Things that make you go hmm !

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Yeah, I do. Who is the agressive one in a love relationship when it comes to sex? Or more accurately, who has to innitiate the invite? (normally)

Is is men? or women?

Depends on the culture. And the individual woman/man combo. And their age (related to hormones). There are cultures in which it is perfectly acceptable and normal for women to do a lot of the initiating, and others (our own in the US, in recent history) in which women are supposed to be "pure" and not really want sex at all. On top of cultural variation there is a great deal of individual variation, and this is overlaid with our population's tendency to mess around with their natural hormone cycles by taking birth control and hormone replacement therapy. Also, men and women have different age-related cycles of sex drive. Men tend to peak very young (early twenties) and decline gradually over time afterwards. Women tend not to peak until their early to late thirties, when the "clock" is ticking loudest.
By the way, is there a reason why the forum is stripping my posts of paragraph breaks now? It's making everything into one long paragraph. Anyone?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Depends on the culture. And the individual woman/man combo. And their age (related to hormones). There are cultures in which it is perfectly acceptable and normal for women to do a lot of the initiating, and others (our own in the US, in recent history) in which women are supposed to be "pure" and not really want sex at all. On top of cultural variation there is a great deal of individual variation, and this is overlaid with our population's tendency to mess around with their natural hormone cycles by taking birth control and hormone replacement therapy. Also, men and women have different age-related cycles of sex drive. Men tend to peak very young (early twenties) and decline gradually over time afterwards. Women tend not to peak until their early to late thirties, when the "clock" is ticking loudest.
By the way, is there a reason why the forum is stripping my posts of paragraph breaks now? It's making everything into one long paragraph. Anyone?

Ok, I guess I worded it wrong. What I meant was...a guy is watching the football game, it's really tight, and there's 5 minutes to go. Then his wife deliberately walks between him and the tv screen, with a saunter that is subtle but unmistakeable. And she finishes by brushing a finger across his chest as she heads for the bedroom...

Now if the yuts has half a brain, he'll put the tv on "record" and get up and follow her "cue".

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Again, though- depends on culture. We have a culture that is (thankfully to me) dependent on women agreeing to sex (though not generally accepting of assertiveness), so women in our culture learn all sorts of subtle ways to initiate without outright initiating.This is driving me nuts- the forum is not only stripping paragraph breaks, but is also stripping quotes and making them into the strange gobbly-gook computer language of my post above. I need to PM Brian, I guess.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Why then is it that women do not take over the world "aggressively" and physically. Given the large amount of WOMEN on the planet. Think about it, an ARMY of Nothing but WOMEN could be an effective killing machine given the right circumstances.

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

No more chocolate? How will the men deal with the increase of PMS? It's a case of Mutually Assured Insanity!

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

No more chocolate? How will the men deal with the increase of PMS? It's a case of Mutually Assured Insanity!

Have you heard stories about the ferocity of she-bears with cubs? Woodsmen say they would much rather accidentally come acrossed a male bear than a female with cubs...Are you so sure you want to threaten women's supply of chocolate, and risk the wrath of the she-bear?

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Given that men for the last century have gone to war and died in large numbers, women have begun to out number men in most societies.

I would disagree with this, there is no evidence that women have begun to outnumber men in most societies

Men dying in wars is pretty much evened out by things like female-infanticide, higher birth-rates for boys, etc. In Haryana in India there are 8 women for every 10 men.

The reason women won't go to war in large numbers is Biological, men are more naturally inclined to go to war. The first wars/battles/fights between men were over women... think sperm/mate competition.
Women never needed to fight over men as conception was pretty much guaranteed just by having sex.
Men however fought over women because paternity was never guaranteed, fighting just multiplied the chances.

.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

LOL!!!!

Now that's funny...

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by aburaees

I would disagree with this, there is no evidence that women have begun to outnumber men in most societies

Men dying in wars is pretty much evened out by things like female-infanticide, higher birth-rates for boys, etc. In Haryana in India there are 8 women for every 10 men.

The reason women won't go to war in large numbers is Biological, men are more naturally inclined to go to war. The first wars/battles/fights between men were over women... think sperm/mate competition.
Women never needed to fight over men as conception was pretty much guaranteed just by having sex.
Men however fought over women because paternity was never guaranteed, fighting just multiplied the chances.

.

WOW, nice explanation.

Do you think women as a whole are more aggressive these days?

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

WOW, nice explanation.

Do you think women as a whole are more aggressive these days?

Not really, lol. The Amazons were pretty aggressive back in the days, I think the potential has always been there.

Then again, I suppose female aggression was pretty much controlled by organised religion over the last 4,000 years. Nowadays women are reverting back to their former ways as the threat of a macho God is becoming increasingly diminished... female celebrities (Ishtar/Innana/Kali) in ancient pantheons had men trembling, and now they're back.

No offense intended to women by the way, you go get them girls!

.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by aburaees

Not really, lol. The Amazons were pretty aggressive back in the days, I think the potential has always been there.

Then again, I suppose female aggression was pretty much controlled by organised religion over the last 4,000 years. Nowadays women are reverting back to their former ways as the threat of a macho God is becoming increasingly diminished... female celebrities (Ishtar/Innana/Kali) in ancient pantheons had men trembling, and now they're back.

No offense intended to women by the way, you go get them girls!

.

The amazon Thing is defiently in full affect here in the town im in.
Im am just about six feet tall and I see more women my size than ever before. Most of them are younger than me too. LOL. I feel sorry for the younger guys these days, because they are gonna get beat up more often by girls than the guys.

[aburaees]

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

The amazon Thing is defiently in full affect here in the town im in.
Im am just about six feet tall and I see more women my size than ever before. Most of them are younger than me too. LOL. I feel sorry for the younger guys these days, because they are gonna get beat up more often by girls than the guys.

Lol, I'd better be careful what I say... there's an amazon sleeping on the sofa right next to me!

.

[flowperson]

Hmmm...

This conversation reminds me of some research I did years ago into ancient Hebrew folk traditions.

It seems that at certain times of the year, unwed Hebrew women would disrobe, enter a fenced-in grassy area, dance in suggestive ways as a group, all the while being observed from outside of the fence by the eligible single men who had the resources and interest to marry. Whenever moved by the spirit of the moment, a man would hop the fence, dance with his woman of choice, and if the dance were successful... consummate the relationship right there in the grass, under G-d's sky, in the presence of many witnesses. No formal courtship, no game playing, no financial arrangements beforehand (presumably). Just meaningful physical expression between a man and a woman in the moment, that resulted in a life-long commitment.

I somehow found that to be a very civilized ceremony.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

It's very simple. Men own all the nuclear weapons, and some of them are aimed at the chocolate fields. If women rebel, no more chocolate!


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's Madame Curie's fault...she discovered Radium, then shewn men what it could do...