Thread: Why are Western Men so effeminate nowadays?

Originally Posted by Someone

which I'm glad you're willing to acknowledge, since it is in direct contradiction to your earlier claim about the differences between men and women.

So which part of stating first that men wish to sleep with many women and women wish to jump from relationship to relationship is contradictory with stating that marriage is designed to circumvent human behaviour.

Please, take your time answering this one for me.

Originally Posted by Someone

Go read up on your history, specifically the origins of common law marriage.

So you really think most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not get married? If so you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Someone

Correction; more like 500 years. Like I said, these thousands of years of background information can be adequately (for the purposes of comparing demographic trends over the centuries) represented by initial population sizes in the 16th century.



I'm proposing a starting point of the 16th century, not the late 18th century--nearly three hundred years before the US existed.



Which is exactly my point--Europe started this "competition" with a head start of many millions of people. Europe has historically had a lower growth rate than North American immigrant settlements, but dramatically higher initial population sizes. There was insufficient difference in the growth rates to account for the initial discrepancy over the time frame the US has existed. In other words, the US will eventually overtake European population sizes, but not for many decades still.

You're trying to confuse this matter with irrelevancies about starting conditions.



The first part is adequately represented by recognition of present conditions in the 16th century. In other words, that is why Europeans have a several-million-person head start.



You're proposing statistical irrelevancies!

How disappointing. It seems from your posts this is going to turn out Usa vs europe and not a historical view to both continents over their rich history.

This 'competition' as you put it is meaningless if use at as flag waving and not a historical review at the effects of birth rates. Also ignoring centuries/millnia of european history to try and prove your point is not logical and is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by jhffmn

So which part of stating first that men wish to sleep with many women and women wish to jump from relationship to relationship is contradictory with stating that marriage is designed to circumvent human behaviour.

Please, take your time answering this one for me.

Plenty of women enjoy meaningless no-strings-attached sex occasionally too, and many men do find meaningful relationships important. The problem I have with your statement was your equation of meaningful relationships with sex as a biological imperative for women, yet contending that men do not care about relationships is self-evident. This is socially expected, but does not seem to be particularly biologically evident.

So you really think most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not get married?

I think it's more correct to say that most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not try to marry the people they loved, or even necessarily had most of their sex with. Prior to the 19th century, people usually got married for economic reasons, and people without any real economic standing often didn't bother. Though obviously the substantial distance between people in rural and frontier areas would have an impact on this particular social tendency. The US, in this respect, was somewhat more hidebound than Europe, simply because of the lack of available partners for many Americans.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

How disappointing. It seems from your posts this is going to turn out Usa vs europe and not a historical view to both continents over their rich history.

...because we're discussing the relative population growth between the United States and Europe. You can hardly have a discussion about this without framing it as "USA vs. Europe". Because you're comparing and contrasting the two.

This 'competition' as you put it is meaningless if use at as flag waving

You have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? I can't see how you can take my statement "the United States has a higher birth rate--indicating more poverty and lower educational attainament" as flag-waving.

and not a historical review at the effects of birth rates. Also ignoring centuries/millnia of european history to try and prove your point is not logical and is a waste of time.

There is no point in continuing this discussion if you will not actually read my posts.

Originally Posted by jhffmn

So which part of stating first that men wish to sleep with many women and women wish to jump from relationship to relationship is contradictory with stating that marriage is designed to circumvent human behaviour.

Please, take your time answering this one for me.

???

There will be people that will like to have many relationships, and others that will prefer monogamious relations. It is decission of each one. And marriage is just a form of control of the man of the woman. Marriage is something obsolete.

I think the real question should be, are intimations like this thread still effective? Can you still manipulate a man (or more likely a boy) into doing what you tell him by implying that if he doesn't, he's at least effeminate, possibly homosexual?

Originally Posted by Someone

This is socially expected, but does not seem to be particularly biologically evident.

Sure it is, I believe the term when applied to primates is 'serial-monogamy'.

Originally Posted by Someone

I think it's more correct to say that most people in the US prior to the late 19th century did not try to marry the people they loved, or even necessarily had most of their sex with. Prior to the 19th century, people usually got married for economic reasons, and people without any real economic standing often didn't bother. Though obviously the substantial distance between people in rural and frontier areas would have an impact on this particular social tendency. The US, in this respect, was somewhat more hidebound than Europe, simply because of the lack of available partners for many Americans.

People primarily got married for biblical reasons of child rearing. You can call that 'economic reasons' if you wish.

Originally Posted by Someone

Plenty of women enjoy meaningless no-strings-attached sex occasionally too, and many men do find meaningful relationships important.

To paraphrase Dr. Sowell, only in academia can truly stupid ideas exist.

Originally Posted by jhffmn

To paraphrase Dr. Sowell, only in academia can truly stupid ideas exist.

It sounds like Dr. Sowell isn't much of a doctor.

I always thought it was because the traditional role models of the mother being the nurturer and the father being the provider have been trampled on.

I respect the rights of women and that means I also respect her right to be a stay-at-home mom. For some of the more extreme feminists, this is a degrading lifestyle and they do everything they can to make it so. A child needs both nurturing and someone to provide for them. When women are told they must provide for their children or else they're being discriminated against it leaves a gap on the nurturing front which the male must then fill.