state of nature

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

state of nature

Post by nick »

I have some questions over Wais' views on men and women.
Women can be sexually aroused by either the lust for orgasm or the lust for sexual intercourse, or both. In general, women much more lust for orgasm, than for being penetrated.

The lust for copulation originates from the need to reproduce. But since women do not obtain orgasm through being penetrated, the instinctive 'need' to reproduce is often translated into a 'rape'-fantasy, in which the woman mostly is only 'raped' by the man of her choice, and when and how she wishes.
Basically, penetration is only about the desire of the male who wants to get the female pregnant. Thus it is called rape because it doesn't really do anything more than that?

Since females live in a group with other females with a dominant male, how do they control when and she wishes?
And sometimes women just want to cuddle, because there is no physical need for excessive oxytocin (too much oxytocin is bad too) and there is no lust for being penetrated either.
No wonder men sometimes 'dis-like' women or complain, their main objective is to penetrate.

What do you think about women who enjoy penetration?
Or is that just fitting it line with what society (male-dominated) wants them do believe?
Plus, many women complain about not being satisfied too, so perhaps penetration is seen as the standard, but it isn't what females truly desire or need?
The male sex-drive is based on aggression, to stimulate conquest, and if necessary resulting in raping the woman. A resisting female mostly enhances male arousal. Males therefore, are bigger and stronger, to be able to enforce sexual intercourse.

Potentially, all men are rapists.
Are males made stronger and bigger to ensure procreation and survival of the species?
Rape is needed to force procreation?
Why does rape enhance male arousal? Are we hardwired to feel that way, to satisfy that instinctual urge to penetrate/procreate?

In nature, males are designed to produce as much offspring, and to mate with as many different fertile females as possible. And we do not need to tell you this is still true for humans today ; men are dogs, and nobody can deny.
True. But with our reasoning abilities couldn't men, at least some would realize, understand the nature of male/female relationships and be able to control their emotions, or at least maximise the happiness for themselves if they wished to be together?
This does happen, but it could lead to pent up agreession or perhaps seep into other areas of health? Kinda like how if females don't get reset then they too suffer from it?

I think all men definitely have the capability of being dogs, but not every male could act on these natural urges. What about monks?
In nature, there are different methods to prevent overpopulation and abuse due to man’s sexual needs.
What do you men by abuse?
Rape?
In monogamous living animals, females are about equally big and strong as males, to prevent males from dominating females, and little offspring is born. Some animals live solitary, and they only meet when the female is in heat. In other animals the females live together in groups, protecting each other against sex-aggressive individuals.

I would like to read more about this!
So human females would/may have lived in groups and could defend sexual aggressors? Thus then only accepting the most dominant or desirable male to mate with. Thus ensuring only the best genes get passed on?

Humans are not monogamous animals either ; man is physically stronger than woman, enabling him to dominate, and enforce sex whenever he wishes. To prevent overpopulation and abuse, by nature, humans do not live one-on-one.
Interesting.

Of course, you might say in our current society man cannot enforce sex anymore, for the woman is protected by law. True, but we can’t deny our heritage : it’s in our genes. Living monogamously, there always is, and always will be a sex-conflict ;



Woman needs her orgasms to reset her body, but does not want to be penetrated that much. And man is programmed to expand his territory ; to have sex with other women.

In our current society, woman allows her man to copulate with her more than she desires, to prevent her man from having sex with other women. But even that doesn't work, because by nature, man still is designed to expand his territory, through having sex with other fertile women.

By nature, human males live solitary, or in very small groups. Only the most powerful male then owns the right to impregnate women, who are living together in larger groups, like elephants and lions do. In females living together, the females protect each other against every sex-aggressive individual, and the most dominant male keeps away all his competitors. Like gorillas do.
So how does the alpha-male play a factor in this female group?
Does he give them protection from other males in exchange for sex, as the females have somewhat of a desire for penetration/pregnancy?
Living in groups, women can have all the cuddling and grooming and clitoric orgasms they want ; as long as there have been women, they knew how to sexually satisfy themselves. Not until the seventies in the last century, women hardly ever were sexually satisfied by men. And if the women need to copulate, that one dominant, fertile, strong man is there. Living in groups, women do compete about ranking, but not about men, since that one man can copulate with all the females that are willing.
Do they let him in the group to have sex when they desire so?
Women don't compete about men, is that because the dominant male is the most desirable?
Most men didn't and don't like this natural formula of course, having no chance on sex or offspring. When man learned to communicate more distinctively, women were divided amongst all men. To ensure sex and offspring for every man, this was later institutionalized in marriage.
With the power to communicate the many (males) could leverage power over the dominant male thus leading to marriage and 'equality' for men in terms of sex?
Men like to have sex with every attractive female they meet. Women only need one man, but he better be the most powerful, rich, handsome, intelligent and/or strongest of all ; if not, every setback in life is to blame on him not being powerful enough. We can't really live with (one on one), nor without each other.
Is that why perhaps women are more clingy or need someone to rely on?
I don't mean to be offensive about that statement and not all women are like that.

But also, with reasoning abilities we evolved into different beings since we could appreciate other virtues than just strength and power. However, I do agree that those attributes are perhaps the most strongest or guide females toward those men even today.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: state of nature

Post by RRM »

Im answering this for Wai, as we have talked about this a lot (and Ive lived with her for over 8 years)
nick wrote: Basically, penetration is only about the desire of the male who wants to get the female pregnant. Thus it is called rape because it doesn't really do anything more than that?
Of course the entire vagina is very sensitive, and thus penetration can very well give her physical pleasure. But not orgasm.
Since females live in a group with other females with a dominant male, how do they control when and she wishes?
When she wants, she can get it.
What do you think about women who enjoy penetration?
When a woman wants to be penetrated, and its the man of her choice, its normal that she will enjoy it. Orgasms are a different issue.
Plus, many women complain about not being satisfied too, so perhaps penetration is seen as the standard, but it isn't what females truly desire or need?
Sometimes its all they want, but most of the time, they prefer actual satisfaction in the end.
Potentially, all men are rapists.
Naturally, yes.
Are males made stronger and bigger to ensure procreation and survival of the species?
Probably.
Why does rape enhance male arousal?
Because its 'part of that biologic plan'; it enables the man to make her pregnant despite her resistance.
Are we hardwired to feel that way, to satisfy that instinctual urge to penetrate/procreate?
I think so, yes.

True. But with our reasoning abilities couldn't men, at least some would realize, understand the nature of male/female relationships and be able to control their emotions, or at least maximise the happiness for themselves if they wished to be together?
Of course!
This does happen, but it could lead to pent up agreession or perhaps seep into other areas of health?
Maybe (stress), but luckily we still have our hands.

What about monks?
I have no idea, but I cant escape the notion that in many species 'rape' occurs.
What do you men by abuse?
Rape?
Yes.
I would like to read more about this!
You can also watch nature documentaries.
So how does the alpha-male play a factor in this female group?
Does he give them protection from other males in exchange for sex, as the females have somewhat of a desire for penetration/pregnancy?
I think so.
Do they let him in the group to have sex when they desire so?
Women don't compete about men, is that because the dominant male is the most desirable?
It was a hypothesis, of course (as there is no evidence), but in her hypothesis, that dominant male was always around. And yes, women like powerful men.
With the power to communicate the many (males) could leverage power over the dominant male thus leading to marriage and 'equality' for men in terms of sex?
Indeed.
Is that why perhaps women are more clingy or need someone to rely on?
Perhaps...
And of course, I also apologize for generalizing very much here.
Thomas
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun 30 Oct 2005 00:01

Post by Thomas »

great thread!
dadasarah
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006 05:10
Location: LA, CA, USA

Post by dadasarah »

So how does the female aversion to too much penetration benefit the species, biologically? Does it prevent over-population? Can't men be in a perfectly 'natural' exclusive heterosexual relationship by substituting masturbation, oral sex, and other creative things for some of the penetration? Or do you believe this will always lead to disappointment?
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by nick »

I have been thinking about this article for some time.

I'm thinking that perhaps maybe their were more females born in ratio to men?

When I look at male and female I also see a balancing role where the male power has great power and thus needs to be controlled and nature has done this by different methods. A group of females would be stronger than one alpha male because they wouldn't be socialized into being told that they are physically weaker. One on one they are weaker than the alpha male but compared to modern day females in general they would be stronger because of living in nature. In fact both sexes would be stronger because they wouldn't be watching t.v and such.

I see that the group of females would attract the alpha male which would provide protection from other males and he would also be contained in the group of females. Thus striking a balance.

What happens to the rest of the males they don't get to satisfy their biological sexual purpose/goal?

How would the group/prides be arranged? Would some males be allowed in but the alpha male would have the ultimate power? There would be some derivations but it would stay the same more or less.

Also you mention how women would compete over ranking but not about men because the alpha male is always there. What does this competition of ranking supposed to serve?

The problem of how to get around those problems is where our imagination and mind must come into play. Any ideas?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

dadasarah wrote:So how does the female aversion to too much penetration benefit the species, biologically?
Im pretty sure that there are many explantions possible, delivered by biologists, as it is natural in many species that the females are only selectively 'willing to mate'.
Can't men be in a perfectly 'natural' exclusive heterosexual relationship by substituting masturbation, oral sex, and other creative things for some of the penetration? Or do you believe this will always lead to disappointment?
Not disappointment, but I think that men in general (of course this all is generalisation) feel the urge to have sex with different women. If only they can manage to do so and get away with it as well.
And I think that this urge is natural; we 'need' to spread our seeds to increase the chance of survival of our individual / family genes.
Yes, of course sex without penetration may satisfy us physically, but it may not satisfy 'our urges', as they are seperatable. And all the sex that a man needs and gets from one woman, may not satisfy his 'urge' to have sex with other women as well.
nick wrote:I'm thinking that perhaps maybe their were more females born in ratio to men?
Just a little, it seems.
It may also be that women always were living in groups, for safety, whereas men also lived alone, or in small bands.
I assume that the strongest man/men in a group with lots of women only tolerated a limited number of men in that group.
I see that the group of females would attract the alpha male which would provide protection from other males and he would also be contained in the group of females. Thus striking a balance.
Seems logical to me.
What happens to the rest of the males they don't get to satisfy their biological sexual purpose/goal?
They will act alone or in small groups and try to defeat other men and take their women.
How would the group/prides be arranged? Would some males be allowed in but the alpha male would have the ultimate power?
I think there would have been alliances to be strong enough against other men, but limited relative to the number of women.
Also you mention how women would compete over ranking but not about men because the alpha male is always there. What does this competition of ranking supposed to serve?
I assume over food, comfortable sleeping places etc. All very essential in those times.
The problem of how to get around those problems is where our imagination and mind must come into play. Any ideas?
Regarding what problem?
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by nick »

The sex conflict problem between men and women is what I was referring to.

Also, when it comes to population control and looking at the current situation of monogamous living as the general standard, does that play a role in the gradual increase in population growth?

I would think so as I would imagine that in nature their is a natural balancing point until we changed the way to mate and so forth.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

nick wrote:The sex conflict problem between men and women is what I was referring to.
Ah, yes...
I guess there is a fundamental difference between men and women, as to what we are programmed 'to want'. generally speaking, women want 'a nest' and men 'to impregnate multiple women'.
How to solve this problem?
I have absolutely no idea...
Also, when it comes to population control and looking at the current situation of monogamous living as the general standard, does that play a role in the gradual increase in population growth?
I dont think so. Maybe its more 'to blame on women' (RRM is stepping on very slippery ice here), as its generally women that want to have children. Mostly its men adhering to the idea out of necessity; if he doesnt want to, 'she will look somewhere else to make a nest'.
Marty
Moderator
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue 29 Aug 2006 13:21

incredulous

Post by Marty »

A constant drive to impregnate multiple women could not possibly lead to a population increase. :roll:

You are SO on thin ice
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

ehrrrr, you are absolutely right (but I was thinking of men using condoms, the actual impregnation drive being satisfied by having sex with multiple women...)

<RRM goes under> PLUNGE!! </RRM goes under>
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

LOL ;D
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: state of nature

Post by nick »

Why does rape enhance male arousal?
Because its 'part of that biologic plan'; it enables the man to make her pregnant despite her resistance.

To me, this appears to be the problem that is most problematic!
But yet at the same time, nature would need to make sure procreation happens, even it being a violent crime. It makes a relationship that much more harder when you have this drive based on aggression to work against. I guess the challenge is how to work with it, to perhaps channel that aggression into something better. Then again, it is hard to change your genes that rooted in this behavior. It seems to be the inescapable sex conflict that men and women face. We want to have that ideal relationship, but our genes still hold us back from what our knowledge has instilled upon us.

I guess this sexual aggression is somewhat fueled by the act of conquest and domination. But is conquest fueled by the sex drive?
Marty
Moderator
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue 29 Aug 2006 13:21

this topic

Post by Marty »

While you are under the thin ice, please ponder on all of this again...


I simply cannot feel in experience or through the Wai site's words on women's biology how non-penetration can be so perfectly in tune with women's desires, and penetration (with force, no less) so strongly ascribed to males.

It does not seem to make sense for everyone's survival, much less happiness.
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: this topic

Post by nick »

Marty wrote: I simply cannot feel in experience or through the Wai site's words on women's biology how non-penetration can be so perfectly in tune with women's desires, and penetration (with force, no less) so strongly ascribed to males.
Non-penetration isn't perfectly in tune with women's desire. The need for penetration is perhaps not always optimal for achieving an orgasm. But that isn't saying that it can't be used for it either. Penetration's biological purpose is to procreate. And perhaps, females don't want to be penetrated as much as the male desires to penetrate and that is where the sex conflict happens. I know lots of guys who get irritated when their girl friends don't want to have sex (be penetrated).

Penetration from the male point of view is fueled by conquest, by natures design. That doesn't mean we have to be like that. Intelligence has made us a different 'species' than what we were in nature. We don't have to always listen or be captive to our instincts, but use our mind/reasoning abilities to guide us to a better existence. But, that doesn't mean we still don't have those instincts.
It does not seem to make sense for everyone's survival, much less happiness.
Survival and happiness are two different things. Back in our early days, survival was happiness and nature made sure that no matter what, survival (procreation) would be a powerful force to ensure the propagation of our species. In general, I think we were in a fair balance of happiness.

When you look at this world, men do have ultimate power in this world. They are stronger and usually always try to preserve their power. I think this is a translation of the alpha-male drive that each male has. However, not all males subscribe to this 'contract', but they act in a more gender balanced approach.

Just the other day, Putin made a joke about rape.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6069136.stm
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: state of nature

Post by RRM »

nick wrote:
...it enables the man to make her pregnant despite her resistance.
I guess the challenge is how to work with it
Exactly, because many women also love it very much if the man (that they desire!!!) "takes them 'while they are helpless' / 'overpowered'.
Many women fantasize about getting 'raped' (by the man they desire!!!), which frees them from all 'responsibilities'; she gets both the pleasure and still be 'innocent'.
It seems to be the inescapable sex conflict that men and women face.
Maybe not always. Maybe its just a delicate dance of seduction and 'power'; its balancing on a thin line, because the man always needs to be 100% sure about the woman's desires (while she isnt always sure either!!) and therefore needs to be ulimately sensitive to her signals. What means what? An extremely difficult role-play, but also extremely intense and 'pure'.
We want to have that ideal relationship, but our genes still hold us back from what our knowledge has instilled upon us.
Not if we can incorporates those instincts / urges in our love making; to the satisfaction of both parties, of course.
Post Reply