I'd say your claim generalizes women the same way my claim generalized men. I think there is some truth in what you say, I have seen that attitude on the part of men, just not as frequently.
Then lets just compile a true statement rather than having two empty generalizations?
Men are ignoramouses.
Women are pure.
Both aren't true.
And making all women sound like they have a higher sex drive than men do isn't? Men aren't, "naturally sexual beings?" Have you seen this site alone? Now who is being misandronistic?
The objective isn't to say "Women have more" ( seeing as I never said, or even asserted that; I was comparing it to the level and state you had given as an example. The example of purity isn't realistic amongst people my age - AS FAR AS I'VE SEEN - thus making this a personal experience proof just as yours was ) but rather to say "Women do not have that much less". There is nothing wrong with being sexual, and by far how is that misandronistic? It might be misogynistic... Yeah, but saying "Men are purer" if that was the message I was trying to convey is pro-male and not anti-male andro behavior.
I also pointed out that it's a double standard, hence the money/sex/etc was qualified. No, men aren't dumb, but I think each sex believes the most important things to the opposite sex are other than they really are. My point was to counter the assumptions made by milfy for the behavior she has observed.
Well then!
I don't know though, studies of people when based at the primal level really do indicate that the traits are incredibly important.
Women do hunt men with some sort of aesthetic asset usually. Especially older women; young women might not see themselves as capable of attaining a man with said assets, and of course "Love" complicates things, but all in all healthy, and mildly well to do, males will fair better than sexy bums.
As for men, they hunt women who look healthy more often than not, even today men aren't really able to stick to the stereotypical anorexic woman. Women idolize those people, in my opinion, more than men because they just don't have the characteristics of looking like they'd even survive childbirth furthermore being a mother. Men also hunt sensible, well to do, etc. women almost recipricating the women who hunt men.
Women, by nature, are a little more aesthetic than men considering that they are right brained, and men a little more logical; that of course is on the whole and isn't necessarily not subject to case by case results. Regardless the "double standards" I would say are more just suppressions of our primal nature versus our "expressed" human nature redefined.
Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with out Social Nature, but it's far from honest. Size Queens are just as aesthetic as a man who is a Boob King or would look for a certain size of the "Booty". They are no different.
I just think we should admit that we are primal creatures and cut our own lies from the loop; we attempt to rectify ourselves in our primal states as "Civilized" with some excuse, but there isn't a reason to do so. If a woman likes a man for his penis or a man likes a woman for her bodily figure, or a woman for his figure and a man for her oral skills, or hell both for their intelligence / money / whatever just admit it.
And yes, this is a debate forum as much as anything else. Feel free to debate whomever you want and welcome to LPSG!
... Yo'
