 20ies. But no, I don't believe in there is a link. Being emotional and being shy/easily disgusted are different things.
> Aella is convinced that everyone wants to have sex...
> every human being... will always gross me out a tiny bit
> ... I know at least one highly emotional woman who had
> a rather wild sexual life
So n = 3? Well if we're interested, we can easily invoke differences in Extraversion and Honesty-Humility, as well as mind-bending quantities of LSD and traumatic childhood experiences experienced by at least a third of the sample. But if you don't mind problems from cherry-picked samples, you might manage to reach n = 5 if you include:
> I dunno, doesn't "Sawed, planed, and sanded thinking" seem closer to 90%?
That motto is far too ambitious, so we dropped it quite a while ago.
Especially "sanded" sounds ridiculously overambitious.
> n=3
I think that in order to find answers, we first need to ask questions. And I think the question "why do people choose not to have sex with people they find attractive" is a question that is very little asked. We have no idea if people who are easily disgusted like casual sex less, for example. As far as I know, no one asked people about their emotional reluctance to have casual sex and made them take a personality test at the same time.
Three anecdotes doesn't make up a study. But three anecdotes is a very small beginning to start formulating the questions for something that could eventually become a study.
And thank you for the links. As a rule I read every book I find by people in the sex trade, so I will get that Maggie McNeil book too.
So 95% right makes for a less interesting read, but there's still something I can comment on:
"because it evolved in at least two different species. Human female sexual desire is probably so old, that parts of it evolved in our pre-human ancestors."
OK, yes. But then, why is male sexuality not ambivalent? To explain the difference, one really needs to focus on causes that *separate* the sexes. So how did humans live, as pseudo chimps and as foragers? Males have been traditionally exposed to much greater danger from hunting, fighting, and raiding. Obviously cowardly or anxious males who panicked or fled in the face of danger faced ostracism and punishment from their fellow tribesmen, and this over time this would create selective pressure on males for reduced anxiety and heightened physical bravery. Females faced different pressures; they are physically weaker than males, and highly vulnerable during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Additionally, females were the primary caregivers to their offspring. They needed to connect emotionally with them to understand their needs and persevere through long nights of tears and tantrums without harming their children, and those who didn't notice threats might fail to protect their offspring, resulting in selective pressure in favor of sensitivity for females.
Today the primary psychological sex difference between men and women (approaching 1 full SD) is on Emotionality, a broad trait relating directly to these differences:
http://hexaco.org/scaledescriptions
"Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale experience fear of physical dangers, experience anxiety in response to life's stresses, feel a need for emotional support from others, and feel empathy and sentimental attachments with others. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are not deterred by the prospect of physical harm, feel little worry even in stressful situations, have little need to share their concerns with others, and feel emotionally detached from others."
Unsurprisingly, this has downstream consequences on sexuality, such that (for example) people high in Emotionality are less likely to endorse sexual activity without emotional attachment. (Ashton, M. C.; Lee, K. (2008). "The prediction of Honesty–Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality". Journal of Research in Personality. 42 (5): 1216)
In other words, this post could have just been titled "The Ambivalent Nature of Female," because Emotionality makes the ladies naturally ambivalent about everything. As an adolescent, a girl I knew was always talking about ambivalence as her baseline emotional state. My first fiancee was ambivalent enough that she never became Mrs. Apple Pie. My sense is that men sort of have to learn that ladies who get angry at you want to get close to you, because even though they're angry, they then become anxious about this, and *then* want reassurance *as* they yell at you. In my experience, this is really not common with the menfolk. If some dude is ambivalent about anything, he's prolly going through some serious s*** right now and needs to be left alone. Don't worry about it. Provided that he doesn't successfully commit suicide with a firearm, you'll see him again a week later. You may then ask him about it, and he'll be like, "Yeah, whatever."
I have another, related, text in the pipeline, called "Woman is the most perverted animal on earth". Maybe I should have merged it with this text in order to make it clearer. Because that was what I tried to say: females are perverts. I think human males are perverts too. Compared to all other animals, humans are hyper-perverts, because we can get away with it to a certain extent while more instinct-driven animals can't. Until recently, females could get away with it better than males.
I think male sexuality tends to be more functional than female sexuality. Men enjoy casual sex more. That's a no-brainer. But actually, men seem to function better in committed relationships too. For men a good relationship is strongly positively related to good sex. For women, the two phenomena are much less related. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1247626. That is, a good relation doesn't automatically lead to good sex for women. Women also become less interested in sex the longer a relationship lasts, while men do not lose interest in sex from being in a relationship, at least not young men. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12049023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22268980
40% right and extremely interesting; maybe with a clear definition for "pervert" as high as 60% right
60 % right? Not bad! I will strive for that number.
Concerning emotionality, I don't deny that females are more emotional than males. But I don't think there is any particular link between emotionality and sexual inhibition. I can use my current favorite example Aella. I think Aella seem to be rather low in emotionality. Not unlike myself. Still Aella is convinced that everyone wants to have sex with an STI-free backpacker given enough time, while I am equally convinced that every human being, however STI-free, will always gross me out a tiny bit if I don't get a large chunk of time to get used to him.
From my limited experience of people I would almost claim the opposite. I know at least one highly emotional woman who had a rather wild sexual life with different more or less unknown partners in her 20ies. But no, I don't believe in there is a link. Being emotional and being shy/easily disgusted are different things.
I dunno, doesn't "Sawed, planed, and sanded thinking" seem closer to 90%?
> But no, I don't believe in there is a link. Being emotional and
> being shy/easily disgusted are different things.
Emotionality and Extroversion/Introversion are orthogonal traits. Nonetheless, Disgust sensitivity does correlate modestly with Emotionality. Check here for a typical study on disgust as it relates to personality: https://psyarxiv.com/dymqk/download/?format=pdf Or also here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e0f3f4e4b093f6b2b491a0/t/54f7044ae4b0aff87aee451f/1425474634118/Tybur+De+Vries+HEXACO+TDDS.pdf
Plus this: Personality and sexuality (this popped up browsing for disgust) at https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-84371-001
And my favorite: Smart teens don't have sex much (or kiss much either) at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X99000610
> Aella is convinced that everyone wants to have sex...
> every human being... will always gross me out a tiny bit
> ... I know at least one highly emotional woman who had
> a rather wild sexual life
So n = 3? Well if we're interested, we can easily invoke differences in Extraversion and Honesty-Humility, as well as mind-bending quantities of LSD and traumatic childhood experiences experienced by at least a third of the sample. But if you don't mind problems from cherry-picked samples, you might manage to reach n = 5 if you include:
* https://becauseimawhore.wordpress.com/
* https://maggiemcneill.com/
> I dunno, doesn't "Sawed, planed, and sanded thinking" seem closer to 90%?
That motto is far too ambitious, so we dropped it quite a while ago.
Especially "sanded" sounds ridiculously overambitious.
> n=3
I think that in order to find answers, we first need to ask questions. And I think the question "why do people choose not to have sex with people they find attractive" is a question that is very little asked. We have no idea if people who are easily disgusted like casual sex less, for example. As far as I know, no one asked people about their emotional reluctance to have casual sex and made them take a personality test at the same time.
Three anecdotes doesn't make up a study. But three anecdotes is a very small beginning to start formulating the questions for something that could eventually become a study.
And thank you for the links. As a rule I read every book I find by people in the sex trade, so I will get that Maggie McNeil book too.