Have human males past their biological "use-by" date?

[Moontanman]

I was interested to hear during the week that the fragrance of a pregnant woman can reduce a male's testosterone levels.

I must track the source of that down.

 

Nothing smells better than a pregnant woman, I love pregnant women they seem to glow (literally, must be a cross wire in my smell and seeing nerves:eek_big:) When I worked with many women I could often tell a girl was preggers before she was sure. pregnant women inspire feelings of want to protect them, it's a real thing these pheromones, lol

 

I wonder if peace does " break out" (see thread I started on this)--what will happen to all that male testosterone?

Gee another dove in the White house- maybe an effective one this time.

and

Yank business beginning to realise that war is not really that good for profits-peace is better. Perhaps we will have more aggressive Yank Corporate acquisitions and takeovers?

But aren't the girls better at Corporate management too?;)

 

I worked for many female managers when I worked for DuPont, I enjoyed working for all of them, for the most part they were fair seldom played favorites and seldom got all tied up in anger and frustration like male mangers do.

 

I do have to say that women are harder to push to violence than men but once you push them to it they are really dangerous and getting between a woman and her child can be deadly. Women seem to be more vindictive than men but I can't say women are more prone to violence than men, of course Lorena Bobbitt was outside the bell curve.

 

I might be past my use by date but I am still useful, i seldom anger, i don't need batteries (just an occasional bowl of soup), and I follow instructions quite well :Alien:

[Moontanman]

But nevaeh, why bother with intricate lies when a club works so much better and way faster?

 

Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker!

[HydrogenBond]

Men use the gentle approach because they are taught, directly or indirectly by women, to behave in a way that helps maximize women. Guys would take the more efficient way, if this was an option without penalty. Women might complain that their guys don't take the time to cuddle, talk, show feelings, make the woman happy, satisfied, secure or even make more money. If a guys had the option to avoid these things, without penalty such as nagging, they would be more efficient, since they can get what they need faster and easier. Many of these things women can't do on their own, and need the men to provide it for them. But once these are provided, women are able to exist at a higher level and can then feedback this to the males, the bringing him to a higher level.

 

The male can build a house, but a woman can turn it into a home. After a guy builds a structure, it would remain a shelter to secure his things, which is all he needs for his survival. The women uses this foundation to take it to the next level. Home is where the heart is, not where the body or mind are. Things between men and women build in a zig zag fashion. If we take away the zig, zag can only go so far. If we take away zag, then zig will stop shorter.

 

The idea of males not needed, may work in the short term, since the logistics are all in place. Many houses (in a cultural sense) are already built beyond the capacities for homes. We have medical technology so now is time to make it a home. The male is more expendable since the next step, or building a home is the woman's turn. But once the home is built, without the males, it would stagnate into a perfection, with the women maintaining a steady state, because there are no new house or destruction of old houses, both of which are needed to make a new round of homes.

 

I would guess civilization was connected to the home effect of women, but it first needed the male drive to build cultural houses.

[maikeru]

I worked for many female managers when I worked for DuPont, I enjoyed working for all of them, for the most part they were fair seldom played favorites and seldom got all tied up in anger and frustration like male mangers do.

 

That's my experience having worked with many women before in a lab. Women seem more inclined toward teamwork and fairness. One thing I do note in general is that many women seem more hesitant or doubtful of themselves, and I'm not sure if this is a gender difference or something they've come to think of because of upbringing and cultural expectations (or both). Women seem to need more encouragement, so they can believe in themselves, whereas men seem to believe in themselves regardless (whether it's justified or not). Maybe that explains our ego problems...

 

I might be past my use by date but I am still useful, i seldom anger, i don't need batteries (just an occasional bowl of soup), and I follow instructions quite well

 

[Michaelangelica]

Demasculinisation and other side effects | COSMOS magazine

And, even with animals, maleness and femaleness are not just about the genitals. Hormonal differences pervade our physiology; differences in thyroid function, immune function and, of course, behaviour.

Phthalate comprise a large chemical class, and some are more toxic than others. Those of most concern have been shown to be anti-androgenic; that is, they have the potential to interfere with or reduce testosterone.

 

If you administer phthalates to a pregnant rodent, the male offspring exhibit a variety of reproductive tract anomalies such as undescended testes, a cleft phallus (hypospadias), and indices of feminisation such as retained nipples.

what are the human health effects of this massive experiment in which we are all unwittingly participating?

[ronthepon]

I am rather disappointed by the tone that his discussion had taken.

 

In my opinion, males and females are not factions that can be stereotyped with a number of tags. Tags such as 'aggressive', 'thoughtful', 'petty-competitive' can be attributed to individuals; not genders.

 

The fact that these attributes are brought on by the so called gender roles (or their equivalents) in various cultures is a different matter.

 

That's my thoughts in a nutshell; I'll be able to write more later...

[Boerseun]

I am rather disappointed by the tone that his discussion had taken.

 

In my opinion, males and females are not factions that can be stereotyped with a number of tags. Tags such as 'aggressive', 'thoughtful', 'petty-competitive' can be attributed to individuals; not genders.

 

The fact that these attributes are brought on by the so called gender roles (or their equivalents) in various cultures is a different matter.

The biggest difference between males and females is not the physical presence or absence of certain dangly bits. The biggest difference between the two is the different concentrations of androgens and estrogens found in the separate sexes - the main androgen making humans physically different from those without a large concentration of it, of course, being testosterone. Testosterone makes the individual/victim physically stronger, more competitive, more agressive, more competitive, etc. It also gives the individual/victim (take your pic) a penis.

 

Thus, although testosterone occurs in both sexes, males have it in such a concentration as to physically make them different to females. It also changes their personality, the same personality changes being observed in females who had testosterone injections. Testosterone is, after all, an androgen, the name itself meaning "man-maker", whereas estrogen means "female-maker".

 

The main difference between the sexes is chemical, and from that we can indeed "stereotype" with your tags of "aggressive", "thoughtful", "petty-competitive", etc. To deny this is to be Politically Correct, or denying the truth lest you piss some feminist / minority / gay / lesbian / pentacostal / muslim / christian / jew / girl scout / football fan / etc. off.

 

...but to deny the truth is to bullshit yourself, regardless how many people you offend. The truth is not a democracy, neither is it guaranteed to be nice. The truth is plainly and simply the Truth.

 

Men and women are different. Men being more likely to get aggressive than women is not "stereotyping", it's an artifact of testosterone poisoning - of which men are 99.9% more likely to suffer from than women.

 

Political Correctness to the detriment of truth will be the end of me yet.

[ronthepon]

That's the problem with a hastily typed post. You never get your complete word across.

 

The biggest difference between the two is the different concentrations of androgens and estrogens found in the separate sexes - the main androgen making humans physically different from those without a large concentration of it, of course, being testosterone...

 

...The main difference between the sexes is chemical, and from that we can indeed "stereotype" with your tags of "aggressive", "thoughtful", "petty-competitive", etc...

You are correct of course.

 

On an average, males do have a higher (an order of magnitude higher) amount of testosterone.

 

And yes, testosterone does increase the mental and physical energy of the person; this combined with the tendency to affect the flight or fight response (Link) does appear to translate into a more aggressive tendency in some individuals.

 

What, however I wish to get across is the matter of what different individuals do with this increased energy. Frustrated individuals would obviously get aggressive more easily, those lacking a satisfaction of their status would get petty competitive, etc. Along the same lines, those having a lower testosterone level, and a lower amount of ready mental energy arising from it would be slower to react to situations, and thus give their minds more time to think about the matter at hand.

 

A guy is a prick (figuratively) if he allows himself to be one. Take, however a conditioned guy, one who's been taught from childhood to be thoughtful, non impulsive, and he can use his aggressive tendencies in a way that appears to exhibit the nature to be precisely what testosterone actually does induce: energetic.

 

Think of examples. Haven't you seen any nice and energetic guys? What would you guess their testosterone levels to be?:phones:

 

In addition, men can have somewhat low testosterone levels, and females can have higher testosterone levels; naturally. Now I'm not sure of a direct connection, but you probably do get to see gentle-loving fathers, and aggressive-protective mothers. Probably arises due to the changed testosterone levels.

 

 

To deny this is to be Politically Correct, or denying the truth lest you piss some feminist / minority / gay / lesbian / pentacostal / muslim / christian / jew / girl scout / football fan / etc. off.

Hey... we're the ones who gets pissed off here... :D

[Michaelangelica]

 

In my opinion, males and females are not factions that can be stereotyped with a number of tags. Tags such as 'aggressive', 'thoughtful', 'petty-competitive' can be attributed to individuals; not genders.

 

I don't agree; the fact that males have a predominance of testosterone and females of estrogen makes for fundamental differences in aggression and other personality variables.

 

The fact that these attributes are brought on by the so called gender roles (or their equivalents) in various cultures is a different matter.

Yes, and those 'gender roles' usually have the male as the one with the weapon, not the female.

[Racoon]

I agree with Boerseun

and I will add that Men need to quit accepting a "Pussification" role in society. The whole Political Correctness has gone way too far.

I am of course defending Males who don't rape, assault, or sexually harrass Females.

Of COURSE Hormones play a role.. Its pretty f*ing simple that they do.

Males are affected by testosterone in their thoughts and activity, as a Woman is in Estrogen playing a significant role in their decisions and activity.

 

No need to make a simple situation more complex by over-analyzing.

Yes Traditional gender roles have changed in modern society, but the Hormones remain the same.. (unless you go to Brazil and get them altered :hihi:)

[ronthepon]

You probably are right; I can't exactly find any examples to substantiate anything I've said.

[Michaelangelica]

 

not really relevant but fun

 

I guess I was originally commenting on the fact that, with IVF/gene technology, one male is plenty to impregnate most of the females on the planet. So why waste resources feeding billions of the smelly, puffed-up, aggressive beasts? :cocktail:

[Boerseun]

So why waste resources feeding billions of the smelly, puffed-up, aggressive beasts?

Because they make better slaves. They are dumber and stronger.

[Buffy]

Because they make better slaves. They are dumber and stronger.

 

Yah, I still find them useful for taking out the trash.

 

Oh and dumb: you'd be amazed at how much I can get out of them through flattery just by letting them think that throwing raw meat on a fire makes them "as good a cook as" me.... B) :dog:

 

Ooh, I'm a man. Ooh, I have a penis. Ooh, I have to win money to exert my power over women, B)

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Yeah, i just kill a live hog bleed it gut it, throw the whole gutted and cleaned pig up on a charcoal cooker split down the middle, skin down, cut off the head and prop it up with a apple in his mouth. I make my own barbecue sauce and baste the pig in barbecue sauce twice an hour and my self in tequila for about 8 to 10 hours. Constantly put fresh charcoal in the cooker and take out ashes, just enough of each to keep the temp just right. i use a leaf blower to light the charcoal and a mop to baste the pig. all day in the sun drinking tequila and keeping track of all the details.... yeah just throw it up there, no skill involved at all.... B)

 

Bring me alive pig a cow a flock of chickens, an ostrich, I've always wanted to barbecue an ostrich or a live huge fish or alligator, I'll process em and cook and they will be to die for!

 

Sorry my knuckles are dragging the ground tonight, i use my mind to exert power over intelligent willing women B) but soon i will never be able to have another child no matter what, that's kinda of sad. :dog:

[Boerseun]

No... you don't wanna do an ostrich. They taste like a wet chicken smells. Disgusting. But, apparently they're good for your heart. Almost zero fat, and good for your cholesterol too! But for some reason, everything thats good for you, taste like crap.

 

I like your pig-on-a-stick idea. I think I should take the afternoon off and start up the fire. Buy me some brewskies, and cook my freshly-killed oinker. First I have to club it to death, though. Okay - I get it dead from the butcher, but when I get home I have to club it. It's some ancient urge I get when presented with food in animal form. My urge satisfied, my meat tenderised. Happiness all round. Charlene does frown upon the grunting noises I make in the process, though.

[Qfwfq]

No doubt the human race evolved according to hunter-gatherer society needs, with the gals gathering and seeing to the kids while the guys did the hunting and the stronger tougher chores. Agriculture made control of land a lot more essential and so wars became fiercer, but it also favoured differentiation of professions. For centuries, political and military status coincided; those aristocrats were not in the least sissies. They came to be such in the last few (hardly 5) centuries in the western world, as the importance of crafts and technology rose.

 

So this led to the age of industry and hi-tech, who needs those big brutes any more? Let natural selection kick them out, leaving their relics in the museums for future generations to laugh at.

 

Trouble is that even more recently, with these damn PC's, we're all getting less smart as well as less strong.