What do women get out of relatonships

[Mozart1220]

My relationship is best summed up By Sylvester Stallone in "Rocky"


"I don't know, she's got gaps, I got gaps, and together we fill gaps".


That's about it.

[Zinkovich]

Pam, be sure to read my attempt at an informative post bumped back to the first page. Sorry, but I put at least a small amount of effort into it and don't want it to be swept aside or ignored.

[pam699]

Zinkovich
i completly agree with you
i have done anthrology as well and i find your argument in harmony with mine

1.) The desire of males to ensure the passing on of thier seed.
2.) The female's original need for financial or emotional security.

this sums it up exactly and cogently to my mind

i see we at least agree on somethings

[Zinkovich]

That is the current mainstream anthropological viewpoint on the precedent for this behavioral phenomena, so you shouldn't see much disagreement from professional anthropologists as well.

However, I was also posting it to see some alternate views as well as rebuttals concerning these precedents towards human behavior. I have to write a paper on this issue, and could use some quotes from those who disagree with this outlook.

[Mia]

Quote by: pam699 yes but it seems and u did say u will sometimes f..k a guy who buys you drinks-is that because it is some symbol of good genes ie scucessful surviver in regard to our societies values

Please show me where I said that.

[pam699]

Zinkovich
there are many criticisms of this genetic determinism here is a google link to the topic -have fun
sociobiology criticism - Google Search

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 Zinkovich there are many criticisms of this genetic determinism here is a google link to the topic -have fun sociobiology criticism - Google Search

I've used google, but am looking for specific quotes on a personal level for an entirely different motive than mere rehashing of the arguments.

Edit: In fact, I'm going to start a seperate thread on this to not distract from this one.

[Eclipse]

I've used google, but am looking for specific quotes on a personal level for an entirely different motive than mere rehashing of the arguments.

What about relationships where children are not wanted. The house-mates here don't want children. She thinks they are disgusting. So, it would be more of a personal and purely individual insight then that of passing genes. This seems to be more and more common although not purely on the children are disgusting level, but from a personal and individual take where children would hinder their life and there is no genetic influence.

Is that what you're looking for? I could follow up but I'm not sure if that's just a re-hash.

[pam699]

Mia
u said quote
We charge for sex because we can. Men are stupid. They will give us things in exchange for something we want to do anyway - why not take advantage?

we i assumed included you drinks are things guy give girls
your complete generalization covered these things so i draw an honest conclusion from your statement

if i was wrong i oppoligse
but exactly what then do you exchange sex for so i have it clear

[Epistemologist]

A possible problem with the Zinkovichian anthropological model is that seems to assume a primitive, viz. animalistic, behavior among human subjects. However, as long as there are cultural and quasi-civilizing factors that affect--and from the viewpoint of primitivists, inhibit--sexual behavior, they should also be considered in determining why humans are in relationships.

Perhaps it seems that when we consider these factors, we fail to determine the fundamental initiative for human sexual behavior. However, I wouldn't necessarily say that an evolutionary, animalistic treatment necessarily reveals this fundamental initiative. I wouldn't say that humans are bona fide "animals" because even from the moment of birth, we are enculturated to some degree. As Erik Erikson suggests in his psychosocial theory, from the first developmental stage of trust vs. mistrust, we seem to adjust to some sort of cultural institution as is represented by our caregiving parents.

That being said, perhaps when civilizing factors come into play, the evolutionary initiative for sexual behavior shifts from that of masculine quasi-instability, i.e. passing on their seed as much as possible, to feminine quasi-stability i.e. emotional/financial support with a permanent monogamy and a subsequent nuclear family, which could be considered the building blocks for civilized societies.

Now, of course, animalistic tendencies often trump humans' civilized initiatives. Thus, we see affair and such with rampant male and even female sexual urges; even the responses to the affairs by betrayed partners often follow an evolutionary model in that they lose their stability. The evolutionary model also relates to the concept of dominance vs. submission.

However, like I said, perhaps it's not okay to only consider humans' prima facie selfish (albeit group-minded in the long-run) animalistic tendencies. Another question has come to my mind. Why do humans engage in these relationships with only each other? I suppose it's both an evolutionary instinct and a cultural enforcement that makes them do this. Of course, a man, while motivated to spread his seed as much as possible assuming a total animalistic behavior, would not start having sex with monkeys and coyotes because they're not human and the acrosomes of his sperm would disallow his gametes from fertilizing the eggs of those other animals. But then, what explains bestiality? Is animalistic sexual behavior simply hedonistic and pleasure-driven? While women may also engage in bestiality for pleasure, why don't they settle down with a male monkey or coyote for emotional stability? Of course, they can't really communicate with them or effect this stability in any way.

Now, it seems that I didn't really answer the question of why we engage in relationships in the first place. As I think about it more and more, it seems that perhaps many people just do it for the selfish sexual satisfaction. As we see lots of casual sex in some societies today, it seems that in these situation males aren't necessarily driven to spread their seed and females aren't necessarily motivated to make a stable, supportive relationship. They're just searching for pleasure. Some deviance from this entirely hedonistic behavior might occur, e.g. when a partner realizes their feelings for the other and just want close intimacy.

Let's consider, however, a hypothetical man who has learned to inhibit all selfish sexual urges. That person might still marry, however, because of a cultural initiative to do so, i.e. it is inappropriate and even perhaps selfish to not marry by a certain age. This person might still engage in sexual intercourse with his wife because it would increase the strength of the species/culture. This hypothetical man would be acting unselfishly, yet he still engaged in a relationship.

It might be harder, however, to imagine a hypothetical woman in the same situation. It's often harder to consider and eliminate the selfish evolutionary needs of the female than it is with the male because those of female are actually somewhat integral to societies as I mentioned before, because that emotional/financial stability is what ties familial societal units together. Still, yes, we can say that the selfish urge for simply sexual pleasure is eliminated in this hypothetical woman. Would she still engage in a relationship? I still think so. Since they can't employ that shotgun approach of males, women are seen as the carriers; they are even seen as the foundations of society because the next generations seems to "come" from them.

I'm afraid that perhaps I got terribly off-topic with this. I'll have to come back and consider this more when I get more time. Anyway, as for the original question, what do women get out of relationships? According to a purely animalistic view, which I think is partially inappropriate, they get both that support and sexual pleasure. If we consider civilizing factors, however, the question centers not on what women get from the relationships but what the species/culture gets from them. And that, of course, is expansion, greater probability for solidarity, and thus strength vis-a-vis opposing species/cultures.

If we were to generate some sort of model for human sexual behavior, perhaps we could say that the short-term initiatives are bound by selfish, animalistic tendencies, while the long-term initiatives are bound by unselfish, civilized tendencies. I'll have to think about this more. Sorry.

[Mia]

Quote by: pam699 Mia u said quote We charge for sex because we can. Men are stupid. They will give us things in exchange for something we want to do anyway - why not take advantage? we i assumed included you drinks are things guy give girls your complete generalization covered these things so i draw an honest conclusion from your statement if i was wrong i oppoligse but exactly what then do you exchange sex for so i have it clear

First, my post was meant to be sarcastic. I felt your OP was very offensive.

Second, I said men will give us things for something we want to do anyway. I didn't say we will be enticed into sex by being given things. The two are completely different.

All a drink buys is some time chatting with a lady.

[Zinkovich]

A possible problem with the Zinkovichian anthropological model is that seems to assume a primitive, viz. animalistic, behavior among human subjects. However, as long as there are cultural and quasi-civilizing factors that affect--and from the viewpoint of primitivists, inhibit--sexual behavior, they should also be considered in determining why humans are in relationships.

Zinkovichian? please do not give me the credit of all the premises in my post. Everything there is based off of the studies and effort of other anthropologists in the field.

These cultural factors however- they come about as a result of precedental human behavior. Note that my reasons are not given as examples of current motivation behind the behaviors observed in modern society, but reasons for the precedental reasons for these modern behaviors.

Perhaps it seems that when we consider these factors, we fail to determine the fundamental initiative for human sexual behavior. However, I wouldn't necessarily say that an evolutionary, animalistic treatment necessarily reveals this fundamental initiative. I wouldn't say that humans are bona fide "animals" because even from the moment of birth, we are enculturated to some degree. As Erik Erikson suggests in his psychosocial theory, from the first developmental stage of trust vs. mistrust, we seem to adjust to some sort of cultural institution as is represented by our caregiving parents.

Yes, but you are ignoring the basic nature of these cultural attitudes as well as the possible reasons behind thier formation. You are also ignoring that these fundemental differences in attitude are observed accross cultural boundaries and in primates.

The cultural fundemental initiative may be forefront in the human mind, but it is nearly always found in conflict or in support of some underlying desires oppressed by those with differing viewpoints or ethical compulsions, according to the answers given when they are studied or questioned.

In one study involving homophobic males, for example, an astounding amount of them were found to still get an erection when made to view any form of homosexual erotica. This makes little sense if their cultural motivation serves as the base reason for thier sexual attitudes.

In many of the studies stretching as far back as the 1940's, around 90 percent of the individuals questioned believed infidelity to be morally wrong, yet around 30-60 percent still admitted to engaging in extramarital affairs. This could be interpreted in a way that discounts the theory that a purely cultural motivation underlies one's sexual behavior, for it is quite obvious that the viewpoint is conditioned into them forcefully and from an early age judging by the nature of thier reactions.

That being said, perhaps when civilizing factors come into play, the evolutionary initiative for sexual behavior shifts from that of masculine quasi-instability, i.e. passing on their seed as much as possible, to feminine quasi-stability i.e. emotional/financial support with a permanent monogamy and a subsequent nuclear family, which could be considered the building blocks for civilized societies. Now, of course, animalistic tendencies often trump humans' civilized initiatives. Thus, we see affair and such with rampant male and even female sexual urges; even the responses to the affairs by betrayed partners often follow an evolutionary model in that they lose their stability. The evolutionary model also relates to the concept of dominance vs. submission.

Indeed, this could very well explain why the formation of the monogamous forms of marraige in a cultural setting dominated by males in terms of what mores were formed and instituted by those in power. After all, marraige much better serves the supposed primitive attitude of the female rather than the male, as marraige oftentimes prevents the male from further spreading his seed to other potential mates.

Now, of course, animalistic tendencies often trump humans' civilized initiatives. Thus, we see affair and such with rampant male and even female sexual urges; even the responses to the affairs by betrayed partners often follow an evolutionary model in that they lose their stability. The evolutionary model also relates to the concept of dominance vs. submission. However, like I said, perhaps it's not okay to only consider humans' prima facie selfish (albeit group-minded in the long-run) animalistic tendencies. Another question has come to my mind. Why do humans engage in these relationships with only each other? I suppose it's both an evolutionary instinct and a cultural enforcement that makes them do this. Of course, a man, while motivated to spread his seed as much as possible assuming a total animalistic behavior, would not start having sex with monkeys and coyotes because they're not human and the acrosomes of his sperm would disallow his gametes from fertilizing the eggs of those other animals. But then, what explains bestiality? Is animalistic sexual behavior simply hedonistic and pleasure-driven? While women may also engage in bestiality for pleasure, why don't they settle down with a male monkey or coyote for emotional stability? Of course, they can't really communicate with them or effect this stability in any way.

The current explanations from those hold the viewpoint I mentioned in my last post is numerous. One such explanation concerns the biological resposne to attachment. In our minds, attachment can often be conflated with sexual attraction for obvious precedental reasons. When ones attachment to an animal forms either through self-conditioning or some other past experience/trauma, oftentimes the individual will interpret it in a sexual manner.

Now, it seems that I didn't really answer the question of why we engage in relationships in the first place. As I think about it more and more, it seems that perhaps many people just do it for the selfish sexual satisfaction. As we see lots of casual sex in some societies today, it seems that in these situation males aren't necessarily driven to spread their seed and females aren't necessarily motivated to make a stable, supportive relationship. They're just searching for pleasure. Some deviance from this entirely hedonistic behavior might occur, e.g. when a partner realizes their feelings for the other and just want close intimacy.

This attachment to sexual gratification however, can still result from the biological precedent as well as the relation of pleasure and attachment that comes in the human mind. Casual sex, I would argue, results both from primitve precedent as well as culturally conditioned attachment to the concept, further reinforced by the pleasure the act brings- this is similar in nature to many other attachments, such as ones to food, gossip, or even the internet.

Also, casual sex could be a recent biological precedent to arise as a result of condom usage. Perhaps the motivations and instincts are eroding over time as prevention and overpopulation becomes more and more common, while sex becomes more and more represented as a desirable act. It also could help further as a method of practice and, for the female, a precedent for forming a monogamous relationship or, in the case of many casual partners, a "backup" male to attach to for security in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

Let's consider, however, a hypothetical man who has learned to inhibit all selfish sexual urges. That person might still marry, however, because of a cultural initiative to do so, i.e. it is inappropriate and even perhaps selfish to not marry by a certain age. This person might still engage in sexual intercourse with his wife because it would increase the strength of the species/culture. This hypothetical man would be acting unselfishly, yet he still engaged in a relationship. It might be harder, however, to imagine a hypothetical woman in the same situation. It's often harder to consider and eliminate the selfish evolutionary needs of the female than it is with the male because those of female are actually somewhat integral to societies as I mentioned before, because that emotional/financial stability is what ties familial societal units together. Still, yes, we can say that the selfish urge for simply sexual pleasure is eliminated in this hypothetical woman. Would she still engage in a relationship? I still think so. Since they can't employ that shotgun approach of males, women are seen as the carriers; they are even seen as the foundations of society because the next generations seems to "come" from them.

However, this is hypothetical. There are no studies that I know of that represents these males and females as common enough in the sense that it could be seen as representative of the common biological urges and motivations behind certain male/female relationships.

Also, if it were to arise, it would be interesting in the sense that it could represent a change in the evolutionary paradigm rather than something purely cultural in nature. Perhaps culture, even, could be a catylist for future biological changes in the nature of human behaviors as well as the nature of human relationships.

(Continued in next post)

[Zinkovich]

I'm afraid that perhaps I got terribly off-topic with this. I'll have to come back and consider this more when I get more time. Anyway, as for the original question, what do women get out of relationships? According to a purely animalistic view, which I think is partially inappropriate, they get both that support and sexual pleasure. If we consider civilizing factors, however, the question centers not on what women get from the relationships but what the species/culture gets from them. And that, of course, is expansion, greater probability for solidarity, and thus strength vis-a-vis opposing species/cultures.

Yes, that is a very possible reason as a species. For the males, it could also be ensuring that the child is not killed or ousted by competition(something still seen in human behavior- just look at the statistic on stepparents), or that they need to ensure a "constant" rather than "spread out" rate of reproduction.

If we were to generate some sort of model for human sexual behavior, perhaps we could say that the short-term initiatives are bound by selfish, animalistic tendencies, while the long-term initiatives are bound by unselfish, civilized tendencies. I'll have to think about this more. Sorry.

We do not have a mechanistic model, but we do have many statistical models on the subject that we can draw theories and hypotheticals from. If you want some food for thought, I suggest you look into some of the more popular/competent ones out there, such as the ones done by the CDC(Center for disease control) throughout the years.

Anyways, thanks for your response. you have given me some food for thought on what to write in my paper as well. Keep in mind, though, that the opinions above are currently open for question in science- they just also happend to be the ones most often looked into and expressed in studies and papers.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Zinkovich Zinkovichian? please do not give me the credit of all the premises in my post. Everything there is based off of the studies and effort of other anthropologists in the field. These cultural factors however- they come about as a result of precedental human behavior. Note that my reasons are not given as examples of current motivation behind the behaviors observed in modern society, but reasons for the precedental reasons for these modern behaviors.

Ah, of course, I realize that, but I thought it would be cool to say Zinkovichian. And yes, culture comes about as a natural derivation of human nature, although ironically, it presents a civilizing antithesis to the animalistic tendencies that seem to qualify as the most basic human behavior.

Quote by: Zinkovich Yes, but you are ignoring the basic nature of these cultural attitudes as well as the possible reasons behind thier formation. You are also ignoring that these fundemental differences in attitude are observed accross cultural boundaries and in primates. The cultural fundemental initiative may be forefront in the human mind, but it is nearly always found in conflict or in support of some underlying desires oppressed by those with differing viewpoints or ethical compulsions, according to the answers given when they are studied or questioned. In one study involving homophobic males, for example, an astounding amount of them were found to still get an erection when made to view any form of homosexual erotica. This makes little sense if their cultural motivation serves as the base reason for thier sexual attitudes. In many of the studies stretching as far back as the 1940's, around 90 percent of the individuals questioned believed infidelity to be morally wrong, yet around 30-60 percent still admitted to engaging in extramarital affairs. This could be interpreted in a way that discounts the theory that a purely cultural motivation underlies one's sexual behavior, for it is quite obvious that the viewpoint is conditioned into them forcefully and from an early age judging by the nature of thier reactions.

Well, I didn't support a purely cultural approach, but a purely animalistic, evolutionary approach would be inappropriate in my opinion. Although it is practically impossible to eliminate all animalistic tendencies, and my hypothetical man was only theoretically possible since there would still be some primitive urges, there is still heavy cultural influence that has a possibly different extent in different individuals. Humans, then, are within a sort of spectrum between pure civilization and pure primitivism, and any explanation of their sexual behavior should thereby consider both influences.

Quote by: Zinkovich Indeed, this could very well explain why the formation of the monogamous forms of marraige in a cultural setting dominated by males in terms of what mores were formed and instituted by those in power. After all, marraige much better serves the supposed primitive attitude of the female rather than the male, as marraige oftentimes prevents the male from further spreading his seed to other potential mates.

Regardless of whose evolutionary goals were better achieved, the general stability offered by such monogamous familial units is optimal for societies.

Quote by: Zinkovich The current explanations from those hold the viewpoint I mentioned in my last post is numerous. One such explanation concerns the biological resposne to attachment. In our minds, attachment can often be conflated with sexual attraction for obvious precedental reasons. When ones attachment to an animal forms either through self-conditioning or some other past experience/trauma, oftentimes the individual will interpret it in a sexual manner.

I doubt that a sexual attraction with an animal would form simply because of attachment and precedental reasons. In fact, I think all the precedental reasons would stop such an attraction, because it would be sub-optimal for the human species to even try to mate with other species, and generally we're set to be attracted to other humans. Bestiality is driven by just that one tendency to seek pleasure while it's not inhibited by other tendencies that dictate bona fide sexual attraction. Perhaps a real attraction to the animals doesn't really exist.

Quote by: Zinkovich This attachment to sexual gratification however, can still result from the biological precedent as well as the relation of pleasure and attachment that comes in the human mind. Casual sex, I would argue, results both from primitve precedent as well as culturally conditioned attachment to the concept, further reinforced by the pleasure the act brings- this is similar in nature to many other attachments, such as ones to food, gossip, or even the internet. Also, casual sex could be a recent biological precedent to arise as a result of condom usage. Perhaps the motivations and instincts are eroding over time as prevention and overpopulation becomes more and more common, while sex becomes more and more represented as a desirable act. It also could help further as a method of practice and, for the female, a precedent for forming a monogamous relationship or, in the case of many casual partners, a "backup" male to attach to for security in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

It seems that perhaps a culture that explicitly supports a seemingly animalistic behavior could be called a retroculture or even an anticulture. But then again, I see casual sex as animalistic simply because of my own cultural programming. Anyway, sex is supported in some extent in all general cultures because otherwise it would be less likely that they survive. In many cases, of course, there are exceptions, but often these cultures, e.g. ascetics and Shakers, could really be considered sub-cultures of larger general cultures.

Quote by: Zinkovich However, this is hypothetical. There are no studies that I know of that represents these males and females as common enough in the sense that it could be seen as representative of the common biological urges and motivations behind certain male/female relationships. Also, if it were to arise, it would be interesting in the sense that it could represent a change in the evolutionary paradigm rather than something purely cultural in nature. Perhaps culture, even, could be a catylist for future biological changes in the nature of human behaviors as well as the nature of human relationships.

I suppose I was just thinking and writing at the same time by mentioning those hypothetical people. I would say that such people, though, would be extremely unlikely to exist. In fact, I might even deny their qualification as bona fide humans if they did, because perhaps humanity is defined according to that whole aforementioned spectrum and not any single tendency, i.e. cultural or animalistic.

Yes, there have been talks among many feminists about totally eliminating the need for men. They say that they could use in vitro fertilization and other means of artificial insemination to at least minimize their contact with males. And if a culture encourages the use of technology to produce an engineering device that can synthesize gametes (along with taking out genetic defects), then, indeed, it would effect a biological change.

Quote by: Zinkovich Yes, that is a very possible reason as a species. For the males, it could also be ensuring that the child is not killed or ousted by competition(something still seen in human behavior- just look at the statistic on stepparents), or that they need to ensure a "constant" rather than "spread out" rate of reproduction.

Yes, this stability increases the probability that the next generation and thus the entire species will survive.

Quote by: Zinkovich We do not have a mechanistic model, but we do have many statistical models on the subject that we can draw theories and hypotheticals from. If you want some food for thought, I suggest you look into some of the more popular/competent ones out there, such as the ones done by the CDC(Center for disease control) throughout the years. Anyways, thanks for your response. you have given me some food for thought on what to write in my paper as well. Keep in mind, though, that the opinions above are currently open for question in science- they just also happend to be the ones most often looked into and expressed in studies and papers.

Okay thanks, Zinkovich. I have a feeling I didn't properly treat the subject, and I think that I'll have to address this some more later.

[Zinkovich]

Okay thanks, Zinkovich. I have a feeling I didn't properly treat the subject, and I think that I'll have to address this some more later.

You did fairly well, in my opinion. If anything, I found the point about bestiality interesting and will probably quote it under the "expressed alternative viewpoints" section in my paper.

One thing my professor is doing that might give you an extra bit of motivation is that she plans on reading some of the alternative viewpoints she finds in the paper in class, and offer her own professional opinion and analysis concerning each of them. If she does one of yours, I'll be sure to tell you the response. It'll be a couple of months before I tell you, though, being as how this will be one of our end-of-the-year "coming of age" papers.

[Epistemologist]

Okay Zinkovich, I'll try to add some more alternative viewpoints as I think of them. Previously, I've actually put much thought into this topic, but like so many other unfortunate people, I didn't write them down.

[jose]

we are a team, she cleans house, feeds animals and prepares a tempting lunch, i go out and bring home money, in the evening i prepare a meal you wouldn´t get in a restaurant, and sex is something shared, that benifits both of us

[pam699]

Zinkovich and epistemologist
you miss the point any examples of variations from the gene determinism of mainstream thought would just be seen as a f..k up in their genes ie genetic duds mutastions that went wrong

your problem is to do a statitical analysis of the world and see what is statistical the mosst likely
i mean just because u finf a person cutting of their ba..ls does not mean that has any relevemce for what the so called normal do
u could find individual variations in any anilmale kingdom but you cant use themm to hgeneralise about what the majority do

i think you both should apply some logic to this

and though u want like it
dean would say you are all pushing sh..t up hill because all you will do is end up finding self contraditions in all your models any way

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 Zinkovich and epistemologist you miss the point any examples of variations from the gene determinism of mainstream thought would just be seen as a f..k up in their genes ie genetic duds mutastions that went wrong your problem is to do a statitical analysis of the world and see what is statistical the mosst likely i mean just because u finf a person cutting of their ba..ls does not mean that has any relevemce for what the so called normal do u could find individual variations in any anilmale kingdom but you cant use themm to hgeneralise about what the majority do

Examples found in the animal kingdom serve as explicit support for the idea that behavior and instincts are biological in thier precedent.

Human behavior conforms so much to instinctual feelings and attitudes and sources that it is very likely the deviators are lying or are dysfunctional in the sense that they have somehow contexutally reinterpeted or reframed thier actions/behavior based on past experience.

i think you both should apply some logic to this and though u want like it dean would say you are all pushing sh..t up hill because all you will do is end up finding self contraditions in all your models any way

Models are built around the facts. If there are new facts that contradict to the model, than the model needs to be rebuilt or discarded.

I have seen none of these contradicting facts in any of the discussions in which I posted such ideas. Therefore, I see no logical reason that the model needs to be reinterpreted or discarded in my mind.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: pam699 so why do they want security and how does a relationship give it to them

Because women anatomically are weaker sex. Relationship of living together
in the form of a family obviously provides security from notorious male folk!!