Because in terms of evolution, males want to mate more often so they can produce more offspring, which a female can't do because they have to spend so much time carrying any offspring. Silent-Hal
I wish life was as simplistic as 'we are animals'. Alas, it is not. Bad enough that I see bad journalistic articles that take everything out of context to try (a.k.a. make everything seem so simple, e.g. one Evolutionary article suggested women put lipstick on to make it look like a Vagina without mentioning at all that at certain points in history it was perfectly acceptable for men to do the same thing) and prove Evolution, now we have it in forums too (fyi, trying to be ironic)? Gratz you're an atheist that wants complex people to turn into animals, talk about it on the black-hole of intellect/logic/understanding that is the Dick Dawkins forums (yes, Dawkins is a moron, all his PR statements and books are beyond stupid and totally lack ANY understanding of the beliefs he is trying to argue against). 'In terms of evolution' cannot exist because evolution has never been proven, whether by science (a.k.a. no proof of beneficial generic data EVER coming about in ANY species or germ/virus/etc that wasn't a lose in information, no way for the first cell to be created within the environment Evolutionists have created/stated that the earth first started within and no way for existance itself to come about) and definitely not by any other field of study (since any other field states that humans are more then mere creatures). I'd have no problem with you stating in general that males are programmed a certain way, but 'terms of evolution' just shows your clear bias too much... Since Males can be programmed a certain way without evolution, just like Natural Selection itself is not something Darwin MAGICALLY came up with... Since of course non-Atheists themselves (e.g. Creationists) wrote about it before Darwin.
Wouldn't it work the other way as well? Females would want sex as well hence make more offspring? Even an Evolutionist themselves could have a go at you and say that you are generalising a complex situation, since why were females EVER given a sex drive if you apply your logic? They wouldn't need one, hell, if Evolutionary logic was applied to ALL then why don't women enjoy rape since no doubt according to the millions/thousands of years as cavemen (I laugh at the fact that people find a minor amount of bones in caves and start saying that we lived millions/thousands of years as cavemen, I'd think they could find more bones since there would have been millions of humans through those years) that males did just drag women by their legs and have forced intercourse to reproduce... SO WHY HAVEN'T WOMEN ADAPTED?!
Stupid logic is stupid, that is why.
Males are visual, females are not. I think that would be one of the major differences. Watching something the other day with a group of females talking about self-simulation, they stated they started (their first, you know what) at age 11 or 12 or something... Earlier then myself as a male I must say. Either way, like others stated, depends on each person. From what I know, for most women, if they are emotionally simulated they are much more into it (even though visuals come into it, overall trying to captailise on that fact more in line with males and their visual sexuality will be trying to make women into men). Of course, this includes men visualising within their own heads.
Anyway, I'm just saying what I think I know.
Log in to comment