Claim promiscuity is frequently observed in women with AS?

Page 3 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

17 Jun 2014, 2:01 pm

Im on the hypersexual end of the spectrum! I sometimes wear my partners out because I have sex with them many many times and have to masturbate during times they are too tired for sex! I have watched a lot of porn too but cutting down on that because too much for a long time desensitizes me and it takes longer to climax and such. I still look at it once in a while but relying on my imagination more and I get better results!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Jun 2014, 2:06 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
It's you in particular that I don't often agree with:lol, I find your ideas regarding relationships too idealistic, unreal and sometimes contradicting.


As for your question, the term "Womanizer" is often used as degartory, maybe you women should slut-shame men more often to balance things :lol:.


LOL! I'm actually totally okay with my allegedly idealistic, unreal, and contradicting ideas, since they seemed to have worked reasonably well in practice. ;)

I don't believe in slut-shaming, I'm just curious as to whether (and to what extent) the old double-standard still exists.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Jun 2014, 3:07 am

Eureka13 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
It's you in particular that I don't often agree with:lol, I find your ideas regarding relationships too idealistic, unreal and sometimes contradicting.


As for your question, the term "Womanizer" is often used as degartory, maybe you women should slut-shame men more often to balance things :lol:.


LOL! I'm actually totally okay with my allegedly idealistic, unreal, and contradicting ideas, since they seemed to have worked reasonably well in practice. ;)

I don't believe in slut-shaming, I'm just curious as to whether (and to what extent) the old double-standard still exists.


Oh boy, I would have to go so politically incorrect about that. Oh well, I except some would tell me this is a sexist post.

You should understand and accept that cultural evolution is not totally a separate entity from our biological evolution as humans, this latter comes first, biological evolution is one of the elements that have shaped our cultures, everything about humans has a biological root, even religions.

Also, there's an opposite double-standard exist for virgin guys or for guys who have lack of past relationship experience and partners or even lack of attractive female companionship. This is relevant in the copycat mating phenomena in women for example:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt261393.html

The reason why this double standard of "slut and stud" existed across the cultures and times, is due to a biological root in this double standard:
A man in order to be successfully promiscuous, has to be very attractive and impressive to a larger pool of women, otherwise the wannabe-player would just masturbate alone over pics of different women.
Him being attractive and impressive means his genes are valuable, the more he spreads it the better, his genetic contribution is an asset for humanity's pool of genes.

A side note: Speed dating studies indicate that the majority of women would only see again a minority of men (while most men wanted a second date with most women) - on okcupid it shows that 80% of women rate only 20% of men as more attractive than average. That doesn't mean that most women would marry only a minority of men, our monogamous culture makes this impossible (and there's a biological root for the success of monogamy, but that's a different story). But when it comes to casual sex, first impressions are very important and the man should be in this minority group in order to have it a lot, this one of the reasons why the stud-praising still exists.

On the other hand, basically any woman can have a lot of casual sex as long she's being willing and not being very selective, she doesn't have to be the crème de la crème in any way, there are many studies and surveys that prove a large portion of men are willing to have sex with a random woman.

Women can't spread their genes in the same degree of men, so a promiscuous female is more likely to be impregnated by a lowly male, contributing into spreading more bad genes in the human genetic pool.

And oh Eureka, as you probably already know, it's not only men who do slut-shaming and stud-praising, a lot of women exhibit this same double standard too.

Tarantella and starvingartist will pop up in 3...2....



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Jun 2014, 6:17 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Oh boy, I would have to go so politically incorrect about that. Oh well, I except some would tell me this is a sexist post.

You should understand and accept that cultural evolution is not totally a separate entity from our biological evolution as humans, this latter comes first, biological evolution is one of the elements that have shaped our cultures, everything about humans has a biological root, even religions.


It's a bit more complicated than that. Things can have both genetic and environmental roots. Actually, most cultural things are learned rather than biological and that's why there are differences between cultures.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Also, there's an opposite double-standard exist for virgin guys or for guys who have lack of past relationship experience and partners or even lack of attractive female companionship. This is relevant in the copycat mating phenomena in women for example:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt261393.html

The reason why this double standard of "slut and stud" existed across the cultures and times, is due to a biological root in this double standard:
A man in order to be successfully promiscuous, has to be very attractive and impressive to a larger pool of women, otherwise the wannabe-player would just masturbate alone over pics of different women.
Him being attractive and impressive means his genes are valuable, the more he spreads it the better, his genetic contribution is an asset for humanity's pool of genes.


Actually, the double standard exists due to men wanting to control women's sexuality and it's not entirely true that female promiscuity has always been viewed the same way in all cultures across history. There have been many cultures in the past that practiced polyandry (one woman marrying many husbands). Also, it doesn't quite make sense to say that the ostracism of promiscuity in women is due to natural selection because if it was maladaptive, there would be no promiscuous women at all and we know for a fact that their sexual desires and urges are not really different men's. So, any evolutionary explanation has to actually explain why women can be promiscuous as well as men, not try to use evolution to explain why it's not culturally acceptable.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
A side note: Speed dating studies indicate that the majority of women would only see again a minority of men (while most men wanted a second date with most women) - on okcupid it shows that 80% of women rate only 20% of men as more attractive than average. That doesn't mean that most women would marry only a minority of men, our monogamous culture makes this impossible (and there's a biological root for the success of monogamy, but that's a different story). But when it comes to casual sex, first impressions are very important and the man should be in this minority group in order to have it a lot, this one of the reasons why the stud-praising still exists.


I'm not sure. Men probably have to be physically attractive to women to be considered for a casual sex with them. Also, those same statistics on OKCupid also show that women don't consider physical attractiveness alone.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
On the other hand, basically any woman can have a lot of casual sex as long she's being willing and not being very selective, she doesn't have to be the crème de la crème in any way, there are many studies and surveys that prove a large portion of men are willing to have sex with a random woman.


Actually, there are studies that show that women are just as willing to have casual sex as men as long as you remove the element of danger.

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/casual_sex_3/

I couldn't find the original study though.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Women can't spread their genes in the same degree of men, so a promiscuous female is more likely to be impregnated by a lowly male, contributing into spreading more bad genes in the human genetic pool.


Actually, even though women have to go through pregnancy etc, their genes the spread if their genes can be optimal if they got pregnant by 3 or 4 different men rather than from a single man even though there is greater investment in resources in female reproduction. Also, they would be more likely to get pregnant if they sleep with multiple men than doing it the same number of times with one man because it actually takes time for a male's sperm count to recover after each ejaculation. There are also other evolutionary reasons for why female promiscuity exists.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And oh Eureka, as you probably already know, it's not only men who do slut-shaming and stud-praising, a lot of women exhibit this same double standard too.

Tarantella and starvingartist will pop up in 3...2....


Yes, women usually slut-shame out jealousy. They're scared that the "sluts" will steal their boyfriends and husbands. It can also be about class and not about sex at all. There have been surveys on college campuses that suggest that it's the rich girls who slut-shame the most. Basically, the rich girls can be as promiscuous as they like but they call other girls who do the same thing but who do not have the same lifestyle as them "trashy".



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Jun 2014, 9:04 am

^ Good response, made rethink of things.

For the first part, I did say it's one of the elements shaping culture, not the only thing, I am aware of the environmental factors, but also remember environmental play great part in biological evolution,



Quote:
Actually, the double standard exists due to men wanting to control women's sexuality and it's not entirely true that female promiscuity has always been viewed the same way in all cultures across history. There have been many cultures in the past that practiced polyandry (one woman marrying many husbands). Also, it doesn't quite make sense to say that the ostracism of promiscuity in women is due to natural selection because if it was maladaptive, there would be no promiscuous women at all and we know for a fact that their sexual desires and urges are not really different men's. So, any evolutionary explanation has to actually explain why women can be promiscuous as well as men, not try to use evolution to explain why it's not culturally acceptable.


Among all societies there had been only 4 who practiced polyandry, there may be more in pre recorded history times. What about apes? In gorillas and sometimes in chimps, the alpha often kills the offspring from other males and would prevent other males to copulate with the females. It is also possible to argue that the tendency of males to control female sexuality has a biological (evolutionary) root.

It is true that the views on female promiscuity fluctuates across history and cultures, in some ancient civilisations religious prostitution was viewed as a holy act but were the women who did it were generally respected and highly regarded? Did men desire them as wives? Or were they simply tools to appease Gods (and men)?


Quote:

I'm not sure. Men probably have to be physically attractive to women to be considered for a casual sex with them. Also, those same statistics on OKCupid also show that women don't consider physical attractiveness alone.


That's because most women seek serious relationship there, it is not a hook up site.

Quote:


Actually, there are studies that show that women are just as willing to have casual sex as men as long as you remove the element of danger.

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/casual_sex_3/

I couldn't find the original study though.


Johnny Depp isn't an ordinary random male. lol

This article on this study is dumb, both Depp and Trump are rich but Depp is way more handsome, also resources don't matter much for women in casual sex selection, this had been shown in other studies, in that case men's looks is more important.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Jun 2014, 11:10 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
Actually, the double standard exists due to men wanting to control women's sexuality and it's not entirely true that female promiscuity has always been viewed the same way in all cultures across history. There have been many cultures in the past that practiced polyandry (one woman marrying many husbands). Also, it doesn't quite make sense to say that the ostracism of promiscuity in women is due to natural selection because if it was maladaptive, there would be no promiscuous women at all and we know for a fact that their sexual desires and urges are not really different men's. So, any evolutionary explanation has to actually explain why women can be promiscuous as well as men, not try to use evolution to explain why it's not culturally acceptable.


Among all societies there had been only 4 who practiced polyandry, there may be more in pre recorded history times. What about apes? In gorillas and sometimes in chimps, the alpha often kills the offspring from other males and would prevent other males to copulate with the females. It is also possible to argue that the tendency of males to control female sexuality has a biological (evolutionary) root.

It is true that the views on female promiscuity fluctuates across history and cultures, in some ancient civilisations religious prostitution was viewed as a holy act but were the women who did it were generally respected and highly regarded? Did men desire them as wives? Or were they simply tools to appease Gods (and men)?


Actually, I've heard of more than 4 cultures that have practiced polyandry and there are even a few that still exist today. Among the the cultures that still practice polyandry today include the Masai people in Kenya and the Inuits (Eskimos) who are indigenous people inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada, Greenland and the United States. Historically, the ancient Celtic people practiced polyandry as was described by the Romans when they encountered them. It has also been historically practiced in ancient India at one time (though it's not practiced now) and it has historically been practiced in Tibet.


The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:

I'm not sure. Men probably have to be physically attractive to women to be considered for a casual sex with them. Also, those same statistics on OKCupid also show that women don't consider physical attractiveness alone.


That's because most women seek serious relationship there, it is not a hook up site.


Sure, if a guy was only looking to have casual sex with a woman, he wouldn't give a crap about her personality either.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:


Actually, there are studies that show that women are just as willing to have casual sex as men as long as you remove the element of danger.

http://www.salon.com/2011/02/24/casual_sex_3/

I couldn't find the original study though.


Johnny Depp isn't an ordinary random male. lol

This article on this study is dumb, both Depp and Trump are rich but Depp is way more handsome, also resources don't matter much for women in casual sex selection, this had been shown in other studies, in that case men's looks is more important.


So? The point of the article was to determine who would have casual sex with attractive members of the opposite sex and how it would differ by gender and if men were more likely to do it at all than women were. So, they chose well known celebrities to ask them about. The point is that the men also chose the more attractive female celebrity, so there was no significant difference between the genders.



Geekonychus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,660

18 Jun 2014, 1:46 pm

People in this thread seem to be falsly equating Hypersexuality with Promiscuity.

My girlfriend and I are both hypersexual Aspies and we're monogamous.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 Jun 2014, 2:29 pm

But jono, there were significant differences when similar studies were done without celebs - and without the options of more attractive vs less attractive.

And why were we discussing polyandry btw? To those communities it is not considered promiscuity anyway, it is still a controlled sexuality system.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Jun 2014, 10:56 am

Geekonychus wrote:
People in this thread seem to be falsly equating Hypersexuality with Promiscuity.

My girlfriend and I are both hypersexual Aspies and we're monogamous.


The OP of this thread referred to promiscuity, not hypersexuality.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,603
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

19 Jun 2014, 11:21 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
But jono, there were significant differences when similar studies were done without celebs - and without the options of more attractive vs less attractive.


No, it wasn't similar studies. In fact, you're talking about one study that was done in 1989 in particular, where college students were propositioned for sex to see how it would differ. That study was flawed because it made assumptions about the results and it didn't take into account socio-cultural factors and dangerous situations (like the risk of being raped) that might prevent women from accepting. That's why celebs and hypothetical situations were used in the study I was referring to, it was to eliminate those factors as well as to see if it would support an alternative hypothesis to the one that says women prefer long-term relationships as a mating strategy proposed by the author of the study. That alternative hypothesis was that sexual activity is only pursued on the basis of pleasure and there was no instinctual drive to have children or have any specific mating strategies or anything. The pursuit of pleasure of pleasure is all that is needed for reproduction actually because biology does the rest. In any case, there's more where that came from. Just as I said before, there are actually evolutionary advantages to promiscuity as well:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21373/abstract

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And why were we discussing polyandry btw? To those communities it is not considered promiscuity anyway, it is still a controlled sexuality system.


Because, the fact that polyandry exists indicates that women having multiple partners is not viewed the same way in every culture. Also, it's not only polyandry but there are some tribal cultures that do not have formal marriages at all and sexual activity is almost completely unrestricted for both genders. I'm sure that those tribal cultures would not consider that promiscuity either, though it would be to us.



zkoc2076
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 88

23 Jun 2014, 7:16 am

Wow very interesting responses everyone!

It is reassuring to know that there is indeed a big variety of experiences.

GiantHockeyFan, that?s a really interesting theory about why it is only the one gender that gets targeted about this assumption, that makes a lot of sense.

Mindsight and Eureka very good point regarding the question of how is promiscuity defined!
Regarding that I think Geekonychus and Starving Artist make a very good and interesting point in distinguishing that from hypersexuality.

Well regarding definition of promiscuity itself according to Oxford Dictionary, ?having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships?. Also, (and I did not know this, I thought it was a ?neutral? word), the dictionary says it is ?derogatory?! In that case, that makes those book authors so mean to use that term (in addition to making an assumption/pigeonhole about how all AS women are in the first place).

Also aww SoftwareEngineer, sorry about the bullying about Your observations ? for what it?s wort I got the opposite impression than mysogeny and objectification from Your post because to take the stance ?safest bet is to assume any woman on the spectrum is asexual, until proven otherwise? is to avoid seeing them in sexual terms.
I also find interesting this new coined term of Yours, "political gender identity" ? I for one have always really struggled with that feminist idea that ?the political is personal? because it feels a terribly painfully invasive concept ? my personal life has no place in politics and vice versa to me - it seems very much against privacy.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

23 Jun 2014, 7:51 am

Celebs may eliminate the element of danger but also adds many other elements, like fame, status, wealth, even if it's for just one time sex, these may still affect attraction and response greatly.


Jono wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
But jono, there were significant differences when similar studies were done without celebs - and without the options of more attractive vs less attractive.


No, it wasn't similar studies. In fact, you're talking about one study that was done in 1989 in particular, where college students were propositioned for sex to see how it would differ. That study was flawed because it made assumptions about the results and it didn't take into account socio-cultural factors and dangerous situations (like the risk of being raped) that might prevent women from accepting. That's why celebs and hypothetical situations were used in the study I was referring to, it was to eliminate those factors as well as to see if it would support an alternative hypothesis to the one that says women prefer long-term relationships as a mating strategy proposed by the author of the study. That alternative hypothesis was that sexual activity is only pursued on the basis of pleasure and there was no instinctual drive to have children or have any specific mating strategies or anything. The pursuit of pleasure of pleasure is all that is needed for reproduction actually because biology does the rest. In any case, there's more where that came from. Just as I said before, there are actually evolutionary advantages to promiscuity as well:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21373/abstract

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
And why were we discussing polyandry btw? To those communities it is not considered promiscuity anyway, it is still a controlled sexuality system.


Because, the fact that polyandry exists indicates that women having multiple partners is not viewed the same way in every culture. Also, it's not only polyandry but there are some tribal cultures that do not have formal marriages at all and sexual activity is almost completely unrestricted for both genders. I'm sure that those tribal cultures would not consider that promiscuity either, though it would be to us.



Cafeaulait
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,537
Location: Europe

23 Jun 2014, 8:00 am

Lol, that surely ain't me. I have nothing with promiscuity.



ReticentJaeger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,127

23 Jun 2014, 9:43 am

SoftwareEngineer wrote:
Safest bet is to assume any woman on the spectrum is asexual, until proven otherwise.


Safest bet is to assume nothing.



Thanatos86
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 42

05 Jul 2014, 4:02 pm

It can simply be the easiest way they connect with guys.