Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The new sexual predators
Life Site News ^ | October 17, 2012 | Thaddeus Baklinski

Posted on 10/18/2012 4:14:34 AM PDT by IbJensen

Value depends on scarcity. In the world of human reproduction, the most valuable entity is the fertile female—specifically, her eggs and womb.

The fierce politics surrounding female fecundity and women’s reproductive rights rests not only on a woman’s ability to create new life, but also on the incredible amount of commitment and risk involved when her eggs and womb are accessed for procreation. Since women are fertile for a shorter period than men, since gestation takes 40 long weeks, and since labor and delivery pose life-threatening risks, young women will always face disproportionately high demands for access to their bodies. But those demands are rising in unexpected ways, and from unexpected people.

Historically, it was understood that sex created babies. Cultural scripts thus emerged that valued and preferred certain types of sex and male-female relations. The profession of prostitution has always been highly stigmatized for this reason. As we’ve learned the hard way, when female prostitutes engage with their clients, fatherless children can be born, growing up distinctly disadvantaged.

By far, men have always been the main buyers of sexual access to fertile females. Women virtually never pay for sexual access to either gender. Women and girls make up the overwhelming majority of prostitutes and escorts, and men overwhelmingly make up the clientele. This is true for every human culture, in every period in history. And it has everything to do with reproduction and the scarcity of the fertile female.

Rape is another example of unbalanced behavior between the genders. Although women do rape, men force sexual access against their victims’ will much more often—and their victims are predominantly young (as in fertile) women. Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their 2000 book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion describe rape (and prostitution) as “gene promotion strategies” that men use when legitimate, consensual sex is not possible. A man that is unable to engage a fertile female in legitimate consensual sex may face the dilemma of using force, monetary incentives or facing extinction.

We teach our daughters a script of warning so they can anticipate these established sexual predators. Oprah broadcasts a list of safety tips for women to avoid them. Parents forbid their teenage daughters from a whole range of activities where her sexual safety may be threatened. We make movies about these predators. We have derogatory names for them. We have a sense of who they are, where they lurk, and what to do to avoid them. We do these things because we care about the health of women and know that their well-being, and the well-being of children, depends on whether they conceive babies in the context of love and companionship.

But now there are new predators on the scene, for whom we do not have a script. There are new characters eager to exploit our daughters’ bodies, who enjoy unsullied reputations, passing detection even as they blatantly hunt for eggs and wombs with checkbooks in hand. And historically they have been the people women should fear the least.

These new players vying for access to young women’s bodies are older or infertile women, and gay men—quite often our friends and members of our family.

A friend of mine, for example, had a bizarre encounter with a regular customer at the restaurant where she waits tables. A middle-aged woman, as politely as she could, asked my friend if she had ever considered becoming an egg donor—and then asked specifically if she would consider becoming her egg donor. Since my friend—Jewish, with blue eyes and straight hair—was apparently a rare catch, this woman wanted her babies.

Another friend of mine was put under a great deal of pressure by her aunt who married in her late thirties and had trouble conceiving. The aunt desperately wanted a child, and preferred to have a genetic relationship with the child, so she aggressively pressured her niece to “donate” eggs to her. If she had agreed, my friend would have become the biological mother of her social cousin.

By neutering ourselves in our youth via contraception and abortion, women have increased the scarcity of the fertile female body, which has increased the demand for it.

Younger women look to older women for guidance and mentorship. They rely on being able to trust their foremothers as sisters in the cause for women’s health. But the increased scarcity of the fertile female body, combined with IVF technology that allows for egg harvesting and surrogacy, creates conflict between generations of women. Older women with more power and resources put their interests ahead of younger women’s and make up for their past mistakes or misfortunes by risking the health and well-being of their successors.

The attack comes from close range—dressed in words of altruism and generosity. The women who seek other women’s children often carried the torch for gender equality, women’s rights, and so many other wins for their side in the gender wars. Out of respect for their ambition and challenge to the glass ceiling, younger women feel pressured to give their children to older women as gestures of appreciation for their life trajectories. Perhaps these women anticipate a similar trajectory for themselves and donate away their children in hopes that someone will do the same for them in the future—a form of paying it forward.

Our gay friends and family members may now also be after our daughters’ bodies. These are the only men in the world we thought we could trust because they weren’t interested in our bodies. That is, until they grew older and discovered they wanted to be parents. Today, more and more often, gay men are using egg donors and surrogates to create motherless children on purpose.

Toleration of these attempts to create families follows a timeline of slipped slopes and fallen barriers. If heterosexual couples can use sperm donors to create children who are separated from their biological fathers, so the logic goes, then lesbians should be able to do the same thing. To them, it’s not biology that matters—kids just need two parents. And if lesbians use sperm donors to create fatherless children, then it’s only equal and fair for gay men to be able to use egg donors and surrogates to create motherless children too. Because again, it’s not biology that matters; kids just need two parents. At present, all those who believe in gender equality rather than gender complementarity are being urged to accept this often violent (against women) form of third-party reproduction.

Proponents of redefining marriage call marriage equality “the civil rights struggle of our time.” TV shows like The New Normal promote surrogacy arrangements with dialogue like “a family is a family, and love is love.” Characters that criticize the use of surrogacy and egg donation are explicitly depicted as unsympathetic, racist, closed-minded bigots.

What these shows (and other memes) do is insist that in order to be a friend to gay people, one must approve, or at least stay neutral toward, all forms of third-party reproduction.

So now, young women must do more than simply defend themselves against aggressive heterosexual males who want to use them for sex. They must also navigate a world filled with new, never-before-seen predators—people they thought they could trust—who aggressively target them for their eggs and wombs.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: evilsociety; family; fertility; procreation; reproduction
What a dark and sinister world we live in. This world has been turned upside down. Our nation, in its immersion in Obamaism, has forgotten God and this is what we have become.
1 posted on 10/18/2012 4:14:39 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“when female prostitutes engage with their clients, fatherless children can be born, growing up distinctly disadvantaged. “

Bill Clinton? disadvantaged?


2 posted on 10/18/2012 4:25:03 AM PDT by Slambat (The right to keep and bear arms. Anything one man can carry, drive or pull.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Why does the author start referring to women as “us” partway through the article? Isn’t he a man?

Not that I disagree with his (?) content, but it’s weird. The editor should have caught it.


3 posted on 10/18/2012 4:26:10 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Will this be on the test?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This slide down the slippery slope started way before Obama....he just pours grease on the path to speed it up...


4 posted on 10/18/2012 4:33:57 AM PDT by Popman (November 7th...will be a good day for America..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
By far, men have always been the main buyers of sexual access to fertile females. Women virtually never pay for sexual access to either gender. Women and girls make up the overwhelming majority of prostitutes and escorts, and men overwhelmingly make up the clientele. This is true for every human culture, in every period in history. And it has everything to do with reproduction and the scarcity of the fertile female.

Horse pucky. It has everything to do with the reality that if a woman wants to fool around, she can always find a willing guy. If a guy wants to fool around, for many men they can seldom find a willing woman.

This is true in no small part because the sexual experience is different for men and women.

5 posted on 10/18/2012 4:36:06 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Absolutely right. The clients for sex with young attractive women are also in no way hoping for a baby from the transaction. The opposite is true. This entire article is, as you said, horse pucky.
6 posted on 10/18/2012 4:43:43 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

This is true in no small part because the sexual experience is different for men and women.


You are mostly correct. But the different sexual experience and proclivities of both genders are still rooted in the consequences of reproduction. If women are too fast & loose, they risk getting stuck with the spawn of undesirable and/or absent mates. Women also have a shorter “shelf life” then men, and need to be more choosey. In contrast, all a guy needs to safely spread his seed is a condom. Consequences are all too optional.


7 posted on 10/18/2012 4:50:14 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Actually written by Alana Newman.


8 posted on 10/18/2012 4:57:56 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I don’t know about anyone else here but on reading just the first few sentences of this, the “ewwwwww” factor in me was pretty high. Enough to just make me stop and say WTF?

Didn’t finish.


9 posted on 10/18/2012 5:04:59 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Not trying to be argumentative. I may be as off base as can be, and I hope I’m not being too indelicate here, but it’s still my perception that the act of penetrating or being penetrated result in a completely different mindset, no matter the protection.

I would venture that some women would agree and others would disagree with this.


10 posted on 10/18/2012 5:05:45 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The article should have excluded the first part and been retitled ‘Mining the womb’. They want it all from girls and women. Contraception beginning in jr hi so ‘it’ is available at a young age for one type of customer and digging for eggs from others for another type of customer. God have mercy on us for accepting the sexual revolution.


11 posted on 10/18/2012 5:28:58 AM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Allow me to join you in the minefield of sexual differentiation:

Which is more powerful, the scabbard or the sword?


12 posted on 10/18/2012 5:30:16 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Free speech is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Deadbeat guys with no ambition or money always seem to have the most potent sperm.

Stupid women with no interest in proper child-raising and a knack for finding the worst men always have the best eggs.


13 posted on 10/18/2012 5:33:08 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

I see - thanks.


14 posted on 10/18/2012 5:39:52 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Will this be on the test?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

Good observations.


15 posted on 10/18/2012 5:41:44 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Will this be on the test?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

AMEN to what you have posted.

“Manatha, Come Lord Jesus, King of Kings, COME!”


16 posted on 10/18/2012 5:59:42 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Swords get rusty and fall apart if they aren’t in and out of a scabbard on a regular basis and scabbards get cobwebs if nothing is ever in them...


17 posted on 10/18/2012 6:05:22 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
...”What a dark and sinister world we live in. This world has been turned upside down. Our nation, in its immersion in Obamaism, has forgotten God and this is what we have become”...

Mother Nature, created by God, will have some things to say about all this eventually. Isn't it interesting that the EPA and their ilk have ruined our society with their unending regulations but have little to say about this kind of usurpation of what nature intended? Not that I would recommend in 100,000 years that they should regulate human reproduction! I think I saw a headline this a.m. which indicated something about celebrity sperm donors..I just could not bring myself to read further. It is all very ghoulish.

18 posted on 10/18/2012 6:17:02 AM PDT by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

That’s disgusting.


19 posted on 10/18/2012 6:37:56 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Will this be on the test?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I agree, totally uncalled for


20 posted on 10/18/2012 6:54:17 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jazzlite
Yes, it is dark and sinister. Young women are not properly protected anymore. Hollywood and the women's liberation movement have caused untold grief to women and children. Also to men who have been relieved of responsibility and as a consequence have lost much of their manhood, hence the metro sexual male. Sad.
21 posted on 10/18/2012 6:59:13 AM PDT by pepperdog ( I still get a thrill up my leg when spell check doesn't recognize the name/word Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Not horse pucky. If men were only looking for sexual release, then any woman would do and there are more women in the world than men.

But men aren’t just looking for sexual release no matter what their big head is telling them, their little head is focused on making a baby. Which is why men primarily seek young fertile females as partners and that is a much smaller pool of potentially willing partners.

The biological imperative for women is quite different. Almost all men are fertile right up until they keel over in old age. So it’s not what we look for. Since pregnancy and childrearing leave women vulnerable and disadvantaged because of the significant physical and time investment, we seek partners that have the markers that indicate safety, stability and resources.


22 posted on 10/18/2012 8:45:08 AM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

What about guuys that have had a vasectomy...did their little heads not know what happened?


23 posted on 10/18/2012 9:13:45 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
The clients for sex with young attractive women are also in no way hoping for a baby from the transaction.

Consciously, no - but that's due to current laws and social traditions. Absent such strictures, the subconscious drive that impels the "clients" to act is 100% based on a desire to reproduce. Men would leave behind 50-100 babies (and burdens to the community) every year without a second thought - that's why cultural traditions evolved as they did.

24 posted on 10/18/2012 9:23:19 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

B.S. It is sexual drive, not the drive to reproduce.


25 posted on 10/18/2012 10:00:49 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: taterjay

Thanks for your response. I agree that the sexual revolution has not been good. I am amazed at the adults who think it’s okay to focus on sexuality so strongly in contemporary presentations on television, on shows kids are going to be watching.

Think about some of the acts on America Has Talent, that wouldn’t have been considered decent for adults ten years ago.


26 posted on 10/18/2012 10:14:16 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

I believe that the scabbard is much more delicate.


27 posted on 10/18/2012 10:19:31 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Not horse pucky. If men were only looking for sexual release, then any woman would do and there are more women in the world than men.

Not any woman in the world would do for me.  And the idea I wanted to get a woman pregnant in high school is laughable. The idea all guys trying to score in high school are always looking to reproduce, is an idea that's woefully lacking a connection to reality.

But men aren’t just looking for sexual release no matter what their big head is telling them, their little head is focused on making a baby. Which is why men primarily seek young fertile females as partners and that is a much smaller pool of potentially willing partners.

Most men are roaming before they settle down.  They ARE NOT looking to take on responsibility, and thus they ARE NOT looking to make a girl pregnant.  Their little head is focused on feeling good, nothing else.  The idea that men are seeking young fertile females is just plain silly.  They're looking for a hottie for personal gratification, and the trophy effect.  The fertility and robustness just comes along with the package.  The high school kid generally wants to score.  That's primarily what they're thinking if they aren't snoring.  And if they aren't getting any, snoring isn't even a safe period of the day.  Young men are practically posessed, the drive is so strong.  And the drive is probably ingraned biology, but that is not what is primarily on a young man's mind, or his little friend's mind.  Not one single young man I knew, was looking to reproduce at that time in our lives.  ZERO!

Scoring, scoring, scoring, scoring...

Not, pregnancy, pregnancy, pregnancy...


The biological imperative for women is quite different. Almost all men are fertile right up until they keel over in old age. So it’s not what we look for. Since pregnancy and childrearing leave women vulnerable and disadvantaged because of the significant physical and time investment, we seek partners that have the markers that indicate safety, stability and resources.


I agree with that.
28 posted on 10/18/2012 10:55:58 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
B.S. It is sexual drive, not the drive to reproduce.

LOL! Some religious and cultural forces do indeed work very hard to establish that these two "drives" are not the exact same thing. But human biology does not cooperate with dogma.

29 posted on 10/18/2012 11:16:25 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The fact that men are attracted to the hottie with all the biological markers of fertility tells you that despite what men think in their big head about scoring and sexual pleasure, the little head is directing them toward procreation, procreation, procreation.

Hollywood and the fashion world have been pushing bony, skinny assed androgynous looking women since Twiggy, yet all the research says men still prefer the “robust package” that signals fertility because it’s HARDWIRED.

You can pretend men don’t have a biological imperative hardwired into their brain or try to wish it away, but intellectual subterfuge doesn’t make biology go away.


30 posted on 10/18/2012 11:22:15 AM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
B.S. It is sexual drive, not the drive to reproduce.

You do realize that these are both terms for the exact same thing?

Only liberal morons think they are separate and that you can have your cake and eat it too. As a liberal myth, it's right up there with taxing the 1% to support the 99%.

31 posted on 10/18/2012 11:32:29 AM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Hey Lindsey. This is Ron. Say listen, how would you like to go out to dinner Thursday, perhaps see a movie? And say, if I could just impregnate you, it would be a dream come true.

LOL, thanks for playing. Don Pardo, please tell her what her parting gifts are.


32 posted on 10/18/2012 12:07:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

They ARE NOT the same thing.

Whether you can grasp it or not, men do have sex without wanting to impregnate someone.

So procreating IS NOT the driving factor.

You’re lost in space here.

Some idiot professor made a comment, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. WRONG!!!!


33 posted on 10/18/2012 12:10:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

If your nads weren’t producing the sex hormones of reproduction you would have NO sexual desire. Trying to pretend that sexual desire is unrelated to biological imperative and the REPRODUCTIVE organs that cause that desire just means you flunked biology.

FAIL


34 posted on 10/18/2012 12:38:29 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

One of the saddest things I see in people who have gotten an education, is the lack of common sense in their conclusions.

You, a female, are trying to tell me what my, a male’s, goals are.

Then you tell me that I don’t know what my personal thoughts are, don’t know my own body, don’t know my own physiology, and don’t have the slightest clue about reproduction.

Do you have any idea what your personal take would be, if I told you a woman that I know more about your physiology than you did?

And you term my explanation of what goes through men’s minds, a big FAIL?

LOL, are you ever one seriously confused know-it-all.


35 posted on 10/18/2012 12:46:12 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Wow... Could you not ever be more mistaken. The most basic of goals in all forms of life whether human, animal or vegetable is to ensure that life continues and our genetic code is passed to a new generation. All this subconscious biology forms the framework for our conscious mind and prewires the paths to the goal in millions of tiny little decisions every hour of every day, some conscious and some not. Yep... Right up to asking little Jennie if she wants to go to the movies.


36 posted on 10/18/2012 1:09:32 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Are you seriously trying to claim that men are not influenced by the sex hormones produced by their testicles? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the sex drive does not stem from the reproductive organs?

Are seriously trying to claim that a castrated male would have the same sex drive as an uncut male, cause I’m here to tell you that any farm raised gal would tell you that you are full of male bovine excreta.

Of course what men’s brains rationalize and what their gonads intend are different. Divorcing the sex drive from reproduction has been the liberal’s wet dream for decades.

It has produced only the death of innocents, despair and cultural destruction.


37 posted on 10/18/2012 1:47:29 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Ramius, the issue here is not that biology does or doesn’t provide subliminal ques or desires. Yes it does. The original premise was that every act of sex was driven by the desire to procreate. Sorry, that’s absurd.

As a sixty-one year old male, I can verify for you that procreation is not my personal goal when I have sex.

You folks have got to get off this kick. You’re killing yourselves.

After my daughter was born four days after the bi-centennial of our nation, I had a vasectomy. What’s your explanation for thirty-six years of sex without the ability to have children? Doesn’t that blow just a wee little hole in your claims that we only have sex for procreation? Well, yes it does.

Now please rant on about why I have sex.

You two have sought to take the humanity out of sex.

1. you’re not doing it just because it feels good
2. you’re not doing it for self gratification
3. you’re not doing it just because she’s a cutie and you want her
4. you’re not doing it to enhance your relationship
5. you’re not doing it because you love her, but you don’t want kids yet

You’re just fooling yourself. You really want to procreate, and you’re too stupid to know it.

Give it a rest you two. Your arguments are unsustainable, and verge on the absurd.


38 posted on 10/18/2012 1:52:06 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Your moronic reply doesn’t warrant a rebuttal on the merits.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2946540/posts?page=38#38


39 posted on 10/18/2012 1:55:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Horse pucky. It has everything to do with the reality that if a woman wants to fool around, she can always find a willing guy. If a guy wants to fool around, for many men they can seldom find a willing woman.

This is true in no small part because the sexual experience is different for men and women.

And all of that has everything to do with biology and reproduction. The species reproduces most abundantly when men try to have sex with as many fertile women as possible. A woman needs to have sex far less often for the species to reach maximum reproduction, because once pregnant there is no reproductive purpose to them having sex. Our genetic code "knows" this and has written the emotions into our programming to motivate us towards maximum reproductive behavior. This means men will want sex far more often than women do, and the natural economic laws of supply and demand determine the rest.

40 posted on 10/18/2012 2:14:35 PM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Whether you can grasp it or not, men do have sex without wanting to impregnate someone.

So procreating IS NOT the driving factor.

Procreation is THE fundamental driving factor. You're mixing up the subconscious and instincts with pleasure and desire. Just compare it to eating. People eat fundamentally because they need to survive. The fact that food tastes good is simply a biological, genetic construct to aid in the survival of the species. People eat on the conscious level because food tastes good and it feels good to eat. But the only reason our bodies were designed to like the taste of food was because it was necessary to help us survive. Sex is exactly the same except survival of the individual is replaced by survival of the species.

41 posted on 10/18/2012 2:22:28 PM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

Thank you for the response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2946540/posts?page=38#38


42 posted on 10/18/2012 2:23:35 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Never mind then. I was just hoping to keep you from looking foolish but I appear to have been too late.


43 posted on 10/18/2012 4:48:55 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

Geez Ramius, you folks look more like junior high school nincompoops by the post.

You really do need to reach down inside yourself and gasp the fact that biology cannot drive every move of your life.

The Left believes we are not people of choice. They believe we are people who must join the collective or be labeled this or that.

And so far, you folks have bit off on that hook line and sinker with regard to this issue.

I’m an individual. I control my actions. I evaluate what I do and why I do it.

You do not, at least not yet you don’t.

You can tell me why you do things. You cannot tell me why I do them.


44 posted on 10/18/2012 6:41:04 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Name calling and insults when facts and logic are not on your side.


45 posted on 10/18/2012 8:26:44 PM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

Hasn’t worked for you has it.


46 posted on 10/18/2012 10:22:30 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
By far, men have always been the main buyers of sexual access to fertile females. Women virtually never pay for sexual access to either gender. Women and girls make up the overwhelming majority of prostitutes and escorts, and men overwhelmingly make up the clientele. This is true for every human culture, in every period in history. And it has everything to do with reproduction and the scarcity of the fertile female.

Horse pucky. It has everything to do with the reality that if a woman wants to fool around, she can always find a willing guy. If a guy wants to fool around, for many men they can seldom find a willing woman.

This is true in no small part because the sexual experience is different for men and women.
  LINK

This was my first post on this thread.  Since this post I have had a number of folks jump in to tell me I'm all wet, when I claim sex is undeniably NOT ALWAYS RELATED to reproduction.

The absurdity of the first and last statement above, started this all off.

Read the parts in red above.

In the first part, the premise is that men have always been the main buyer of sexual access to fertile females.  If the guy had cut that down a bit, left out "fertile females", I wouldn't have addressed the absurdity of his first point.  Fertile females?  Really?  Good grief!

In the second part, the premise is that men purchase access with reproductive intent, and with the scarcity of the fertile female in mind.  Reproductive intent?  Scarcity of the fertile female?  Good heavens this guy is dense when it comes to purchased sex.

Men don't buy access to fertile females.  Men buy access to attractive women so they can have sex with them.  Please, lets see a show of hands from people who know of men who go to brothel's to purchase time with women to get them pregnant so he can have offspring.  What?  I don't see any hands.  What gives?  What gives, is that it was a sophomoric, ill thought out, absurd, and assinine comment.

If the case would have been made here that men become successful to attract women, and that there was a tacit monetary component to the paring up, and getting married, I wouldn't have had a major objection.  That is a part of reality.  But then that's NOT what the writer was addressing is it?

No, the writer was addressing prostitutes and the men who purchase their time and sexual access.

Are men buying access to fertile females?  No.  Are they buying access for reproduction?  No.  They are purchasing access with attractive willing women so they can have sex. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction and the scarcity of the fertile female.

So bartender, a man walks into a brothel and says, "Is anyone here fertile and willing to reproduce?"

Give me a fricken break folks.

47 posted on 10/18/2012 11:19:14 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1; Mr. Jeeves
You are both quite wrong. There is a distinct difference in the desire to have sex and the desire to have a child, and societal forces have noting to do with the difference. If you were right maternity wards would be filled with men ogling newborns in the same numbers that go to strip clubs. Sexual acts that do not include the possibility of reproduction would not be desired. There would be no fetishes. There would be no homosexual sex.

This article starts with a premise and then wastes a lot of words trying to justify that premise, even though it is false. Reminds me of the Communist Manifesto, just shorter.

48 posted on 10/19/2012 4:55:54 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson