# The Arab myth of western women



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 10, 2010)

> When I wrote last month about western stereotypes of Arab men, several commenters, including WeAreTheWorld, suggested that Arab stereotypes of western women would also be worth exploring.
> 
> Just as Arab men are stereotyped and pigeonholed in the west, western women hover somewhere between myth and fantasy in the Arab world. "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook," my wife joked, summing up pithily some common Arab prejudices.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 10, 2010)

yea no one cares.


----------



## zuul (Nov 10, 2010)

If they knew...

I'm a western woman and I don't even like having sex. 

But it's true I'm a man beater and a terrible cook.  Kidding. 

And I prefer my eurofags over all the men around the world.
They treat their women well.


----------



## DremolitoX (Nov 10, 2010)

Description seems pretty spot-on tbh.


----------



## Mider T (Nov 10, 2010)

Not surprised, lies propogated by their husbands and fathers to reject a more free lifestyle.  They sure can dress well though


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 10, 2010)

Its not just Arabs but South Asians too. They all believe western women have no morals, don't take care of their children, are sex driven and only value money. And use this as a reason to not allow their daughters basic rights.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 10, 2010)

zuul said:


> If they knew...
> 
> I'm a western woman and I don't even like having sex.
> 
> ...



You would make the perfect slave for Caesar's Legion. (New Vegas reference)


----------



## Netorie (Nov 10, 2010)

Ineresting...but wow. Just wow I think.


----------



## zuul (Nov 10, 2010)

What crack me up is the belief that all women are sex-craved and promiscuous if not controlled by men. If only they knew that for a grat deal of women sex is not that satisfying and that they spread their legs to please their men and not for self-satisfaction. 

The real sex craved sluts are the men.I'm a bit jealous of that, since they get more fun in life.


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 10, 2010)

> obsessed with sex


How a man would consider this a bad thing is beyond me.

Are all arab & south asian men gay? Oh nevermind, its because they have sub-par man parts so they don't give a shit


----------



## abcd (Nov 10, 2010)

how I wish all those stereotypes were true


----------



## Gino (Nov 10, 2010)

SO..........wait what


----------



## Ryan (Nov 10, 2010)

interesting thread. might read later.

edit; reps for anyone who links me to the previous article about 'arab men'


----------



## Le Pirate (Nov 10, 2010)

Not far off. Kidding, I'm a western woman, but I can see why they think that with the news and all.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 10, 2010)

Ryan said:


> interesting thread. might read later.
> 
> edit; reps for anyone who links me to the previous article about 'arab men'


----------



## AvsY (Nov 10, 2010)

-Dargor- said:


> How a man would consider this a bad thing is beyond me.
> 
> Are all arab & south asian men gay? Oh nevermind, its because they have sub-par man parts so they don't give a shit



yeah their gay for thinking that it`s a bad things for them to behave as whores.

I don't know that they're anymore promiscuous than any other women. I met all sorts of sluts.Some women are marriage-material , others are a good time. It's the old double standard. A woman who has a lot of sex is a slut, a man who has a lot sex is a man .CHASTITY IS NOT DIFFERENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 10, 2010)

> Part of it relates to the conservative Arab fixation on women's sexuality in general. According to this outlook, women's sexual appetites are so insatiable that, if they are left to their own devices, they turn into uncontrollable nymphomaniacs and temptresses luring men to crash into the rocks of lust.



 God, they're pathetic... they're so pathetic...


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 10, 2010)

They also believe life in America is what they see on the hills and all that sort of garbage lol.


----------



## Sillay (Nov 10, 2010)

Maybe they should stop reading playboy.


----------



## WT (Nov 10, 2010)

And this is the exact reason why women were Burka's there 

Mentality of men changes geographically. Over there, men start staring. I noticed that as well when I visited Saudi.


----------



## Sora (Nov 10, 2010)

If only western women were obsessed with sex


----------



## Koppachino (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm not arab, but I did finish high school in Dubai and have a lot of arab friends.  The arabs that view western women as "promiscuous" are the old-school, traditional types, i.e. the arab-rednecks. You generally won't find that train of thought in an educated environment.

And now, in the States, I've met just as many Caucasian/Hispanic/etc men who think of American women the same way the article describes. It's a sad, universal thing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 10, 2010)

If they repaced "western" with "american" they could scratch the whole part about it being a myth.


----------



## Gino (Nov 10, 2010)

The replys are interesting go on..........


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Nov 10, 2010)

Sillay said:


> Maybe they should stop reading playboy.



My mother lived in Isfahan before and during the revolution and she said before the Revolution started women could choose to wear their Hijabs and such, and that there was an overwhelming gay community as well.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2010)

Is this really a stereotype? Okay, I know our women aren't the creatures portrayed in rap videos and Playboys. But just go to a bar around 12AM on a Friday night and buy drinks + smile, you're more than likely to go home with one by closing. 

Not complaining, I'm a guy and it's fucking fantastic. But our sexual girls are anything but a myth.


----------



## Patchouli (Nov 10, 2010)

Similar stereotype about western women exists in Japan, the whole them being sex-obsessed sluts.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Nov 10, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Is this really a stereotype? Okay, I know our women aren't the creatures portrayed in rap videos and Playboys. But just go to a bar around 12AM on a Friday night and buy drinks + smile, you're more than likely to go home with one by closing.
> 
> Not complaining, I'm a guy and it's fucking fantastic. But our sexual girls are anything but a myth.



Then your living in the wrong place.

Western women aren't whores because they are free.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2010)

Farfalla. said:


> Then your living in the wrong place.
> 
> Western women aren't whores because they are free.



I'm not saying they're whores. But there's no sexual restraint. No use pretending like sex isn't casual and easy to find.

And BTW, a place like that would be considered "right" by most guys. Just sayin.


----------



## vivEnergy (Nov 10, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm not saying they're whores. But there's no sexual restraint. No use pretending like sex isn't casual and easy to find.
> 
> And BTW, a place like that would be considered "right" by most guys. Just sayin.



You are the whore actually.


----------



## Sora (Nov 10, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> You are the whore actually.



don't be mean bro 
 the rules of NF said members should show other members respect


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Nov 10, 2010)

IcetricX said:


> don't be mean bro
> the rules of NF said members should show other members respect



Yeah...nobody takes that rule seriously. 


As for the article it is unfortunately true. I have a friend from Iraq who pretty much thought that American girls were going to sleep with him despite the wife and kids back home. He was gravely mistaken.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2010)

vivEnergy said:


> You are the whore actually.



Men can't be whores, only women. It's good when we do it. Read the man book, sir.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Gaawa-chan said:


> > Part of it relates to the conservative Arab fixation on women's sexuality in general. According to this outlook, women's sexual appetites are so insatiable that, if they are left to their own devices, they turn into uncontrollable nymphomaniacs and temptresses luring men to crash into the rocks of lust.
> 
> 
> 
> God, they're pathetic... they're so pathetic...



I agree.

And because of this thinking, it results in the need of burqa/s to protect themselves.. 



> Is this really a stereotype? Okay, I know our women aren't the creatures portrayed in rap videos and Playboys. But just go to a bar around 12AM on a Friday night and buy drinks + smile, you're more than likely to go home with one by closing.
> 
> Not complaining, I'm a guy and it's fucking fantastic. But our sexual girls are anything but a myth.


That was a sterotype.

Western women are not "oversexed, promiscuous" women as these people like to think.

I bet they didn't mention what they'd do to Western women and how they'd react to "western oversexed women" in their country.


----------



## lucky (Nov 10, 2010)

article said:
			
		

> "A typical Egyptian male is a firm believer that any *western woman* is an  easy catch and would not mind at all having sex with complete  strangers,"



no no no.  they've gotten them mixed up with western men.  _MEN_.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 10, 2010)

So many Arab men are desperate, repressed, hypocritical twats. Can't keep it in their pants themselves but are so obsessed with limiting Arab women.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 10, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> If they repaced "western" with "american" they could scratch the whole part about it being a myth.



Aren't you charming and witty.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> So many Arab men are desperate, repressed, hypocritical twats. Can't keep it in their pants themselves but are so obsessed with limiting Arab women.



This is true. They don't like it when women have a sexuality (even if its the smallest amount of any sexuality), but they can have it freely without it being wrong.


----------



## Hand Banana (Nov 10, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Men can't be whores, only women. It's good when we do it. Read the man book, sir.



This is true. Guys don't have double standards. I can go sleep with 20 women in a week, and brag to my friends about it. And they'll consider me a hero. A woman can go sleep with 20 guys in a week and be labeled by her peers as a slut, bitch, whore, tramp, and all types of vaginas.


----------



## Tkae (Nov 10, 2010)

Is this like how some Asian people (Chinese nationalists, in particular) think that all Westerners, particularly Americans, are all whores and will do anything, no matter how degrading, for money?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

> Men can't be whores, only women. It's good when we do it. Read the man book, sir.



This is why these men (Arab) are idiots and are so hell bent on suppressing and holding down women because we aren't, in their eyes, the same or deserving of the same equality.

Idiocy at its finest. 

And actually, men who sleep around are sluts. It doesn't really matter if other men don't consider them as such, they still are man sluts.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Nov 10, 2010)

Stop shoving your 50's ideals down our throats.

Women now-a-days are now paid to cook!


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> And actually, men who sleep around are sluts. It doesn't really matter if other men don't consider them as such, they still are man sluts.



And that's fine. Men are cool with being promiscuous, it's a good trait for us. It's what makes us "real men." For women, not so much, they just get to be shunned by their friends and labeled "whores." 

This male-biased system is enforced by women, how ironic.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> And that's fine. Men are cool with being promiscuous, it's a good trait for us. It's what makes us "real men." For women, not so much, they just get to be shunned by their friends and labeled "whores."
> 
> This male-biased system is enforced by women, how ironic.



How? I don't see women sleeping around as whores (unless they cheat on a boyfriend/husband by whoring around).

So real men whore around? That's a real man?  Set yourself pretty low, didn't cha?


----------



## Aokiji (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> How? I don't see women sleeping around as whores (unless they cheat on a boyfriend/husband by whoring around).
> 
> So real men whore around? That's a real man?  Set yourself pretty low, didn't cha?



Because you are women.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Aokiji said:


> Because you are women.



And? Its that's kind of thinking that results in this treatment of women. Seeing them as nothing but your sexual pleasures.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 10, 2010)

Too bad no one's really given a fuck what they think. I mean if they hadn't attacked the World Trade Center, we'd still be not giving a fuck. People act all culturally interested because of what's going on right now.


----------



## Sanity Check (Nov 10, 2010)

In short, arabs think the way western men treat their women is barbaric and savage?

Interesting.


----------



## Koppachino (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> This is why these men (Arab) are idiots and are so hell bent on suppressing and holding down women because we aren't, in their eyes, the same or deserving of the same equality.



You're generalizing, making you no better than them. If you saw my previous post, I have quite a few arab friends that I still keep in touch with, and they don't have the "western women = whores" attitude at all. _Some_ men think like that, sure, but it's not limited to Arabs.


----------



## ninjaneko (Nov 10, 2010)

> In fact, some blokes I've met entertain the belief that Egyptian men have a good reputation among western women for their virility and sexual prowess.


----------



## Momoka (Nov 10, 2010)

> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook



This is very true.


----------



## AvsY (Nov 10, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> If they repaced "western" with "american" they could scratch the whole part about it being a myth.



We all know white women are quite sexually loose and that includes European girls :ho


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Koppachino said:


> You're generalizing, making you no better than them. If you saw my previous post, I have quite a few arab friends that I still keep in touch with, and they don't have the "western women = whores" attitude at all. _Some_ men think like that, sure, but it's not limited to Arabs.



How many Arab men participated into this then...? 
Because its looking like a majority of them... 

But I guess it depends on how many Arab men participated. All the Arab men, when my mother lived there, did and thought exactly like this...


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 10, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Too bad no one's really given a fuck what they think. I mean if they hadn't attacked the World Trade Center, we'd still be not giving a fuck. People act all culturally interested because of what's going on right now.



Is this post meant to be a generic generalization all arabs are terrosit? Because it sure sounds like it....

as to the topic, lol. Putting aside the innane claims, what is evn the minimum requirement to be promicuous? ........................

PS: That bs about the high amount of crime indicating a greater amount of opression =/  Still, I wonder, might it be better to say the high crime rate shows people feel so free they're willing to fuck  each other up something proper, and in that way, are TRULLY O_O  FREE


----------



## Koppachino (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> How many Arab men participated into this then...?
> Because its looking like a majority of them...
> 
> But I guess it depends on how many Arab men participated. All the Arab men, when my mother lived there, did and thought exactly like this...



It's more like getting a "general idea." Example: Some Americans show up on TV as ridiculous racits and whatnot, does that signify a majority? No. The same way that this article doesn't represent a majority of Arabs.

I can't speak for the men your mother met (was it in Saudi Arabia?), but I've met a lot of Arabs, and literally none of them think western women are all sluts. There are sluts everywhere, of all races and both genders.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Too bad no one's really given a fuck what they think. I mean if they hadn't attacked the World Trade Center, we'd still be not giving a fuck. People act all culturally interested because of what's going on right now.



Was it necessary to bring something so irrelevant in here?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> Is this post meant to be a generic generalization all arabs are terrosit? Because it sure sounds like it....


I think he means "If we didn't care before the World Trade Center (Because it brought light and media on the Arab world) was bombed, we aren't going to care now." 


Koppachino said:


> It's more like getting a "general idea." Example: Some Americans show up on TV as ridiculous racits and whatnot, does that signify a majority? No. The same way that this article doesn't represent a majority of Arabs.
> 
> I can't speak for the men your mother met (was it in Saudi Arabia?), but I've met a lot of Arabs, and literally none of them think western women are all sluts. There are sluts everywhere, of all races and both genders.
> 
> Was it necessary to bring something so irrelevant in here?



Depends. If they act and do racist things, and if its a majority, then I dunno, yea?

Iran actually, even before the Revo.


----------



## Red (Nov 10, 2010)

I don't like how this article implies playboy and porn are not being truthful. I learned all my life lessons from porn. Yes, that includes table etiquette, hygiene and theoretical physics.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree with Red. watching porno helped me get through grad school. Don't underestimate the power of porn.


----------



## Phunin (Nov 10, 2010)

Lol, that's not so false around where I live, but it definitely not a nation wide thing.


----------



## Koppachino (Nov 10, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Iran actually, even before the Revo.



Unfortunately, I'm not surprised, even if it was before the Revolution. The Iranian people I know are some of the nicest people I've ever met, but they admit that the ones who grow up in Iran itself with that culture and thought process would probably support the article.


----------



## RainTree (Nov 10, 2010)

I don't blame them for getting the wrong impression. Television these days man...


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 10, 2010)

Koppachino said:


> Unfortunately, I'm not surprised, even if it was before the Revolution. The Iranian people I know are some of the nicest people I've ever met, but they admit that the ones who grow up in Iran itself with that culture and thought process would probably support the article.



My mom said before the Revo, they allowed so many rights, or at least it was "flexible" and then the Revo happened and the people she even saw at the markets everyday, rounded her up and left them in the middle of nowhere (Killing my grandfather's friends, mostly the women because they weren't "dressed" properly or were Arab women).

I have so many Iranian Rial of the man in charge before the Revo. My mom even got to see his wife! She said he encouraged the women to dress the way they wanted to show how beautiful and compassionate they are. Its surprising to think the same people who didn't feel that way immediately changed once someone else was in power...


----------



## WT (Nov 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> And that's fine. Men are cool with being promiscuous, it's a good trait for us. It's what makes us "real men." For women, not so much, they just get to be shunned by their friends and labeled "whores."
> 
> This male-biased system is enforced by women, how ironic.



I see it as this:

Men are like keys. A Key that open all locks is said to be a "master" key.

Women are like locks. A lock that can be opened by all Keys is said to be a shit lock.

This analogy sums it up very accurately.


----------



## Desert Butterfly (Nov 11, 2010)

> western women are oversexed, promiscuous and have revolving doors in their knickers.



lol, what?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2010)

White Tiger said:


> I see it as this:
> 
> Men are like keys. A Key that open all locks is said to be a "master" key.
> 
> ...



You stole that from me and I stole it from Bash.org.


----------



## WT (Nov 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You stole that from me and I stole it from Bash.org.



Sorry did you post it here?

 ... I stole it from my phone  (an app for jokes)


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 11, 2010)

An interesting article. All these authorities in the western world, all these authorities in the eastern world, all trying to solve the "woman issue." 

And it seems, not a single woman consulted in the process.


----------



## xenopyre (Nov 11, 2010)

Oh! you mean western women are not like that  there goes my fantasies of the westernal heaven  (being an Arab in a western country)


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 11, 2010)

To me this seems to be seeing the culture from the outside without understanding the context. 

In western culture we have gone through the sexual revolution where women regain much of the power in the relationship, and much of the power to control their own lives. 

They are no longer forced to live from their father to their husband and be under their power. They can live for themselves and control their own lives. 

This freedom and this power put into the context of sexual relationship is seen as being "whoreish", while the same power exhibited in men in their sexual relationships is not. 

It is the remnant of males sexism against woman that see women in control of their own sexuality as whores, and this stereotype is perpetuated by old cultural norms that feel women should not be in power and should instead be dominated by men. 



			
				White Tiger said:
			
		

> I see it as this:
> 
> Men are like keys. A Key that open all locks is said to be a "master" key.
> 
> ...


This is a great example of the sexism I am talking about.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 11, 2010)

White Tiger said:


> I see it as this:
> 
> Men are like keys. A Key that open all locks is said to be a "master" key.
> 
> ...



LOOOOL

That's a perfect way to describe it.


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 11, 2010)

Funny thing is:

Arab man marries over 40 women.
Goes on to call western women whores.
Western woman is married to 1 person, possibly cheating with 2 more.

She's still 37 sex partners short of the first tard.

Yeah I know I'm using stereotypes.


----------



## zuul (Nov 11, 2010)

White Tiger said:


> I see it as this:
> 
> Men are like keys. A Key that open all locks is said to be a "master" key.
> 
> ...



Because an STD filled man who can't live as a faithful commited BF is such a desirable thing for a woman.

Men can be slut and are so more often than women.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You stole that from me and I stole it from Bash.org.



That joke is literally everywhere.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Nov 11, 2010)

Men are supposed to cook though.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 11, 2010)

I don't blame them to be honest, with the movies/series that are on TV nowadays.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I don't blame them to be honest, with the movies/series that are on TV nowadays.


So they can't tell fact from reality? You mean to say that Arabic people are the equivalent of ten year old kids?


----------



## Sky is Over (Nov 11, 2010)

Hah! Wish it was that easy sometimes.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 11, 2010)

Watch shows like Californication or Entourage. They're presented as a real account of life in LA, and nameless women throw themselves in droves at virtually any male. Mark Wahlberg said the latter was based on his experience becoming a star. Almost every episode of Entourage has Vincent Chase choosing a random girl or group of girls, asking her back to his house, and them having sex. Hank walks into a book store and the first girl he sees wants to fuck him. 

Western portrayals of women are no "better" than Arab views.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Watch shows like Californication or Entourage. They're presented as a real account of life in LA, and nameless women throw themselves in droves at virtually any male. Mark Wahlberg said the latter was based on his experience becoming a star. Almost every episode of Entourage has Vincent Chase choosing a random girl or group of girls, asking her back to his house, and them having sex. Hank walks into a book store and the first girl he sees wants to fuck him.
> 
> Western portrayals of women are no "better" than Arab views.



 and how many days pass between each episode? How many of these types of experiences can one person have in a week, how common are the type of people having them? 

LA is not all of fucking America, despite what they may think over there and that's part of the problem. 

California is so full of itself they think they can build half a billion dollar high schools when they're broke and that they can have city workers making more than their counterparts in larger cities. 

The state's just all around fucked up and that's why so much of the nation resents them.


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So they can't tell fact from reality? You mean to say that Arabic people are the equivalent of ten year old kids?



Oh please, you think life in Saudi is what you read in NYT or see on fox news. If peoples only interaction with 'said' culture is TV then there impression is going to be that.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> and how many days pass between each episode? How many of these types of experiences can one person have in a week, how common are the type of people having them?



Watch the shows, it's every episode. The only time Chase ever stayed with one girl she was a porn star and they broke up because she wanted to fuck random guys on camera. 

Hank literally fucks a new girl every episode. First episode within 2 minutes he fucks a 16-year-old nymphomaniac who likes to punch him while screwing. 

Just watch the shows, they're really funny.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 11, 2010)

Outlandish said:


> Oh please, you think life in Saudi is what you read in NYT or see on fox news. If peoples only interaction with 'said' culture is TV then there impression is going to be that.


The news is a lot different than TV shows...

Even then I don't claim to know how all people in Saudi Arabia are. The comment you're quoting is my response to what I thought was a dumb way of putting it. Arabs aren't children, to say that they look at TV and expect all Americans to be that way is to say such. It wasn't me saying anything bad about them, it was me talking about what was said about them believing everything off the television. 

But thanks for throwing your two cents in and making all of this make even less sense.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Nov 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So they can't tell fact from reality? You mean to say that Arabic people are the equivalent of ten year old kids?


Not really but the media has a huge influence just as people from the western world view ME as huge shitholes with people living tents and all of them having camels, so do the Arabs view the western world as  countries filled with promiscuous women and all that other bull-crap.


----------



## Basilikos (Nov 11, 2010)

> What is behind this belief that western women are somehow sex-crazed? Part of it relates to the conservative Arab fixation on women's sexuality in general. According to this outlook, women's sexual appetites are so insatiable that, if they are left to their own devices, they turn into uncontrollable nymphomaniacs and temptresses luring men to crash into the rocks of lust.




Lol at the Middle East.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 11, 2010)

Dash of ignorance, and a dash of propaganda aimed at perpetuating male control of female sexuality.

(Consuming Western media without proper context or understanding is part of the ignorance.)


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Watch shows like Californication or Entourage. They're presented as a real account of life in LA, and nameless women throw themselves in droves at virtually any male. Mark Wahlberg said the latter was based on his experience becoming a star. Almost every episode of Entourage has Vincent Chase choosing a random girl or group of girls, asking her back to his house, and them having sex. Hank walks into a book store and the first girl he sees wants to fuck him.
> 
> Western portrayals of women are no "better" than Arab views.



Man, I hope you don't watch Harry Potter or your going to be really disappointed if you ever go to London and there aren't wizards everywhere.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Man, I hope don't watch



You hope don't watch what? At least use decent English if you're going to try insults. 



> Yeah, here and there. There’s nothing I’m going to own up to. They also take liberties and take from other people’s experiences in the business and try to come up with cool and interesting stuff. *It’s all pretty realistic as far as Hollywood goes.*
> 
> - Mark Wahlberg


----------



## Outlandish (Nov 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Man, I hope don't watch Harry Potter or your going to be really disappointed if you ever go to London and there aren't wizards everywhere.



Actually when the new movie and books are out there are


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You hope don't watch what? At least use decent English if you're going to try insults.


Wow, that really destroyed the meaning of my sentence. It really defeated the point of you taking a fictional tv series and using as a basis for reality.

o wait, it didn't you're just trying to avoid the point. 


Shinigami Perv said:


>


lol, so a collection of stories from celebrities throughout Hollywood put together with fictional aspects into a TV series.

This to you = reality!


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 11, 2010)

> "*How can they [the west] demand the ending of what they see as injustice against Saudi women, when their own women are drowning in seas of injustice?*" asks the author, pointing, paralleling his western counterparts, to the prevalence of domestic violence and rape in the west – as well as pointing to questionable surveys which show that the majority of western women actually wish to return to the home.



If we were being strictly reasonable, this tu quoque would be thrown out in one second. Admittedly reason does not always prevail over cognitive bias and hypocrisy is damning in the real world, including in politics. 

The problem here is that they are themselves being hypocritical in using the prevalence of domestic violence and rape in the Western world to shut their critical voice down. 

The fact that both domestic violence and rape (certainly within marriage) are practically allowed by the Saudi law system, and the evidence from women's rights organisations working in the Arab world that violence against women _'is at an epidemic level'_ - would suggest that the incidence of domestic violence and rape is at least equal, if not greater *there* than it is in the West.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> To me this seems to be seeing the culture from the outside without understanding the context.
> 
> In western culture we have gone through the sexual revolution where women regain much of the power in the relationship, and much of the power to control their own lives.
> 
> ...



I think your focusing too much on dominance issues and too little on biological backgrounds. 

A woman sleeping around puts low care for whom might father a child, and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child. 

Now with birth control that is no longer the case, but this thinking is still ingrained in culture. 

But we have another important aspect. Fathering the child. If a woman is promiscuous a man will be less confident that the child is his. As such he would like woman somewhat restrained. Also in general as a promiscuous woman is more likely to continue this even during a relationship. 

Hence the ""not marriage material"" women. Its still in our thinking.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 11, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> I think your focusing too much on dominance issues and too little on biological backgrounds.
> 
> A woman sleeping around puts low care for whom might father a child, and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.
> 
> ...


Actually, you just continued to prove my point. 

Let explain why by turning your example around. 

"A *man* sleeping around puts low care for whom might *mother* his child, and will thus get *her* pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child. 

But we have another important aspect. Fathering  the child. If a *man* is promiscuous a *woman* will be less confident that the *father will help raise the child*. As such *she* would like *men* somewhat restrained. Also in general as a promiscuous *man* is more likely to continue this even during a relationship. “

Hence the ""not marriage material"" *man*. Isn’t still in our thinking because like you have done you have assumed the power in the relationship to be the mans, and his dominance over woman. Where she must meet HIS mold and HIS requirements for a wife, NOT the other way around.

Think of it this way, 

You believe that men prefer woman to be less promiscuous biologically therefore this is why it is a social stigma is against woman being promiscuous. 

But the same things is true for women. 
Women prefer men to be less promiscuous biologically YET there is not a social stigma against men being promiscuous. 

The difference here has to do with sexism that puts male centered dominance at odds with women who are in control of their own sexual relationships.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> "A *man* sleeping around puts low care for whom might *mother* his child, and will thus get *her* pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.



the mother is more biologically suited for a nurturing role. Hence failing to nurture is more abnormal.

Also seeing she already expands FAR more energy during pregnancy then the father shooting his load. A little more reluctancy is expected. Evolved in the mother..which we see back in higher care for security and lower emphasis on sex. 

But seeing the high strain a single pregnant mother puts on her kin and groupmates...its no wonder they too wish her to be more reluctant. More so then with the male. 

I think its less of a power thing then something culturally and biologically evolved. 



sadated_peon said:


> But we have another important aspect. Fathering  the child. If a *man* is promiscuous a *woman* will be less confident that the *father will help raise the child*. As such *she* would like *men* somewhat restrained. Also in general as a promiscuous *man* is more likely to continue this even during a relationship. “



raising a child that is not yours is hell on your fitness in species that have few children. 
far greater then having less help raising the kid. Especially in a group species in where we help kin. 

This alone will lead to an evolved different standard



sadated_peon said:


> Isn’t still in our thinking because like you have done you have assumed the power in the relationship to be the mans, and his dominance over woman. Where she must meet HIS mold and HIS requirements for a wife, NOT the other way around.



I think we are biologically and not just culturally inclined for this thinking. 



sadated_peon said:


> Think of it this way,
> 
> You believe that men prefer woman to be less promiscuous biologically therefore this is why it is a social stigma is against woman being promiscuous.
> 
> ...



This is in part for above reasons, in part because of the male's dominant role in history, and in part because unlike males, females generally look down on loosness in their own gender. 

Probably because if the choice of man was bad, the sisters and grandmothers ended up having to aid the pregnant mother immensely.


Having invested less at the start, fathers have the luxury to be possibly callous about spending energy in raising the child.


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (Nov 12, 2010)

Seeing the way people view those from different lands is perpetually entertaining. Even though it is also sometimes upsetting it isn?t like I care to pick at their myths considering the western world has plenty about others as well.  I just hope that the flirting the people do at western women doesn?t progress past that. The whole real man part was pretty funny. Although I think they might have something with the look at how western women are still seen as oppressed in some ways. I know it is funny that they think that but it doesn't change the though that it is still an issue.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 12, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> the mother is more biologically suited for a nurturing role. Hence failing to nurture is more abnormal.
> 
> Also seeing she already expands FAR more energy during pregnancy then the father shooting his load. A little more reluctancy is expected. Evolved in the mother..which we see back in higher care for security and lower emphasis on sex.
> 
> ...


Armchair biology at its finest. 

If a child is going to be raised by a group, then this contradicts you point about ?and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.?
As it is raised by the group now, instead of the mother alone.

You have just switched your entire premised for the social structure from one post to another. 

Next, let?s of course LOOK at our closest relatives and see their social structures. 



Both of which have promiscuous females. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> raising a child that is not yours is hell on your fitness in species that have few children.
> far greater then having less help raising the kid. Especially in a group species in where we help kin.
> 
> This alone will lead to an evolved different standard


WTF, you have switch social structure in a single response. First father don?t want to raise a child that is not theirs, and then it?s a group species where everyone helps. 

You contradicted your own social structure in a single response. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> I think we are biologically and not just culturally inclined for this thinking.


No, you are culturally biased toward males and you are trying to make up biology to confirm your bias.  



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> This is in part for above reasons, in part because of the male's dominant role in history, and in part because unlike males, females generally look down on loosness in their own gender.
> 
> Probably because if the choice of man was bad, the sisters and grandmothers ended up having to aid the pregnant mother immensely.
> 
> Having invested less at the start, fathers have the luxury to be possibly callous about spending energy in raising the child.


Females looking down on promiscuity in their own gender comes from a cultural norm that we are talking about. There was a time when women looked down at other women for wearing pants. It is cultural not biological and you love to confuse the two. 

Sorry, but if the ?choice of man? was bad that if left her for another, then ONCE AGAIN YOU PROVE MY POINT that the desirable mate for a female is one that is NOT promiscuous. 

You cannot hold the double standard where because MEN want a non-promiscuous woman that it is biology for woman to not be promiscuous, then reject that because WOMEN want a non- promiscuous man that is not biological. 

You are just supporting your bias with a double standard.


----------



## perman07 (Nov 12, 2010)

@Sadated Peon:
Please, you act as if it's obvious how much genetics and how much culture matter in this instance. It's not obvious, scientists from lots of branches (human and scientific branches primarily) aren't even close to coming to a consensus on how much culture and genetics matter in various areas. If culture was that significant, there should be evidence of matriarchal societies existing, there is none. Prostitutes are also a constant across cultures.

Basically, there are some constants across cultures concerning the views on sexual promiscuity from men and women.

If culture mattered more, these constants wouldn't be so prevalent.

So you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Zabuzalives' ideas, that there is a genetic component behind attitudes on female promiscuity is a notion you should be open for.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 12, 2010)

what is this thread? "those muslims r aftar r white womenz!!!"

lol, anyway, white girls like that hairy saudi dick, so they can ride around in fancy benz's


----------



## The Tragic Prince (Nov 12, 2010)

Is that what they think...? *shrug* Oh well, if they ever come here, they can find out for themselves.


----------



## Kankurette (Nov 12, 2010)

Methinks it's not us Western women who are obsessed with sex. The men who complain about us could, you know, just not look at us. I'm so sick of the emphasis on modesty being placed on women because those poor innocent men might be tempted if they see our hair or something. And of course if they dip their wick they're oh so manly and awesome, but when a woman has sex she's a dirty slag.


Ennoea said:


> So many Arab men are desperate, repressed, hypocritical twats. Can't keep it in their pants themselves but are so obsessed with limiting Arab women.


Reminds me of a mate's experience with religious Jewish guys. Some of the ones she's dated are animals. They act like they're so much better than everyone else, but get them alone and they can't keep their mitts off you.


----------



## spectre991 (Nov 12, 2010)

Different people have different views. Gotta live with that. All - Western, African and Middle Eastern, Sub-continent, Eastern world etc. have their own myths about each other. It's kinda funny actually. Yeah they often cross the line but sometimes differences have to be accepted or at least tolerated.

With that said, lol at women being more sex crazed.


----------



## Buskuv (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm honestly surprised the key analogy took over 2 pages to show up.


----------



## nagatopwnsall (Nov 12, 2010)

Sounds about right to me. The western world is the most promiscuous.

Men dont want whores or sluts for wives. The simple fact of the matter is that most men would dump a women if they did not like the ammount of men she has slept with.

If a women has slept with more then 7 men in her life its a deal breaker for me. Other men have higher thresholds and some even lower. Call it a double standard if you like but its not going to change anytime soon if ever. Its been this way since the dawn of time. Its pretty much biological i guess.

Many men in your bed=not monogamous enough,not family material,not marriage material,slut,whore,etc.

Its been statsitically proven that women cause over 50% of domestic abuse.

The state of western society actually shows that western women are horrible mothers.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 12, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As trolls go you're pretty sub par.


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 12, 2010)

Wow how do you expect to be taken seriously seriously, like, ever again 

I mean you were already a joke but this is over the top :rofl


----------



## siyrean (Nov 13, 2010)

perman07 said:


> @Sadated Peon:
> Please, you act as if it's obvious how much genetics and how much culture matter in this instance. It's not obvious, scientists from lots of branches (human and scientific branches primarily) aren't even close to coming to a consensus on how much culture and genetics matter in various areas. If culture was that significant, there should be evidence of matriarchal societies existing, there is none. Prostitutes are also a constant across cultures.
> 
> Basically, there are some constants across cultures concerning the views on sexual promiscuity from men and women.
> ...



Tell any Anthropology professor that matriarchal societies don't exist and they'll laugh in your face. Hell mine even brought in the daughter of one of the leaders of one to talk about it and how her people have evolved with modernization. Historically they came about by the men going off to war so the women took over running things. Biology my ass, this shits cultural.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Females looking down on promiscuity in their own gender comes from a cultural norm that we are talking about. There was a time when women looked down at other women for wearing pants. It is cultural not biological and you love to confuse the two.
> 
> Sorry, but if the “choice of man” was bad that if left her for another, then ONCE AGAIN YOU PROVE MY POINT that the desirable mate for a female is one that is NOT promiscuous.
> 
> ...





siyrean said:


> Tell any Anthropology professor that matriarchal societies don't exist and they'll laugh in your face. Hell mine even brought in the daughter of one of the leaders of one to talk about it and how her people have evolved with modernization. Historically they came about by the men going off to war so the women took over running things. Biology my ass, this shits cultural.



Sexual behaviour is not biological? Are you seriously saying that? 

If it's a matter of science, then is there really any room for this type of conjecture? How do you explain this kind of evidence away, for example?




*Spoiler*: _Conclusion_ 





> This study provides the largest and most comprehensive test yet conducted on whether the sexes differ in the desire for sexual variety. The results are strong and conclusive—the sexes differ, and these differences appear to be universal. Men not only possess a greater desire than women do for a variety of sexual partners, men also require less time to elapse than women do before consenting to sexual intercourse, and men tend to more actively seek short-term mateships than women do. These sex differences are cross-culturally robust and statistically significant regardless of whether mean, median, distributional, or categorical indexes of sexual differentiation are evaluated. These sex differences are robust and significant regardless of the measures used to evaluate them. In conjunction with voluminous research findings from other investigators and other data sources (see Schmitt, Shackelford, & Buss, 2001), the extant evidence supports two general conclusions: (a) men and women have evolved a menu of both short-term and long-term mating strategies, not a singular strategy as proposed by competing theories; and (b) the psychological design features of these strategies differ in men and women precisely in the ways initially predicted by SST (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 13, 2010)

Honestly, in order to discuss promiscuity, you need to define it explictly in terms of minimums and maximums. The lack of a clear agreed upon qualitative or qunatitative meaning of 'slut, is why so many people toss the word around. Going a step further, when would one's sluttyness fade? Can it fade? Or is sluttyness a part of someone's character for life? 

Regarding American women being promiscuous, anyone country where there is freedom and media has become sexualized, has people getting busy with whoever they want. SEXUAL REVOLUTION FTW!


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Nov 13, 2010)

Someone should tell them, that porn doesn't accurately represent reality.

Sadly, I've also come across some people, who seem to have this mindset. It's dangerous for western women.

This is also the main reason, why I'm against the veil, here in the western world. It seems to encourage the mindset, that women who don't cover themselves up like that are sluts.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 13, 2010)

Didn't one of the most popular shows in some Arabic countries used to be Bay Watch?


----------



## Mider T (Nov 13, 2010)

^Just Arab, not Arabic.



nagatopwnsall said:


> Sounds about right to me. The western world is the most promiscuous.
> 
> Men dont want whores or sluts for wives. The simple fact of the matter is that most men would dump a women if they did not like the ammount of men she has slept with.
> 
> ...



For someone who never went to college, you sure love statistics with no sources.


----------



## Juno (Nov 13, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Sounds about right to me. The western world is the most promiscuous.
> 
> Men dont want whores or sluts for wives. The simple fact of the matter is that most men would dump a women if they did not like the ammount of men she has slept with.
> 
> ...



Cute, but we all know even your right hand wouldn't have you.


----------



## siyrean (Nov 13, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Sexual behaviour is not biological? Are you seriously saying that?
> 
> If it's a matter of science, then is there really any room for this type of conjecture? How do you explain this kind of evidence away, for example?





Erm that's nice but what's it have to do with my point that matriarchal societies exist?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 13, 2010)

siyrean said:


> Erm that's nice but what's it have to do with my point that matriarchal societies exist?



I thought you were endorsing sadated_peon's opinions. What did you mean by "Biology my ass, this shits cultural." ?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 13, 2010)

erictheking said:


> Sexual behaviour is not biological? Are you seriously saying that?
> 
> If it's a matter of science, then is there really any room for this type of conjecture? How do you explain this kind of evidence away, for example?


Nice straw man, haven’t seen someone go into so much time into one for a while. 
Why don’t quote where I say sexual behavior is not biological. Because I never said ANYWHERE in my post. This is nothing but a fucking moronic straw man. 

Let me quote what I did say. 
“*Females looking down on promiscuity in their own gender* comes from a cultural norm that we are talking about. There was a time when women looked down at other women for wearing pants. It is cultural not biological and you love to confuse the two.”

Please tell me how you get from the social disapproval is cultural, to all over sexual behavior is not biological. 
I assume you got there on your way to oz. 


And now your source, 
First line btw
“Evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that men and women possess *both long-term and shortterm mating strategies*, with men’s short-term strategy differentially rooted in the desire for sexual
variety.”

You posted study that says that both men and women are pluralistic in their desires for long and short term relationships.

How is this supporting your point, or going against what I said?


----------



## Keile (Nov 13, 2010)

This isn't a myth at all.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 13, 2010)

Keile said:


> This isn't a myth at all.



Because you met a few girls who have had sex not only with the al-mighty you but actually exercise their equality and rights and can do what you guys do?



Not every woman throws herself on any man she sees. Where do you guys hang out? At bars watching the really, really drunk women who can't barely think straight?


----------



## Keile (Nov 13, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Because you met a few girls who have had sex not only with the al-mighty you but actually exercise their equality and rights and can do what you guys do?



All I'm saying is that, relative to their Arab counterparts, Western women are loose and easy. Anyone who disagrees either facetious, intellectually dishonest, or just plain unaware of the fact that we live in a society that is more sexually charged than most other parts of the world. One needn't be embarassed or empowered by this fact.







> Not every woman throws herself on any man she sees. Where do you guys hang out? At bars watching the really, really drunk women who can't barely think straight?


Read above.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 13, 2010)

Keile said:


> All I'm saying is that, relative to their Arab counterparts, Western women are loose and easy. Anyone who disagrees either facetious, intellectually dishonest, or just plain unaware of the fact that we live in a society that is more sexually charged than most other parts of the world. One needn't be embarassed or empowered by this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Read above.



Easy? Easy as in sexually? That's the problem here. You're generlizing all women as an "easy catch" for you to sex up. But I bet the only women you've ever noticed as that, were really, really drunk girls.

Unless you don't mean that easy...

Who said it was embarrassing? Its just wrong to see men calling women in the western world "easy" or in lame man's term, "sluts."


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 13, 2010)

Keile said:


> All I'm saying is that, relative to their Arab counterparts, Western women are loose and easy. Anyone who disagrees either facetious, intellectually dishonest, or just plain unaware of the fact that we live in a society that is more sexually charged than most other parts of the world. One needn't be embarassed or empowered by this fact.



urrrrr..... that wasn't what was in the OP, did you bother to read the first post?


----------



## Keile (Nov 14, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> urrrrr..... that wasn't what was in the OP, did you bother to read the first post?



"We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook," 

Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 14, 2010)

Keile said:


> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
> 
> Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.


Wow really? That's pretty stupid considering all of the people here who are not like that. 

And bad mothers, how many American mom's kill their kid because they chose a different religion or dated outside their religion? How many of them wish their daughters to live a life of basic servitude? 

Why the fuck does any woman need to learn how to cook shit but its okay for a man not to? It's not like they're here to serve us.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 14, 2010)

Keile said:


> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
> 
> Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.



Then you have some weird illusion. You think because you scored a few nights with drunk women who cannot think straight, it makes them all that way? You're generalizing and its sexist.  

But if you go that route, then I can say:

All men are pigs with no morals and disgusting behavior will little intelligence.

Could I say that? Yes, I could. Is it valid or true? Hell no. I know a lot of intelligent, moral-full (lol), polite men. But there are those types of men about. But because I meet those few, I'm allowed to generalize all you men?


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 14, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow really? That's pretty stupid considering all of the people here who are not like that.
> 
> And bad mothers, how many American mom's kill their kid because they chose a different religion or dated outside their religion? How many of them wish their daughters to live a life of basic servitude?
> 
> Why the fuck does any woman need to learn how to cook shit but its okay for a man not to? It's not like they're here to serve us.



Oh yay, using ridiculous generalizations in order to make a counter argument against ridiculous generalizations.  Well Done


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 14, 2010)

ximkoyra said:


> Oh yay, using ridiculous generalizations in order to make a counter argument against ridiculous generalizations.  Well Done






You obviously didn't get what he was saying or why he said it.

Oh, and this isn't a "ridiculous generalization"? But I see what your doing here. Its okay when Arabs generalize our women of the West, but god forbid if someone generalizes a Arab! All Hell shall break upon thee if ye do!


Double standard duly noted.


----------



## ximkoyra (Nov 14, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> You obviously didn't get what he was saying or why he said it.
> 
> Oh, and this isn't a "ridiculous generalization"? But I see what your doing here. Its okay when Arabs generalize our women of the West, but god forbid if someone generalizes a Arab! All Hell shall break upon thee if ye do!
> .



I know you have trouble comprehending things because of your extreme hatred towards arabs/muslims,  so let me expand so that maybe even you can understand it:

*using ridiculous generalizations:* those that he uses against arab women

* in order to make a counter argument against ridiculous generalizations*: to counter the generalizations made by arabs. 

 Do you get it now or do you need pictures?


> Double standard duly noted


lol You'll suck off anybody who shares the same prejudices as you, won't you?  At least use your own words when you berate someone.  Maybe next time


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 14, 2010)

Its a generalize. All generalizes are ridiculous yet you claimed its only ridiculous because he generalized Arabs/Muslims.

What the heckle are you talking about? Double standards aren't owned by anyone. I can say whatever the hell I want to.


----------



## blue berry (Nov 14, 2010)

Have they been watching destination calabria?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 14, 2010)

The what? I assume that's a naughty show, huh? :/


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 14, 2010)

Keile said:


> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
> 
> Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.



So no, you didn't read the article. 

"In this view, western women are oversexed, promiscuous and have revolving doors in their knickers. *"A typical Egyptian male is a firm believer that any western woman is an easy catch and would not mind at all having sex with complete strangers,"* observes Ahmed, an old college friend."

"Loose" and "obsessed with sex" to the point where the above is true. Nothing to do with "relative to Arab women" or any other BS you want to make up. 


But lets keep reading

"They think that all foreign women are prostitutes and they try to treat them like that."

The Myth in the OP is that western women are so "Loose" and "obsessed with sex" that they will have sex with anyone at any time, basically that they are all whores. 

I suggest you try reading the article first.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 14, 2010)

Keile said:


> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
> 
> Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.



Pretty much. 

Things like having sex with strangers is all very common. Almost any bar or  nightclub in a metropolitan area will include dozens of women leaving to sleep with men they just met. I don't know what people in this thread are thinking, it's like they've never been to a bar before.  There was one near my uni that was joked to guarantee a blind man in a wheelchair an easy score. 

Though it would be wrong to characterize all women like that, there is definitely no shortage of women who would sleep with a stranger in this country.


----------



## Rhaella (Nov 15, 2010)

> "How can they [the west] demand the ending of what they see as injustice against Saudi women, when their own women are drowning in seas of injustice?" asks the author, pointing, paralleling his western counterparts, to the prevalence of domestic violence and rape in the west ? as well as pointing to questionable surveys which show that the majority of western women actually wish to return to the home.



Do something about honour killings and female genital mutilation, not to mention all the standard domestic violence you just don't care about, and then we'll talk.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Though it would be wrong to characterize all women like that, there is definitely no shortage of women who would sleep with a stranger in this country.



And that's a problem why?

There's never been a shortage of men willing to sleep with perfect strangers. Why should the women who enjoy sex aren't afraid to get it be condemned while the men aren't?


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 15, 2010)

Jello Biafra said:


> And that's a problem why?
> 
> There's never been a shortage of men willing to sleep with perfect strangers. Why should the women who enjoy sex aren't afraid to get it be condemned while the men aren't?



He will just give you some stupid logic about keys or something and then call women sluts, in short, and then go on to say its only "good" for men to sleep around and impregnate women but its like catching Holy Hell if a woman sleeps around


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

Jello Biafra said:


> And that's a problem why?
> 
> There's never been a shortage of men willing to sleep with perfect strangers. Why should the women who enjoy sex aren't afraid to get it be condemned while the men aren't?



Oh, it's not a problem at all, at least not for men. 

I don't really have strong morals about that sort of stuff. That was just in reply to the suggestion that American women on the whole don't engage in casual sex, wasn't criticizing or anything.

Really, whether you'll be condemned for casual sex is up to girls and the company they keep. Most guys in my area don't condemn women for sleeping with a lot of men.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Nov 15, 2010)

soo.....

Arab men are whores

Western women are whores

we can blame tv and media for that


----------



## mayumi (Nov 15, 2010)

these guys get shows like bold and beautiful on their normal tv over there, not even on satellite station. ofcourse, they think women are loose. saudi do good to propaganda of women of the west.


----------



## zuul (Nov 15, 2010)

Please, dudes, stop projecting your slutiness on women, they aren't as bad and whorish as you are in the huge majority of case.

Men are sluts that's why they should be forced to wear chastity belts to preserve their purity and stop spreading STD all over the world.

It's for their own goods.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2010)

mayumi said:


> these guys get shows like bold and beautiful on their normal tv over there, not even on satellite station. ofcourse, they think women are loose. saudi do good to propaganda of women of the west.


That's all fine and good, but how do you then turn around and expect people here not to stereotype you from what they see on TV. 

We hear people all of the time talking about "all Muslims aren't this or that" but why are so many men in Muslim countries quick to stereotype off something that's not even the news or something to do with current events--these are written shows.


----------



## Goobalith (Nov 15, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> We hear people all of the time talking about "all Muslims aren't this or  that" but why are so many men in Muslim countries quick to stereotype  off something that's not even the news or something to do with current  events--these are written shows.



They want to hold on to stupid preconceptions? That's _their_ problem, it doesn't benefit us to be idiots as well just to keep things fair on the idiocy scale. Dishonest preconceptions like the ones some of these muslim men hold would only be a crutch in the long term. All it means is that these people are wasting their time with bullshit while the rest of the world concerns itself with more important things.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Pretty much.
> 
> Things like having sex with strangers is all very common. Almost any bar or  nightclub in a metropolitan area will include dozens of women leaving to sleep with men they just met. I don't know what people in this thread are thinking, it's like they've never been to a bar before.  There was one near my uni that was joked to guarantee a blind man in a wheelchair an easy score.
> 
> Though it would be wrong to characterize all women like that, there is definitely no shortage of women who would sleep with a stranger in this country.



oh, can I do that too. 

People from the middle east are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children. 
Relative to where I live this is true. 

I mean go a rural village in Afghanistan and you will find illiterate people. 

lol, what do you think? Valid reasoning? no?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> oh, can I do that too.
> 
> People from the middle east are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children.
> Relative to where I live this is true.
> ...


You've got a point, by SP's reasoning, there are no shortage of poor people over there...your reasoning is valid sir


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> oh, can I do that too.
> 
> People from the middle east are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children.
> Relative to where I live this is true.
> ...



Afghanistan is illiterate, that's not a myth. A myth is something repeated that isn't true. 

The Middle East is a region with vastly different languages, cultures, governments, laws, and socio-economic classes. The United States is one country. Your analogy makes no sense.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 15, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's all fine and good, but how do you then turn around and expect people here not to stereotype you from what they see on TV.
> 
> We hear people all of the time talking about "all Muslims aren't this or that" but why are so many men in Muslim countries quick to stereotype off something that's not even the news or something to do with current events--these are written shows.



Two wrongs do not make a right. ~


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Afghanistan is illiterate, that's not a myth. A myth is something repeated that isn't true.
> 
> The Middle East is a region with vastly different languages, cultures, governments, laws, and socio-economic classes. The United States is one country. Your analogy makes no sense.



no, no, no, no. 

ALL of the people from the middle east are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children. 

look at the title again
"The Arab myth of *western* women" 
~not united states. 

Also, 
from your example, 
"Almost any *bar or nightclub* in a *metropolitan area*"

You seem capable of making a distinction on ALL western women by a bar in a city, so I am going to use a villiage in Afghanistan so say that ALL middle eastern people are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children. 

By your reasoning of course. 

Valid right?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> no, no, no, no.
> 
> ALL of the people from the middle east are illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children.
> 
> ...



I'm not looking at the title, I'm responding to what Keile said with observations in my country. 

You're not even disputing what I said was true. Although I'm guessing that if you go to Britain or France, you're going to find the same night club/bar scene where people are hooking up after meeting. That is definitely the case in the United States, though. Relative to Arab women in those countries, as Keile said, our women probably hook up with strangers a hell of a lot more frequently.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm not looking at the title, I'm responding to what Keile said with observations in my country.


Keile is responding to the article in the op, which doesn't specify United States. 
So you are responding to Western women. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> You're not even disputing what I said was true. Although I'm guessing that if you go to Britain or France, you're going to find the same night club/bar scene where people are hooking up after meeting. That is definitely the case in the United States, though. Relative to Arab women in those countries, as Keile said, our women probably hook up with strangers a hell of a lot more frequently.


Nor are you disputing what I said. 

And I am sure that if you go to village in Pakistan or Yemen your going to find the same illiterate village scene. Relative to Westerners people in those countries are more probably illiterate. 

Valid reasoning, right? To consider ALL people from the middle east "illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children."


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Keile is responding to the article in the op, which doesn't specify United States.
> 
> So you are responding to Western women.



I'm responding to the words he quoted based on my observations in my own western country. Are you really disputing to whom I'm replying when I've quoted him? That's just flat out argumentative. 

It just looks like an attempt to avoid arguing against the idea that western women engage in casual sex a lot more than Arab women from Arab countries. Which would look silly, so you've chosen this tactic.




> Nor are you disputing what I said.



I don't really care what you said, and am not interested in disputing it. But you seem to think that you have a correct counter to what I said, and that's entirely wrong. And I showed you why. Women in the United States definitely engage in casual sex far more than Arab women in Arab countries. Probably true in western European countries, too. Go ahead and dispute that.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm responding to the words he quoted based on my observations in my own western country. Are you really disputing to whom I'm replying when I've quoted him? That's just flat out argumentative.





			
				Keile said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is that, relative to their Arab counterparts, *Western *women are loose and easy.





			
				Keile said:
			
		

> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
> 
> Relative to Arab women, I think this is all true.



Keile was always referring to western women, not just the women in the United states. Any quote agree or disagreeing with this is talking about western women. You defense that the Middle East is more diverse than the US is BS. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> It just looks like an attempt to avoid arguing against the idea that western women engage in casual sex a lot more than Arab women from Arab countries. Which would look silly, so you've chosen this tactic.



What avoidance, I am point out that by YOUR LOGIC we can infer Middle Eastern people are "illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children." relatively speaking. 

Your disagreement of the characterization is my argument points out the fault in YOUR LOGIC by how much you are against it when it is applied in a different context. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> I don't really care what you said, and am not interested in disputing it. But you seem to think that what you have a correct counter to what I said, and that's entirely wrong. And I showed you why. Women in the United States definitely engage in casual sex far more than Arab women in Arab countries. Probably true in western European countries, too. Go ahead and dispute that.


And I showed that people in the middle east are more illiterate than those in the western world. 
And therefore by you own logic:

People from the middle east are "illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children." relatively speaking.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Nice straw man, haven?t seen someone go into so much time into one for a while.
> Why don?t quote where I say sexual behavior is not biological. Because I never said ANYWHERE in my post. This is nothing but a fucking moronic straw man.
> 
> Let me quote what I did say.
> ...



Strawmen are utterly useless on the Internet where people keep an argument going for a month. I simply misread that part. I don't really agree with what you were actually saying, but I can't be bothered to argue a point I didn't want to argue against in the first place.

The study does indeed support *my* point, which is that men and women probably differ biologically in desires for sexual variety/promiscuity. I don't see what pluralistic has to do with supporting or contradicting anything.



> Among contemporary theories of human mating, pluralistic approaches that hypothesize sex differences in the evolved design of short-term mating provide the most compelling account of these robust empirical findings.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Keile was always referring to western women, not just the women in the United states. Any quote agree or disagreeing with this is talking about western women. You defense that the Middle East is more diverse than the US is BS.
> 
> Okay, United States and Western Europe. Or the west. Again, are you disputing this or not?
> 
> ...



Whoa, what the fuck is this. You've turned a very easy to understand statement into a long discourse about what I meant and to whom I replied, and then some weird literacy/wife beating analogy. Let's make this ultra easy so you're not arguing about what I meant. *Answer the following question*

*Agree or disagree? American women and women from western Europe engage in more casual sex than Arab women in Arab countries.* Just answer "agree" or "disagree" to make this really easy so we can stay on topic and end this pretty quickly.

Just answer the question, that's all.


----------



## mayumi (Nov 15, 2010)

well it is likely the Saudi women are more likely abused by their spouses to have sex and could be considered rape but they have to right to complain if the guy who did it is her husband. saudi's do a good job at propaganda of the western women and west has good enough reason to complain the rights of women in saudi.


----------



## Hinako (Nov 15, 2010)

nagatopwnsall said:


> Sounds about right to me. The western world is the most promiscuous.
> 
> Men dont want whores or sluts for wives. The simple fact of the matter is that most men would dump a women if they did not like the ammount of men she has slept with.
> 
> ...


ummm What? 

So you had a terrible mother I guess?


----------



## Ralphy♥ (Nov 15, 2010)

Who the fuck cares what other women are doing?

Everyone needs to seek happiness for themselves, if another women likes to sleep around; then let her sleep around. She's a grown ass women, as long I find my girls lovin' I could care less what goes on with other people.

You can't control people, get over it......


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

erictheking said:
			
		

> The study does indeed support my point, which is that men and women probably differ biologically in desires for sexual variety/promiscuity. I don't see what pluralistic has to do with supporting or contradicting anything.


That they differ wasn’t your point, or a least not the point of the side of the argument you support. 
The side of your argument was that women shouldn’t be promiscuous because biologically they are NOT promiscuous. 

Your research on the other hand shows that women are biologically promiscuous. So the social context that dictates women be virginal does not match with human biology. 



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Whoa, what the fuck is this. You've turned a very easy to understand statement into a long discourse about what I meant and to whom I replied. Let's make this ultra easy so you're not arguing about what I meant. Answer the following question
> 
> Agree or disagree? American women and women from western Europe engage in more casual sex than Arab women in Arab countries. Just answer "agree" or "disagree" to make this really easy so we can stay on topic and end this pretty quickly.
> 
> Just answer the question, that's all.


On average, yes. 
But that says nothing about an individual western woman, and instead is just creating a stereotype. 
And applying that stereotype to all western as to make the following generalization. 
"We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"
Is wrong. It is wrong in a relative sense, or any other sense you wish to apply it. 

NOW answer my question

Agree or disagree? People from the Middle East are more likely to be illiterate than those in western countries.  Just answer “agree” or “disagree” to make this really easy.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> On average, yes.



Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. You hold the same belief that led to Arab views of western women. In my view

*Loose?* Definitely. 
*Obsessed with sex?* Mentally, not sure. Talking about it, definitely. Any Cosmos or TV show will show that. I'm guessing sex is a much more taboo topic over there. We have whole talk shows, books, and magazines that have sex as their primary or major topic. 
*Batter men?* Women are definitely more assertive in the west about their power within the household and relationships. Though physically batter? Not sure about that. 
*Bad mothers?* Don't like words like "bad." Not going to comment on this. 
*Can't cook?* Definitely. Arab women are probably much more experienced with cooking than girls in my country for sure. Not our older women, but definitely the younger.



> Agree or disagree? People from the Middle East are more likely to be illiterate than those in western countries.



Definitely agree. I never disagreed with this. But I definitely disagree that it somehow counters the idea that western women are much more likely to engage in casual sex.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. You hold the same belief that led to Arab views of western women.


The *led* is the wrong part here.

That's like saying that Muslims hold the same beliefs that led to WTC bombings. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> Definitely agree. I never disagreed with this. But I definitely disagree that it somehow counters the idea that western women are much more likely to engage in casual sex.


No, not that "they are more likely", that "they *are*".

"*We're* loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, *are *bad mothers, and can't cook,"

-

So you agree that people from the middle east *are*
"illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children."


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> So you agree that people from the middle east *are]*
> "illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children."



On the whole, more prone to illiteracy? Definitely, though it seems to vary widely by country. 

Dirty? Not sure about this. Not sure how literacy impacts hygiene. I certainly feel cleaner than people from poor countries, although not noticeably more than those from wealthier ones. 

Beat their wives and children? Really not sure about this. We have some pretty high levels of domestic violence in the United States. Again, not sure what this has to do with literacy (the question you wanted me to answer) or the topic.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> On the whole, more prone to illiteracy? Definitely, though it seems to vary widely by country.


Why should I make such a distinction when you do not.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Dirty? Not sure about this. Not sure how literacy impacts hygiene. I certainly feel cleaner than people from poor countries, although not noticeably more than those from wealthier ones.


Exactly, those in poor countries don't have the ability to live as hygienically. The middle eastern countries and immigrants are much more likely to be poor. 
So on average they are dirtier. 

So they can be applied to the ALL has you have done.



Shinigami Perv said:


> Beat their wives and children? Really not sure about this. We have some pretty high levels of domestic violence in the United States. Again, not sure what this has to do with literacy (the question you wanted me to answer) or the topic.


domestic abuse is illegal in West, were as it acceptable in most middle eastern countries. 
This institutionalized of it by itself leads to on average MORE goes on. We also don't have the honor killings and other such instances of abuse. 

So once again, because on average these things are more likely of people who are middle eastern decent. 

people from the middle east are "illiterate, dirty peasants who beat their wives and children."

right?


----------



## vivEnergy (Nov 15, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. You hold the same belief that led to Arab views of western women. In my view
> 
> *Loose?* Definitely.
> *Obsessed with sex?* Mentally, not sure. Talking about it, definitely. Any Cosmos or TV show will show that. I'm guessing sex is a much more taboo topic over there. We have whole talk shows, books, and magazines that have sex as their primary or major topic.
> ...



You'd be surprised what your mother and sisters are talking about when you and you and your father aren't around.
Sexually oriented talking is taboo in a lot of culture, the States for example. Yet it does not block people from being free from the norm of society when they are alone or among like minded people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2010)

Sedated Peon's never wasted more time with an argument, its kind of waste doing all of this with SP.


----------



## Talon. (Nov 15, 2010)

STEREOTYPES EXIST FOR A REASON.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 15, 2010)

Talon. said:


> STEREOTYPES EXIST FOR A REASON.


Just because you typed it bigger doesn't make it look any sillier.


----------



## Spock (Nov 15, 2010)

I blame the rap music.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Armchair biology at its finest.
> 
> If a child is going to be raised by a group, then this contradicts you point about ?and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.?
> As it is raised by the group now, instead of the mother alone.



No it does not. 

It is a substandard situation which causes others to get involved. So ofcourse it will be looked down upon. Both in males as in females. 

But seeing how woman already invest FAR more in pregnancy and their evolved nurturing role, they not only require more help. (even when aborting and the health risks that brings) but will ask for help more often. 

aka the pressure they put on their close kin and groupmates is higher on average. And thus its normal for a different response to appear to a different amount of strain put on others. 

Its indeed interesting that this too explains the negativity from females about other females promiscuity. 




sadated_peon said:


> You have just switched your entire premised for the social structure from one post to another.



you didnt get where i was heading. It was not a switch, it was an extention. 
See above. 



sadated_peon said:


> Next, let?s of course LOOK at our closest relatives and see their social structures.
> 
> 
> Both of which have promiscuous females.





we fit nicely between the gorilla and the chimpanzee. AKA were more monogamous then chimpanzees and more promiscuous then gorillas.  

Also do I have to school you on how small genetic differences can make a a hell of a difference behaviourwise?? Before you bring up more Bonobo examples? 

now who's the armchair biologist?  



sadated_peon said:


> WTF, you have switch social structure in a single response. First father don?t want to raise a child that is not theirs, and then it?s a group species where everyone helps. You contradicted your own social structure in a single response.



Holy jeepers batman, this guy completely missed the point!! 

What i was saying here and you completely ignored. Is that raising a child that is not yours is hell on your fitness. More so then having a husband that sleeps around. Or ""helps around less""

Hence its again logical for a different response to arise. 



sadated_peon said:


> No, you are culturally biased toward males and you are trying to make up biology to confirm your bias.



we see this over a LOT of cultures...strange no? 

mankind=nature and nurture. 

Dont believe every psychology theory about how we are purely a result from our upbringing. MMkay? 



sadated_peon said:


> Females looking down on promiscuity in their own gender comes from a cultural norm that we are talking about. There was a time when women looked down at other women for wearing pants. It is cultural not biological and you love to confuse the two.



thanks for your opinion....



sadated_peon said:


> Sorry, but if the ?choice of man? was bad that if left her for another, then ONCE AGAIN YOU PROVE MY POINT that the desirable mate for a female is one that is NOT promiscuous.



And woman dont like to have their husbands cheat on them...the shock. 

I am explaining the difference in where woman promiscuity is looked down upon more. 

I am not claiming male promiscuity is not looked down upon at all!!!


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 15, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> That they differ wasn’t your point, or a least not the point of the side of the argument you support.
> The side of your argument was that women shouldn’t be promiscuous because biologically they are NOT promiscuous.



I'm not supporting anyone else's argument other than my own. If someone else thinks that an ought necessarily follows from an is, it's not my problem. 



> Your research on the other hand shows that women are biologically promiscuous. So the social context that dictates women be virginal does not match with human biology.



The study shows that the differences in promiscuity between men (more) and women (less) is best explained by biology (evolution). 

But no-one argued that women don't desire _any_ sexual variety. And who's talking about virgins? If I don't read some posts properly at least I don't pull random shite out of the clouds to give the impression that I'm making some substantial point.


----------



## On and On (Nov 15, 2010)

> As every woman is carrying a volatile sex bomb that will explode upon contact with freedom



We call that an orgasm, no? 

Cool article.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 15, 2010)

The Comedian said:


> We call that an orgasm, no?
> 
> Cool article.





I think they think its an actual bomb that will explode lol


----------



## AvsY (Nov 16, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkWLCXZjSF0&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 16, 2010)

Zabzualives said:
			
		

> No it does not.
> 
> It is a substandard situation which causes others to get involved. So ofcourse it will be looked down upon. Both in males as in females.
> 
> ...


Ooooh yes it does. 

Once again you are switching how you describe the primitive man social makeup. You went from women do it alone, to the group does it, to the group only does it when women don?t have a long time partner. 

You are constantly switching the social structure as I point out flaws in your argument, and you are switching to trying to make something fit. 

But you have failed once again. 

If society is against females without father, then it would put the SAME restriction on males as it does on females. 

If as you say that women bear more responsibility FOR the child then women would select monogamous men MORE than men would select monogamous women. The imperative for women to select a mate would be to select a monogamous male, while NO such restriction preference would be placed on males as they are have less responsibility.
You are defeating your own argument. 



			
				Zabzualives said:
			
		

> we fit nicely between the gorilla and the chimpanzee. AKA were more monogamous then chimpanzees and more promiscuous then gorillas.
> 
> Also do I have to school you on how small genetic differences can make a a hell of a difference behaviourwise?? Before you bring up more Bonobo examples?
> 
> now who's the armchair biologist?


You post a link that says that women are promiscuous as an example of what? That you were wrong and you hope I wouldn?t click and read the link. 

?"More convincing vestiges of a sexual selective history in which *females mated polyandrously* can be found in the human male. Perhaps the clearest such vestige is testis size (Short, 1977). Men's testes are substantially larger, relative to body size, than those of gorillas, a species in which males are polygynous but females mate monogamously so that "sperm competition" within the female reproductive tract is absent.?

The study shows the exact opposite of your point, and that women mate polyandrously.
It?s funny how you post things that show your wrong.

*you are still very much the armchair biologist, and a bad one at that. 



			
				 Zabzualives said:
			
		

> Holy jeepers batman, this guy completely missed the point!!
> 
> What i was saying here and you completely ignored. Is that raising a child that is not yours is hell on your fitness. More so then having a husband that sleeps around. Or ""helps around less""
> 
> Hence its again logical for a different response to arise.


Ok, let?s try this simply. 

If in the past people helped each other in groups to raise children, then males will be raising children that are not their own, as a group is raising it and not the direct female and male pair. 
As you ACCEPT that the group raises the child then you accept that MALES raise children not their own as part of the primitive social structure BY DEFAULT!

You contradict your own point while trying to blindly flail around for a social makeup that fits your bias. 



			
				 Zabzualives said:
			
		

> we see this over a LOT of cultures...strange no?
> 
> mankind=nature and nurture.
> 
> Dont believe every psychology theory about how we are purely a result from our upbringing. MMkay?


Lol, do you think this was response to my argument about your personal bias?

You have a personal bias, and you are trying to get biology to fit it. 



			
				 Zabzualives said:
			
		

> thanks for your opinion....


You?re avoiding the argument. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> And woman dont like to have their husbands cheat on them...the shock.
> 
> I am explaining the difference in where woman promiscuity is looked down upon more.
> 
> I am not claiming male promiscuity is not looked down upon at all!!!


Right they don?t, but that isn?t socially institutionalized to demonize males who have multiple partners. This because males hold the power, as I said in my first post.



			
				erictheking said:
			
		

> I'm not supporting anyone else's argument other than my own. If someone else thinks that an ought necessarily follows from an is, it's not my problem.


Then state it, because you first post to me was picking up from another persons argument. 
If you are not arguing their point, and you have not put forward your argument then WHAT SHOULD I ASSUME YOUR POSITION TO BE!



			
				erictheking said:
			
		

> The study shows that the differences in promiscuity between men (more) and women (less) is best explained by biology (evolution).
> 
> But no-one argued that women don't desire any sexual variety. And who's talking about virgins? If I don't read some posts properly at least I don't pull random shite out of the clouds to give the impression that I'm making some substantial point.


The argument being made was that women are biologically monogamous so social norms tailed to put women who have had previous sexual partners (aka not virginal) as undesirable mates. 

Once again, if this isn?t your position state is as you have yet to do so.


----------



## Keile (Nov 16, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow really? That's pretty stupid considering all of the people here who are not like that.



The average Western girl versus the average Eastern Arab girl. Note the word, "average", and the obvious fact that the females that frequent here hardly represent the mean or median. 



> And bad mothers, how many American mom's kill their kid because they chose a different religion or dated outside their religion? How many of them wish their daughters to live a life of basic servitude?



What's wrong with a women doing what women have been bred to do: cook, clean, etc?



> Why the fuck does any woman need to learn how to cook shit but its okay for a man not to? It's not like they're here to serve us.



I don't know; I never made the assertion that women are here to serve men nor that it is OK for a women to learn how a cook while a man does not.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 16, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Ooooh yes it does.
> 
> Once again you are switching how you describe the primitive man social makeup. You went from women do it alone, to the group does it, to the group only does it when women don’t have a long time partner.
> 
> ...



you still dont get it, sad. 



sadated_peon said:


> If society is against females without father, then it would put the SAME restriction on males as it does on females.



The single mother asks more from the group. Her pregnancy makes it so that she will ask for help more often as she invests more, and will need more help.

We also have the doubt of fatherhood in play. 

As such there will evolve a different level of restriction. 

simple. 



sadated_peon said:


> If as you say that women bear more responsibility FOR the child then women would select monogamous men MORE than men would select monogamous women. The imperative for women to select a mate would be to select a monogamous male, while NO such restriction preference would be placed on males as they are have less responsibility.
> You are defeating your own argument.



""you are defeating your own argument"" 

A man that sleeps around can still put almost all effort in raising their child.  

A woman that sleeps around always puts the fathers offspring in question....there will always be doubt, so yeah there will be imperative.  




sadated_peon said:


> You post a link that says that women are promiscuous as an example of what? That you were wrong and you hope I wouldn’t click and read the link.



there are levels of promiscuity? 

try to catch up. 




sadated_peon said:


> “"More convincing vestiges of a sexual selective history in which *females mated polyandrously* can be found in the human male. Perhaps the clearest such vestige is testis size (Short, 1977). Men's testes are substantially larger, relative to body size, than those of gorillas, a species in which males are polygynous but females mate monogamously so that "sperm competition" within the female reproductive tract is absent.”
> 
> The study shows the exact opposite of your point, and that women mate polyandrously.
> It’s funny how you post things that show your wrong.



 

what did i say imbecile??

""we fit nicely between the gorilla and the chimpanzee. AKA were more monogamous then chimpanzees and more promiscuous then gorillas."" 

and no woman do not mate polyandrously as a norm. this is something seen in a minority of cultures with a shortage of woman or when 1 single male has too hard a time to support said woman. 

There is promiscuity in humans, i have not denied this. Try to READ ok? 
But there is a conflict of interest between parties. Hence the negative response.

And seeing how there are differences in investment, and results of promiscuity...its logical these differences have an influence on the response. 

And there we are back at my point again. 
It all fits together. 

Now stop with the BS strawmanning of my position please. 



sadated_peon said:


> *you are still very much the armchair biologist, and a bad one at that.



says someone who claims i post links that directly contradict me...when in fact I already literally mention parts in my explanation. 

You are making a lot of wrong assumptions about my point. 



sadated_peon said:


> Ok, let’s try this simply.
> 
> If in the past people helped each other in groups to raise children, then males will be raising children that are not their own, as a group is raising it and not the direct female and male pair.
> As you ACCEPT that the group raises the child then you accept that MALES raise children not their own as part of the primitive social structure BY DEFAULT!



there is a level where people are willing to help ofcourse....Dont keep thinking in simplistic extremes please?   

Having invested more, the female will call for help more often, and need more help simply due to her larger investment. This will affect the response. 

simple. 

Also the father can deny being the father. When promiscuous the mother doesnt even always know for certain. This also affects the response as the family is not 100% sure their directed anger at the father is correct.

This also affects the help of the respective families. 1 knows the child is the mothers...the other one never knows fully that the child is the fathers. especially with promiscuous women. 

all differences with an likely influence. 

your starting to catch on now?



sadated_peon said:


> You’re avoiding the argument.



There was no argument. 

You *think* this issue is similar to that of woman wearing jeans. 

well nice that you think that 

Ofcourse wearing jeans and promiscuity... promiscuity that cuts into sexual behaviour and reproduction...a cornerstone of biological fitness...looks pretty different to me. 



sadated_peon said:


> Right they don’t, but that isn’t socially institutionalized to demonize males who have multiple partners. This because males hold the power, as I said in my first post.



yes i know what you said...you have a simplistic notion that it is purely about power structure...and that the differences in biology, different pressures of sexual selection, kin selection...has NOTHING to do with it. 



sadated_peon said:


> The argument being made was that women are biologically monogamous so social norms tailed to put women who have had previous sexual partners (aka not virginal) as undesirable mates.



utter fail...I literally say we are between gorilla and chimp as far as promiscuity goes. And you still claim I am argumenting woman are biologically monogamous?? 

negging you for repeated strawmanning.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 16, 2010)

Keile said:


> The average Western girl versus the average Eastern Arab girl. Note the word, "average", and the obvious fact that the females that frequent here hardly represent the mean or median.



I didn't mean on here, I meant in this country. The average person isn't out at clubs on the weekend and all that other shit, get that notion out of your head and stop believing tv so much. 





> What's wrong with a women doing what women have been bred to do: cook, clean, etc?



That's bullshit, no one is bred to cook. 



> I don't know; I never made the assertion that women are here to serve men nor that it is OK for a women to learn how a cook while a man does not.



Sure, we're just "breeding them to cook" for someone else. 

Looks like I should have brought my rubber boots.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 16, 2010)

> What's wrong with a women doing what women have been bred to do: cook, clean, etc?


Wow....Sexism at its finest. 

That was just so wrong on many levels, especially the word "bred" and then generalize us and degrade us as nothing more than your slave.

Disgusting.

I seriously hope you either 1: didn't mean that or 2: is just trolling the thread.


----------



## Sasori (Nov 16, 2010)

zuul said:


> And I prefer my eurofags over all the men around the world.
> They treat their women well.


Like Josef Fritzl.


----------



## GodOfAzure (Nov 17, 2010)

Terra Branford said:


> Wow....Sexism at its finest.
> 
> That was just so wrong on many levels, especially the word "bred" and then generalize us and degrade us as nothing more than your slave.
> 
> ...



If dogs are bred for show why can't women be bred to cook 

Though the options you mentioned are pretty much the same.


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 17, 2010)

GodOfAzure said:


> If dogs are bred for show why can't women be bred to cook
> 
> Though the options you mentioned are pretty much the same.





You better not be serious.

Nah, one could be he was trying to fit in with some ridiculous attempt at an joke at trying to be sexist, and then there is the troll sexist attempt Shima tried.

And then there is honesty...which I hope isn't the case.


----------



## zuul (Nov 17, 2010)

It hapens that some women have a sense of self esteem that drives them to expect more of life than being some man free maid and sex toy.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 17, 2010)

Human beings are bred to be slaves of their own estbalished orders. Wherther slavery comes in the form of veying for compensation, cooking over a hot stove, forcing yourself to do a P.H.D. you don't really wat to, or being exploited, no one can escape. It's all just a big joe. All of it is a fucking joke.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 17, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> you still dont get it, sad.


I get that you are using a ?moving the goalposts? fallacy. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> The single mother asks more from the group. Her pregnancy makes it so that she will ask for help more often as she invests more, and will need more help.
> 
> We also have the doubt of fatherhood in play.
> 
> ...


So once again, the SAME restriction would be placed on promiscuous males that CAUSE the situation. 

You voiding the male from responsibility has to do with your BIAS, not with social care structure. 

How have you still not gotten this point yet? Is your bias that strong?



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> ""you are defeating your own argument""
> 
> A man that sleeps around can still put almost all effort in raising their child.
> 
> A woman that sleeps around always puts the fathers offspring in question....there will always be doubt, so yeah there will be imperative.


Lol wut? 
Can you go a single post without contradicting yourself?

How can there be single mothers if a man that sleeps around ?put almost all effort in raising their children?

Either a man that sleeps around fathers their children and there are no children without a father, or men that sleep around don?t put almost all their effort in raising their child and there are children without fathers. 

You can?t have it both ways, its contradicting your own argument.



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> there are levels of promiscuity?
> 
> try to catch up.


Right, and you are using a ?moving the goalposts? fallacy. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> what did i say imbecile??
> 
> ""we fit nicely between the gorilla and the chimpanzee. AKA were more monogamous then chimpanzees and more promiscuous then gorillas.""
> 
> ...



From your source. 


> females mated polyandrously


ONCE AGIANST YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN EVIDENCE!

As I said before ?the study shows the exact opposite of your point, and that women mate polyandrously?!

Here I will put it simply for you simple mind. 
Evidence
?females mated polyandrously?

You
?no woman do not mate polyandrously as a norm?

This is not a straw man, this is you being idiot. 
You own source contradicts you, and I pointed out that contradiction. 
Your response then was to repeat the contradiction with a pathetic attempt to ridicule me. 



			
				 Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> says someone who claims i post links that directly contradict me...when in fact I already literally mention parts in my explanation.
> 
> You are making a lot of wrong assumptions about my point.


You directly contradict you evidence. 
Here let me show you again. 
Evidence
?females mated polyandrously?

You
?no woman do not mate polyandrously as a norm?



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> there is a level where people are willing to help ofcourse....Dont keep thinking in simplistic extremes please?
> 
> Having invested more, the female will call for help more often, and need more help simply due to her larger investment. This will affect the response.
> 
> ...


Seeing as how you still don?t get how societies would place the SAME enfaces on males and females with respect to group dynamics, and that the disparity between is due to MALE POWER DOMINANCE. 

Let?s try a simple concept that even you might be able to grasp. 

Your claim. 
P1: In groups there is social pressure from the group to be monogamous. 
P2: Chimpanzees live in social groups. 
-
Chimpanzees therefore WHAT?

A: females are monogamous due to social pressure.
B: females have multiple partners. 

Holy shit its B? A direct contradiction of your armchair biology in a real world example. 

Hypothesis defeated, wtg science. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> There was no argument.
> 
> You think this issue is similar to that of woman wearing jeans.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is a similar issue. It has to do with cultural imposed restrictions on people. 

You look back at not allowing women to wear pants as something silly, but at the time it was considered an abomination against god. 

It has to do with social structure around the act, and the reflection a social structure exists DOES NOT EQUATE TO A BIOLOGICAL source. 
There was no biological source to stop women from wearing pants, it was a cultural one. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> yes i know what you said...you have a simplistic notion that it is purely about power structure...and that the differences in biology, different pressures of sexual selection, kin selection...has NOTHING to do with it.


Once again, the biology for men and women do not correlty out directly to the social structure otherwise the male and females requirements for monogy would mirror in society as they are both preferable to the mate. 

That the male value dominates the female value is because MALES HAVE THE POWER in society. 
That you assume that women have more responsibility for a child is a product of your bias, NOT a product of biology. 



			
				Zabuzalives said:
			
		

> utter fail...I literally say we are between gorilla and chimp as far as promiscuity goes. And you still claim I am argumenting woman are biologically monogamous??
> 
> negging you for repeated strawmanning.


Here let me quote you
?no woman do not mate polyandrously as a norm?

Negging for directly contradicting yourself, and then complaining that I straw man you.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 17, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> So once again, the SAME restriction would be placed on promiscuous males that CAUSE the situation.



no, cause the mother needs more care and asks for more help. 

no, cause when you are not 100% sure of your blame, your not as tenacious. 

etc etc. 

differences leading to differences in response. simple. 



sadated_peon said:


> You voiding the male from responsibility has to do with your BIAS, not with social care structure.



I am not stating males do not have a responsibility. 

Male have an easier time avoiding responsibility because they have a much lower startup invest. (vs pregant woman), and unlike the woman, its very hard to prove the child is actually theirs. 

that is all. Just stating factual differences. Which in turn have an influence on the formation of different responses. 

simple. 




sadated_peon said:


> Lol wut?
> Can you go a single post without contradicting yourself?
> 
> How can there be single mothers if a man that sleeps around “put almost all effort in raising their children”



to quote myself

A man that sleeps around *CAN* still put almost all effort in raising their child. 

So where the womans promiscuity in partnership will always lead to doubt, the mans promiscuity does not have to result in lack of care for the child. 

Little differences and details that have a possible effect. Simple no? 

Christ the conclusions you make after completely misunderstanding the simplest of things. Its like im talking to a toddler here. ""how can there be single moms DERRRRRRR"" 



sadated_peon said:


> Either a man that sleeps around fathers their children and there are no children without a father, or men that sleep around don’t put almost all their effort in raising their child and there are children without fathers.
> You can’t have it both ways, its contradicting your own argument.



or humans show variance in behaviour and you have some fathers taking care of their children, and some walking out on them..JUST like we see in real life. 

Hence my * CAN *




sadated_peon said:


> Right, and you are using a “moving the goalposts” fallacy.



how so when I start with saying we fall between gorillas and chimpanzees? Showing there are different levels of promiscuity between the animal kingdom?




sadated_peon said:


> As I said before “the study shows the exact opposite of your point, and that women mate polyandrously”! Here I will put it simply for you simple mind.
> Evidence
> “females mated polyandrously”



they conclude ""in which females * mated * polyandrously"" 

which is past tense and unclear about being in general or it simply happening within part of the group.  

You then butcher it to: ""women mate polyandrously"" 

But I mistook polyandry as a multiple man marriage. When seen as mating with several males...well thats promiscuity which i never denied occuring in woman!!!! 
I repeat. 
we fall between gorillas and chimpanzees as far as promiscuity goes. My claim, link supports. 

simple. 

This does NOTHING to undermine my main point though. As my point is not claiming woman are monogamous. (thats just your strawman) 
It is claiming that there are biological differences that cause a difference in the response to promiscuity. And the level. 

you get it now?? 

......also read on in the link simpleton!  

All in all, it seems fair to conclude that women are not highly promiscuous, which is what we expected to find." (Ridley 1993: 220-21, The Red Queen) 

AWWWWWWWW 




sadated_peon said:


> Seeing as how you still don’t get how societies would place the SAME enfaces on males and females with respect to group dynamics, and that the disparity between is due to MALE POWER DOMINANCE.



At the fucking start of this discussion I Agreed that power dominance in culture plays a role. 

You just simplistically think this is the only influence, i dont. 




sadated_peon said:


> Your claim.
> P1: In groups there is social pressure from the group to be monogamous.
> P2: Chimpanzees live in social groups.
> Chimpanzees therefore WHAT?
> ...



hahahaaa omg despite multiple times pointing out your strawman and wrong assumptions about my ""point""..... you persist? 

i am not claiming females are monogamous!!!! 

I am saying that part of what you call ""double standard"" is something that is partly logical to arise because of BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. 


1: 
For a man, woman promiscuity in partnership will cause doubt about fatherhood. ALWAYS. 

For a woman, Male promiscuity in partnership does not necessarely have to affect his aid for her children. 

a difference that will cause a difference in response to partners infedelity. 

2:
For the direct kin, a woman, will more often ASK for help (having already INVESTED more with pregnancy) and will need MORE help on average (with the pregnant condition). aka the females family has to burden more of the consequences of a bad matchup. The female...will be more of a burden..

another difference. Another influence. 

3:
Now take into account that even though they would WANT to blame equally. With the male, you never fully know if he is the true father. 

Again a difference with an effect on response. 

IF im not sure about the father...i start thinking more about how my daughter should have been a bit less loose....Especially as she carries far more of the consequence...

4:
And then we have the very fact that investing a great deal more through pregnancy, woman are generally more picky about mating.  


simple basic biological differences resulting in influence on the response. THAT is my point. Ofcourse culture and power structure play a role I already stated so! 
And ofcourse sometimes these influences only have a small effect. 


All intricacies and biological differences you completely ignore or simply cannot grasp. 




sadated_peon said:


> Once again, the biology for men and women do not correlty out directly to the social structure otherwise the male and females requirements for monogy would mirror in society as they are both preferable to the mate.



there are more pressures...uggh im getting tired of giving you free biological schooling here sadated_peon.... 



sadated_peon said:


> That the male value dominates the female value is because MALES HAVE THE POWER in society.



simplistic. 

The biological factors would lead to a different response. This is then only multiplied by cultural power dynamics. 



sadated_peon said:


> That you assume that women have more responsibility for a child is a product of your bias, NOT a product of biology.



strawman. never claimed this. Stop your bullshit.

Now are you gonna keep arguing against the deluded fantasies you have about my points....and in the process make a greater fool out of yourself...or are you gonna start arguing against my actual points?


----------



## escamoh (Nov 17, 2010)

> "We're loose, obsessed with sex, batter our men, are bad mothers, and can't cook,"



sounds about right


----------



## Terra Branford (Nov 17, 2010)

escamoh said:


> sounds about right


Ooh, ooh! Can I generalize men now? :33



> "We're pigs, obsessed with sex, batter our women, rape women, are bad people let alone fathers, and can't cook, aren't smart, think about sex every 7-10 seconds and what else?"


^ That sounds about right.

If we are bad mothers, what does that make them over there? Or, what does that make the fathers?


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 18, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> no, cause the mother needs more care and asks for more help.
> 
> no, cause when you are not 100% sure of your blame, your not as tenacious.
> 
> ...



Wow, am I ever sick of you lying. 

Let go back to your first post. 
"I think your focusing too much on dominance issues and too little on biological backgrounds.

*A woman sleeping around* puts low care for whom might father a child, and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.

Now with birth control that is no longer the case, but this thinking is still ingrained in culture.

But we have another important aspect. Fathering the child. *If a woman is promiscuous* a man will be less confident that the child is his. As such he would like woman somewhat restrained. Also in general as a promiscuous woman is more likely to continue this even during a relationship.

Hence the ""not marriage material"" women. Its still in our thinking."

In your first post, you state that a women should NOT be promiscuous and should not sleep around. That this is based on biology. 

Now you say
"i am not claiming females are monogamous!!!!"

It is pathetic, you start the argument that woman should NOT sleep around and should NOT be promiscuous because these traits are not selected by a male mate, and that biological imperative has been imbued on our culture.
That this biological trait is selected by MEN in mating and therefore represents culture.  

Now you have switched that to promiscuity is just less in women, and that doubt of father is a biological factor that determines the social aspect. 

That instead of MEN'S selection in mating being the driving factor in pairing ("not marriage material") 
WOMEN'S selection in mating being driving factor in pairing ("And then we have the very fact that investing a great deal more through pregnancy, woman are generally more picky about mating".)

Which coincidentally was I point I made in response to your original argument. 

You have done nothing this entire time but a moving the goal post fallacy, which has lead you to directly contradict yourself on MANY occasions. 

You are now even repeating MY ARGUMENTS that I made earlier back at me as though they are a counter to something I said. 

If you want to go back to actually arguing a point AND STICK TO THAT POINT!

Because I am no longer going to continue chasing your ever moving goal post!


----------



## Zabuzalives (Nov 24, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Wow, am I ever sick of you lying.



More baseless nonsense. 



sadated_peon said:


> Let go back to your first post.
> "I think your focusing too much on dominance issues and too little on biological backgrounds.
> 
> *A woman sleeping around* puts low care for whom might father a child, and will thus get pregnant in a substandard circumstance, damaging the child.
> ...



WRONG. I state that there are biological incentives for a negative response to female promiscuity. 

There are ofcourse also biolgocial incentives in FAVOR of female promiscuity....namely getting better genes for her child from a superior male. Inducing protection and care from multiple males.  

These net result of selective pressures, of conflicting interests from those involved...result in our current position where we fall between gorilla and chimpanzee.

ALso i do not state woman SHOULD be this or that...more lies from you.



sadated_peon said:


> Now you say
> "i am not claiming females are monogamous!!!!"



and im not claiming that. Proving you were strawmanning me. next 



sadated_peon said:


> It is pathetic, you start the argument that woman should NOT sleep around and should NOT be promiscuous because these traits are not selected by a male mate, and that biological imperative has been imbued on our culture.



I also did not claim they ""should not be promiscuous"".

More strawmanning. next 


I merely gave some biological negatives, from which certain parties involved will be likely to give a negative response on. 

sorry you could not understand that?


You were way to defensive about the subject...and immediately jumped to ridiculous assumptions and conclusions about my position. That is the problem here. 



sadated_peon said:


> That this biological trait is selected by MEN in mating and therefore represents culture.



how can it ""represent"" culture when I believe there are multiple influences at play, one BEING culture...

really, more Bullshit assumptions and strawman from you. next! 



sadated_peon said:


> Now you have switched that to promiscuity is just less in women, and that doubt of father is a biological factor that determines the social aspect.



from the start i tried to explain to you how biological differences partly explain the difference in response to promiscuity. 

You did not get where i was going with my first post. 

but From my SECOND POST...in which i further explained my first words: 

*This alone will lead to an evolved different standard*.

there is my claim. For me its so incredibly logical to reach this conclusion, to follow the train of thought. My bad. Next time i will spell it out for you and assume you know nothing about biology. 



sadated_peon said:


> That instead of MEN'S selection in mating being the driving factor in pairing ("not marriage material")
> WOMEN'S selection in mating being driving factor in pairing ("And then we have the very fact that investing a great deal more through pregnancy, woman are generally more picky about mating".)
> 
> Which coincidentally was I point I made in response to your original argument.



But....I never claimed Men selection in mating was the driving factor in pairing.  really...its getting ridiculous. Stop with the assumptions and strawmanning. 


It is a factor....and certainly an influence and concern from the male perspective. 
That is what i intended to point out...and what is very clearly understood as such...if you look at my later explanations...or just use your fucking head and not immediately assume that everything i write should be interpreted in the worst possible way?  




sadated_peon said:


> You have done nothing this entire time but a moving the goal post fallacy, which has lead you to directly contradict yourself on MANY occasions.



really?? is that why my main point has not changed since my 2nd post...a post intended to explain my words in the first post? 

ok buddy! 



sadated_peon said:


> You are now even repeating MY ARGUMENTS that I made earlier back at me as though they are a counter to something I said.
> If you want to go back to actually arguing a point AND STICK TO THAT POINT!
> 
> Because I am no longer going to continue chasing your ever moving goal post!



How about you start with. 

Biological differences might lead to a difference in response/standard toward promiscuity in the different sexes. 

Then look at my posts in the context of that stance. It all makes sense when you dont strawman or make ridiculous misunderstandings about what my point and claim is.


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Nov 24, 2010)

It's hard to generalize western culture - aside the fact they're all destined to become obese one day.


----------

