When a woman thinks with the wrong head...?

Question

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_5416031,00.html

What do we call it as a society when a woman thinks with the "wrong" head? Is this a double-standard?

Answer 1

Oh, we have all kinds of "things to call" those women "as a society"...haven't you ever heard? "Whore, *****, man-eater, "evil-woman" and those aren't reserved just for the women that "deserve" it, like this woman, you can be called that just for expressing an opinion, or daring to "enjoy" sex.
Double standard?

EDIT-Robinson-What biology books are YOU reading? Monogamy doesn't make sense from a strictly biological stand point for EITHER sex. A woman remaining monogamous puts herself at greater risk for not carrying her genes into the next generation, just as it does a man. What if the man is infertile? What if his genes are "bad"? There is evidence that suggests that some MEN'S genetic material makes the fetus not viable in womb, and the fetus will spontaneously abort. A woman who has sex with as many partners as possible increases the chances that one of those will be "fit" enough to first impregnate her, then that the genes will be "good" genes. The concept of "pairing" (as couples) came about as (proto) humans evolved into a social species, when close living quarters and the necessity of cooperation first made males develop a "vested interest" in sticking around to see that their offspring made it to adulthood. The concept of "monogamy" came about around the same time as the concept of "owning" land and property. As descent through the "male" line became part of the social structure, there needed to be a way to "make sure" that the offspring men were supporting and passing their land on to was actually his. Thus, the concept of "female monogamy." Again, monogamy from any biological standpoint, for men and women, is senseless.

EDIT--"One can tell if genes are bad through male competition, the appearance of the male, and the like..." Sooo, for future reference, what exactly does an infertile male "look" like? Bad hair? Yellow teeth? Of course symmetry and beauty are general indicators of "fitness" but we all know (hopefully) that it doesn't always work like that.
Here are some studies regarding the matter. I'm not sure what your source proved...it compared various primate social structures, but did not prove your ideas one way or the other, only that there are polyandrous and polygamous forms of primate social structures.

Evolutionary Biology:
"Sexual conflict and cooperation under naturally occurring male enforced monogamy:"
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00654.x/abs/
"An evolutionary conflict often exists between the sexes in regard to female mating patterns. Females can benefit from polyandry, whereas males mating with polyandrous females lose reproductive opportunities because of sperm competition."
Females benefit, males lose out, so, in social animals, social structures and pressures are put in place to "control" female mating.

Anthropology:
"The Virtues of Promiscuity:"
http://www.alternet.org/story/13648/
"The latest Anthropological research shows that female infidelity is good for the family, the community, and even the gene pool."


Evolutionary Psychology:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:fRKFrA578QQJ:www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04471473.pdf+evolutionary+benefits+of+female+menstrual+cycle&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
"Women's estrus/short term sexual pschology is most pronounced during the pre-ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle, precisely when engaging in a double-mating through extra-pair copulation would be most beneficial to women (e.g. by gaining access to high quality genes, sexy son genes, diverse genes).

So, one can even see how a patriarchial society would come into play, as males became more invested in the surival of their offspring (through the necessity of cooperative social structures) they needed a way to insure the paternity of their offspring. Thus developed social pressures and structures that would "ensure" female monogamy.

EDIT--Robinson, from your comments, I can only assume you didn't READ my articles. TWO were about HUMAN SEXUALITY ONLY. The first was not. And there is a lot more out there.
"Once humans started...it's amost certain that strict monogamy came about. Or am I wrong about that?" According to Evolutionary Biology scholars, Anthropology scholars, and Evolutionary Psychology SCHOLARS (and others, I could post a long list if you lke) that have Ph.D's...yes you're wrong.

Answer 2

Women that are called sluts are usually called such behind their backs. It's not like people run up to them and yell insults all day; get serious. Furthermore, it is neither evolutionarily sound nor socially acceptable (the two MAY be related) for a woman to be whoring around with many men. A woman's virginity is thought by millions to be a "sacred" thing that should be saved for marriage. Women are supposed to be monogamous. It isn't because men wanted to oppress women; it's probably because it just didn't make (biological) sense. The myth that women don't enjoy sex was probably invented to convince them to remain abstinent until marriage, as well.

That said, it is undeniably a double standard.

EDIT: Er... serial monogamy? (In case the male dies?)

One can tell if genes are bad through male competition, the appearance of the male, and the like. They obviously didn't have microscopes back then, so this is the only way they could analyze such things. Once a woman found a suitable man, it's pretty certain that they would stay together, since having a constant protector is always a plus. It's not like a woman would keep having sex with many different partners once she became pregnant or something, as she would have to watch over children, and the male would probably be jealous. Furthermore, women have a menstrual cycle, not an estrus cycle; collecting many different samples of sperm wouldn't serve much of a purpose.

Think about how a social morality would develop. Would a woman that had sex without watching over children (they didn't really have abortion then, so children were pretty much a given) be useful to society? Would she be desirable to males?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm

^ (Information about primate behavior.)

At the very least, it is MORE advantageous for a man to be polygamous than for a woman. Add to that social factors and calling women "names" is going to appear logical. That said, men actually get the same treatment from where I am. I would like a credible source for the opinions of male and female sexuality; almost all of what I've read so far is hearsay.

There's a lot more I can say, but I'm moving on unless an urgent response arises.

---

"But Hawkes says females likely hook up with multiple males for safety more than any other benefit."

This is a problem with comparison between humans and other primates. Humans certainly seem to be pretty jealous about their partners, so I doubt that this would fly in even an earlier society. Could be possible, though, and in any event, your articles concern non-human primates almost exclusively, creatures that do not have strongly established cultures and tools. Once humans started using these things, it's almost certain that strict monogamy started coming about. Or am I wrong about that one?

Oh, and that source was just information about primate behavior; looking at the ones humans are under certainly distinguishes us from other primates somewhat.

Answer 3

Pretty much. It's socially accepted if a man does, but if a woman does...we have all kinds of names to call her. I think it should be equal...men can be just as nasty as women can.

Answer 4

Here is the nitty griitty; what's between the lines. The woman thought she could get away with something and it backfired.

Answer 5

I think it makes both men and women look stupid. But the truth is that young men and women ARE thinking with the little head.

Answer 6

If you are referring to sex? She is a slut! a man can and he is a stud! Yes, it is a double standard!

Answer 7

well, since women only have ONE head this statement really doesnt apply to us.

Answer 8

no just stupid