Social science - balancing out sexual leverages between genders?

[EsotericPhilosopher]

In a nutshell, women can basically get sex more or less when they wish.

There's other considerations but it's common knowledge that men ask, women choose.

Hypothesize there's a means to introduce balance into that situation however.

i.e. a situation where men can essentially exude sex appeal to the point that spontaneous sexual attraction that historically happens only for women, now happens for men.

So it's possible that by example, men could start practicing as heterosexual prostitutes.

That's pretty out there but this is somewhat philosophical, but with a strong scientific component which I will elaborate on.

Any initial thoughts on the above however?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

In a nutshell, women can basically get sex more or less when they wish.

There's other considerations but it's common knowledge that men ask, women choose.

Common knowledge is often wrong.

1 hour ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

Hypothesize there's a means to introduce balance into that situation however.

i.e. a situation where men can essentially exude sex appeal to the point that spontaneous sexual attraction that historically happens only for women, now happens for men.

So it's possible that by example, men could start practicing as heterosexual prostitutes.

There have been male hetero prostitutes for a long time.

1 hour ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

That's pretty out there but this is somewhat philosophical, but with a strong scientific component which I will elaborate on.

Any initial thoughts on the above however?

A scientific argument is what we want. Not incel propaganda.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

In a nutshell, women can basically get sex more or less when they wish.

There is a difference when you are talking about casual sex. Women can get that more easily than men, so long as that's all they want, and they're not fussy who provides it. But it's not really what most women are looking for. Some do, and there are heterosexual male prostitutes out there, but not a lot.

When it comes to getting the partner of your choice, I don't think that women have any real advantage over men. 

[EsotericPhilosopher]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

A scientific argument is what we want. Not incel propaganda.

I'm unsure what "incel propaganda" is.

Yes I have a consolidated scientific argument based in the "thoughts-emotions-actions" psychological framework.

I guess the core premise revolves around the reliable induction of male to female orgasms.

There seems to be some differing opinions on this but in essence, to stick with the hypothesis of male heterosexual prostitutes, the entire point would be the reliable induction of sexual climax.

With a certain behavioural/emotional approach, I contend this is possible - bearing in mind that the "orgasm" is a nervous system response, and nervous system sensitization and responsiveness is a function of emotion, what they feel or what we make them feel.

It's that approach that I wish to explore and scrutinze on a scientific forum.

Edited April 8, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

I have a consolidated scientific argument based in the "thoughts-emotions-actions" psychological framework.

A scientific argument would include references to peer-reviewed research

[EsotericPhilosopher]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

A scientific argument would include references to peer-reviewed research

This is more so a case of seeking peer review, as the nature of the research conducted was novel.

Or ground breaking?

But I see no advantage to scrutinizing characterizations.

.........

Evening out gender sexual leverages

= reliable induction of sexual climax from men to women (historically this has been one way only, the vast majority of the time)

= determined by emotional induction (which determines their nervous system response).

Therefore it's thought implementation to affect emotion/behaviour.

.........

From that point of view I had considered putting this in the biological morphology subforum but, said I'd start here.

**

Seems like a fair sub to transfer this to:

 

We'll start here and see if anyone can make sense of this. Then get into the how and why.

Edited April 8, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[TheVat]

55 minutes ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

This is more so a case of seeking peer review, as the nature of the research conducted was novel.

Almost afraid to ask - what was the nature of this novel research?  If you want peer review, it helps to know who your peers would be, i.e. what branch of social sciences, and have a complete description of the research setup, what groups you sampled from (college students? singles? married couples? suburbanites? random people on the street? rave attendees?), the data collected, how data is analyzed and interpreted, etc.  

So far, we have an enigmatic diagram.  

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

This is more so a case of seeking peer review, as the nature of the research conducted was novel.

Or ground breaking?

But I see no advantage to scrutinizing characterizations.

.........

Evening out gender sexual leverages

= reliable induction of sexual climax from men to women (historically this has been one way only, the vast majority of the time)

= determined by emotional induction (which determines their nervous system response).

Therefore it's thought implementation to affect emotion/behaviour.

.........

From that point of view I had considered putting this in the biological morphology subforum but, said I'd start here.

**

Seems like a fair sub to transfer this to:

 

We'll start here and see if anyone can make sense of this. Then get into the how and why.

Where’s the research, then? Who did it, how and what was observed?

[iNow]

6 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

women can basically get sex more or less when they wish.

I reckon that rather depends on the woman and how attractive she is. I’ve known plenty of women that desperately wanted to get laid and could not, basically because they had the wrong genes and had the audacity to be born to the wrong parents. 

(And rather often made the problem worse through poor self-care, awful diet, lack of hygiene regimen, etc.)

Edited April 8, 2023 by iNow

[TheVat]

Yes, I've seen that, too.  Social standards for female beauty seem traditionally more linked to health and fertility (dewy smooth skin, full red lips, voluptuous curves, facial symmetry, clear bright eyes, etc), while male attractiveness is traditionally more tied to the appearance of strength and boldness, apparently giving a higher value to power displays than to systemic health.  I think society in modern urban societies is moving on from that, but I still see vestiges of that in how young people try to enhance their attractiveness.  Bad skin, for example, seems far more accepted on men than women, though for either sex it can indicate problems with nutrition, nervous ailments, autoimmune system, endocrine balance, Crohn's,  etc.   

  

 

[Genady]

According to my research, men can basically get sex more or less when they wish, just as

9 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

women can basically get sex more or less when they wish.

Also, women ask, and men choose as commonly as

9 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

men ask, women choose.

In general, my data support the old Russian proverb, "любовь зла, полюбишь и козла" (love is evil - makes one love even a goat; note that the noun "goat" in the proverb is masculine.)

Edited April 8, 2023 by Genady

[EsotericPhilosopher]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

Almost afraid to ask - what was the nature of this novel research?  If you want peer review, it helps to know who your peers would be, i.e. what branch of social sciences, and have a complete description of the research setup, what groups you sampled from (college students? singles? married couples? suburbanites? random people on the street? rave attendees?), the data collected, how data is analyzed and interpreted, etc.  

So far, we have an enigmatic diagram.  

You would be punctilious in assuming that state of apprehension.

Translation: prepare yourself for the obscenities to follow.

We'll get into the specifics eventually but simply said research began initially in the area of sports performance.

Not to sound like "that guy", but I was (and sadly at my ripe age, still am) an aspiring pro-athlete (one of my former opponents just won the title again last night actually).

This began by understanding that "self instruction" influenced actions.

i.e. thoughts -> actions.

This initially began in sports/athletics, so I would use certain words to influence athletic performance, "regulate" it, optimize outcome/efficiency, etc.

Whilst this affects physical performance, it didn't directly affect the physiology underlying said performance.

..........

Later I began experimenting with this same "self instruction" on a social level, to influence social behaviour and how others would respond to me (in a range of settings, several of which have been mentioned).

Remarkably, I would get responses almost exactly consistent with the nature of self-instruction being implemented.

From here it was simply a process of working through self instruction (cue application) progressions, to render the desired outcome - which was/is, spontaneous excitation induction in women, in much the same way as they can historically generate in men.

In the case of social cue application (in contrast to physical/athletic) where the premise is thoughts->actions ,the intermediary step is "emotions.

i.e. thoughts->emotions->actions.

Therefore, the thoughts (after a long period of experimentation and determination), I discovered, had to be of highly specific emotional relevance to generate a sustained and effective outcome.

Edited April 9, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

You would be punctilious in assuming that state of apprehension.

Translation: prepare yourself for the obscenities to follow.

We'll get into the specifics eventually but simply said research began initially in the area of sports performance.

Not to sound like "that guy", but I was (and sadly at my ripe age, still am) an aspiring pro-athlete (one of my former opponents just won the title again last night actually).

This began by understanding that "self instruction" influenced actions.

i.e. thoughts -> actions.

This initially began in sports/athletics, so I would use certain words to influence athletic performance, "regulate" it, optimize outcome/efficiency, etc.

Whilst this affects physical performance, it didn't directly affect the physiology underlying said performance.

..........

Later I began experimenting with this same "self instruction" on a social level, to influence social behaviour and how others would respond to me (in a range of settings, several of which have been mentioned).

Remarkably, I would get responses almost exactly consistent with the nature of self-instruction being implemented.

From here it was simply a process of working through self instruction (cue application) progressions, to render the desired outcome - which was/is, spontaneous excitation induction in women, in much the same way as they can historically generate in men.

In the case of social cue application (in contrast to physical/athletic) where the premise is thoughts->actions ,the intermediary step is "emotions.

i.e. thoughts->emotions->actions.

Therefore, the thoughts (after a long period of experimentation and determination), I discovered, had to be of highly specific emotional relevance to generate a sustained and effective outcome.

So no research then. 

[Genady]

20 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

This is more so a case of seeking peer review

Why wouldn't you get peer reviews from a scientific journal in the corresponding field of science?

[EsotericPhilosopher]

26 minutes ago, exchemist said:

So no research then. 

The nature of the research is simply, so esoteric, that I have to ease into it.

Explain how and why this research (or research of this nature) was undertaken.

And there is abundant research, of that you may be most certain.

Meticulously documented.

Consider this like the "introductory" section to the paper.

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why wouldn't you get peer reviews from a scientific journal in the corresponding field of science?

I had a conversation with a so called "expert" in this area.

Their expertise amounted to, a half hearted lack of faith in the plausible outcome of such endeavours, and a shallow (generous description) understanding of its potential and mechanics.

i.e. there's so little meaningful material in existence in this specific area.

Therefore it must be introduced here, its specifics explored and scrutinized for merit, the paradigm construction initiates.

Edited April 9, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

I had a conversation with a so called "expert" in this area.

This is not a way to get peer reviews. You need to clearly describe your research in a clear format such as Abstract - Introduction - Materials and Methods - Results - Discussion. Then peer reviewers will relate and respond to its content.

[exchemist]

25 minutes ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

The nature of the research is simply, so esoteric, that I have to ease into it.

Explain how and why this research (or research of this nature) was undertaken.

And there is abundant research, of that you may be most certain.

Meticulously documented.

Consider this like the "introductory" section to the paper.

I had a conversation with a so called "expert" in this area.

Their expertise amounted to, a half hearted lack of faith in the plausible outcome of such endeavours, and a shallow (generous description) understanding of its potential and mechanics.

i.e. there's so little meaningful material in existence in this specific area.

Therefore it must be introduced here, its specifics explored and scrutinized for merit, the paradigm construction initiates.

OK so let's see some of this "meticulously documented" research, then.  

[EsotericPhilosopher]

37 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK so let's see some of this "meticulously documented" research, then.  

Just for clarity, a written paper is a concise summation of hundreds to thousands of pages of documentation. 

Said documentation is the "deductive" phase, and this is what I've done over the last 13 years, all the materials/methods as outlined above, social experimentation in a variety of fields, post-experimentation appraisal/documentation.

You really want me to link that crap?

I haven't written an actual paper yet, i.e. intro, materials/methods, results, etc., as - I'm still fine tuning the specifics (that is to say, the specifics of how to characterize, describe and define the nature of what has been done).

You see that diagram I linked above?

I was in the process of initiating discussion as to how that was deduced when y'all started calling for "peer review".

I'm not at that phase yet, as the ultimate paper hasn't been written. And I don't see the point in writing it until every last detail has been examined, scrutinized, 2nd guessed, clarified, and the optimal possible means to express/define those details as concise and comprehensively as possible has been determined.

Because that is what a paper must consist of, otherwise it may just be interpreted as rambling jargon.

But the "work", is done. 

The hard part, the part where concepts have been elucidated.

........

And that's the part I'd like to focus on here.

Edited April 9, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[mistermack]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

Almost afraid to ask - what was the nature of this novel research?

Or what's the point of it? Psychology is a grey area science anyway. 

Spend ten thousand pounds on hip replacements, and people get to walk again. Spend ten thousand counselling a suicidal patient, and there's every chance they will top themselves the following week. There really should be a proper assessment of the outlay/returns of mental health treatements. You can't spend the money twice. Ten grand spent on mental health means ten grand less on hips and hearts etc. If it's not working, it needs cutting out.

Where outcomes are good, that's where the money should go, regardless of the discipline.

The point of trying to fit human sexual inclinations into big-worded hypotheses escapes me. It's worked so far, without it. Here we are, the living proof. 

[EsotericPhilosopher]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Or what's the point of it? Psychology is a grey area science anyway. 

Spend ten thousand pounds on hip replacements, and people get to walk again. Spend ten thousand counselling a suicidal patient, and there's every chance they will top themselves the following week. There really should be a proper assessment of the outlay/returns of mental health treatements. You can't spend the money twice. Ten grand spent on mental health means ten grand less on hips and hearts etc. If it's not working, it needs cutting out.

Where outcomes are good, that's where the money should go, regardless of the discipline.

The point of trying to fit human sexual inclinations into big-worded hypotheses escapes me. It's worked so far, without it. Here we are, the living proof. 

Very good questions.

Many health issues stem from an incapacity re people and situational management.

In fact, the word "depression" is a function of succumbing to "oppression" - i.e. inability to adequately manage people and situations.

Psychotic disorders are profound/extreme emotional dysregulation, again an inability to adequately process emotion and behaviourally apply oneself to manage/resolve personal/situational difficulties.

So what's the point?

The point from my point of view was quite simply - performance enhancement.

........

Emotion is mediated through neural impulses (as is everything we feel), therefore if we optimize our emotional process, by default we could stand to optimize our neural function.

Musculoskeletal performance is a downstream function of neural performance/integrity (as are the majority of physiological processes, hormones being another), therefore in optimizing emotional performance, we optimize physical/athletic performance.

.......

In relation to this topic - bridging the gender gap, as I outlined, doing so constitutes the reliable induction of male to female orgasm.

This to, is also mediated in neural performance - ability to stimulate someone else nerve endings - again determined through emotional proficiency.

That's what the intent is in relation to what's being explored - the means is determined, it's simply consolidating the explanation behind the means - that's the phase of the process I'm at.

Edited April 9, 2023 by EsotericPhilosopher

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

the reliable induction of male to female orgasm.

What do you mean by male to female orgasm? That's not a term I'm familiar with. 

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

From here it was simply a process of working through self instruction (cue application) progressions, to render the desired outcome - which was/is, spontaneous excitation induction in women, in much the same way as they can historically generate in men.

So, peeling away the pompous pseudoscience gibberish, this is another version of "how to turn on women and get laid."  LoL.

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What do you mean by male to female orgasm? That's not a term I'm familiar with. 

Making her come.  (SEE the diner scene in When Harry Met Sally)

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Making her come.  (SEE the diner scene in When Harry Met Sally)

Well, I'm all in favour of women faking an orgasm, so long as it doesn't interfere with mine. It saves a lot of bother. 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, EsotericPhilosopher said:

Just for clarity, a written paper is a concise summation of hundreds to thousands of pages of documentation. 

Said documentation is the "deductive" phase, and this is what I've done over the last 13 years, all the materials/methods as outlined above, social experimentation in a variety of fields, post-experimentation appraisal/documentation.

You really want me to link that crap?

I haven't written an actual paper yet, i.e. intro, materials/methods, results, etc., as - I'm still fine tuning the specifics (that is to say, the specifics of how to characterize, describe and define the nature of what has been done).

You see that diagram I linked above?

I was in the process of initiating discussion as to how that was deduced when y'all started calling for "peer review".

I'm not at that phase yet, as the ultimate paper hasn't been written. And I don't see the point in writing it until every last detail has been examined, scrutinized, 2nd guessed, clarified, and the optimal possible means to express/define those details as concise and comprehensively as possible has been determined.

Because that is what a paper must consist of, otherwise it may just be interpreted as rambling jargon.

But the "work", is done. 

The hard part, the part where concepts have been elucidated.

........

And that's the part I'd like to focus on here.

I don’t believe you. 
 

Anyone advancing a theory scientifically would be able to present the observations that the theory tries to account for.