Why do men and women get together.

[♠Soul♠]

When you think about it, men and women are so different. You can't expect them to understand each other, and there's always conflict based on  misunderstandings. The fact that there exists literal manuals having to teach you about one another is as silly as it gets... and it makes you wonder, nature dropped the ball, didn't it? Do you think men and women would even interact, if not for having sex?

[Original Alear]

I don't like men either.

EDIT-Actually I like some of both.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Original Johan Liebert

[AnonymousSpeed]

Don't be an incel, Soul.

I mean, no offense, but the fact that men and women are different is the point. They're complimentary. Ya can't just hang out with people who are exactly like you all the time.

[Dark Holy Elf]

40 minutes ago, ♠Soul♠ said:

When you think about it, men and women are so different. You can't expect them to understand each other, and there's always conflict based on  misunderstandings. The fact that there exists literal manuals having to teach you about one another is as silly as it gets... and it makes you wonder, nature dropped the ball, didn't it? Do you think men and women would even interact, if not for having sex?

I can't even imagine thinking you have one gender "figured out", but not the other. People are people.

Also gay men and gay women interact with people of the opposite gender all the time, never mind all the female/male friendships, family relationships, and work relationships that exist, so your hypothesis about needing sex to justify interactions is already disproven.

[♠Soul♠]

10 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Don't be an incel, Soul.

I mean, no offense, but the fact that men and women are different is the point. They're complimentary. Ya can't just hang out with people who are exactly like you all the time.

It's not INCEL because I never complained or wondered or felt entitled to sex. This is just genuine curiousity, and I could be asexual and still wonder the same thing.

 

8 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

I can't even imagine thinking you have one gender "figured out", but not the other. People are people.

Also gay men and gay women interact with people of the opposite gender all the time, never mind all the female/male friendships, family relationships, and work relationships that exist, so your hypothesis about needing sex to justify interactions is already disproven.

But gay men and women do have something in common, and it's that they both like men.

[Armchair General]

59 minutes ago, ♠Soul♠ said:

But gay men and women do have something in common, and it's that they both like men.

That's more or less the only thing that they have in common, FWIW.

[null]

Variety is the spice of life. Our differences as human beings have the potential to bring us together as much as our similarities do, regardless of gender, etc.

[♠Soul♠]

I just think it's a funny joke from the gawds.

[ping]

[Belisarius]

a member of the opposite sex is just a person with a different perspective than you. you can have conflict based on misunderstandings with anyone, you're just more likely to make a bigger deal about it if it was someone of the opposite sex because you may have considered them a potential partner before the misunderstanding. so yeah, people are people like dark holy elf said.

[Sidereal Wraith]

People seek intimacy, trying to find someone that they can spend the rest of their life with. As someone who was in a relationship which lasted over half a decade it was gratifying to be able to come home and to be able to open up to someone without fear of being ridiculed. I think that’s what people ultimately seek, love, to be able to activity let someone into your world and to be accepted  for who you are. Then again my ex stabbed me in the back and caused the thing I think is my heart to become shattered on the floor, so I don’t put much stock in romantic love anymore.

[Jotari]

Honestly I question the evolutionary process why sexual dimorphism is so prevalent. Seems like it would be much more advantageous for any member of the species to be able to copulate with any other member of the species. Flatworms manage to do it that way.

[Original Alear]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

Honestly I question the evolutionary process why sexual dimorphism is so prevalent. Seems like it would be much more advantageous for any member of the species to be able to copulate with any other member of the species. Flatworms manage to do it that way.

Some organisms are capable of asexual reproduction, but I don't think any animals or plants are. Maybe sexual dimorphism evolved because offspring were more difficult to care for, and making it more difficult to have children reduced the change of unsustainable overpopulation (I really don't know). In observation of humanity's economic history, it's sometimes said that children have become more expensive to care for in more developed/modernized economies. However, it may have gone overboard in some cases, as it's also often said that we have a surplus of baby boomers when compared to younger generations, at least here in America. I believe that's also the case in Japan.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Original Johan Liebert

[Jotari]

39 minutes ago, Original Johan Liebert said:

Some organisms are capable of asexual reproduction, but I don't think any animals or plants are. Maybe sexual dimorphism evolved because offspring were more difficult to care for, and making it more difficult to have children reduced the change of unsustainable overpopulation (I really don't know). In observation of humanity's economic history, it's sometimes said that children have become more expensive to care for in more developed/modernized economies. However, it may have gone overboard in some cases, as it's also often said that we have a surplus of baby boomers when compared to younger generations, at least here in America. I believe that's also the case in Japan.

Yo loads of plants can asexually reproduce, ibwould even say the majority. You never hear of a cutting? As for animals, I know bees and other such hive animals can reproduce asexually, usually that being the worker bees (in other words thebqueen can make eggs both with and without the genetic material of a mate).

[Original Alear]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Yo loads of plants can asexually reproduce, ibwould even say the majority. You never hear of a cutting? As for animals, I know bees and other such hive animals can reproduce asexually, usually that being the worker bees (in other words thebqueen can make eggs both with and without the genetic material of a mate).

I thought that for plants it's just 1/2 of their reproduction cycle or something. But don't feel compelled to dig into a discussion with me if you think I'm way off base. And oh, I didn't know that worker bees could do that, thanks for letting me know.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Original Johan Liebert

[Jotari]

42 minutes ago, Original Johan Liebert said:

I thought that for plants it's just 1/2 of their reproduction cycle or something. But don't feel compelled to dig into a discussion with me if you think I'm way off base.

If you cut off a branch of a plant and stick it in the ground it will survive and becomes a new plant. Kind of like if you chopped off your arm and left it there and it grew a new person. Like that one time on doctor who. Yeah, plants are time meta crisis tenth doctors.

Quote

And oh, I didn't know that worker bees could do that, thanks for letting me know.

Well the Queen does it. It is done to the Worker Bees. But yeah, Queen Bees can basically make little clones of herself to do her bidding. A bit like King Piccolo.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Jotari

[Original Alear]

Kind of like if you chopped off your arm and left it there and it grew a new person.

I don't want a new person growing off the arm I'm chopping off though, I want a new person growing from my arm stump.
[smtivlucifer.jpg]

[Interdimensional Observer]

On 6/3/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jotari said:

If you cut off a branch of a plant and stick it in the ground it will survive and becomes a new plant.

Or you can graft two plants together. This I was reading a few weeks ago was what saved the wine industry from total annihilation in the 1860s-1880s. French wine production shrank by  nearly half in two decades' time IIRC.

Phylloxera, tiny bugs that bite into grapevine roots, came to Europe from their native North America. Old World grapevines had no resistance to phylloxera attacks and wiped out vineyard after vineyard, in part carried by migratory agricultural laborers who tracked dirt from one vineyard to the next one.

Phylloxera ate grapevines, because eastern North America had its own native grape varieties which the pests had snacked on. These grapes which colonial and early postcolonial US had tried every so often to turn into quality wine (they all miserably failed until the mid-1800s, and even then Old World wine vines were preferred), had evolved over time to withstand phylloxera attacks. 

Therefore, the solution was to graft Old World grapevines onto New World grape roots, since the roots were the only part the phylloxera attacked. This provided millennia of GMO-free resistance, while the grapes that came from these chimeras of viticulture were centuries-old 100% European AAA five-star French-AOC-approved not that the system had been invented yet wine grapes. Some Frenchmen were paranoid about contaminating French purity with American filth and refused to graft, while poorer grape growers couldn't afford the rootstocks. Nonetheless, this was adopted by winemakers in France, Spain, Italy and Germany as the primary defense against a plague of epochal proportions. It worked.

🍇🍷