quote: Hudson and den Boer's bleak picture of pathological testosterone imbalance, where bands of mate-less young men are more likely to rampage, raid, maraud and attack, dovetails with Weiner and Misquida's demographic warnings about young male aggression.
This rings true to me. I mean, my husband is the calmest man I know. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TM, I think the fear is long-term. What happens when the frustrated male majority BECOMES the ruling class?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're on the fast track to becoming the ruling majority, you won't be lacking for female companionship.
As I understood the article, a great deal of the concern came from nations that didn't lock down their citizens quite so severely. The 9/11 hijackers, for example.
Now, I can see some civil unrest becoming more commonplace in places like China, but becoming so problematic as dictate their foreign policy...probably not.
quote:Nooooo surprise here. Testosterone has to have an outlet somewhere.
I remember a professor telling me in a psychology class that testosterone has little to no link in sexual drive in men; however, it does have an effect on women's sex drive.
Can anyone else collaborate that statement?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phaaaa. That counters everything *I* have heard! And I have heard a lot. Testosterone does play an important role in woman's sex drive, as does Progesterone.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor- the gender gap in China will result in an excess male population the size of the voting population of North America.
Chinese Leadership: "Do we try to come up with an effective program to help these men lead meaningful lives, or should we come up with some reason to fight a war so they will at least be busy if not burnt/dead?"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was agreeing with you on the women and disagreeing with you on the men. Testosterone is crucial to the sex drive of both. Incidentally, estrogen is converted to testosterone in the body and visa versa pretty easily.
Interesting--it says that while low testosterone can cause low libido in men, the condition of having low testosterone is pretty rare. This might have effected what you heard.
Nevertheless, it is a crucial part of the male sex drive.
Seriously. Get a man to fall in love (or at least get laid regularly) and I'll show you a man who will have little interest in blowing people up.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, Syn, I don't think the thing you suggest would help. There's something about the sexual make-up of men that makes acts of ... self-love considerable less fulfilling than The Real Thing. Doesn't help with the need to prove they aren't somehow immasculated by the unavailability of mates, either.
It's different with women, I think. I mean, from various 'girl-talk' sorts of things, I have learned that there are a lot of women who just don't equate having sex with having an orgasm. As someone close to me (and recently divorced) told her grandmother (who had cautioned her not to get back into a relationship too soon), "I don't need a man-- I have batteries!"
I can about guarrantee that is something a man wouldn't say.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you obviously haven't been around soldiers all that often. At least some guys that I know, lucky though we don't have to pay for anything.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, guys are well known for their relationships with "Rosie"... we can get by without you, ladies, as well. We don't even need batteries (see Black Fox and BtL's comments above).
Actually, considering how notoriously horny soldiers and sailors are, I would think that this gives the obvious lie to the idea that sex and violence get their energy from some common source.
I mean, I beat people up for fun 2-4 hours a week and I guarantee you it hasn't reduced my sex drive one bit...
And, conversely, when Monica and I are having a particularly good week, it doesn't make me want to skip kung fu class.
In both cases, however, I will admit to being so exhausted in the *immediate* aftermath of one of the above that the other is unthinkable for at least 10 minutes or so.
posted
Obvious sexual references aside, I also mention the presence of women provides a regular and useful diversion of energy from the young male.
And I realize I sound like a Wildlife Nature show, but we are still animals and share many of the same traits, although we like to think we suppress them better than most.
posted
Wow, this conversation sure took an icky turn, didn't it? It feels like we're talking about livestock or something, or yeah like some sort of nature show. <shudders>
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Men need regular sex/testosterone outlet = Fine and dandy! (the original premise of the conversation)
How could it turn into a conversation about livestock given where it started?
/following ak from thread to thread (Ok, I'm not actually doing that. But I'm sure it seems like it).
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's something not good about the whole approach to the subject. Saying, "men are like so and so, and need their poon tang to keep them from being cranky and dangerous. Women can buy batteries." It's like saying, "feeding horses oats makes them restive and difficult to handle." Do you see? These are people we are talking about. Animal husbandry is not something you practice on human populations.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I mean, it would seem to me that if the statement is true, than it doesn't matter.
Is there something inherently wrong with saying that people need to eat everyday to keep their bodies healthy and strong? Or that if a human doesn't have enough sugar in his bloodstream he may become irritable?
It's not animal husbandry. It's human biology.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if the premise is that men need sex. And the further premise is that onanism isn't satisfactory, then should we draft "comfort girls" and force them to fill the requirement? After all, we provide food for soldiers. Isn't this the same idea?
I find that problematic, to say the least.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is not so much sex or even sexual release, but a focus of attention.
And the article doesn't mention soldiers, but rather the "angry young man" phenomenon - pointing at the disproportionate lack of women to the current male population.
Why do heterosexual young men focus on women? Sex and procreation is the biological impulse, certainly. But as much energy is used to fuel the elaborate courtship rituals we humans tend to insist upon, for various reasons.
Without that focus or another purpose to replace it, these "angry young men" will find a direction or a channel for those energies on their own, which may or may not involve buying into the quasi-political rhetoric.
posted
All the more reason to allow gays to marry and to remove the stigma from homosexuality. Then closeted homosexuals will not find the need to marry women to "fit in", thus freeing at least a few of them up for you straight guys. No? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a religious person, I believe that humans have two sides: the animal ("natural man") and the divinely originating spirit.
If we ignore that second side, and only acknowledge the animal side, I can see your dislike, ak. I do think that there are times and places, however, where it is appropriate to discuss the animal side. In such discussions I try to remember for myself the spiritual side of humans. It effects how I view the animal side.
I think, for example, that it is better for a man to live chastely than it is for him to use sex inappropriately to disperse his pent-up energy. Others are free to disagree as my POV is faith-based. See my above comment about sports.
posted
this article is such a load of crap. they made no causal connection between high male to female ratios except that young men are the biggest and strongest members of society. big whoop.
this reminds me of all those anthopologists in the late 1800's who spent their lifetimes trying to prove that caucasions had bigger heads than africans and were therefore biologically superior.
everybody repeat: co-occurance does not establish causality.
co-occurance does not establish causality.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
any thread that goes over 20 posts is too stale to pay attention to... save those indulgences in *genuflections to creative genius*
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
