There are good reasons to tsk over the desi preference for boy children. Should we do the same when it comes to the American preference for girl children when adopting?

no, because the *problem* isn't the act of preference for one sex or another in and of itself, but the social consequences which flow from and it and the means. whether you accept abortion rights or not, most people have issues with sex-selective abortions, which is a major way that sex preferences play out in much of asia. additionally, the malnutrition and neglect of females resulting in higher mortality is problematic. so it isn't the sex preference so much as the societal context and the indicators which this entails.

and, to be frank, the problems which might arise from a surplus of males differs from those that arise from a surplus of females. young men are violent and the major root of instability on a macro and micro level in most societies. when men marry their testosterone levels actually drop and they tend to calm down. though normal sex ratio is 105 to 100, at the age of 30 there are more females than males. some of this is due to male physiology; weaker immune system and sex-linked diseases, but some of this is just the fact that there are a lot of stupid dudes who win the darwin awards and kill themselves being jackasses. but in any case, the sex ratio imbalance, combined with the fact that high status older men engage in serial monogamy and marry younger women means that men in their 20s in most modern societies face a tight "supply" market in terms of women their age to partner up with. as you skew the sex ratio the theory goes that "bare branches" become more atavistic in their behavior.

of course all the arguments above are utilitarian on the level of sex preferences themselves proximately. i'm actually generally inclined toward a default stance that parents should get to choose how their children should turn out, sex, looks, proclivities, etc. the question is not "why," but "why not?" i think that though the naturalistic fallacy is mostly problematic, when it comes to equal sex ratios in many species it has something to teach us as to the proper order of things.

btw, south korea is now shifting toward girls as well... (japan did about 15 years ago)

btw, there is a fair amount of literature about the trivers-willard effect among low status peoples, and here boys are often mistreated or malnourished and have far higher mortality rates. so in this case the preference is really bad and morally objectionable in the way that it plays out.

When adopting from places like China or India, there's already a surplus of unwanted girls so I don't think it's a problem. But that's an issue of demand and not of supply. I don't understand why adopting families favor girls so heavily - any ideas?

I know a friend (female) who has only sisters and NO COUSINS. And to keep their family name (a not so common one), her husband let her keep her last name, and even the children have their mother's last name. WHY COULDNT THEY WORK OUT SOMETHINK LIKE THAT? It seriously make me SICK to see the male preference in India. If they are taking IVF treatment i would expect the couple to be well to do and educated, yet still their ideas reflect backward thinking. I know of a couple who died in my dad's tiny village in India, they had only daughters and they had not written a will, so all the villagers and the authorities decided upon giving the inheritance to their nephew, simply because he is male. The daughters and their families were even in needy situations. But these are the kind of people who never went to school, were never taught ethics, and never left their 20 mile radius area. They are excused. The Panwars are not.

A few months ago here in Vancouver a punjabi father killed his 2 year old daughter cause she was his third daughter and he had no son. It turned out that he could not get a visa for his wife to cross the border and find out the sex of his baby. I also wonder if he get crap from the men in his community from having no sons and it caused him to go over the edge.

Right across the border in United States is Blaine, Washington and there is a clinic there that is for punjabi women to find out the sex of there baby earlier then they can in Canada where they have to wait 24 weeks so they go just across the border.

The “why not” question for me will always be hard to swallow. On one hand, if the parents get what they want there would be a lot of female children that would not be mistreated or frankly dumped on the side of the street or ashram.

However the attitude would still be the same. Letting families get what they want does not shift change of thought. Plus you get some really messed blokes out there when they are lavished with so much attention. Sort of goes beyond mummy’s boy. Glad my folks favour my sister!

the motivations are the key difference--wanting a male child implies a better capacity to earn and take care of parents and 'carry on' the family. While preference for girls while adopting is more of an emotional decision, with no real economic motivations [unless it costs lesser to adopt girls?]. no?

I think the decision of Americans to adopt primary girls has to do with a practicality - young men are simply more aggressive, and combining this with attachment issues that plague adopted children, you might just get a recipe for disaster.

There are good reasons to tsk over the desi preference for boy children. Should we do the same when it comes to the American preference for girl children when adopting?

I think so. Since there is shortage of girls in most of Asia, for reasons pointed out in previous comments, aren't we adding more to the problems that comes with a surplus of males in those countries? It is quite possible that by adopting, Americans are saving these girls from future abuse though. It is hard to say what the future will be, but I suspect that a huge shortage of adult women might lead to raising their status a lot, I sure hope so.

“We already have two girls but we wanted a boy so that he could have taken care of our property. This boy and girl are God’s greatest gift to us,” Omkari said.

This quote surprised me, because when this story ran on NDTV about a week ago, there was a huge hue and cry because the parents balked at the daughter's appearance, saying they paid all this money because they only wanted a son, which led to a lot of debate on TV about IVF and up to what age women should be permitted to avail of it.

Very interesting. Filmiholic - have you seen any links on the web to the earlier quotes?

I swear I was waiting for this story to be broken as a hoax. There are just so many elements to this that seem untrue but lets assume that this is true. Ethics aside as I get older and become more sensitive to the role of a woman (shyt no one told me getting married would unearth so many feminist issues in my life) I rather see someone bring a child into this world that they want than a child that isn't just unwanted but unloved and worse abused or killed.

I come from a family of 13 girls and 3 boys (on my mother's side that I'm close to) and it isn't a surprise that all the girls kick ass. They really do and most of them are in India. I married into a family of all boys, 8 of them in the whole circle. No girls. Yeah quite a transition. On the positive side I get treated like a goddess and something rare and as if I'd break and I'm fragile and on the negative side most people had no idea girls could open their mouth and state their business and get what they want.

My mother always raised me to believe I was somehow superior (yes yes I'm rolling my eyes too) but she herself was so superior in so many ways so I had such a fantastic example. She was the epitome of feminism so I had some very solid foundation in self value and a little fucked up view of the world because of course I believed everyone was equal for a long long time.

I didn't really understand the whole dirty business of "boys are different" from girls till my mother died without leaving a will and inheritence issues came up and everyone and their grandmother got involved. Every single person involved in the bullshit was educated. This concept of boys are better is so deeply mired into the psyche of our culture it's going to take a few hundred years to get out of it.

Simpling having a penis seems to be good enough criteria for most people. And it's a painful reality for a lot of people even today and even in the most educated of societies. In the Indian context our roles are so clearly defined for us as man and woman that when you start breaking out of the norm and addressing those roles differently you are bound to experience resistence. Shit I get it in 2008 in the United States so I believe in being patient with India. It will get better over time.

I think son preference was common everywhere, just more sociopathic in some places. It was back in mid-20th c. (where did it go?), but the American playwrite Edward Albee dealt with the subject of adoption in western, or at any rate American culture. His opinion was that people adopted girls more often because the adoptive parents still had some subterranean hope of producing a male heir to carry on the name, inherit, give them more status, more possibility that their offspring would be some sort of genius achiever, etc. A boy was just more serious business. This really how some people look on it. One depressing statistic that I have read is that couples with sons are less likely to divorce than couples with only daughters. This sort of mentality is not unique to the "east." Daughters in England didn't inherit either until laws were changed in the mid-19th century. This was a major theme in Austen's works, where a son-less man's nephew rather than his daughters, would inherit his property.
It seems to me (though I have no firm evidence) that girl adoptees are way more likely than boys to be interested in their biological roots and seek them out eventually. That may or may not be a problem for the parents, depending on their own ideas.

From people I've spoken to that have adopted young girls from either East or South Asia, the impression that I got was that their preference was a direct response to the current mentality and preference for boys. As a poster said earlier, it does have something to do with the large number of "unwanted" girls.

However, I should add that adopting a brown baby is apparently A LOT cheaper than adopting a baby from say...Europe. There could be economic reasons as well..

That was a different story, Filmiholic.

this is a fascinating topic for me ever since i read of a study that found that:

"Women living with a male partner are more likely to give birth to boys than women who live alone" (Link - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6551-boy-babies-less-likely-for-single-mothers.html)

there appears to be a hidden environmentally influenced mechanism which impacts the gender ratio of births ... so what is going on?

on a personal note, i would love to know because i'm one of two brothers, and my brother has three boys ... my mom is just dying for a grand-daughter, and when my sister in law had my last nephew, my dad didn't have the heart to immediately tell her that it was another boy... now it's on me to make that grand-daughter a reality, hehe

If this is well after her menopause, she must have had an egg donor so the twins aren't biologically hers?? To have to breastfeed two kids at age 70 totally insane!

They don't look all that rich and unless IVF is dirt cheap in India, the boy is going to inherit bupkes.

Maybe people adopting read about stories of unwanted girl children in places like India and China. They want to rescue such kids.
Also in many Western countries, it is the girl who is closer and takes care of her parents. I've talked to an American, Irish and Israeli friend and they all tell me this.

There are good reasons to tsk over the desi preference for boy children. Should we do the same when it comes to the American preference for girl children when adopting?

Am I the only one who sees possibilities in this differential preference across countries?

This was a major theme in Austen's works, where a son-less man's nephew rather than his daughters, would inherit his property.

just a note, the ethnographic literature has shown that in early modern & medieval europeans you see higher male infant mortality rate among he poor and higher female among the rich. classic trivers-willard. austen's work is focused on the gentry and lower nobility, so that short of tendency is not surprising.

there appears to be a hidden environmentally influenced mechanism which impacts the gender ratio of births ... so what is going on?

just google trivers-willard. there are lots. there are even weird chemical matrices which selectively favor male or female sperm (there is a different in weight between an X and Y sperm cuz the latter chromosome is much smaller).

Am I the only one who sees possibilities in this differential preference across countries?

Mail-order brides?

22 · Smart Arbitrage or Russian Roulette? said

Am I the only one who sees possibilities in this differential preference across countries?
Mail-order brides?

Dude!

I was simply thinking of cross border adoption agencies... on both sides. There is an abundance of little boys up for adoption in western countries...

Sugi, no, it was this very same couple, not the British one.

Ennis, here's the video link. When you get to minute 1:50, that's where the story goes into they parents feeling "cheated."

One other interesting thing about this IVF business, NDTV did a 1/2 hour report a few months back on one clinic in Jalandar that has had great success at IVF, for women of all ages, and as memory serves, they had at least one woman (possibly more) who was not within the usual 20s to 30s to early 40s range for childbearing.

In case it's of interest, here's a clip of discussion with an IVF specialist, which aired at the time of the news breaking on the birth of the twins to the 70-year-old mother.

"austen's work is focused on the gentry and lower nobility, so that short of tendency is not surprising."

True. Still, no Austen Papa, however exasperated, actually applies the family silverware to his progeny with murderous intent. Had any done that, we'd have a whole different desk-set of classics.

I'm just an amateur history student, but I do remember reading that in France and Italy (not sure about England) it was not until the late 18th century, beginning of the industrial revolution, that minor boys and girls were present in censuses in equal numbers. Don't recall a class breakdown, but males were present in higher numbers. After the mid-18th century there was actually a higher percentage of girls. What happened? The Industrial Revolution. Less dependence and identity on property holdings? New ideas about human rights? Better record keeping? Same sort of changes that are occurring in other parts of the world now.

Since there was no socially sanctioned infanticide in Christian Europe, I did not really know what to make of this. Perhaps the statistics were just not accurate. In India, there are differences of region as we all know.
Girls were more numerous than boys in Bengal throughout the 20th century.

I was simply thinking of cross border adoption agencies... on both sides.

Ok. Mail-order grooms too. Why not?

There is no proof that this woman is actually 70 years old.

The couple were so desperate for a male heir that they spent their life savings and took out a bank loan for IVF.

Wait...They spent their life savings producing an heir? Am I the only one to note the irony here?

young men are simply more aggressive, and combining this with attachment issues that plague adopted children, you might just get a recipe for disaster.

Are you suggesting males have an inherent, genetic proclivity towards being aggressive?

I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours. In females the hormonal causes of such behaviours are more complex to my best of knowledge, I believe there are some studies that even show estrogen levels to be correlated to aggressive behaviours as well. But, I haven't researched it thoroughly enough to posit more than careful hypotheses.

I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours.

So you are saying it's inherent, but there are studies that say you are completely wrong.

Most of male-aggressive behavior ususally manifests out of attempting to demonstrate value to women (and is internalized through early childhood into adolescence) because women naturally respond to men who thrive on competition & the ability to "defeat" other men in terms of "social value."

From your own article:

Thus, sex hormones play an important role in translating social contexts and events – via the frontal lobes, amygdala, hypothalamus, and gonads – into social behaviors such as intermale aggression. The “hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis” described by biologists – illustrated on the right side of Figure 3.8 – is embedded in a feedback loop mediated by social relationships on the left side of the figure. Higher testosterone makes individual males stronger and more aggressive towards those already targeted for aggression (those at lower levels in a status hierarchy), though testosterone levels do not directly affect the status hierarchy itself, as we have seen. The right-hand feedback loop, internal to the body, is a self-regulating (negative feedback) loop typical of biological organisms. The left-hand loop, however, tends to be a positive loop (though strongly influenced by external forces) because males who rise in status by winning fights have higher testosterone levels, which make them both stronger and more aggressive towards underlings, in turn making them win fights and boost testosterone.56

I shan't discuss this further here, since it is off-topic. I can't search peer-reviewed articles from science magazines outside of Uni, so unfortunately I can't provide you with links to articles either.

Also from my own article:

"Men’s fluctuating short-term testosterone levels respond to competitive situations, such as a tennis or wrestling match, a chess game, or a competitive task in a psychology laboratory [or reponse from females]. Levels rise in preparation for the competition, and then go up afterwards in winners, and down in losers. This effect does not depend on direct aggression. It applies to any changes in an individual’s perceived status in a social hierarchy"

so testosterone is a response to a situation, not the cause, the entire thesis of the excerpt is that common people have the causality flipped.

which you've exactly reiterated here:

"Thus, sex hormones play an important role in translating social contexts and events "

the sex hormones are receptors, not generators.

And it's my view the social contexts that are most prominently effecting the male aggression are the response elicted by women given certain behaviors.

individual’s perceived status in a social hierarchy

And social hierarchy is just a codeword for "one's ability to attract and get positive feedback from women"

All of men's problematic characteristics can be blamed on women as Mr. HMF here so articulately demonstrates.

Most of male-aggressive behavior ususally manifests out of attempting to demonstrate value to women (and is internalized through early childhood into adolescence) because women naturally respond to men who thrive on competition & the ability to "defeat" other men in terms of "social value."

So true! Since only women arose through the biological process of evolution, only their behaviors are natural and purely genetically determined. Men, having escaped the sledgehammer of biological evolution, have been condemned to purely socialized responses to biological manipulation by women.

34 · HMF said

Also from my own article:

"Men’s fluctuating short-term testosterone levels respond to competitive situations, such as a tennis or wrestling match, a chess game, or a competitive task in a psychology laboratory [or reponse from females]. Levels rise in preparation for the competition, and then go up afterwards in winners, and down in losers. This effect does not depend on direct aggression. It applies to any changes in an individual’s perceived status in a social hierarchy"

so testosterone is a response to a situation, not the cause, the entire thesis of the excerpt is that common people have the causality flipped.

which you've exactly reiterated here:

"Thus, sex hormones play an important role in translating social contexts and events "

the sex hormones are receptors, not generators.

And it's my view the social contexts that are most prominently effecting the male aggression are the response elicted by women given certain behaviors.

Yawn. Men evolved to respond women in a positive feedback loop. If they didn't respond to positive attraction signals of women they would not get the opportunity to reproduce, hence not pass on their own genes to the next generation. My points about evolutionary biology and selection pressure seem to whizz right past your head. I suggest you open a science textbook. Also can you give me a scholar link of your article, it is unclear where this study is from.

Since only women arose through the biological process of evolution, only their behaviors are natural and purely genetically determined

No, dipshit. I never said that, although I find it strikingly imbalanced that women can parade all over 5th avenue saying things like "without men, we'd be happy, fat and hairy" implying all the beautification they undergo (and unhappiness) is due to male pressure and male causes, where as men are instantly born as ruffians, bent on destroying the world (which if true by the way, would make women complete idiots for socializing with us at all)

How come women can play the "we do it for them" card but we can't?

Since there was no socially sanctioned infanticide in Christian Europe, I did not really know what to make of this.

actually, "orphanages" in much of europe had mortality rates so high that there was a 1 out of 20 chance that an infant consigned to their mercies would reach the age of 5. so it wasn't socially sanctioned, but this was a way for people to offload their responsibilities of the extra mouth which would almost certainly lead to death. e.g., here's from the wiki on j-j. rosseau:
After this, he returned to Paris, where he befriended and lived with Thérèse Levasseur, a semi-literate seamstress who, according to Rousseau, bore him five children, though this number may not be accurate. Soon after birth, the children were deposited at an orphanage. As the mortality rate for orphanage children was very high, most of them likely perished. When Rousseau became known as a theorist of education and child-rearing, his abandonment of his children was used by enemies, including Voltaire, to attack him. In his defense, Rousseau explained he would have been a poor father and that the children would have a better life at the foundling home.

Yawn. Men evolved to respond women in a positive feedback loop. If they didn't respond to positive attraction signals of women they would not get the opportunity to reproduce, hence not pass on their own genes to the next generation.

ok, but it's the aggressive behavior that triggers those positive attraction signals (not necessarily physical, but those that indicate success at competition in whatever sphere you'd like to take, on the play ground, on the sports field, on wall street, whatever)

No, dipshit.

Is that chip on your shoulder socialized or genetic? Or are you demonstrating your aggressive behavior "for them"?

I find it strikingly imbalanced that women can parade all over 5th avenue saying things like "without men, we'd be happy, fat and hairy" implying all the beautification they undergo (and unhappiness) is due to male pressure and male causes, where as men are instantly born as ruffians, bent on destroying the world

I agree. Far too much of the discourse about power and social norms in our society is mediated by women.

I cannot help but concur with you because I am only a beta to your alpha-commentary, HMF.

HMF asked

Are you suggesting males have an inherent, genetic proclivity towards being aggressive?

followed by

No, dipshit.

I cannot help but concur with you because I am only a beta to your alpha-commentary, HMF.

ok, then stfu.

44 · HMF said

ok, then stfu.

So...uh...who are you trying to impress with this here aggression now, buddy? (I think Meena likes you!!! Keep at it holmes.)

Hey Hey HEY

I think everybody needs a time out here. And possibly some naps. Can we just lower the testosterone level a wee bit?

So...uh...who are you trying to impress with this here aggression now, buddy?

nobody really, it just stands to reason if someone agrees with you, they'd cease posting sarcastic messages? unless the agreement in and of itself was sarcastic, which in case, he should state his true position so a debate can actually take place.

Ssssh Harbeer...dontcha see I'm part of that big Feminist conspiracy to seduce all men by preying on their evolutionary weaknesses, THEN make them their slaves :)

I meant *OUR* slaves of course. Unless we want to get into really dicey area which I'm sure the Interns won't approve of :) :)

THEN make them their slaves

Umm, some comedic advice, actually get the joke correct.

ok, then stfu.

This beta was so impressed by your aggression as to grow a vagina and ovaries right now. Next step: Parading all over 5th avenue.

50 · HMF said

Umm, some comedic advice, actually get the joke correct.

HMF dispensing comedic advice!!?
I guess those who can't do, teach.

This beta was so impressed by your aggression as to grow a vagina and ovaries right now

well you definitely have the lack of logic. Chris ROck just got a case of the measels as someone of low comedic skill and social insight used his name.

a case of the measels

What is measels? Is that a disease acquired by people like you?

well you definitely have the lack of logic.

Of course. How else could I agree with you from the get go?

29 · Harbeer said

The couple were so desperate for a male heir that they spent their life savings and took out a bank loan for IVF.

Wait...They spent their life savings producing an heir? Am I the only one to note the irony here?

Harbeer, I agree with you, the fact that this "male heir" may be inheriting a legacy of debt and the absence of a true childhood as the burden of taking care of elderly parents will take precedence seems to be ignored in the larger discussion on the quest of and the morality of seeking a male child at any cost.

How come women can play the "we do it for them" card but we can't?

You sound a lot like like white people who whine about "reverse racism." From your posting history on this site you seem to think that women making sexually selective choices constitutes some form of privilege, when in fact that's a basic right all humans should have. Men can and do sexually select their mates as well, but I don't hear you railing against the expression "no fat chicks."

You also act as if women must justify their sexual selections and "be honest" about their motivations, but this is a form of entitlement on your part - unless you are actually fucking somebody, or you suspect a crime is being committed, you are not owed an explanation of their sex life.

From your mechanistic descriptions of women as oil rigs and men as ATM machines on the Anita Jain thread, you seem to have a very mechanistic, essentializing view of the sexes, rather than one that is based on true experience of human diversity.

55 · Daisy said

Harbeer, I agree with you

Uh! Is that what you call social hierarchy HMF? (Thank you Daisy.)

34 · HMF said

Also from my own article:
"Thus, sex hormones play an important role in translating social contexts and events "

the sex hormones are receptors, not generators.

No more on the topic from me.

With the the population in India growing by leaps and bounds, why would they want more kids? (of course this discussion is also about male heirs, carrying on the family name.) I would think adoption would be the easiest option. I don't know how easy it is to adopt a male child and perhaps their age might hinder their chances of adopting. Carrying a child /children at age 70 - it's not worth the risk but is it is a very personal choice that she is entitled to. She's very lucky to be have a safe birth at her age.

Since the elderly couple spent practically all of their life savings to have the twins, I wonder where they will get the money to support and raise the children.

It's unfortunate that this poor woman's face now represents this issue for us, when in reality she was probably coerced or ar least pressured into doing this. It's her husband's face that should really be up there.

Of course. How else could I agree with you from the get go?

You've entered a comic disjunct, sort of a mobius strip, your earlier premise was you were feminine for disagreeing with me, and now you're feminine for agreeing with me. Try reposting as Chris rock, see if that does anything foryou

OK, one last time: open a biology textbook. Seriously. The sex hormones activate biomolecular receptors,

That's a technicality, the point is the sex hormones don't generate any aggressive behavior in and of themselves, as you alluded to here: "I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours."

Because, as I said earlier, if men are born, ruthless aggressive killers of themselves, any woman with half a brain on her shoulder would stay away from every single one.

You sound a lot like like white people who whine about "reverse racism."

Racism and gender relations are two completely different animals. first off, races have no biological or evolutionary purpose to mix, social purposes, yes, but this added element adds more more complexity. secondly everything you said was completely irrelevant to the point I was making about women being able to "blame" the various socialized behaviors they have to undertake, excessive attention to makeup, fashion, waxing, beautifcation, and "getting catty" with each other to the presence, existence, and pressures put on them by men, where as men's behavior is written of as "due to testosterone"

This is noting like reverse-racism, racism is a social construct where one group completely uprooted and transplanted another, ghettoizing them, then establishing institutions for the purpose of maintaining those differnces. Men didn't bring women over from Oprah land in chains and boats, make them work as slaves for the benefit of their "male society"

From your posting history on this site you seem to think that women making sexually selective choices constitutes some form of privilege,

I'd like to see evidence of this, I've always allowed women the freedom to choose on whatever they deem choice-worthy, just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you're making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever.

You've entered a comic disjunct, sort of a mobius strip

What is a disjunct? Is that the opposite of a conjunct? I eagerly await your message in a (Klein) bottle.

That's a technicality,

I agree. Facts should not get in the way of keeping it real. If it's good enough for Bush and WMDs, it sure is good enough for HMF and, let's say, everything.

any woman with half a brain on her shoulder would stay away from every single one.

Your reality locates the brain on the shoulder? That explains EVERYTHING. My sincere apologies. Mom told me never to mock the, er, special.

I've always allowed women the freedom to choose on whatever they deem choice-worthy

At long last! A Susan B Anthony for the 21st century!

What is a disjunct? Is that the opposite of a conjunct?

It means you feigned agreement with me, saying I was logical, but then undid one of your own comic premises by saying I lacked logic.

I agree. Facts should not get in the way of keeping it real.

Disingenuous quoting, See if I said "the effect is the cause" is not funny, while true, doesn't support the truth of your inability to address the points.

Mom told me never to mock the, er, special.

Mom must have had a lot of experience.

"At long last! A Susan B Anthony for the 21st century!"

You'll find a sense of humor before you find a statement of mine that supports inequal treatment for men and women.

essentializing view of the sexes

Yet, this statement of Meena's isn't essentializing?

"I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours."

Why point out when I do it, yet let others slide?

Generating rules from a set of observed instances is done all the time, it's called induction. Now, you may not believe induction is a sound method of drawing conclusions, but that's a different story.

"I don't understand why adopting families favor girls so heavily - any ideas?"

American adoptive parent chiming in.
I think there are several issues at play.
One is that typically it's the mother that is the driving force behind the adoption process, and typically mothers have a stronger preference for girls. There is the perception that they will be able to relate better to a girl and be closer to a girl. There is also the "doll baby" aspect of having a little girl - dressing them in cute little outfits and doing their hair and playing princess kind of stuff. I hear this stuff ALL the time when people wonder if I miss having a girl (which I don't).
Another is the perception that there are more girls available for adoption due to gender bias in some sending countries (i.e. India, China). So when people beging thinking about adoption, they go into it with the mindset that they will be matched with a girl.
Another is, as was mentioned earlier, the naive assumption that girls are easier to raise. I'm not sure people are even getting as far as thinking about the potential for attachment issues when they deal with that assumption. I see that bias in bio parents as well. That is, until their girls hit the pre-teen years, which are typically one VERY long episode of PMS.

Another is the perception that there are more girls available for adoption due to gender bias in some sending countries (i.e. India, China). So when people beging thinking about adoption, they go into it with the mindset that they will be matched with a girl.

I've heard there is a preference for girls for a similar reason that desi parents prefer boys, that they'll be around to take care of the parents in their old age. Not quite so bluntly put, but they'll be more involved with the family, more loving, less removed.

"just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you're making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever."

But HMF you know this impossible. Power games must continue.

But HMF you know this impossible. Power games must continue.

Why? many guys are honest all the time about how and why they reject one person over the other.

"many guys are honest all the time about how and why they reject one person over the other"

Covert social ranking is the norm among girls, early clique formation using exclusion as a power play. boys generally utilize overt ranking methods (sports, etc) where lack of skill is the power play

Covert social ranking is the norm among girls, early clique formation using exclusion as a power play

interesting insight, but what does women covertly ranking themselves among themselves have to do with being dishonest to themselves about the way they rank men?

Racism and gender relations are two completely different animals. first off, races have no biological or evolutionary purpose to mix, social purposes, yes, but this added element adds more more complexity.

Translation: "I don't want to address my own privilege."

secondly everything you said was completely irrelevant to the point I was making about women being able to "blame" the various socialized behaviors they have to undertake, excessive attention to makeup, fashion, waxing, beautifcation, and "getting catty" with each other to the presence, existence, and pressures put on them by men, where as men's behavior is written of as "due to testosterone"

a.) Your argument about women "being allowed to complain about" beauty standards is an irrelevant straw man itself. No woman on this thread has made those complaints, and yet you introduced them out of nowhere and started railing against these alleged masses of women parading up and down Fifth Avenue. You might think you don't sound sexist, but you really do. Although I agree with you that racism and sexism do not have the same history, the similarity is this: your off-topic venom about women reminds me of white people who react to stories of racism by saying "Well, what are the blacks complaining about? They get everything, thanks to affirmative action!" while totally missing the point of the story. It's clear those white people have a racial chip on their shoulder, and it's equally clear you have a chip on your shoulder about women. And I know I'm not the first person to tell you this.

b.) You totally ignore the fact that female actions ARE often written off as a result of hormones. How many women's arguments have been dismissed as the result of her being "on the rag" or "PMS-ing"? I hope you will react with equal fury when you hear either of these expressions used in your presence.

c.) You don't address that some female behavior IS attributable to male selection pressure, you only complain about the gaps in other people's complaining. You are dodging the meat of the issue, seemingly unwilling to address that those female complaints might actually have a point, despite the fact that most of your opponents have acknowledged the role of sexual selection in male behavior.

I've always allowed women the freedom to choose on whatever they deem choice-worthy, just be upfront and honest about it, and state when you're making a superficial decision based on looks, income, or whatever.

Oh, you're OK with women making their own choices, so long as they explain their reasoning in a way that satisfies YOU? And you don't think that's a sense of entitlement at all?

Furthermore, it seems as if any woman who expresses a desire or preference that does not fit into your worldview is immediately branded as "dishonest."

Why point out when I do it, yet let others slide?

Because frankly, I've been lurking here for a year and I've never seen anyone else with your history of derailing threads with bitter generalizations about the opposite sex.

Translation: "I don't want to address my own privilege."

No, I acknowledge male privilege, I just state there is female privilege as well. and gender dynamics does not
operate the same way as race given the evolutionary, biological connection between genders. Now I've asked before why the feminist separatist movement hasn't gained traction, the one reason why separatist movements in racial minorities (NOI, marcus garveyism, etc..) haven't been successful is due to existing infrastructure, and numbers. As Chris Rock said, "MLk and Malcolm counted all the mother fuckers up and decided it wasn't gonna work" But if males are truly the evil, aggressive, power controlling beings you make them out to be, why would a woman interact with one at all? If you say they can't help it,well that's just a mean joke being played on them

a.) Your argument about women "being allowed to complain about" beauty standards is an irrelevant straw man itself. No woman on this thread has made those complaints, and yet you introduced them out of nowhere and started railing against these alleged

This point came about in the context of Meena's original assertion that male aggression was innate, while an assertion that female attention to beauty, fashion, and general physical appearance is also innate is met with derision. (another imbalance), through the common phrase "Without men, there'd be a lot of fat, hairy, happy women around" or something of that nature.

You might think you don't sound sexist, but you really do.

I don't care what you think. If in your view, wanting equality between the sexes is sexist, so be it.

your off-topic venom about women reminds me of white people who react to stories of racism by saying "Well, what are the blacks complaining about? They get everything, thanks to affirmative action!"

no. affirmative action was to correct past imbalances based on a superficial genetic difference that results in more levels of melanin. I don't say that "women get everything" I ack. male privilege, but I ask for the admission of female privilege as well. and if these privileges are rooted in biology, then so be it, but many women want to have it both ways, that is, male privilege based on socialized behavior, but female privilege based on biology.

How many women's arguments have been dismissed as the result of her being "on the rag" or "PMS-ing"? I hope you will react with equal fury when you hear either of these expressions used in your presence.

I haven't seen any scientific studies, like the one I provided to tell me what roles hormones play into female behavior. If I see one that refutes female hormones as a triggering mechanism for female behavior, I'd take that into account.

You don't address that some female behavior IS attributable to male selection pressure,

Why is it relevant? Then like wise some male behavior [for example, competition, aggression, defeating other males] is attributable to female selection pressure. See equality? Keeping it real? see a trend here?

Oh, you're OK with women making their own choices, so long as they explain their reasoning in a way that satisfies YOU?

Well this particular point has to do with a commonly held view by many women that they choose mates with more erudition, maturity and unsuperficial qualities. Now if a woman doesn't do that, but still maintains she does, wouldn't you consider that dishonest? the explanation isn't to satisfy me, it's to satisfy a basic definition of consistency.

Furthermore, it seems as if any woman who expresses a desire or preference that does not fit into your worldview is immediately branded as "dishonest."

No, it's the desire to have your cake and eat it too is what's dishonest. See above.

Because frankly, I've been lurking here for a year and I've never seen anyone else with your history of derailing threads with bitter generalizations about the opposite sex.

Frankly, I don't give a damn. Meena originally posted a statement about males being inherently more reckless and aggressive, to which she further attributed to high testosterone levels. I directly refuted that with scientific research. to which she answered with some tangential point about hormones triggering receptors and not actually being receptors.

66 · HMF said

You'll find a sense of humor before you find a statement of mine that supports inequal treatment for men and women.

And a Nostradamus for the 21st century arrives upon us! Glory be!

It means you feigned agreement with me

HMF, my femaleness implies my dishonesty. Surely, you, of all people, should know that. But...

saying I was logical

"Boohoo. I was misquoted/misinterpreted/."
I only said my betaness meant I couldn't help but agree with you. I did not every say, nor would I ever insinuate that your worldview is imbued of logic.

I only said my betaness meant I couldn't help but agree with you. I did not every say, nor would I ever insinuate that your worldview is imbued of logic.

Then you have undone the sense of "alpha-ness" if it's not a woldview imbued with logic.

If you say they can't help it,well that's just a mean joke being played on them

What? Are we discussing theology and the Epicurean paradox now?

75 · HMF said

many women want to have it both ways, that is, male privilege based on socialized behavior, but female privilege based on biology.

Who? Names names. Someone on this thread? Meena? Do you have a quote? Perhaps a prominent feminist said this. Can you provide a link?

Or is just some woman in a bar you met where nearly all the interracial desi relationships are white males and desi females?

Who? Names names.

How many women, at a visceral level, believe deep down that it's the male's job to initiate relationships, ie approach first?

And feel this way out of a belief that "that's the way it is" ie. an artifact of nature.

I would like the door held open but I am equal.

80 · HMF said

How many women, at a visceral level, believe deep down that it's the male's job to initiate relationships, ie approach first?

I sure many do. Like say camille paglia. but she's very much in tune with nature and would apply it evenly between the sexes. what you need to do, in order to substantiate your argument, is to find someone who makes this argument but argues social determinsm for the behaiviour of women.the more prominant the person the better.

otherwise, you railing fginst obvious double standards sounds like a strawman argument.

is to find someone who makes this argument but argues social determinsm for the behaiviour of women.

Ok, how many women who believe the premise in post #80, also believe, for example, women around the world are socialized to cook, clean, tend to household chores, and have pressure to sacrifice their career for their husbands?

Ahem! Can we move on? This was a long and interesting side discussion, but it really isn't moving any more and it'll discourage others from commenting on the main angle of the thread. Please? HMF has stated his arguments and the people who disagree with him have stated theirs. Can't we let it go now?

SMI, Out of politeness, I try and answer all questions asked of me.

HMF - Understood, but I'm asking both sides to walk away now that the topic (which branched off of the main point of the post) has been explored quite thoroughly.

Out of politeness

Pardon me ?

I have many things to say here;

First, just because the couple could afford modern fertility treatment does not mean they are "wealthy" or highly "educated". If the picture above is actually the woman being discussed, her attire is the attire typical of not highly educated, not wealthy
rural women,though relatively speaking, for her village, she may be on of the wealthier people.

I'm going to make references to some other threads here that have been closed down, but they are related, and I will tie them into this one and the comments HMF is making regarding testosterone levels, please bear with.

First, when we read something like this, a cultural radar goes up of course about the value of male progeny in India. As Jane Of All Trades pointed out, it sometimes appears that
all you need to be considered a God in India is a penis, or at least to be considered human enough to inherit and privileged in other ways.
(This is going tie into HMF's theory, which I am coming to believe in).

Considering the other posts, which have been closed down, the one on the book about arranged marriages and the other one about the murders of a daughter and of a daughter-in-law... I want to examine how all of this ties together.

Some people raise objection to culture being brought into it at all by the media, stating that when, for example, white American men murder family members the culture or religion is not brought into question.

I say it is. If however, the white American male subscribes to no particular cultural or religious belief that may reflect on the crime, then what is there to talk about?

In all investigations, a criminal's mindset and background are looked into. If they are found to favor a particular genre of music that could be a possible catalyst in the crime, that is looked into and reported and bantered about by the media.

If a criminal is asked why they did it and they give reasons that are cultural, religious or part of group-think in any way, it is definetly taken into account.

So if desi men give cultural reasons as excuses or whatever, who is to blame - the media for pointing that out to us? No.

Anyway, this ties in.....bear with...

There are two ways of viewing culture/society ; emperical or interpretive.

Emperical seeks to know who, what, when, and where.

Interpretive seeks to know WHY?

To understand an individual or a people as a whole, the question WHY must be asked.

OK. We see that people do certain things and have certain beliefs, beliefs about men's roles, women's roles, whatever. But WHY do they have these beliefs and why do they act like they do? This is the interpretive method.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, all is dependent-arising.

One of the biggest flaws of the multi-culti sector is their naivity that somehow all cultures, societies and tradtions are EQUAL. Therefore, if truth be told, they cannot take a stand against anything.

The fact is that not all worldviews are equally good or equally bad.

An ethno-centric worldview is relatively better than an ego-centric one and a world-centric view is relatively better than an ethnic-centric one, because it embraces all.

Therefore we can say that the world-centric view is better than the Nazi view, but the Nazi view better than the soley ego-centric view, since it seeks the good of a larger community than just one person. (Throwing in some Ken Wilber there for you.)

Coming to the preference for males in India. Do any of us see how such a worldview can in fact lead to this???

It's interesting how Opinionated's comment # 204 on the Arranged Marriage Book thread
mentiones "izzat" in reference to how people in India expect wives to behave. I assume Opinionated agreed with them, because that is it was presented in her comment.

It is also interesting how she made that comment just one day before Ennis posted about izzat and murder. I wonder if she sees any connection?

I will qoute her here;

To me, inherent in her definition of that term, is the flip-side that men in India, who have been raised in a completely different culture, particularly one in which women are seen as the pride (izzat) of a household and are expected to act accordingly and therefore do NOT tolerate such behaviors, are likely to be automatically considered "narrow/close-minded".

Now...

On to HMF's theory and I'll try to connect the dots....

HMF asserts that testosterone levels rise in men in accordance to the expectations of women for them to perform in various categories/functions.

Get this;

If that is true, wouldn't it make sense that a culture that does not require it's men to proove themselves in anyway to get anything of true values - such as inheritance, a wife, respect, etc... those cultures would produce men who are not high in testosterone and hence the ma/beta males that HMF says desi women pass up in favor of the alpha male of the West???

If, as Jane Of All Trade asserts, all you need is a penis, then where is the impetus to prove yourself in any sphere?

You don't need to work out to get a hot bod to attract a mate because you will be given one by default by the grace of the arranged marriage system.

You don't need to compete with your sisters in order to prove your responsibility and trustworthiness to your parents in order to get the inheritance, you will get it regardless.

You don't need to work on becomeing "sensitive" to women, or useful in household chores or anything, because again, you have a penis and will served by the female family members and get a wife regardless.

So then is the theory correct that such males have lower testosterone levels and are in fact beta (in more ways than one), as compared to say, the average man in America who in fact has to prove himself in order to get that inheritance or attract that mate.

I think HMF is onto something and this is something that I myself wondered and tried to find stats for a few years ago when I was trying to make sense of all my experiences abroad. (stats for various testosterone levels throughout the world).

Anyway, I would also say that in cultures or groups where there is high level competition between men for women, testosterone levels are higher.

I'm thinking about groups of people where sexual activity amongst multiple partners is the norm. Where the women have and take advantage of the choice of sleeping with alot of different men, those men, in response to that competition, have increased testosterone levels.

Anyway, this is just me taking HMF's theory to the next level, but I'm beginning to see where he's coming from.

And PS; Om Shanti's # 5 comment above made my skin crawl with her/his innocence;

I know a friend (female) who has only sisters and NO COUSINS. And to keep their family name (a not so common one), her husband let her keep her last name, and even the children have their mother's last name

How merciful. A man "let" a grown adult women do something. Yikes! Since when are we ok with letting that mentality slip by?

But I understand she/he was innocent to the underlying notions behind such a statement.

OK. I hope somehow all of this made sense and tied together.

I never take it there until someone else takes it there first. And those weren't questions asked of me politely, if you go back to each one of those you'll see belligerence was involved in the inquiry.

Oh yeah, and the statement that was going to tie HMF's and my additional theory together, but which I forget to type is;

And if all of the above is true, doesn't it make perfect evolutionary sense that women prefer men from cultures where simply having a penis is not enough and they actually have to prove themselves, to those that don't.

Now that is a Carrie question right there....

(answer: i know i do!)

90 · Dependent Arising said

(answer: i know i do!)

well, the weird steve sailor does an in depth analysis of interracial marriage, notices that white and black men are the winners and asians the losers (though i think he means east asains) and finds that the major factor is muscularity and body fat percentage. as plausible as anything else.

I would like the door held open but I am equal.

I would like the meals to be cooked but I am equal.

4 · bindu said

I don't understand why adopting families favor girls so heavily - any ideas?

Well, this is anecdotal, but I've known a few families that adopted and, apart from one that was simply infertile, they all shared the same motivation: the wife wanted a daughter, but after conceiving 2 or 3 boys the natural way, they decided to opt for an easier, surer way of obtaining a female child. I.e., the desire for a female child is what motivated them to adopt in the first place. It's not that they decided they wanted to adopt, and THEN decided to go for a female. It would be interesting to know if the preference for adopting females is present in infertile couples, or if it's limited to fertile couples who already have boys. Similarly, it would also be interesting to know what the overall gender ratio in adoptive families with fertile parents ends up being. If fertile adopters really are just trying to balance out a surfeit of male children, then we'd expect these families to still be stilted towards the male end, despite the female preference in adoption.

In India men don't really open doors for women anyway.

But the women still cook!

So I'll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.

So I'll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.

Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well.

75 · HMF said

Frankly, I don't give a damn. Meena originally posted a statement about males being inherently more reckless and aggressive, to which she further attributed to high testosterone levels. I directly refuted that with scientific research. to which she answered with some tangential point about hormones triggering receptors and not actually being receptors.

That is all.

but next time post some ACTUAL scientific research instead of that link which said nothing to me,

The link was to a book titled "war and gender" the footnotes included links to various science articles, including SCIENCE magazine

And if you actually knew what I was talking about you would realise my point was not tangential in the least,

Explain it to me then. Earlier your contention was :

"I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours."

then after I posted the article, you made the statement :

"The sex hormones activate biomolecular receptors, they are not receptors in and of themselves."

which sounds strikingly different than "testosterone stimulates such behaviours"

which I think is a tangential technicality , it's you initially saying, "Jim killed Bill with a gun", and I provide a police report that says, "Bill killed Jim with a gun", and you retort with, "No, the bullet from Bill's gun killed Jim"

" reading any scientific research would make your world full of preconceived notions come crashing down."

Why would anyone preconceive anything, all of my conclusions have come from observation, discussion, data, and personal experience. I invite you to present your [current] position if you can.

"That is all."

Not that I mind, but that was all 6 messages ago.

Here is one of the articles referred in this book, by a tulane dept of psychology researcher:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112414618/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

which sounds strikingly different than "testosterone stimulates such behaviours"

It is not, due to the machinery which is initiated by the binding of a hormone to a biomolecular receptor, causing a conformational change and a messenger cascade, etc etc etc leading ultimately to the development of certain behaviours on a macro level.

*resumes lurking*

just be upfront and honest about it

Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well.

you'll see belligerence was involved in the inquiry.

It is indeed a mean joke that HMF has been put in a world where he is constantly lied to by women, kept down by the white man, and harassed by the general public.

Why is HMF not allowed his personal separatist movement? Shouldn't we all stand behind such a non-sexist, non-racist, all around nice guy?

94 · Dependent Arising said

In India men don't really open doors for women anyway.

But the women still cook!

So I'll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.

When was the last time you talked to a guy from India or for the matter of fact a girl from India? In your age group!! You need to stop thinking about your parents and open your mind.

due to the machinery which is initiated by the binding of a hormone to a biomolecular receptor, causing a conformational change and a messenger cascade, etc etc etc leading ultimately to the development of certain behaviours on a macro level.

so then the research I presented refutes that. which is what I originally said in the first place.

due to the machinery which is initiated by the binding of a hormone to a biomolecular receptor, causing a conformational change and a messenger cascade, etc etc etc leading ultimately to the development of certain behaviours on a macro level.

so are you saying the testosterone latches on to the "that girl is laughing at me because that guy hit me in the face" receptor, and tells the body "go kick his ass"?

"Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well."

hey--no way man. That's the south Chinese do that. Indians are very gingerly about animal products they eat.
As for the exotic f*ck--that's Chinese too, I think. Or may Vietnames.

It's a reference to Indiana JOnes and the Temple of Doom. might be before your time.

It is indeed a mean joke that HMF has been put in a world where he is constantly lied to by women, kept down by the white man, and harassed by the general public.

A bullshit characterization

Shouldn't we all stand behind such a non-sexist, non-racist, all around nice guy?

Using the words sexist and racism to stifle any dissent, very nice, just shows your inability to address the point, and the inequalities that I point out.

Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well."

Unlike you, who would just assume she's been drilled more than an oil rig.

32 · HMF said

I thought it was common knowledge that young men on the whole are more aggressive, more reckless, since testosterone stimulates such behaviours.

So you are saying it's inherent, but there are studies that say you are completely wrong.

Most of male-aggressive behavior ususally manifests out of attempting to demonstrate value to women (and is internalized through early childhood into adolescence) because women naturally respond to men who thrive on competition & the ability to "defeat" other men in terms of "social value."

By extending the same logic, the men from Middle-East must not be aggressive at all. After all, most women there are dictated not to show any selection signals to males. They have practically no say in preferring certain males and might even be stoned if marked as adulteress. Somehow I see the males are more aggressive in the societies where women are more controlled. Perhaps it is just my lack of knowledge.

"And social hierarchy is just a codeword for "one's ability to attract and get positive feedback from women""

That would actually imply women had power to show the positive feedback irrespective of the cultures around the world. In certain cultures, men can (and did) get (or buy - sex trade doesn't enter here?) women and use them anyhow they wish without any necessity for positive feedback from women. The young men are aggressive in such cultures too compared to females.

On a different note, men need not necessarily "attract" women for reproduction, they can just rape if they are strong and aggressive enough. Unless the logic being proposed is that woman who is being raped is somehow sending positive feedback to the male who is assaulting them.

Before any one demanding honesty from all women (irrespective of the culture, ie, if we are talking biology here), they should demonstrate men actually prefer honesty and it would not lead to assault on women who are actually honest. If all men preferred honesty, we would not have any "acid on the face" or brutal murders of girls who honestly rejected guys, at least in some parts of the world.

Unlike you, who would just assume she's been drilled more than an oil rig.

More often than not, that assumption has been correct. Isn't that what women would rather have me believe anyway, rather than believe they should be held to a chaste "moral" double standard that has plagued them for eternity? I grant them the ability to have repeated sex for eternity, in fact by assuming it, I prepare myself

Somehow I see the males are more aggressive in the societies where women are more controlled.

Not necessarily true. I could make an argument the west is responsible for the worlds largest conflicts, America is the only nation to drop the nuclear bomb. Now, I'm not saying the A-bomb was dropped to impress some chick, but I could say that a society of excess, wealth, and power grew out of sentiments where men now needed to jump through endless hoops to woo women.

After all, most women there are dictated not to show any selection signals to males. They have practically no say in preferring certain males and might even be stoned if marked as adulteress.

Those are societal constraints. In more secular arab nations, like egypt, etc.. women go to clubs but wear modest clothing while walking from their house to them. selection signals exist there as well.

That would actually imply women had power to show the positive feedback irrespective of the cultures around the world

Again, not necessarily true. the same behavior can exist through the cultural filters. For example, parents (mothers) can force their view of value onto the women, and more likely than not, that value will be based on similar criteria of aggression & success (defeating other males) What matters is the space. A mom will like the guy who holds a steady job, makes money, and in general is emotionally stable - in her view, that's aggressiveness and defeating other males.

The woman wants the tatooed biker, rebellious, unpredictable, in her view, that's "defeating other males" (in terms of excitement)

If all men preferred honesty, we would not have any "acid on the face" or brutal murders of girls who honestly rejected guys, at least in some parts of the world.

those are outliers. they can't be used to disprove the rule I stated, in fact, they prove it because they are the exceptions.

More often than not, that assumption has been correct.

Oh... so degrading assumptions are evil coming from white men, but they're perfectly reasonable coming from you? Says it all about your attitude, really.

so degrading assumptions

first of all, if it's correct, it's no longer an assumption.

secondly, why is it degrading? aren't we trying to move towards a society where men and women are equally "held accountable" for their sexual histories? I'm the one saying it's perfectly alright for a woman to have a "checkered-past" or at the very least, it's as "alright" as it is for a man. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, it does say a lot about my attitude, it's one based on equality.

Comparing a woman to an oil rig and suggesting she's "been drilled" is not flattering and not respectful, and you know that.

Yes, it does say a lot about my attitude, it's one based on equality.

That's why you were so passionately and eloquently engaged on the thread Ennis started about women beng murdered by their male relatives, right? Oh, wait...

Comparing a woman to an oil rig and suggesting she's "been drilled" is not flattering and not respectful, and you know that.

It's not meant to be, it's meant to be equitable. Suggesting a guy is a "player" is also not flattering and respectful. The "drill" analogy is simply related to the physiology of the intercourse process.

By the way, you can't have it both ways, you can't say, women have it tough because society doesn't let us have sex freely with impunity, then when it's granted say, "it's not flattering and respectful"

That's why you were so passionately and eloquently engaged on the thread Ennis started about women beng murdered by their male relatives, right? Oh, wait...

oh wait, that's right, I don't contribute there because there's no contentious points to discuss! Of course I believe those sort of things are horrible. Was there anyone on that thread who approved of the male relatives actions? did anyone find that justifiable? If there were, I would have said they were wrong too. Crimes are horrible against any person, and should be prosecuted.

See, this is a standard technique, when I point on inequities typical in a western approach to male/female relationships, the knee-jerk response is to point out these horrible tragedies in places like India and the middle east, as if the spoiled brats that drop $500 on makeup in a month have any relatability to the suffering and injustice these other women face. Assuming they have any kind of commonality with these oppressed women is a disgrace, quite honestly more disrespectful to them than I could ever be.

As for the exotic f*ck--that's Chinese too, I think.

I believe Filipinos are the new Chinese.

So I'll take the alpha western male who had to work on himself in order to land just a girlfriend in high school. Chances are he opens doors and cooks to boot.

Chances are he ultimately thinks you eat monkey brains and just wants an exotic f*ck as well.

That's what the "work on himself" part is for.

But at any rate, who says women are not up for the occasional exotic f*ck just for it's own sake as well every now and then?