The Apparent Benefits of Bringing Sexy Back

lol... a round of applause for Adriancito. It's just not cut and dry is it? It's certainly a combination of reality in nature, and our own inter-workings as a society. I know for DAMNED sure that I was MADE to bear children. Take a spin on my curves and you'll agree. =) But, as an empowered woman, I will CHOOSE what to do with my life, and so far, that doesn't include children.

I always wonder about what lessons can be learned from the relatively 'simplistic, instinctual' compulsions and tendencies of the animal kingdom versus the [ostensibly] 'higher' forms of consciousness that the human animal embodies. Today I had a very interesting conversation with my co-worker, a lesbian, about the role that male ego plays in infidelity - if the male is the victim of infidelity. My co-worker argued that ego isn't expressly a provincially male thing---she spoke of her own struggles with her mate's infidelities that stemmed from how her ego had been wounded. Ego and gender roles - or rather the PERCEPTIONS of gender roles - go hand in hand, for males as well as females. Some women want to protest - egotistically - against being baby makin' machines. Some men want to play the dominant male monkey role and relegate women to Susie Housecoat roles. Again, ego. To me that's what gender roles ultimately come down to - what someone wants you to be and what you don't want to me - men and women get off on this trip equally. Gender is natural---now gender 'ROLES'---THAT'S where we veer off the yellow brick road. Animals don't watch 'Gray's Anatomy'. That's gender roles on crack.

I'm glad that we agree for the mostpart swood and jenn, but I don't agree that gender is man-made. To a degree, this is certainly plausible, but to say that we are not naturally different is an overstatement. I don't know about you, but I enjoy many pastimes that would be considered "female" by nature. I was NOT raised in a typical way, and my femininity is in no way due to programming. I was one of those braniac kids who only got science toys for christmas...always wanted the Barbie styling head...never got it. Much of our behavior is probably due to centuries of society ingrained in our history, but think back. Can you picture the first family units? How do you think that played out? My guess is that gender roles were relatively similar to what we consider to be normal female and male behaviour. That's not to say that all stereotypes should be respected, but we SHOULD respect and celebrate our nature instead of lying to ourselves about who we really are.

Angelina,
I think we are agreeing. But I just want to say that sex is natural, but your gender is man-made. Gender stereotypes, gender roles, etc are all fabricated. We both agree that nature allows us to procreate, yet evolution and modern society allows us to break down the stereotypes that we "should" reproduce.
And I think we all can agree with Jenn that this article should not be defined as "scientific" in any ways. They are making broad assumptions about monogamy and women in general.
I look forward to taking over the world.

I agree Jenn. It's really not very scientific. But, I don't mind that men don't understand us and our wonderful mystical ways. Let them underestimate us...It only gives us an advantage when we take over the world! mmuuuaauauauauauauau!!!!!!!

I agree that we subconsciously engage in tiny actions, miniature sociological practices, tiny biological processes, absolutely. I hit on men differently than they hit on me, hey, that's true. But taking an observable phenomenon ("women shake their hips a lot!"), introducing flimsy science ("I bet I can quantify how MUCH the hips shake and, biologically, why!"), being surprised by the results ("Man! There isn't the correlation between hip-shaking and fertility like I thought!"), and then *inventing* something to substantiate your new findings ("Because women are tooootally monogamous, we found that they shake their hips less when they are fertile") is so not the scientific method they taught me in the third grade.

jenn, I agree with you about it being innate for men to cheat. That may very well be true, but committing and cheating are both voluntary actions. Men and women both want commitment, and men and women both cheat. Is it biological? In this case, WHO CARES? If you CHOOSE to be in a monogamous relationship, you have made that decision CONSIOUSLY. If you then go outside your relationship, behind your partner's back, that is also a conscious decision. If we have control over our sexual habits then biological tendencies have little or nothing to do with it. As far as tendencies that are generally unnoticed and involuntary, such as a motion of a woman's hips as she walks, that could certainly be looked at from an animalistic perspective. We're not THINKING about it for heaven's sake! It just happens. Do we even know why? No, this issue is related to stuff that we don't do on purpose, just like the release of pheromones to attract the opposite sex.

swood, the truth is that I don't really know much about ovulation. I'm not big on having kids. There's a very good chance that I never will. I run my own business, and I'm in school with the eventual goal of going to law school. I am in no way saying that women MUST have children. But it IS our primary role on this planet. Is it coincidence that your body decays rapidly after the onset of menopause? Come on, let's not be PC. Let's be honest. Do you have a vagina? How about a uterus? Eggs? Breasts? Can you lactate? What about those hips that we're all discussing? Why are they so damned wide? You know as well as i do that your body, and many of your urges, are centered around the fact that your particular gender is responsible for carrying children. To deny that is sacriligious in relation to being a woman. You are MADE for it. You are not defined by that unless you choose to be. I don't look at a woman and see a baby-maker. I look at a woman and see an individual. We are animals people. VERY VERY (to a varying degree) intelligent animals. We are able to think and decide what we want to do with ourselves, and who we want to be...But...we are still animals deep down. We still have natural uncontrollable responses to a variety of situations and stimulus. You are a woman. Your body is MADE to bear children. Still, your mind is made to do ANYTHING. Men and women are different. We should celebrate and understand those differences, instead of allowing them to define us.

Angelina H- Carrying children is my "main role" according to who? Who decided that?Yes certain amazing abilities can be attributed to nature, but roles are designated by society.
I'm not trying to be like a man, I'm trying to be true to myself rather than be constricted what society believes to be "my main role." I also acknowledge that the world is an over-populated place. Furthermore, I do celebrate the ability to have children, that is amazing, I just don't want to be defined by that.
Also, most women do know when they are ovulating. You know the last time you had your menses right? You know the next time you expect yours right? There ya go.

I agree with the swood's sentiment, as I am always very skeptical of the "science" of gender and sex. The popular idea in science is that women show less interest in sex, and more interest in monogamy, because of "biological investment." The popular notion that men cheat (and women 'don't!') because they're biologically hardwired to do just that, simply doesn't sit well with me.

Returning to the article, though: of the findings, Dr John Manning remarked, "I think that the subtle signs of ovulation are used, in a sense, to promote monogamy." This is to say, women *don't* shake their butts when it's time to procreate, because too many potential partners would buzz over to the nectar. Fine.

But I am suspicious. I think, no matter what the findings--remember, they expected women, at the outset, to shake their butts *more* when they were ripe-for-the-plucking--the scientists involved in these studies would have managed to contort the results to match what is already commonly accepted in the scientific community as inalienable truth.

swood, I'm pretty sure that this article is referring to innate, uncontrollable actions and motivations. I'm willing to bet that the women analyzed didn't know if they were ovulating or not, or when they would be for that matter. Instead of fighting against what we are, we should embrace our feminine qualities and special abilities. It is US who brings every single person into this world. Aren't you proud of that? Sorry, but our PRIMARY purpose on this planet is to carry and raise children. You don't HAVE to, and you are CAPABLE OF MANY THINGS IN ADDITION TO, but it's still your main role. If we try to be like men in order to appear equal, then we are not honoring women, and we are not gaining equality. Instead, we are ourselves implying that it's better to be a man.

I use my sexy walk to ward off evil spirits. Oh, and you tell'em girl, Female power!!! Grrrr baby!! Meowwww!!!!*Hsssss* We aren't going to take any more bullying from you men out there. Rise sisters! Rise! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala!!!!! Damn!! I wish I was a man!!!

I'm not so sure I appreciate this article.
I think it is interesting how they say that when women are ovulating they are trying to hide their hormones. The article says "women want to conceal their ovulation from males other than their chosen partner" and it was in a woman's best interests to form a closer attachment to one man to help raise children, rather than to advertise her fertile time and be approached by a larger number of competing males." Wow. This pretty much reduces women to baby-making machines. How about exploring the possibility that not all women want to get pregnant, even with their partner? Women aren't necessarily warding off unfit partners by keeping their knees together, maybe they are warding off the idea of pregnancy altogether.