Posted: Mar 21, 2011 4:19 pm
Mr.Samsa wrote:sprite wrote:Then isn't it about time sex work 'jobs' were treated the same as all other jobs ie advertised the same, talked about in school the same? Open the same for both sexes?
Shouldn't it be as ok for your wife to be a prostitute as work in a supermarket?
If it is just another job then why do we have problems with it?
I agree. In New Zealand this is what is happening since it has been legalised. They advertise it like any other job and they carry on with normal lives. Whether people want to date someone in that line of work is up to their own individual preferences - personally I wouldn't care, but I know some people would. But we have to keep in mind that this doesn't just apply to prostitution - there are people who refuse to date people in the army, tax collectors, etc., so there's nothing significant about choosing not to date someone who has a job that disagrees with your own principles.
So these jobs and advertisements etc are in similar numbers for both sexes?
Or is it still a service almost always provided by women to men?
Should we not work to open it up to men, like is done with traditional 'men's' jobs?
Yes men do fake orgasms.
In our 'part-learned' monogamous long-term relationships the two sexes do converge. Monogamy leads to the two sexes being alike in bodies and behaviours. It is the same across species. But the influence of the menstrual cycle also exists here. While the men might be tired (and having to deal with a sexually voracious mid-cycle partner) the woman will have more of a regular variation over the menstrual cycle. So the faking is to a different degree and due to different evolved mechanisms.
On the promiscuous side of the equation is where the sex differences are expected to be different again. Sex with a novel partner is where the difference would be expected to be greatest, with females far more likely to vary in how much sexual desire/orgasm exists. Mid-cycle with a 'good genes' male, and the arousal and orgasm would be predicted to be more likely for the woman. I'm sure there are some studies on this. Women far more than men will fail to have orgasms with novel men.
There have been studies too that show women more consistently have orgasms in long-term, secure relationships.
Connected to this there is this study Genetic influences on variation in female orgasmic function: a twin study:
One in three women (32%) reported never or infrequently achieving orgasm during intercourse, with a corresponding figure of 21% during masturbation. A significant genetic influence was seen with an estimated heritability for difficulty reaching orgasm during intercourse of 34% (95% confidence interval 27–40%) and 45% (95% confidence interval 38–52%) for orgasm during masturbation. These results show that the wide variation in orgasmic dysfunction in females has a genetic basis and cannot be attributed solely to cultural influences. These results should stimulate further research into the biological and perhaps evolutionary processes governing female sexual function.
Of course the rates are crucial.
If someone says women don't have colour blindness and someone points out 'yes they do' we just ignore the different rates? Or decide that we need to take 'learning' rather than genetics into consideration?
Mr.Samsa wrote:sprite wrote:You know, I've seen some of these male prostitutes. One went shopping with the woman as his 'sex work'.
How is this different from what a lot of escorts do? I know one guy who hires hookers, then takes them out, buys them ice cream, and then drops them off home. Supposedly a large part of the job for prostitutes is the whole "connection" thing, and that's why they offer services where they literally just sit and talk to men, with gentle hugging and kissing, for an hour without any sex.
Sweet.
The women do a good job - so many of them confess to disliking and even hating the men. But smiling is a requirement of the job.
One male prostitute I heard said he loved his clients, mostly having a small number of regular ones. He came across as something like a silverback gorilla with a harem. He too only regretted that he had no relationship and felt sad about not having someone to come home to. Guess he wasn't getting his 'connection' needs met with his ladies. They probably don't pay to be the ones to have to listen to him
Mr.Samsa wrote:sprite wrote:And yes, I do accept that women might pay a sexy male to make love to them. Just that these are more exceptions for women rather then the norm for men.
Why don't the men who want sex just pair up with the women who want sex and then they get it for free?
There are a large number of reasons. The simplest being that the man is too ugly or socially awkward to pick up a girl, or the man is too busy, and so hiring a prostitute is the easiest way to go about it.
So why is it the males who do the picking up?
And if the sexes are the same there must be an equal number of ugly and socially awkward women/girls wanting to pick up boys? Why don't they have the same service provided to them? Why don't 'attractive' boys and men take advantage of their potential market of ugly and socially awkward or simply too busy women?
And why do so many men in relationships seek large numbers of different other women for brief sex/connection.
I don't deny that men can and do seek 'connection' rather than simply sex. Geisha girls do not provide sex, only the illusion (often to married men) that there are lots more sexy young women around that really like the men and think they are very attractive. Women don't have their own version of this, though.
It really epitomizes the monogamy/promiscuity evolution of our species. We want both the 'connection' of a (even pretend) pair-bonded relationship and we want sex or 'connection' with more than one partner. Women far less than men seem to be willing to pay for it though, otherwise this market would have already been far more exploited by men. It's hard to believe that such a large market has been left untapped by men.
Mr.Samsa wrote:That's not a description of male sexuality, that's a horny cartoon character. Do you really think that the subpopulation that porn sites ads are aimed at would give us anywhere near a representative idea of male sexuality?
So you are saying that the highest grossing industry we have has been so successful in a market that does not exist?
I do think that (non-religious) men need to be a lot more vocal and visible about their 'anti-porn', 'anti-casual sex' 'anti-promiscuity' etc etc. I think it would make a massively positive impact on relations between the sexes.
But even you have been pushing more for the sameness of the sexes being towards sameness re. casual sex, promiscuity, male prostitutes etc rather than promoting the sameness of the sexes towards sameness re. committed, pair-bonded relationships.
Mr.Samsa wrote:sprite wrote:But when you show that you can so easily ignore differences that exist then that makes me doubt these methods.
You have already established that for you there are no differences between the sexes.
I have never said this anywhere in this thread or forum. I have not ignored anything as no evidence has been presented.
Well, the evidence of differences in male/female prostitution for example, you have ignored the very obvious differences to make simplistic statements like men are prostitutes as if that is the end of evidence for difference.
What it is like is me saying men are taller than women. You say some men are taller than some women. End of story about sexual difference in height.
Mr.Samsa wrote:sprite wrote:
Do you mean the change in behaviour over the menstrual cycle as a by-product compared to it being selected/adaptive?
I mean that the menstrual cycle will have effects on the body, so it will necessarily change behavior. What I'm interested in is how the authors separate out these changes (that occur as a result of environmental changes), and the behaviors being adaptations.
So you are saying that the hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle occur as a result of environmental changes?
Mr.Samsa wrote:Yes they're connected, but the development of a menstrual cycle doesn't mean that there is a correlative development of behavioral sequences. So whilst these differences in physical structures will affect the behavior of the sexes, these differences would then be a product of learning (i.e. responses to the structural differences).
So to go back to the antler analogy, while the differences in the existence/physical structure of the antlers will affect the behaviour of the sexes, these behavioural differences would then be a product of learning? The females don't compete for males because they don't have antlers and learn that they don't so don't try to fight. The males learn they have antlers and that they can use them in competition with other males. Ummm....
Or we could say that the ancestor had males that competed by knocking heads. Some genetic variation occurred where some individuals developed hard growths on the head. This would initially have occurred in both sexes. Sexual selection and the action of establshed mechanisms to sexually limit the expression of genes that are adaptive in one sex but not the other leads to gradual increase over time of the evolution of the male antlers and the absence in the female.
I.e the behaviour of male-male competition shaped the selection of the genes for antlers in males while females did not have the same behaviour so the antler development was selected against.
Primate females evolved menstrual cycles. In monkeys we get mating largely limited to oestrus.
Just looking at the langurs where Hrdy first studied the mating by females outside of oestrus under certain conditions .
These live in one-male groups and there are groups of bachelor males too. When females come across the bachelor males they will mate with them even, I think, if not in oestrus.
The male in the group only has on average about 22months before these bachelor males will launch a take-over.
When this happens the females in the group will mate with them and then when the new single male only remains they will actively solicit matings with him even though not in oestrus and even when pregnant.
Is this adaptive? Absolutely yes. The male will seek out and kill the infant of any female he has not mated with. Females mating with new males is absolutely adaptive for females. This means mating outside of oestrus is adaptive.
It is surely selection for a particular behaviour in particular circumstances.
This behaviour in females of mating outside of oestrus can be seen in other monkeys and becomes increasingly so in apes until we get to humans where it occurs most of all.
It is adaptive in all the other primates. It would have been adaptive in our earliest ancetors at the pan/homo split. And is very likely to have increased in our ancestry because it was adaptive to do so.
Particular behaviours expressed in particular circumstances that are absolutely adaptive.
Why not?
Going back to the langurs you are saying that the biology of the ancestral species that did not mate outside of oestrus is the same as the current biology of the females that do, and all that has changed is that some females for some unknown reason started to mate with novel males outside of oestrus and other females copied this behaviour. The fact that they then had more surviving offspring is incidental.
I would say that an ancestral female had a variation in the genetics of her mating behaviour (soliciting novel males with 'false' oestrus signals to them) that led to her mating with novel males outside of oestrus. She had more surviving offspring and the variation spread though them.
Mr.Samsa wrote:No, I'm saying that an orgasm is not a behavior.
So a discussion on sexual behaviour ought to leave out 'orgasm' which is only, what, a physiological reward mechanism for a behaviour?
Mr.Samsa wrote:So if monogamy is learnt, and monogamy is the dominant system which drives a lot of our sexual behaviors, then there is necessarily a confound when it comes to sexual differences between the sexes. Specifically, how do we know that a difference is a result of biological differences, and when it is a result of the institution of monogamy?
By looking at the hunter-gatherers, primates (especially apes), physical differences between the sexes, genetic differences, physiological differences, fossils, which behaviours are adaptive for one sex and not the other, sexual conflict.
Mr.Samsa wrote:Firstly, I never said that the sexual behaviors of hermaphroditic organisms was learnt. Secondly, even if it was learnt, why would you assume that the behavior would start off "random"?
Ok
So if we look at this mating behaviour of Pseudobiceros bedfordi
Are we arguing as to whether this is an evolved, adaptive behaviour or whether it is a learned?
Trying now to work out your definition of 'learned' .............. a product of the interaction of biology and environment? These hermaphrodite mates have some evolved mating mechanism or not? Presumably so as they would just avoid each other and get on with feeding rather than wasting time and energy on this.
So if we accept evolved traits that lead them to proximity and some evolved trait that leads them to jab the other with their penises.....................but, I'm getting the feeling you would say this all happens in interaction with the environment so it is learned.
I get the feeling from your definition 'learned' we could actually show that absolutely nothing has in fact evolved.
What you really mean is how do we distinguish between behaviours due to interactions between adaptations and the environment and behaviours due to interactions between non-adaptive biology and the environment.
Normally this is just asked in the form of 'how do we know if this is an adaptation or not'.
But you also seem to be saying that the involvement of any interaction means the biological trait either does not actually exist or is not an adaptation.
Part two to follow.