Going off of that Vice article, sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable... it'd probably reflect the proportions of our hunter gatherer ancestry, and a lot of psychological benefits would come with that I'd imagine.
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.
You can actually see the difference in gender relations in places with different gender ratios, and by age, as well.
"Single men become a rare commodity later in life due to our unfortunate propensity for dying. If you can get to 50 the world seems to be nothing but women."
"sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable..."
Without wanting to turn this into a race thing, there are sociological circumstances which sort of give us a glimpse (in subsets of the population) of what that could look like - and it's not pretty... See e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/21532296, which is one of the lesser emotionally charged discussions of it, but I'm sure you can find the right Google terms to find dozens of other articles about it yourself.
heh. Is there any part of that that's concretely not true? Humans all over the world have come up with it independently -- I dunno, unless Muslims and Mormons shared notes.
I could even go further and claim it to be an almost pan-mammalian truth.
Men and women are different. Especially when it comes to sex.
No, they're not that different, no you don't need more sex than one woman can give you to remain mentally healthy, as evidenced by all the not-crazy monogamists. You're an idiot.
If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
Look at the testimony of transgender people who go on hormones, especially female-to-male people. There's so much anecdotal evidence suggesting that the male libido is out of control compared to the female one.
> If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
I think what he's referring to is competition. Since there are more women than men it's more likely for a man to find a mate as compared to a society where there are an equal amount of men and women (since it's more likely that a women he would be interested in is taken). Women end up getting the shit end of the stick, though.
> But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
I may have been exaggerating when I said mental health+, but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to=.
I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
+ I term I use in a much broader sense internally, since I don't know any better for word it. So I might let it out without checking if other people will understand what I'm saying.
= Not that they're entitled to it or anything, but then that never was my point.
What you're doing is generalizing people based on their gender; which is, by definition, sexist.
I'm not trying to harp on you - I have also been guilty of this not too long ago. Your experience does not represent that of all men, and your mental model of what a woman is does not represent all women. You are literally generalizing two groups consisting of 3.5 billion people, the vast majority of which you will never even see in your entire life.
> but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to
I'm pretty sure you're internally replacing "men" with "me" here.
> I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
If you don't think that the woman you are with has a high enough sex drive for you then you should probably discuss it with her or find someone more compatible with your needs.
If you can't be satisfied with sex with only one woman the you are free to lead a polyamorist lifestyle if you wish.
It's the generalisations across entire genders and the implied sexism that come across as childish. Not to mention your bizarre and horrific attitudes to rape. Do what you like, but women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are. Maybe if you got to know a few you might find this out.
... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the sense of a male assaulting and raping someone.
> women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are.
Yes, and there's barely a person alive that doesn't know this; see point #1.
I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad.
It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy.
I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young and stupid.
I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted.
I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...
Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?
If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.
If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.
Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?
and the reason I'm saying that is that the main argument against me on that subject seems to be: "rape is very bad because rape is very bad".
also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.
the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.