[ssupermegatone]

It's boiling it down to it's most basic form, and you cannot get more basic and raw than sex, it is also exactly what was being argued, that women see men as we see women, but socially it has never been accepted that women can treat sex the same way as men do. You are choosing to not see the inherent connection between them.

On your closing remark, why don't you focus on the discussion, rather than making inferences about what I am choosing to do or not do in this discussion. It's making a huge assumption about why I am making the points I am, as well as projecting deliberation onto to it. You're basically calling me obtuse here, and honestly I am not posting here to be the subject of your personal attacks.

As to your opening point here, yes I agree that women can (and sometimes do) see men as we see women. I have never actually said that was not the case. Just that it is less common.

Sigh - This is why i'm always reluctant to mention anything about that in forums, people always like to drag it up and say the "You should know better!" garbage. Well at the risk of sounding conceited or arrogant, guess what? I do, it's just that you are choosing to hold onto a common and ancient fallacy, it's our nature to seek out those things which give us pleasure, the greater the pleasure, the more ardently we tend to seek these things, it's basic reasoning, hardly any psychological reasoning is needed. I think this could be an interesting point. I think rainwind mentioned Freud because he was alluding to the pleasure principle, which more or less covers what you're saying here. However, the pleasure principle, and indeed the whole Freudian model, is merely about basic drives. It does not really take into account the numerous layers of complexity that can mean such drives will manifest in almost infinitely different types of behaviour. Diferences in gender behavior are (in my opinion) largely driven by socialisation but also partly driven by biological differences - there are physical differences in the brain, in hormones etc. I don't think I am telling you anything by writing this, we probably agree, but the point is, just because the 'drive' from the Id (to use Freudian terms) is the same in men and women, doesn't mean the behavior will be.

And this is part of that fallacy, women don't have a lower sex drive at all, sex drive is a very individual thing in fact, something that changes on a daily basis and is affected by our experiences in life, you could normally have the highest sex drive in the world and yet a simple cold, not getting enough sleep, a small argument, a multitude of things can kill it dead. Come on, give me a break - even though I didn't say it explicitly, obviously I didn't mean ALL MEN have a higher sex drive than ALL WOMEN. Your reply here seems to indicate that think you're arguing with an idiot, or at least someone barely worthy of your time. Give me some credit here.

Women have always been just as promiscuous, they've just developed the ability to use it to better effect then men, they are even much better at suppressing sexual urges after they are aroused. Just think about it logically for one minute, you say men are more promiscuous? Then who exactly are these men having sex with if women aren't as driven to have sex? I didn't say that, but fair enough I heavily implied it. Well, if you just take prostitution as an example, there are far more female prostitues than male ones and each one may have dozens of clients. So it's quite easy to see how statistically, men generally have more 'out of relationship' sex than women. I quick google search showed that 29% of men have had more than 15 partners and less than 10% of women have had that many.

OK this must mean that some women are having a lot of sex, which you probably think validates your point. However I think the very existence of prositution, and the rarity of male prostition is a much stronger argument against it.

It's also not correct that evolution and biology has dictated that women have a lower sex drive then men, it has dictated the opposite, it had too. The intense pain suffered in childbirth means that the pleasure they get from sex has to be enough to offset that, they must want to have sex again, even after giving birth, so the reward must be equally great, this is why the pleasure for them is so much greater, if i can find the study i'll show you it, it's along these lines though, the areas of the brain that are affected by sex in women are extensive when compared to men in which only a small area is affected by sex, a female orgasm releases up to 10 times as much chemicals in the brain, is so intense that women suffer partial paralysis (ever noticed your wifes toes curl up?) to prevent herself from injury by thrashing around. Men have a miniscule reaction in comparison, not to mention that women can still be feeling the effects of an orgasm many minutes after the event. Women are sex mad my friend, even more so than us, they just don't want us to know it, since they'll lose their most important weapon in the War of the sexes. I think you're fantasizing here...

It has been posited that the female orgasm is there to offset the pain of childbirth, but I quite honestly think that's ridiculous. It was probably an evolutionary reward mechanism to encourage sex, full stop, and might have something to do with the fact that our brains developed to such an extent that sexual urges were not enough to ensure suitable propagation. Not to mention the time gap between 'orgasm and childbirth' or even that intercourse doesn't guarantee either.

I am not up to date on the research here, I am sure there are plenty of people who want to research it, but by and large (and I am pretty sure about this) the female libido is not as intense or as immediate as the male one. It has very different cycles, but women are not "programmed" to want to procreate several times a day the way that males do.

Of course, whether or not that directly affects the way women see men on a day to day basis, is not entirely clear, but I believe it, along with socialisation, it does.