Biologically, it makes sense. Guys try to have lots of sex to increase their chances of passing on genes. Girls pick and choose amongst the guys who make the best courtship displays. I love seeing an entomologist apply principles of reproduction to our own species. :) I'd like to add that for mammals especially, females take a heck of a lot more energy to produce offspring, so they don't need to have as much sex to yield the same reproductive result. Which is why it makes sense for some mammals (and a lot of human cultures) to match one male up with lots of females: more efficient. Also about your biological principle: don't you think it's been rather buried in the cultural flurry of a socially homogenous environment? I.e., girls may pick and choose what guy they're interested in, but guys also select those girls with the prettiest hair, makeup and clothes - and of course, availability vibe. Guys may compete for girls at Homecoming, but surely girls compete for guys at Tolo? (I don't know firsthand, but that's my impression.) So guys may be hornier, but they also have to put in effort to convince a girl to have sex.
Guys want to have sex with me? MANY guys want to have sex with me? Right now? But assuming all males - okay, the "average" male, of which there are a lot - will really put their sex drive above everything else? Don't reason and basic etiquette prohibit that? Like, if I went up to a guy I know casually from seeing around the music building and said, "Wanna do it?" would he really step into a practice room for a quickie? (Eek! Bad image. [/protected conservative mind moment]) I don't think so, because if a (male) person is respectful above sociopath level, he'll realize that you don't just go around having sex with (female) persons you could instead have a lasting, interesting friendship with. And I don't think being platonic friends necessarily changes that. Does that make sense? I wouldn't have sex with a guy I know casually (okay, I wouldn't have sex with anyone right now, but specifically with a guy I know casually) because that would just be a bizarre interposition on how we interact. I think it would also be bizarre in the case of a guy I'm actually friendly with (which may not describe you and your male friends; I don't really have any of those at present). So I guess I'm agreeing with Alex on the incest analogy. Which is weird, because I seemed to contradict his comment.... o_O Additionally, if guys are so sex-centric, and friendship is a means to sex, why haven't guys I know (casually) made attempts to form friendships with me? Sure haven't seen that happen. And you say above that guys try to have maximum sex for biological reasons (while girls are more discerning).
It's really interesting, Grace, to hear your conclusions (or at least theories) on male motives. I always heard, casually/culturally if not academically, that men are both sex-driven and lazy, but I never wanted to really assert it myself because it seemed like an unfair, oversimplified stereotype.
I love seeing an entomologist apply principles of reproduction to our own species. :) I'd like to add that for mammals especially, females take a heck of a lot more energy to produce offspring, so they don't need to have as much sex to yield the same reproductive result. Which is why it makes sense for some mammals (and a lot of human cultures) to match one male up with lots of females: more efficient.
Also about your biological principle: don't you think it's been rather buried in the cultural flurry of a socially homogenous environment? I.e., girls may pick and choose what guy they're interested in, but guys also select those girls with the prettiest hair, makeup and clothes - and of course, availability vibe. Guys may compete for girls at Homecoming, but surely girls compete for guys at Tolo? (I don't know firsthand, but that's my impression.) So guys may be hornier, but they also have to put in effort to convince a girl to have sex.
Guys want to have sex with me? MANY guys want to have sex with me? Right now?
But assuming all males - okay, the "average" male, of which there are a lot - will really put their sex drive above everything else? Don't reason and basic etiquette prohibit that? Like, if I went up to a guy I know casually from seeing around the music building and said, "Wanna do it?" would he really step into a practice room for a quickie? (Eek! Bad image. [/protected conservative mind moment]) I don't think so, because if a (male) person is respectful above sociopath level, he'll realize that you don't just go around having sex with (female) persons you could instead have a lasting, interesting friendship with. And I don't think being platonic friends necessarily changes that. Does that make sense? I wouldn't have sex with a guy I know casually (okay, I wouldn't have sex with anyone right now, but specifically with a guy I know casually) because that would just be a bizarre interposition on how we interact. I think it would also be bizarre in the case of a guy I'm actually friendly with (which may not describe you and your male friends; I don't really have any of those at present). So I guess I'm agreeing with Alex on the incest analogy. Which is weird, because I seemed to contradict his comment.... o_O
Additionally, if guys are so sex-centric, and friendship is a means to sex, why haven't guys I know (casually) made attempts to form friendships with me? Sure haven't seen that happen. And you say above that guys try to have maximum sex for biological reasons (while girls are more discerning).
It's really interesting, Grace, to hear your conclusions (or at least theories) on male motives. I always heard, casually/culturally if not academically, that men are both sex-driven and lazy, but I never wanted to really assert it myself because it seemed like an unfair, oversimplified stereotype.
Reply
Leave a comment