> > *sigh* I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this song. I'd settle for a nickel everytime you gave your stereotyped shallow
answer.

But it's so damn TRUE, Doug. I am hoping that if I say it enough times that
MAYBE - just MAYBE these women will begin to understand why they are feeling
like they do, and understand that it is NOT for the reasons that they think.
If they truly understand that many of these feelings are "programmed" into
them by MILLIONS of years of evolution to purpetuate the human species then
maybe they will stop looking for Mr. Perfect and realize that these feelings
are normal but no longer necessary in the modern world.

How many marriages would be saved if they would simply understand and learn
to accept them?

It breaks my heart every single time I hear the same words over and over and
over again. Words that create misery, broken families, absentee fathers,
etc. All because they don't understand what they are feeling and why.

That's all I'm trying to do, Doug is spread a little understanding and maybe
help someone.

SD

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> writes:
*sigh* I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this song. I'd settle for a nickel everytime you gave your stereotyped shallow answer. But it's so damn TRUE, Doug.

No, it's complete pseudo-scientific bull****. And incredibly simplistic.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eoOKa.31269$nG.31716@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.ne t... "Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> writes: > *sigh* I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this song. I'd settle for a nickel everytime you gave your stereotyped shallow answer. But it's so damn TRUE, Doug. No, it's complete pseudo-scientific bull****. And incredibly simplistic.

Sorry, I have millions of years of human evolution to back me up. You seem
to be of the opinion that I am the only person in the known universe that
espouses this philosophy, when, in fact, I have heard and read innumerable
works on the same subject by scholars far more educated and knowledgeable
than I will ever hope to be.

Just because its simple doesn't mean that it isn't right or true. In fact,
when it comes to the human condition, people, including you, make things
much more difficult and complicated than they have to be, when in fact, a
simple solution is really all that is necessary.

SD

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdg8hp$su7k3$1@ID-177524.news.dfncis.de... *sigh* I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard this song. I'd settle for a nickel everytime you gave your stereotyped shallow answer. But it's so damn TRUE, Doug. I am hoping that if I say it enough times
that MAYBE - just MAYBE these women will begin to understand why they are
feeling like they do, and understand that it is NOT for the reasons that they
think. If they truly understand that many of these feelings are "programmed" into them by MILLIONS of years of evolution to purpetuate the human species
then maybe they will stop looking for Mr. Perfect and realize that these
feelings are normal but no longer necessary in the modern world. How many marriages would be saved if they would simply understand and
learn to accept them? It breaks my heart every single time I hear the same words over and over
and over again. Words that create misery, broken families, absentee fathers, etc. All because they don't understand what they are feeling and why. That's all I'm trying to do, Doug is spread a little understanding and
maybe help someone. SD

I am curious about 2 things.

1. What is the basis for thinking that dissatisfaction is programmed into
women?

2. Why do you not mention the possibility that a woman's feelings of
whatever might be justifiable?

Stephanie

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> writes:
I am curious about 2 things. 1. What is the basis for thinking that dissatisfaction is programmed into women? 2. Why do you not mention the possibility that a woman's feelings of whatever might be justifiable? Stephanie 1. Dissatisfaction is programed into the female of the species, because it is necessary for her to seek out other mates in order to insure that genetic material is dispursed.

Why doesn't this apply to gibbons?

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mv7La.39010$XG4.25810@rwcrnsc53... "Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> writes: I am curious about 2 things. 1. What is the basis for thinking that dissatisfaction is programmed
into women? 2. Why do you not mention the possibility that a woman's feelings of whatever might be justifiable? Stephanie 1. Dissatisfaction is programed into the female of the species, because
it is necessary for her to seek out other mates in order to insure that
genetic material is dispursed. Why doesn't this apply to gibbons?

Because everyone knows that when gibbons desire to mate they send out
engraved invitations hand delivered by British Couriers wearing messenger
suits from 1810.

What a stupid question and totally irrelevant. Are you so desperately
grasping at straws now? What is your next argument going to be? "Oh Yeah?
Says YOU!?

SD

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well.

Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the idea
that the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of the
relationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't know
what explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know that
this seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appear
to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to
be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams,
she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then
whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought.
Damn! :)

Amy

Amy Lou wrote: Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the idea that the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of the relationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't know what explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know that this seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women.

There are all kinds of "evolutionary driven" hypotheses for
these though I'm not really current. Some of it is explained
as finding a provider and initial child and then cuckolding
the provider for genetic diversity. (shrugs)
Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :)

I wonder how much of this is why Mosaic Law (found in
the book of Exodus) encourages polygyny, albeit with various
checks and balances (the first wife remains the "senior"
wife, subsequent wives are then servants to her, etc, etc).

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in There are all kinds of "evolutionary driven" hypotheses for these though I'm not really current. Some of it is explained as finding a provider and initial child and then cuckolding the provider for genetic diversity. (shrugs)

Why are people so interested in finding 'reasons' for human behaviour? Why
not just accept that humans behave in mysterious ways?
Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :) I wonder how much of this is why Mosaic Law (found in the book of Exodus) encourages polygyny, albeit with various checks and balances (the first wife remains the "senior" wife, subsequent wives are then servants to her, etc, etc).

Who knows? Who cares? What we need today is better education for young
people. The deceiving nature of the female libido should be studied at high
school level (or church if that is your thing). This is not something that
blokes should be discovering *after* they have married the *wrong* woman.
Fathers perhaps could be a little more honest when giving their sons the
father-son talk. :)

Amy

"Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in There are all kinds of "evolutionary driven" hypotheses for these though I'm not really current. Some of it is explained as finding a provider and initial child and then cuckolding the provider for genetic diversity. (shrugs)

Why are people so interested in finding 'reasons' for human behaviour? Why
not just accept that humans behave in mysterious ways?
Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :) I wonder how much of this is why Mosaic Law (found in the book of Exodus) encourages polygyny, albeit with various checks and balances (the first wife remains the "senior" wife, subsequent wives are then servants to her, etc, etc).

Who knows? Who cares? What we need today is better education for young
people. The deceiving nature of the female libido should be studied at high
school level (or church if that is your thing). This is not something that
blokes should be discovering *after* they have married the *wrong* woman.
Fathers perhaps could be a little more honest when giving their sons the
father-son talk. :)

Amy

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:32:13 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com>
wrote:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well.Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the ideathat the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of therelationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't knowwhat explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know thatthis seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appearto have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems tobe a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams,she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and thenwhammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought.Damn! :)Amy

Its the wedding cake, Amy. They put an additive in the wedding cake.
After a bride eats it, her libido is gone forever! lol



Have a nice week...

Gus

If your parents never had any kids, chances are you won't either!

Herr Taurus wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:32:13 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well.Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the ideathat the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of therelationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't knowwhat explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know thatthis seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appearto have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems tobe a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams,she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and thenwhammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought.Damn! :)Amy Its the wedding cake, Amy. They put an additive in the wedding cake. After a bride eats it, her libido is gone forever! lol

Nah... Even a stupid woman knows what she needs to do to snag a meal
ticket! Just like even a stupid guy knows that he has to say, "I Love
You" if he's going to get into her pants. And even a rat can figure out
that he has to pull a lever if he wants a piece of cheese. It's all
premeditated.

- Ron ^*^

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well. Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the idea that the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of the relationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't know what explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know that this seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :)

I'm not sure. It seems to be the case that on average, women have
lower libidos than men.

It also seems to be the case that the variation in how this is
expressed is enormous, and that there are lots of exceptions.

Now its true that if you settle on a particular pattern, and decide
that it is universal, or nearly universal, you can invent an
evolutionary explanation for it.

But that doesn't mean the pattern you decided is universal really is.
And it doesn't mean your invented evolutionary explanation is true.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in There are all kinds of "evolutionary driven" hypotheses for these though I'm not really current. Some of it is explained as finding a provider and initial child and then cuckolding the provider for genetic diversity. (shrugs) Yeah, it is easy to make up evoluationary explanations. Being catholic and having a high libido would seem to be an evolutionary plus, for example. One wants to test these explanations though and see if they actually hold water. I'm pretty suspicious of Shashay's favorite. Why are people so interested in finding 'reasons' for human behaviour? Why not just accept that humans behave in mysterious ways? Well, at least because it is interesting to speculate about why we do the things we do.

OK, so just for fun...

Let us, for the moment, "accept" (even if we don't) that women, on
average, have *higher* libidos than men.

When reasonable hypothesis can we generate for this "fact", and for the
marital situations visible today?

- Ron ^*^

Werebat <rpoirier2@cox.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: "Jack C Lipton" <cupasoup@softhome.net> wrote in > > There are all kinds of "evolutionary driven" hypotheses for > these though I'm not really current. Some of it is explained > as finding a provider and initial child and then cuckolding > the provider for genetic diversity. (shrugs) Yeah, it is easy to make up evoluationary explanations. Being catholic and having a high libido would seem to be an evolutionary plus, for example. One wants to test these explanations though and see if they actually hold water. I'm pretty suspicious of Shashay's favorite. Why are people so interested in finding 'reasons' for human behaviour? Why not just accept that humans behave in mysterious ways? Well, at least because it is interesting to speculate about why we do the things we do. OK, so just for fun... Let us, for the moment, "accept" (even if we don't) that women, on average, have *higher* libidos than men. When reasonable hypothesis can we generate for this "fact", and for the marital situations visible today?

We could probably generate dozens. But social conditioning seems at
least as likely to me as any evolutionarily advantageous behavior
derived from natural selection.

Or, it could be biological, but it could be side effect of the very
different estrogen/testosterone balance required by women's
reproductive cycles compared to what exists in men.

One can go on and on generating hypotheses. What is quite dificult is
to find any ways of _testing_ those hypotheses, which is what one
would like to actually do science.

Jack C Lipton wrote: I wonder how much of this is why Mosaic Law (found in the book of Exodus) encourages polygyny, albeit with various checks and balances (the first wife remains the "senior" wife, subsequent wives are then servants to her, etc, etc).

Off topic here, after hearing recent US conservative worrying
that marriage must be kept one man and one woman, "as it has
been since Biblical times", it was apparent that the speaker
had ignored the plural marriages in the Bible.
--
Tsam

On 30 Jun 2003 07:16:04 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well. Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the idea that the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of the relationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't know what explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know that this seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :)I'm not sure. It seems to be the case that on average, women havelower libidos than men.

I haven't found that to be true, Doug.




Have a nice week...

Gus

If your parents never had any kids, chances are you won't either!

Herr Taurus <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> writes:
On 30 Jun 2003 07:16:04 -0700, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in > > So you actually have no response other than personal insult? Oh well. Hey Doug, want to know what I think? I think there is some truth to the idea that the female libido is higher during the courtship/honeymoon stage of the relationship and falls to its naturally lower state after that. I don't know what explanation there is for this and I don't really care. I just know that this seems to be a pretty common pattern for a lot of women. Men OTOH appear to have a more stable level of libido during their whole life. It seems to be a bit of a trap for a lot of men. They meet the woman of their dreams, she seems to have a compatible level of libido, they get married and then whammo he discovers her libido is really much lower than what he thought. Damn! :)I'm not sure. It seems to be the case that on average, women havelower libidos than men. I haven't found that to be true, Doug.

Well, I don't have a sample big enough to draw a conclusion (and the
truth is, I don't care very much about the conclusion). But popular
wisdom suggests this. That doesn't mean its correct. Your sample
doesn't make it false either.

"Herr Taurus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fmp1gvggfh5umi6dtah42t3itfqan0bj4o@4ax.com... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:20:44 +1000, "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote:"Herr Taurus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in > Its the wedding cake, Amy. They put an additive in the wedding cake. After a bride eats it, her libido is gone forever! lolEver looked in the bakery? Its a man doing the sabotaging! lolAmy I never said the BAKER did the sabotaging! Ever notice that the bride's mother is always somewhere near the cake!! lol I guess that makes it some kind of hereditary thingee...since its 'passed down' from generation to generation.

How come this additive in the cake doesn't affect the groom? This is the
question.

Amy

Thanks for the laugh. :)

Amy (who BTW hates that whole "have a good day" thing - it reminds me of
MacDonald's)

"Stephanie S" <stowe@vsac.orgnospam> writes:
"Werebat" <rpoirier2@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F0064F5.53D9@cox.net...
Nah... Even a stupid woman knows what she needs to do to snag a meal ticket! Just like even a stupid guy knows that he has to say, "I Love You" if he's going to get into her pants. And even a rat can figure out that he has to pull a lever if he wants a piece of cheese. It's all premeditated. - Ron ^*^ MAN have I really had all these social interaction rules THAT messed up for all these years? What a drag.

Either that, or you haven't been that interested in catching Ron.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2smpoltmi.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Stephanie S" <stowe@vsac.orgnospam> writes: "Werebat" <rpoirier2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F0064F5.53D9@cox.net... Nah... Even a stupid woman knows what she needs to do to snag a meal ticket! Just like even a stupid guy knows that he has to say, "I Love You" if he's going to get into her pants. And even a rat can figure
out that he has to pull a lever if he wants a piece of cheese. It's all premeditated. - Ron ^*^ MAN have I really had all these social interaction rules THAT messed up
for all these years? What a drag. Either that, or you haven't been that interested in catching Ron.

WOA. Scary.

S

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:17:04 GMT, cupasoup@softhome.net (Jack C
Lipton) wrote:

Remember the jokes about the difference between a "good" girland a "nice" girl? The "good" girl goes out on a date, comes home, goes to bed. The "nice" girl goes out on a date, goes to bed, comes home.

I heard it just the opposite way, Jack. Are you sure you've got this
right.

The good girl is 'good'...proves it...and then goes home.

The 'nice' girl goes home and goes to bed.

Anyway...that's the way I always heard it.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

Herr Taurus wrote: Jack C Lipton wrote:Remember the jokes about the difference between a "good" girland a "nice" girl? The "good" girl goes out on a date, comes home, goes to bed. The "nice" girl goes out on a date, goes to bed, comes home. I heard it just the opposite way, Jack. Are you sure you've got this right. The good girl is 'good'...proves it...and then goes home. The 'nice' girl goes home and goes to bed. Anyway...that's the way I always heard it.

And then there's the:

"When I'm 'bad' I'm *very* good"

--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup@softhome.net | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Do these pants make my penis look small?"

shinypenny wrote:
I have been off the meds now for a few years without incident. Getting divorced saved my sanity. I have no regrets.

I'm glad you've been able to recover so well from such a difficult
situation, Jen.

Tai