why don't guys say what they feel

[MarriedMom]

Very good post, wired. It's true, women and men should take into account the non-verbal signs of communication. I have a tendency myself to neglect this while trying to talk to my husband. You've given me a very important reminder.

MM

[hi_there]

I agree that it's good to note non-verbal signs but without verbalizing to get confirmation they can be easily misunderstood. The basis of many false assumptions in my current relationship has been both of our misinterpretations of the other's behavior / body-laguage / expressions etc. Tread carefully.

[mostirreverent]

Mostirreverent, women make good hunters too. They have to be taught of course just like men, but dealing with the tedium of the search, the thrill of the chase and the kill are still there. We are not hardwired into any role by gender. Of course we may be slightly, very slightly, better at one thing due to gender. The differences in gender are trivial compared to, let's say an Englishman's advantages at cricket, even if he never played it, compared to an American like me trying it.

You missed my "perhaps". I don’t always buy into the whole evo-bio thing; it is just a fun speculation.

By the way, let me suggest a book I have mentioned before. Sperm Wars. In a series of scenarios and conjecture based on sperm morphology and reproductive science the author tries to make sense of our sex lives. It is a very interesting read. Well worth the trip to the library. It is very light. Readers digest level biochemistry

[Lola]

Mostirreverent, women make good hunters too. They have to be taught of course just like men, but dealing with the tedium of the search, the thrill of the chase and the kill are still there. We are not hardwired into any role by gender. Of course we may be slightly, very slightly, better at one thing due to gender. The differences in gender are trivial compared to, let's say an Englishman's advantages at cricket, even if he never played it, compared to an American like me trying it.

How do you take the widelyspread men = ''insert gender stereotype'' and women = ''insert gender stereotype'' on here ?
Never thought i'd see your type around

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

[How do you take the widelyspread men = ''insert gender stereotype'' and women = ''insert gender stereotype'' on here ?

With a grain of salt. My girlfriend (single mom with two kids) would beat me upside my head if I suggested she couldn't do something because she was a women. Come to think of it, my mom would hold me down for her to beat. I will grant I am more physically aggressive and have more strength than most women, but at my age it's too much work to prove it to anymore.

ps. I read it mostirreverent. Like almost every book and any study in the soft sciences it hits the high points without filling in the blanks. There isn't enough money to go around to prove each point.

Here's a very central theory in the book.
"Baker (1996) discovered evidence that human male sexual psychology has evolved to respond to the prospect that his mate has been inseminated by another man during his absence. He found that the volume of sperm a man ejaculates while having sex with his partner is unrelated to how long it has been since he last had an ejaculation; the important variable is the length of time that has passed since he last had sex with his wife. The volume of sperm may be as much as three times that of normal if the man has been separated from his wife for a long period of time."

Sounds good and makes sense right? OK. So where's the study that proves this isn't caused by a simple catching upon the man's part, ensuring that the women *always* has enough sperm in her cervical cracks to cause pregancy. Women hide ovulation, so it would make sense that men would want to make sure he has reserves of sperm in her to impregate her when she ovulates.

I just grabbed that paragraph at random to show that the soft sciences, particularly sex sciences, are somewhere between alchemy and magic today.

A few books like The Red Queen are horribly misguided. The theory is very sound, but the application is horrible.

[hi_there]

So where's the study that proves this isn't caused by a simple catching upon the man's part, ensuring that the women *always* has enough sperm in her cervical cracks to cause pregancy. Women hide ovulation, so it would make sense that men would want to make sure he has reserves of sperm in her to impregate her when she ovulates.

I'm always amazed when these studies conclude INTENT. I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to father children. Period. The thought of my girl running about with her "cervical cracks" full of my sperm makes me think oral sex or plenty of multiple condoms are the only way to go. Perhaps I will develop erectile dysfunction at the thought of intercourse to demonstrate my desire to not reproduce.

Further, google "male fertility". If we are all supposedly running about getting better and better at reproduction then the level of interest in aiding male fertility seems a bit odd doesn't it?

Last, if it all "makes sense" why on Earth would we not be most attracted to persons of either advanced age but good health (a much better indicator of life-long health than a healthful youth) or persons wherein we are aware of a healthy and long-lived ancestry. Neither perfectly sensible "biological drive" or "natural selection" appears to be prevalent.

Doesn't it seem more likely that biologically driven sex is a reaction (or series of reactions) rather than any indication of a person's willfull desire to reproduce??? Take my cats for instance. I guarantee you that poppa does not want even one more brat running about stealing attention from him but he rarely fails to take an interest in the ladies nonetheless.

Oh and one other thing... if sex always, always, always resulted in pregnancy, count me out. I wonder if there would be much interest in it at all if that were the case...

[simma]

Hi Wired,
I loved that you used my article. You can now say reprinted with permission. I stumbled on this site so I don't know anything about it, but I did notice some of the conversation about gender differences sounding a bit absolute. Remember these are just cultural norms and not everyone fits into them, and there are different degrees to these styles.
Take care,
Simma Lieberman

[WiredCoffeeJunkie]

Thank you Simma Lieberman and thank you for the caveat as well.

-Mike

[mostirreverent]

I don’t think any of us means 100% when we say men or woman or even use the word All (incorrectly). We mean most people we have encountered. I would venture to guess that that equates to some statistical norm or more. It is not an untrue statement that men want sex more than women. Sure once in a while you will hear of a woman whose mate is not that way, but come on. Don’t get hung up on minor points and statistical outliers.

[Lola]

I don’t think any of us means 100% when we say men or woman or even use the word All (incorrectly). We mean most people we have encountered. I would venture to guess that that equates to some statistical norm or more. It is not an untrue statement that men want sex more than women. Sure once in a while you will hear of a woman whose mate is not that way, but come on. Don’t get hung up on minor points and statistical outliers.

What is so problematic with saying what you mean though ?

I very well believe that many people use the ''men are ...'', ''women are ...'' speech,in regards to ''all'' people of that gender.I also don't think it's a ''minor point'',but a major point,as the exceptions are,imo,usually more interesting than the rule.

[Lola]

Thus more weight should be put on differentiating,but i can't expect that to happen on a messageboard like this,where all weight is focussed towards ''men are'',''women are'' debates (if one can call them that) etc.