# Thread: Men, Women, and Monkeys (split)

1. Originally Posted by Haphazard
I think what people should do with them is learn something about statistics. When the average person hears "X tends to Y," they will think "X will always Y" despite not knowing the probability that X will Y, or anything about the sample used to draw the conclusion that "X tends to Y." They might not even be applying it to a correct context, depending on how they heard "X tends to Y."

Also, people don't understand conditional statements and their reverse. I really just think the whole world just needs a good lesson in mathematics, to at least learn where assumptions and statistics properly apply.

Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?

2. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
Anybody here ever read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos?
No... should I have?

3. It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50% chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.

4. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
It's just a very amusing book written by a mathematician about all the ways people in this country fail to understand or properly use math.

I admit that I myself am terrible, almost retarded at doing caluclations and equasions. I can use logic, though. Well enough for me to justly laugh at many excerpts of the books.

Some things were so stupid that anyone should have seen the problem. Like the TV weather man saying that there was a 50&#37; chance of rain on Saturday, and a 50% chance of rain on Sunday, so there was an 100% chance of rain over the weekend. The point was that even public professionals can get away with such egregious errors, and nobody cares, if they even notice.
I need to read this book, even though it'll probably make me cry.

If there's one thing that makes me upset, it's people misusing math...

5. Alright I'm going to shake this thread up. I'll state my opinion.

1. I do not believe that men and women have much of a difference in sex drive ONCE AND IF THEY ARE TRULY ATTRACTED TO THEIR MATE.

2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.

3. Men will not have sex with just any woman who offers it. They are not the "sex machines" that society and traditional machismo portrays them to be. They will turn a willing woman down easily if she does not live up to their preferences.

4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.

5. Some women have sex with men they are not truly attracted to, for other reasons (I wouldn't).

There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*

6. Here's something else I saw written somewhere by a man:

-----------------------

Ten Emotional Needs of Women:

1. Protection of her most valuable asset: Her Reputation

2. She needs to experience a Range of Emotions

3. Cater to the Little Girl in Her

4. He must show Dominance, making all major decisions, including taking 100&#37; responsibility for the sex in the relationship

5. Safe from fear of Abandonment

6. Trust him to be honest, even if it makes her mad

7. Her physical protection and safety

8. Can he handle her sexuality (whatever it may be) - don't let a fantasy go unfulfilled or she will satisfy it given the opportunity behind your back

9. Does he have sought after High Quality Sperm

10. Prove he is not a closet homosexual.

Not sure I agree with them all, and definitely not the exact wording, but many of them are true for most women.

7. Originally Posted by Hmm
<Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.
No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".

8. Originally Posted by Hmm
2. <Brace yourself now> ALL women, even androgenous ones, want the men they like to be the sexual aggressors, period. This is where feminism and equality fails and men are pretty pissed about it.
ALL women? That's a 100% assertion. That's very unlikely. I personally find no rationale or evidence that supports this notion. I can find rationale and evidence to refute it. But right now I'm mainly going to focus on the fact that I have spoken with many women that do not seek aggressive partners. Even rather feminine heterosexuals. Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?

That, to me, would be an assumption, based far too much on faith and intuition. And it's dangerous, because of how much it ignores the commentary of the people being subjected to it. It's rather Freudian.

Originally Posted by Hmm
4. Despite #3, women are STILL more selective than men about who they willingly mate with. This is the natural order of things.
Could you define the "natural order?"

Originally Posted by Hmm
There you have it. Be mad at me if you want. *hides*
I'm not mad at you. I do disagree with you and think you are in error about this. I would like to handle it politely, though.

Originally Posted by 01011010
No. Not true.

I'm not turned on by an XY that initiates sex. In fact, I've never reciprocated with anyone that's pursued me, even for simple dating. I'd elaborate all the reasons why being dominate in the bedroom works 99% of the time for me, but it's not appropriate.

I can assure you (as an androgynous XX) I've yet to ever desire a male that's a "sexual aggressor".
And here you go. She's an exhibit. She doesn't match your description. What am I supposed to make of that?

Kind of funny though... I'm rather fond of both of you. Hope this doesn't take an awkward direction.

9. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
Do you think that I should doubt their words and actions? That I should assume, against their expressed will, that they really do want an aggressor, somewhere in their hearts?
Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."

10. Originally Posted by Hmm
Yes. Pay attention to their actions not their words.

Also, I should have phrased #2 as "All strictly heterosexual women....."

But what if they pursue their mates?
What if they pick introverted, passive guys for partners?
What if they always turn-down guys that pursue them?

In other words, if their actions match their words, why should I assume that they really want an aggressive partner?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO