RPGs... Male dominated

[unregisturd]

[QUOTE=fable]...Does anybody else find this statement a bit lacking in the reality department?[/QUOTE]

::raises hand:: I find large-breasted, scantily clad female animations disturbing and in many cases, perverse, but it doesn't drive me away from playing the game. I know some females are offended by that sort of thing, but I don't think it drives them away from the game. And what about all the shirtless guys with bulging muscles? Does that not appeal to the female gender whilst the other appeals to the male? This has been discussed so many times in magazines and whatnot. Different views have been appointed. There's mine.

[dragon wench]

[quote="Fable]Does anybody else find this statement a bit lacking in the reality department?[/quote"]
For one I do...

Contrary to the delusional fantasies of 'many' teenage boys, a lot of women are actually quite grateful they do not possess breasts the size of watermelons

When I see game images like this, my reaction is more along the lines of "You can't be serious, and thank God I'm not built that way."

However, I'm really not all that perturbed in either regard. As I stated above, I play games for their content and complexity. I'm not especially concerned about how well-endowed the characters are

[Sojourner]

[QUOTE=fable]ok i dont know if someone said this already but here goes.Most women (NOTE: i say most) dont like the fact that hey theres finally a female dark elf, But shes bearly wearing anything, AND why the hell does she have bigger breasts then I do( speaking as some women ive heard)

So you're saying that most women don't like or play RPGs because a few coders have created women that with ridiculously large breasts that drive them green with envy.

Does anybody else find this statement a bit lacking in the reality department?[/QUOTE]

Um, yes. More women (and girls) play RPG's than many here seem to think. Now, if we're talking FPS's, that's a different story. However, that's changing, too.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=fable]ok i dont know if someone said this already but here goes.Most women (NOTE: i say most) dont like the fact that hey theres finally a female dark elf, But shes bearly wearing anything, AND why the hell does she have bigger breasts then I do( speaking as some women ive heard)

So you're saying that most women don't like or play RPGs because a few coders have created women that with ridiculously large breasts that drive them green with envy.

Does anybody else find this statement a bit lacking in the reality department?[/QUOTE]


Well ... neither I would say.

While I don't agree with the direct reasoning, it does point to the "catering" of a segment of users.
We know that there are young males around in their teens that likes to play games as well, and thus it could very well be catering to their "needs/desires". (not sure I got my point across well enough )
For instance - on the official NwN2 board - there is now a topic going where (some) people want nudity in the game and that could very well be the reason why some of the female characters look the way they do.

However - as to wether or not it would "drive" away the female segment I'm not so sure.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Sojourner]Um, yes. More women (and girls) play RPG's than many here seem to think. Now, if we're talking FPS's, that's a different story. However, that's changing, too.[/QUOTE]

Yeah.
Some time ago there were some statistics in the danish IT news /"geek news" that a larger percentage of gamers were now female then ever before.
This tells me that is has becomed more "social" accepted to play game.
It also - to me - indicates that the reason for the segmentation was/is more cultural then any "biological" reason, otherwise we wouldn't see this. Games have not become less violent during the years - if looking at how they were just 10 years ago with many more "bloodless" games compared to now. I, unfortunally, don't have statistics to back this statement up, other then my personal observing of the games that are released now compared to then - for instance the now almost lacking adventure genre, which often were bloodless.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Sojourner]Um, yes. More women (and girls) play RPG's than many here seem to think. Now, if we're talking FPS's, that's a different story. [/QUOTE]
Indeed. The reason may well be the role element in RPGs. In an RPG one does not run through guns blazing, but has to develop a character instead. While in an FPS one only needs good hand-eye coordination and average powers of observation, in an RPG critical, analytical, and lateral thinking are a must (I am talking about good RPGs, of course, not hack-and-slash pseudo-RPGs like Diablo). The capacity of finding more than one solution to a given problem -many times a non-violent solution-, the unveiling of the plot, the suspense at times, and the ability to take full control of one's actions (unlike in many daily life situations) appeal to many players, including women who are curious and intuitive by nature.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Xandax]Yeah.
Some time ago there were some statistics in the danish IT news /"geek news" that a larger percentage of gamers were now female then ever before.
This tells me that is has becomed more "social" accepted to play game.
It also - to me - indicates that the reason for the segmentation was/is more cultural then any "biological" reason, otherwise we wouldn't see this. Games have not become less violent during the years - if looking at how they were just 10 years ago with many more "bloodless" games compared to now. I, unfortunally, don't have statistics to back this statement up, other then my personal observing of the games that are released now compared to then - for instance the now almost lacking adventure genre, which often were bloodless.[/QUOTE]
Again. Hormones do matter.

The reason why many women are getting attracted to the computer gaming field is because games nowadays provide a chance to socialize, while most games in the past decades were stand alone entertainment. Go to the arcades and you will see women there playing... accompanied by other women. A woman by herself in an arcade place is a rare happenstance. Women are better at socializing than men and they love it. The amount of women in these forums are proof of that. If you go to tech forums you won't find many women there.

[dairy]

on the topic of large breasted women in rpgs, here's my two cents.

these games are not designed to be politically correct. they are marketed to make a profit. the best way for them to make that profit is by gearing the game to the desires of the target demographic. i might be generalizing here, but i'd say rpg's are played (and therefore purchased) more often by men. more specifically, men between the ages of 18 and 35. that particular demographic is a very desirable one because, amoung other things, it has more disposable income than other demographics. again, in general, they can buy pretty much any small ticket item on impulse without having any real negative consequences.
so how do you get a male between the ages of 18 and 35 to take a look at your product? you could do a lot of things but breasts, or more broadly, scantily clad well formed women are a sure bet. when was the last time you saw a fat ugly old woman in advertising? its brutal, but its ture. if it's pleasing to the eye, the eye spends more time on it.
there are a few holes in there that you could run a bulldozer through, but over all i think its pretty clear.

sex sells merchandise.

[Sojourner]

[QUOTE=Krusader]Again. Hormones do matter.

The reason why many women are getting attracted to the computer gaming field is because games nowadays provide a chance to socialize, while most games in the past decades were stand alone entertainment. Go to the arcades and you will see women there playing... accompanied by other women. A woman by herself in an arcade place is a rare happenstance. Women are better at socializing than men and they love it. The amount of women in these forums are proof of that. If you go to tech forums you won't find many women there.[/QUOTE]

Bwahahaha!!! Ahem, sorry, you were saying?

[dairy]

[QUOTE=Sojourner]Bwahahaha!!! Ahem, sorry, you were saying?[/QUOTE]

I think you can argue that online gaming, or any co-op game is social. welcome to a minor's "bar scene."

[fable]

[QUOTE=Krusader]Again. Hormones do matter.

The reason why many women are getting attracted to the computer gaming field is because games nowadays provide a chance to socialize, while most games in the past decades were stand alone entertainment. Go to the arcades and you will see women there playing... accompanied by other women. A woman by herself in an arcade place is a rare happenstance. Women are better at socializing than men and they love it. The amount of women in these forums are proof of that. If you go to tech forums you won't find many women there.[/QUOTE]

But there is no "socializing" gene, anymore than there is a "techncizing" gene. Women and men in different cultures react in the main as they have been socially conditioned in their developmental years. As before, I would ask that if you have any scientific proof of this gene (or hormone) that makes half the human race more physically violent and half more inclined to converse, dependent upon sex.

There are quite a few female techies, but they don't tend to hang out obviously in tech forums (or assume male names if they do) because these forums are too often populated by immature males, who treat females with 1) disdain or 2) leeringly. And before you say it's a matter of male hormones, that's simply pack behavior which has been analyzed repeatedly as culturally conditioned.

[Krusader]

Okay, let's start calling things by name.

Testosterone (or androgens) - male hormone produced especially by the testes or made synthetically and that is responsible for inducing and maintaining male secondary sex characters.
Progesterone - female hormone secreted by the corpus luteum to prepare the endometrium for implantation and later by the placenta during pregnancy to prevent rejection of the developing embryo or fetus.
Estrogens - hormone that stimulates the development of female secondary sex characteristics and promote the growth and maintenance of the female reproductive system.

The important ones here are testosterone and estrogen. Both male and female have the three of them, but it's the amount of each of them what determines secondary sex characteristics and individual behaviour. The amount is determined from the chromosomal mix of X and Y gender-determining chromosomes.

XX - woman
XY - man

Amounts of these hormones in a person's body vary and are influenced by several factors, like gen dominance or recessiveness, environment, race, and some genetic syndromes. There is not a fixed and exact amount of these hormones (after all, humans are not serially made), but males have higher amounts of androgens and lower amounts of both progesterone and estrogens. Women are the other way around. Ever wonder why some men display some feminine characteristics? (No. I am not talking anent homosexuality, that is another topic and I don't wanna go there). Easy, they have a higher amount of estrogens than normal. Same with women who have higher amounts of androgens, like those who suffer from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), they develop male characteristics like a bigger body frame, predilection for male activities, etc. Ever wonder why smoking affects worse women than men? The amount of estrogens is the answer. (Not gonna explain the process here, maybe in another post).

I finally found that study I was talking about. It was conducted at the University of Rochester. The video I watched for my class is explained here

[fable]

It's not a case study. It's a review of the separate positions of three feminists. As a study of anything, this offers nothing, save a smirk at three some waaay over-serious people who are being used as strawmen (excuse me, straw wymen ) to attack in lieu of positions held by far more responsible social critics. Time and again, Eisenman shows an enormous bias in his content. He and his models simply ignore cultural conditioning, as in this example:

"Perhaps one of the most interesting sex differences shown on "Boys and Girls Are Different" was research by Michael Lewis with one-year old boys and girls. He had a barrier put up, such that the child was separated from its mother. The child could see the mother, but was prevented from reaching her. Most boys tried to knock down the barrier, but most girls just stood there and cried." But as cultural conditioning studies have shown, the first year is the time when children are most conditioned in terms of their behavior. Expectations are made clear, not verbally, but by reinforcements to positive and negative behaviors. Lewis completely overlooks a ton of research on this.

Or there's this: "Another interesting sex difference study was done at the University of Rochester, and showed, according to Stossel, that due to brain differences, men and women navigate differently. Students were blindfolded and walked through a maze of tunnels underneath the campus. Men were quite accurate in maintaining a sense of direction, but women were not." This is no scientific study. It pays no attention whatsoever to the prior conditioning of its subjects, nor does it attempt to discover the causes why individuals or groups were directional, to a greater or lesser extent. It's difficult to escape the belief that the authors of this "study" probably went into it to prove a certain point, rather than to establish the truth or otherwise of a theory. One might as well conclude that whites make better scientists than blacks in the US because of literacy tests, without examining the cultural causes leading to distinctions in literacy levels between whites and blacks.

Virtually every point raised by Eisenman "overlooks" this essential, single point: the fact of social conditioning, both among those being tested, and those doing the tests. Except on one occasion, where he writes, "Feminists, taking a social learning perspective, have often argued that such societal roles are due to what children are taught. Wilson (1992) and others of a biological orientation would argue that such societal roles are the normal outcome of innate biological differences between males and females. Wilson's small book is filled with evidence to support his biological model of sex differences and to refute the social learning model."

Significantly, Eisenman only brings up conditioned cultural responses as associated with feminists, as though nobody else holds this position (it in fact represents the vast majority of current scientific opinion), knowing full well that in our culture the word feminism is negatively charged. He also doesn't deal with any of the questions or rebuttals cutural conditioning studies have raised, but simply says they were refuted by a book he doesn't quote. That's pretty easy to do.

As for physical differences between men and women, no one doubts this. It's kinda obvious.

Ever wonder why some men display some feminine characteristics? Easy, they have a higher amount of estrogens than normal.

Depends on how you define the phrase, "feminine characteristics." If you mean secondary sexual characteristics, then I would agree. If you are simply pre-defining social integration versus physical violence and similar dualities as "feminine" and "masculine," then you have just re-defined much of modern Scandanavia as having higher than normal estrogen levels, at least in comparison to the US, given relative levels of violence for men in both nations. This is in fact the killer for the whole "genetic/hormonal" argument for difference of behavior between the sexes. Were what you and these articles stated true, then the genetic/hormonal differences would remain true and even across the spectrum of behavior regardless of culture. Instead, we see major differences of behavior within and between the sexes according to the culture being viewed at the moment. Change cultures, and the gender paradigm changes, as well.

[fable]

Krusader, while this is an interesting discussion, I'm wondering if we're slowly (or not so slowly) morphing the topic into something for which it was not intended. If you feel so inclined, start a fresh topic, and we can continue our discussion, there. I only wish some members of the GameBanshee Scientific Team were present. My amateur studies of anthropology pale before their legit credentials.

[Bloodthroe]

In reguards to what Krusader said,

Trying to compare why men and women play video games is based on chemicals in the body, like (which I do know what these are)testosterone and estrogen is just theoretical. You're trying to say that men play video games more then women simply because they have some kind of aggressive bloodlust. Which back in the day, when it was mostly men who played games, I remember a game in the 80's where you washed a sink of germs (that's it.) That's the kind of games they had back then. Baseball, Paperboy delivery, sink cleaning, and the ever so common 80's space game. Today's games have much more violence and over the last few years, the number of women who play video games is sky-rocketing, and still is even today. And believe me, they aren't playing games like barbie's dream house and the powerpuff girls. They're playing games like Halo and Morrowind.

Also you're theory would suggest that only the women who have a lot of testosterone are the few that play video games. Which there are a lot of extreme gamers out there (both men and women) who don't like violent games and choose to avoid games like Silent Hill and Manhunt. Looking at different cultures, I think it was simply because of our societie's culture that men played games more then women and it's my belief that in 10 years the number of men and women who play video games will be equal.

Off subject. Just because women have less testosterone, doesn't mean they aren't equally aggressive. It just means they aren't aggressive as often. They are plenty aggressive to play video games.

-All in my opinion

[dairy]

You may just want to skip right down to the summary.

If we're going to talk about aggression in males and females I think a common definition of aggression and explanation will makes things a lot easier. Aggression is not just a physical behavoir (sp?). I have very aggressively persued women (the ancedote fits well doesnt it?) and I have played very aggressive sports. Based on those experiences, I'd say there are atleast two types of aggression.
Mental and Physical.
Mental aggression is often displayed in debates or arguements. For example, telling someone their idea is stupid could be considered an agressive act.
Aggression is often displayed in sports, the school yard or the bar. For example, "Stop talking to my girlfriend!" *Shove* (excuse the stereotypes)
I would argue that both sexes have an equal capacity for both types, but are socially conditioned to favor one or the other based on gender and, as a consequence, these different types of aggression are falsely applied to gender characteristics. To support this, many people can testify that they know a female that will kick someone's butt with little provocation, or a male that will argue vehemently over a trivial detail.
Basically where I'm going with this is that aggression/bloodlust/violence are now socially conditioned traits and as such are not hardwired and can become apparent in either sex. 5000 years ago one could argue that it was enviromentally conditioned as well and would have been a more masculine trait, males being the hunters and protectors (I can't back that up, but that's the general impression I've gained through school and reading). I don't know how to say this eloquently so please bare with me: Given the rate of human evolution coupled with the removal of consistantly required violence/physical aggression for survival or procreation over the last few hundred years has made that biologically programmed response obsolete and therefore recessive.
Mental aggression on the other hand is still a current and effective tool in modern society. Mental aggression that leads to fighting for a raise, courting a more desirable female etc. is still an asset. This mental aggression, being an enviromentally conditioned asset for both sexes, can be found in most individuals of both sexes. Males though are focused away from mental and onto physical aggression while females are socially coached away from the physical to mental aggression. Hence, men appear more physically aggressive and women appear more mental aggressive.

Summary:
Men and women are both aggressive in both aspects, but it's more pronounced dependant on gender.

Having said that, aggression shouldn't be a factor in male:female gamers.

Edit: Socially conditioned based in a North American society.
Sorry, I think I may have wandered off topic there.

[Lost One]

I'm with Krusader...I believe hormones and our biological differences do play a significant difference in determining the psychological differences in each gender.

Answer me this, Fable or anyone...women have PMT (pre-menstrual tension) while guys don't. Now, we all know that PMT can create mood swings, so how is that not a case for biology affecting minds? Likewise, you can find a number of other biological things that create differences.

Men get turned on faster than women and are more aggressive (likely due to hormones). You think this is cultural? Well, I don't think that the fact men, through adoscelence and at their prime, need sex more than women, is cultural. It is biological. This would explain the success of prostitution and pornography (which attends, without a shred of doubt, mostly the male audience). And before you go on arguing that there are women more sexually driven than men (like Jennifer Lopez), the fact is that you can't deny that men are more sexually aggressive (and this is NOT cultural, it is biological...and has an impact on the way each sex thinks). After all, when is the last time you've seen a woman rape a guy?

It is also because women become mothers, that they are given a maternal instinct (especially when they're pregnant, and after having their first child) which makes them naturally more protective and less violent. Her husband, in the meanwhile, is not the one nurturing the baby in his belly...so thus, he cannot possibly comprehend the act of giving birth or of having a child in him, and then having it taken from you to the real world. And thus, once again, due to biological differences, the mind works differently.

While cultural influence is significant...you cannot say that in any society a man and a woman can THINK ALIKE for an extended period of time...because the biological differences play a big part in determining the differences in our way of thinking.

Honestly, it's all common sense. And saying men and women are different is NOT to say that men can rape women, and all that. But our very nature shows that we are different, biologically and psychologically. Although the psychological difference might just simply come from the biological.

EDIT: I don't know what world some of you come from where women act the same way as men.

[dragon wench]

Men get turned on faster than women and are more aggressive (likely due to hormones). You think this is cultural? Well, I don't think that the fact men, through adoscelence and at their prime, need sex more than women, is cultural. It is biological. This would explain the success of prostitution and pornography (which attends, without a shred of doubt, mostly the male audience). And before you go on arguing that there are women more sexually driven than men (like Jennifer Lopez), the fact is that you can't deny that men are more sexually aggressive (and this is NOT cultural, it is biological...and has an impact on the way each sex thinks). After all, when is the last time you've seen a woman rape a guy?

This is stereotyping of gender roles and has little, if any, basis in hard scientific fact. Women were, for a long time conditioned to not display sexual arousal. Throughout varying periods in western history women who showed signs of enjoying sexual pleasure were considered prostitutes.. At the very least, they were perceived as morally suspect. While this may hold little significance now... during the Victorian Era, for example, such an accusation could quite literally destroy a woman's life. If you really want I could bore you with a dissertion on the subject... (complete with footnotes)

Moreover, let's be honest here.. If a woman is sexually excited the indications are much more subtle... Women don't have to worry about the tent pole in their pants. What you are stating is nothing more than apocryphal hearsay... homegrown notions that conveniently suit a particular set of values and ideologies.

As far as porn and prostitution go.. Well obviously they appeal to a largely male audience. Most women do not enjoy seeing other women degraded and objectified. And for that matter, neither do many men

And, there *are* recorded cases of women raping men.

It is also because women become mothers, that they are given a maternal instinct (especially when they're pregnant, and after having their first child) which makes them naturally more protective and less violent. Her husband, in the meanwhile, is not the one nurturing the baby in his belly...so thus, he cannot possibly comprehend the act of giving birth or of having a child in him, and then having it taken from you to the real world. And thus, once again, due to biological differences, the mind works differently.

And men do not develop a deep connection to their unborn children!?!? Moreover, feeling more protective and feeling prone to violence are not necessarily mutually exclusive... I recall holding my son when he was first born.. Not only did I feel protective.. I knew I would kill anybody that ever tried to harm him... I mean that literally. If ever he was hurt.. or worse.. the perpetrator had better hope the police found him before I did. And note, my partner (my son's father) feels *exactly* the same way.
Before you go bandying about vague notions of how you think the world works, I suggest you acquire some life experience.

[Bloodstalker]

[QUOTE=Lost One]

Answer me this, Fable or anyone...women have PMT (pre-menstrual tension) while guys don't. Now, we all know that PMT can create mood swings, so how is that not a case for biology affecting minds? Likewise, you can find a number of other biological things that create differences.

[/QUOTE]

there are also a ton of times where men can be equally moody, as well as many women who do not display the usual steroetype of how a woman should act during their cycle. For instance, I dated a girl for a long time, and you would never be able to tell from her actions that she ever went through a monthly cycle.

[QUOTE=Lost One]


It is also because women become mothers, that they are given a maternal instinct (especially when they're pregnant, and after having their first child) which makes them naturally more protective and less violent. Her husband, in the meanwhile, is not the one nurturing the baby in his belly...so thus, he cannot possibly comprehend the act of giving birth or of having a child in him, and then having it taken from you to the real world. And thus, once again, due to biological differences, the mind works differently.

[/QUOTE]

There have been many cases where a woman has either abandoned her child immediatly after birth, abused their children in the home, and killed their own children, the same as some men do. If every woman was hard wired to be the protective nurturing type, these things would never happen.


As far as the sexual needs being more pronounced in males, all I can say is, I think it's a lot more society's standards than anything biological. The women I have been involved with have been just as apt to initiate sexual relations as I was. The only difference i have noticed was that they were a lot more concerned about how other people veiwed them, so they were much more discreet than I was about things. Then again, if word gets out that I slept with someone the first date, as a man, I didn't have to deal with the rumor mill and the verbal slurrs that tend to get thrown at a woman for the same thing.

As to prostitution, same thing. A man can pay for sex without the same stigma being attached to him that a woman would have attached to her. That, and who's gonna pay a guy for something they could get for free most anytime they wanted it anyway?


When I was younger, I thought there was a huge mysterious difference in the genders too. As I grew older, and was in and out of relationships, I noticed that a lot of those differences were more in my head than anything else. Which would have saved me a lot of time and disgust in my youth

[Lost One]

This is stereotyping of gender roles and has little, if any, basis in hard scientific fact. Women were, for a long time conditioned to not display sexual arousal. Throughout varying periods in western history women who showed signs of enjoying sexual pleasure were considered prostitutes.. At the very least, they were perceived as morally suspect. While this may hold little significance now... during the Victorian Era, for example, such an accusation could quite literally destroy a woman's life. If you really want I could bore you with a dissertion on the subject... (complete with footnotes)

I see. And I suppose before the Victorian Era...and even during primitive ages, such as the Stone Age, women were also conditioned to 'not display sexual arousal'? In the time of the caves, nothing suggests that was there any 'conditioning'. And yet, like primitive animals, the males would sexually abuse the females...not the other way around. All I'm saying is that men are more sexually agressive.

Moreover, let's be honest here.. If a woman is sexually excited the indications are much more subtle... Women don't have to worry about the tent pole in their pants. What you are stating is nothing more than apocryphal hearsay... homegrown notions that conveniently suit a particular set of values and ideologies.

Did I ever say women don't get sexually aroused?

As far as porn and prostitution go.. Well obviously they appeal to a largely male audience. Most women do not enjoy seeing other women degraded and objectified. And for that matter, neither do many men

My point was, which you didn't get, that if women were so sexually driven as men, then you'd have male prostitutes and women masterbating to PlayGirls and things like that on a large scale. This is hardly the instance.

And, there *are* recorded cases of women raping men.

Don't say...not nearly as many as the opposite. Legally speaking (at least here)...a women cannot rape a man...as rape constitutes forcing the penis into a vagina.

And men do not develop a deep connection to their unborn children!?!? Moreover, feeling more protective and feeling prone to violence are not necessarily mutually exclusive... I recall holding my son when he was first born.. Not only did I feel protective.. I knew I would kill anybody that ever tried to harm him... I mean that literally. If ever he was hurt.. or worse.. the perpetrator had better hope the police found him before I did. And note, my partner (my son's father) feels *exactly* the same way.

Of course men develop a deep connection to their unborn children...but not as deep as that of a mother IMO.

Before you go bandying about vague notions of how you think the world works, I suggest you acquire some life experience.

Thank you for that disparaging comment. I'm sorry I had to express my opinions.

there are also a ton of times where men can be equally moody, as well as many women who do not display the usual steroetype of how a woman should act during their cycle. For instance, I dated a girl for a long time, and you would never be able to tell from her actions that she ever went through a monthly cycle.

Still doesn't deny the fact that most women have mood swings (until they learn to control it) when they have PMT.

There have been many cases where a woman has either abandoned her child immediatly after birth, abused their children in the home, and killed their own children, the same as some men do. If every woman was hard wired to be the protective nurturing type, these things would never happen.

Right. But nothing is hard wired...and I've never said it was. I've just been stating the natural way things go, IMO. Women, for having had the child inside them, have a deeper bond than men have. It's funny how other women here (including my mother) think the same as me.

As far as the sexual needs being more pronounced in males, all I can say is, I think it's a lot more society's standards than anything biological. The women I have been involved with have been just as apt to initiate sexual relations as I was.

Once again, did I ever say women don't enjoy sex? I just said they are not as sexually agressive as men. If you need statistics to support this, I'll be ready to dig 'em up.

As far as the sexual needs being more pronounced in males, all I can say is, I think it's a lot more society's standards than anything biological. The women I have been involved with have been just as apt to initiate sexual relations as I was.

When I was younger, I thought there was a huge mysterious difference in the genders too. As I grew older, and was in and out of relationships, I noticed that a lot of those differences were more in my head than anything else. Which would have saved me a lot of time and disgust in my youth.

I don't think there's any mystery. I've been with women many times. While there are many things upon which a man & a woman can feel/think the same way about, I still believe there are differences between us as result of biological differences. This kind of thing is common sense to me. If people here really want me to prove it...I'll do so. This kind of information comes out in magazines, news stories and stuff like that all the time...so I could always dig this stuff out, start a new topic, and use professional's opinions to make people happy.

Maybe it's the way I voice my opinions which people here don't like. I tend to state things rather strongly. Or maybe, like in every discussion, people just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I keep thinking that if I had stated strongly that men and women are not different...that we think exactly alike in all situations...then the same people here would take the other side. But hey...as I'm said in the paragraph above...this is something I'm willing to prove, because it won't take much of my time.