Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Re: male/female differences
Message-ID: <377@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 22:12:45 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.377
Posted: Mon Jan 28 22:12:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Feb-85 05:36:18 EST
References: <74@mot.UUCP> <1606@psuvax1.UUCP>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 67

> > 
> > 
> > Here is an interesting argument if you like thinking about such
> > things: 
> > 
> > A big difference between men and women is that men are naturally
> > promiscuous and women are not.  This is because a male can maximize
> > the survival of his genes by having as many partners as possible.
> > Promiscuity in women, on the other hand, with their
> > few eggs, has no advantage: The limiting factor is gestation 
> > time, not number of partners. "Male promiscuity" is therefore selected
> > for while "Female Promiscuity" is not.
> > Now, humankind, with its overly developed brain, has worked this
> > fundamental tension into an amazing web of customs, beliefs,
> > rationalizations, guilts  and neuroses.  Females, for example, 
> > in cahoots with religionists, have run an extraordinarily successful
> > campaign to convince men that Homo Sapiens is monogamous and promiscuity 
> > is "immoral".  People in this newsgroup and elsewhere agonize about 
> > fidelity, the distinction between "friends" and "gender-friends" etc.
> > Men like to look at pictures of naked women and women say that that
> > exploits them, etc. etc.
> > It explains a lot.
> > 
> > --------------------------------
> > Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A
> > {allegra | ihnp4 } ! sftig ! mot ! al
> > {seismo | ihnp4 } ! ut-sally ! oakhill ! mot ! al
> > --------------------------------
> > 
> > DISCLAIMER: These opinions are not necessarily mine, but seemed 
> > like a good idea at the time.
> 
> I like thinking about such things. The conclusion one must reach from your 
> reasoning is that the majority of males must be ABSTINENT (since some males
> should be promiscuous, females shouldn't be, and, you know, the NATURAL way
> it takes one of each sex) ... -)  
> 
> If this is what one should learn from Mother Nature, I want to change schools.
> js

Hmm...I'm not normally one to conspire with religion, but I'm female, so
I guess that I did.  *grin*.  
Now, let's look at it this way:  All the men in the world go out and are
as promiscuous as possible for a month.  Now, almost all women are preg-
nant, at least, the ones who possibly could be.  I guess the men are now
out of luck, since the purpose of sex is procreation, and all of the
available women are now pregnant, right?
Another way to look at it is:  a woman should sleep with as many men as
possible, since some of them might not be fertile (perish the thought!)
and, after all, the woman wants the best chance possible to get pregnant.
I realize these are both silly, but so is the conspiracy theory, etc.

I don't really care whether men are promiscuous or not, nor whether
other women are.  The only person I'm concerned with is myself, and I do
what I want to do.  I would certainly like to *know* that someone I'm
seeing is sleeping with other people (partly because I'm endlessly
curious, partly to be aware of any possible physical/emotional problems
that could result from this), but I don't *insist* that
he tells me.
Also, I do not feel responsible to someone I'm seeing for who or how many I have slept with, although I see
no reason for that information not to be given.  It's just
that *I* am the one with the rights here...it's my body, I can do what
I want.  (No matter what my religious cohorts (*snicker*) tell
me.)

						Muffy