Posted: Mar 22, 2011 3:02 am
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote: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?
It is open to men too, and it is fairly equal - probably about 60:40 women to men. And if we were to include similar professions, like strippers and escorts, then I imagine it would be practically 50:50.
sprite wrote: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.
Sure - and now demonstrate that this is an evolved trait. Remember our discussion about how biological functions can be appropriated by learning mechanisms?
sprite wrote:
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?
The rates aren't crucial when falsifying a ridiculously generalised claim. You claimed this was a woman-only profession, I falsified your claim.
sprite wrote: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
All anecdotal though. I've heard the opposite - that most female prostitutes think that their clients are generally sweet and they do what they can to make them happy and comfortable because they care about them, to some degree. Whereas the male prostitutes tend to dislike their work more because they are usually lumped with uglier, older women. Unless we have any evidence to suggest which is right (if either), then the position is moot.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:[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?
Because our culture demands that men pick up women, and that women be prudish and not have sex (as that would make them "whores"). Even if there are biological differences, these environmental forces would necessarily skew the data and we still need to figure out what is causing what.
sprite wrote:And why do so many men in relationships seek large numbers of different other women for brief sex/connection.
The last I checked, the infidelity rates in marriages was 50/50.
sprite wrote: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?
No, I'm saying that it's not representative of males in general. We also have to remember that one of the biggest earners in the porn industry is that aimed at women, so it would be odd not to apply the same arguments to women.
sprite wrote: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.
Perhaps, but you have to remember that it's incredibly difficult for men to do so given the current cultural demands. If a man notes that he doesn't watch porn or masturbate, what happens? He gets laughed at and called a liar. A man says that he doesn't approve of sleeping around? He's suddenly a "faggot" (and, depending on the idiocy of the company he keeps, he gets his ass kicked for his troubles).
The same equally applies to women - whenever they try to point out that masturbation is okay, or that they don't have a problem with sleeping around, they get called a "whore" and abused for it.
sprite wrote: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.
I have never pushed for the sameness of the sexes.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote: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.
What? I've accepted that there are more women prostitutes than men. What I deny is that this represents a biological difference - you need to demonstrate that.
Your arguments are ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that if I got a group of chihuahuas and poodles, then taught the chihuahuas to jump up and down when I ring a bell, and taught the poodles to roll over when I ring a bell, that observing the differences in their behavior after ringing a bell demonstrates a biological difference between the two groups?
sprite wrote: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?
No, I said: "I mean that the menstrual cycle will have effects on the body, so it will necessarily change behavior."
With these biological changes, there will be changes in behavior. Some of these changes will be learnt, as a function of the organisms interaction with the environment (i.e. if they are bleeding from their vagina, they are less likely to go swimming in a pool), and some of these changes will be behavioral adaptations (e.g. perhaps they are more receptive to a certain kind of male). The problem is that the former (aversion to swimming pools) is not an evolved feature, it's a learnt behavior. In other words, there are going to be a number of behavioral effects associated with the cycle and we need to figure out what is caused by what.
sprite wrote: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.
Indeed - so we would have two equally plausible hypotheses. We would need to test them to figure out which is which.
Can you at least attempt to just read what I write and not come up with your crazy interpretations?
The orgasm is not a behavior, so even if you could find evidence that the evolutionary path of the orgasm was different and that adaptations produced changes in males and females, this does not show that the behavior preceding the orgasm (the behavior that is rewarded) is an adaptation.
To claim that it is is a severe misunderstanding of evolutionary and behavioral theory.
sprite wrote: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.
I don't see how any of those factors could help separate the effects. It sounds like guesswork based on fanciful fairy tales.
sprite wrote: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?
For fuck's sake. No that's not my definition of fucking learning. sprite wrote: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.
I don't know whether the behavior is evolved or not because I haven't read enough about them to know, but how the hell does your second sentence have any relevance at all? Are you saying that if sexual behaviors weren't evolved, then organisms would never learn to have sex?
Ridiculous understanding of learning mechanisms.
sprite wrote: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.
No, that definition was made up in your own head based on a misrepresentation of my position.
sprite wrote: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'.
That was my original question but given your failure to answer it or even support it, I had to simplify the question for you.
sprite wrote: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.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Well one thing we can say with almost complete certainty is that the female straying behavior is probably not an "instinct". As for why the females specifically do this, I'm not sure, as I said we'd need more information on what processes could have led up to it.
Well incest avoidance is the basic one. In all social species one or both sexes disperses. Females especially resist incestuous matings.
Usually it is males who disperse as mother and offspring formed the first social unit, then daughters staying around while sons seek novel females.
Some change in apes led to sons staying with fathers and daughters then leaving to seek novel males and avoid incest.
We have it to some degree in gorillas which have one male or a male and son with unrelated females who move between silverbacks.
When the female bonobo reaches puberty she stops her sexual interactions and moves to the periphery of the group and then disperses. Maybe moving between groups before settling in one. This is where these otherwise promiscuous females exercise 'female choice' - they choose which community of related males they will mate with.
Incest avoidance with the attraction to some degree of novelty goes right back to the first sex cells.
Indeed, so in this scenario the "exploring" behavior would not be an instinct - it would be a learnt response to a number of factors, including the avoidance of incest. Just in case you don't understand the distinction here, look at it this way: pain is a biological response, and arguably we could say that the retraction from pain is an "instinct". Now suppose I taught my dog to run around a ridiculous obstacle course including see saws, slalom poles, and a part where it has to roll over, shake paw, and yodel to the latest country singing sensation, and I did all this using the pain "instinct". Undeniably, these behaviors are learnt and no one would argue that the yodelling to Garth Brooks is an instinct in the dog.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:So you accept that cultural variation and learning can significantly change the sexual behaviors in the sexes? If so, then how do you know that the differences that you are talking about are biological and not learnt? For example, how do you know that your speculation above is true?
Because they all boil down to the same species-wide principles of sexual selection, control over reproduction, and sexual conflict.
But you've already demonstrated that you're willing to apply this post-hoc explanation to anything, even things you've accepted are a result of cultural factors. So this explanation isn't good enough.
sprite wrote:
When women are stoned for being raped in some cultures the people there clearly think she should die.
Or in the past when it was the father or husband who was compensated the experience of the raped woman does not seem to have been one of particular concern about her.
Or for many cultures and in our own history that the rape of married women was viewed as impossible to exist.
Are you saying that these variations are not connected to the self-interest of the men involved?
They're for the self-interest of the man, certainly. I wouldn't argue that they are evolved behaviors though.
sprite wrote:And while these vary according to the environment I am saying they vary a lot more than do the feelings of the women who are raped across these cultures and situations.
And yes, you can create an environment where women will learn to accept rape more or less.
In some cultures girls are gang raped immediately before marriage (Australia), or gang-raped when they refuse to be free with their bodies (Amazonia).
Though it is part of the culture the girls still hate it.
Of course women across cultures and situations will consistently hate it - it's a horrible experience. Why would we want to teach them to accept it?!
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:
Wait, what.. Did you just say that men can't be raped by women? And you're trying to justify such ignorance by appealing to what other species do? What the fuck.
Ok Time for evidence of men being raped by women.
Or are we yet again using the 'it doesn't matter if it happens relatively rarely in men' geez.
Obviously these figures are even more difficult to judge than female rape statistics because there are even more societal pressures which prevent a man from reporting rape (estimated that less than 10% of male rape is reported). The only statistic I can find is that 4% of rapes are done by women - however this obviously doesn't tell us whether there is any difference in the number of rapists (i.e. it could be that there are equal numbers but men are simply more prolific).
So obviously your statement above is flat-out, completely and dangerously wrong. Even if we accept that it happens "relatively rarely" (a claim that is disputed in the literature on the subject), this doesn't change the fact that your ridiculous belief that men aren't raped by women to be absolutely bogus.
sprite wrote:
Do you know about the Pitcairn islanders?
In 1790 nine mutineers from HMS Bounty landed on Pitcairn along with six male and thirteen female Polynesians. !5 men and 13 women. When the colony was discovered eighteen years later ten of the women had survived but only one of the men. Of the other 14 men, one had committed suicide, one had died, and twelve had been murdered.
Oh well, that proves it then...
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote: First you need to present data showing that men are rejected more than women, and then if you can show this, you have to explain how you've separated out the biological differences from the significant cultural differences that play a major role in this difference (i.e. the strong social punishers in place for women approaching men and asking them out).
Yes, of course there are environmental influences.
Going back to the 70s, women were quite free to approach men. There were all those sex communes then etc etc. 'Free sex' was welcomed by a lot of people of both sexes. I read somewhere (and many years back so don't remember where) that when the men decided to settle down they reverted to wanting women who had not slept around.
That doesn't tell us anything.
sprite wrote:I saw something from Iran recently about male and female students having sexual relationships. They talked to the girls who were quite starry-eyed about their boyfriends and marriage. Then they, separately, talked to the boys. "Will you marry your girlfriend". One boy thinks and looks a little horrified by the prospect. What about the women they will marry - if she has had other boyfriends will that matter? No hesitation from the boys. Of course it will matter. The boys would not marry any woman who, as they put it, was secondhand goods. I just wished the girls could have seen this.
Of course this strict want for a virgin wife is cultural.
Exactly.
sprite wrote:Boys and men asked similar questions here say things like it being preferable she has had fewer partners than he. I think nine was that accepted number for one group of males. And they would not want to be told it was anymore. They advised women to lie.
I guess the number who would marry a sex worker is likely to be pretty low then.
Except this isn't the only factor for marriage, and what people report is usually very different from their actual behaviors (hence why self-reported data is generally pretty useless). Given that vast amounts of men apparently prefer experienced women compared to virgins in Western society, I'd imagine that prostitutes would have no problem finding a husband.
sprite wrote:Of course men, in certain circumstances, want women to be promiscuous. They often want to be promiscuous themselves so of course they can't do that without promiscuous women around. The story often changes when it comes to marriage and parenting.
I think that women should be at least a little suspicious of men's encouragement of their promiscuity. It still has far more negative consequences for female reproductive success than it does for the man.
What do you mean "men's encouragement of their promiscuity"? It seems to me that the biggest promoters of women's right to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want is coming from the women themselves - particularly the feminists.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Those studies show that it goes both ways. Men are much happier and have much more stable relationships when they wait longer before having sex with their partner.
Are there studies that show men would have preferred to have waited longer ie till they were older, before they started having any sex as studies of women show. I.e. stayed virgins longer?
There's this study: http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7244/1243.full where 27% of boys regretted their first time, compared to 32% of girls.
This result shouldn't be too surprising, a large number of guys regret their first time. I know I do.
Whilst searching for this, I found this paper with these results:
- Code: Select all
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
Men (n = 78) 17.9 28.2 38.5 10.3 5.1
Women (n = 181) 29.3 27.1 35.9 6.1 1.7
Combined (n = 259) 25.9 27.4 36.7 7.3 2.7
Where the subjects were asked "Have you ever regretted engaging in a sexual activity?". The interesting part is that the results completely contradict your idea about men "always being up for it". And furthermore, the males scores are higher in all of the columns except for "Never", where women are overrepresented...
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Firstly, even though the beliefs of society are changing, there are still significant punishers in place for promiscuous women so there aren't a lot of promiscuous women around.
Oh yes there are - you said above that they were hanging around in bars but unwanted because they're unclean.
I never said that.
And of course this is an accurate measure of sex differences...
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:That's not the problem with the legal system. Part of the problem with prosecuting rapists is that there is rarely ever any evidence that the victim did not consent. We can do swabs, check for vaginal tearing, and so on, but this only proves that sex (and sometimes rough sex) has taken place - it tells us nothing about whether the victim consented. Thus, a lot of rapists get let off.
If a woman says no to sex, and there is evidence of this, then the rapist will get prosecuted. The judge will not throw out, say, a video recording of her removing consent and say, "Sure, she said no, but I know that deep down women want sex just as much as men so this obviously can't be rape".
So it boils down to his word against hers. And we get a 6% conviction rate.
Exactly - the law is based on 'innocent until proven guilty', so if there is only a witness testimony and no other evidence, then the court can't prosecute. So your interpretation early is clearly wrong.
sprite wrote:Mr.Samsa wrote:Again you're still fantastically missing the point of my argument. You've accepted that learning processes play a significant role in the development of sexual behaviors. So when we find that there is a difference between the sexes, how do we know what behaviors are learnt and which are biological?
This is the main point that you keep dodging by appealing to sexual selection without explaining how sexual selection differentiates the two processes.
I'm now thinking the problem is that your definition of learnt seems to be anything that is a result of the interaction between the individual's biology and the input from the environment, while 'biological' seems to have to require no input from the environment which is impossible.
As earlier in discussing the hermaphrodites, with this definition everything is 'learnt' and nothing is 'biological'.
But then we also have this other term 'evolved' which I have had to assume means evolved adaptations. So this is the 'biological'. Evolved adaptations are also expressed in interaction with the environment. So does this then mean they are learned? That's what you seem to be ultimately arguing because they are not independent of the environment.
You think an adaptation must express itself regardless of the environment otherwise it is learned.
You also think physical traits are distinct from behavioural ones connected to them.
No, I'm using the standard definition of learning. I actually think the problem is the other way around, where you're using anything that has a biological aspect to mean that a very specific behavioral sequence must then be an adaptation. Of course behavioral adaptations involve an interaction with the environment, and nobody here is arguing "nature vs nurture" (at least I'm not), but the point is that if you're saying that a very specific behavior is evolved, then it makes no sense to say that the massive amounts of learning required to reach the final behavioral state is simply part of the evolved process. Like I demonstrated with the dog training example above, the fact that biological aspects play a role in shaping behavior is undeniable, but to say that yodelling to country music is an evolved behavior in the dog is ridiculous.
If you were arguing for general biological predispositions which make some behaviors more or less likely, then that's an entirely reasonable position (given supporting evidence), but you're arguing for a much more specific form of behavior than that. You're making claims like women have a natural aversion to rape - given that such aversion is completely different from every single innate behavior (of the class you're talking about), then we can either conclude that it isn't an adaptation, or it is an incredibly unique form of adaptation that you'd require massive amounts of evidence to support.
sprite wrote:I'll run this with a species you brought up yourself a little while ago - the 'learning' damselflies.
Two very similar species where the females of one species learned which male was the one of their own species.
How does she learn this? She mates with them. So what does this mating tell her? Most likely, and suggested in the paper, the difference between the males is in their genitalia.
Insects have the most diverse and rapidly evolving genitalia of all species. They are the main subjects and evidence for Eberhard's work on female cryptic choice. Many species can ony be distnguished by the male genitalia. Females have their preferences for particular genitalia with particular stimulation. Sexual selection. Post-copulatory male-male competition plus post-copulatory female choice.
How are you managing to twist this into an evolved behavior in your head? Yes, biological constraints shape behavior, and the evolved shape of the genitalia makes conspecific mating more likely, but the mating behavior is not evolved.
sprite wrote:So the female damselflies do not have a mating adaptation regarding what the male looks like in terms of the dark colour of the wings in these two species. There is also female preference for darker wings but the darkest wings belong to the other species.
So what do we actually have going on here with this 'learning'? We have a damselfly female with a mating preference for darker wings. If she is just with her own males, no problem. But when in an area with another species that is externally much the same as her own she mates with them too. Then his genitals do not match her evolved preference in her species. She can now distinguish between her own and the other species.
There was no overall preference for darker wings - the preference changed depending on their learning histories.
sprite wrote:Yes, she has learned which is the correct mate but only because her evolved preference applies to the genitals and only through mating can this be known. Genitals that have evolved through sexual selection. Genitals that evolve rapidly through sexual selection and that lead to speciation too.
She has evolved to accept males with the correct genitalia and genital stimulation.
You might think that because 'learning' is involved that mate choice is not an evolved, adaptive behaviour in this species. But of course it is. It's just that the evolved adaptation concerns the genitals with copulation needing to be in progress for female choice to act.
Here we have something which on the surface looks like 'learning' but these species have always and still are making mate choices through evolved preferences for particular male genitalia.
Insane reinterpretation of the data... You're completely misunderstanding what learning and behavioral adaptations are.
Look at it this way - all humans drink tea (or hot drinks) out of a mug or cup of some kind, and none drink them off of plates. This is because when they try to drink them off plates, the hot drink slides off and burns them. So is drinking tea from a mug an evolved behavioral adaptation? If you answer "yes" then there's really no point continuing this discussion because it's ridiculous, and if you answer "no" then you'd be inconsistent not to apply the same logic to the damselflies above.
sprite wrote:
Yes it does because it is the production of eggs and sperm that in most instances determines how selection will act differently on individuals of the same species. If we were hermaphrodites then sex differences would not exist.
With two sexes comes two (often very) different environments for male and female, ie one has the environment where they must reproduce only with males, the other only with females. Bodies and behaviours diverge. That's just a fact of life. Males and females of the same species exist in different reproductive environments.
This doesn't do anything to suggest that all sex differences are the result of sexual selection though! The point is that I'm not denying that sex differences are possible, the point is that I'm saying sex differences can come about through evolution, and through learning. How do you tell the difference? You haven't even attempted to do so yet.