[pwnstigator]

Study 4 showed that women rated a man driving a Porsche Boxster as more attractive for a short-term sexual relationship than a man driving a Honda Civic.

The fact that women are even capable of conceiving of short-term sexual relationships is a sign that our society is impotent and dying.

[pwnstigator]

This was voted down why, exactly?

Everyone knows I'm right. A society that fails to impel people to better themselves is next to useless.

[lionhearted]

> This was voted down why, exactly?

It might be from the combination of proof-by-assertion and people disagree with you. Take your first comment:

"The fact that women are even capable of conceiving of short-term sexual relationships is a sign that our society is impotent and dying."

See, I'm not sure that's quite right, but I'm always open to being convinced. If you cited, for instance, the fall of Rome when making your point, or GDP per capita growth in traditional/modern societies, or population growth rates, well you might make a point. Instead you're just asserting that you're right.

> Everyone knows I'm right.

Like that. That doesn't work so well. Data, evidence, argument, counterargument. You've actually got some good arguments on your side - replacement rate in population growth, birthrates of the Islamic world vs. the rest of the world, and so on. I just got a copy of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and I think Gibbons points to changes in Roman family life as one of the big causes. So, you could probably make a really interesting and nuanced argument that challenged our beliefs and made us think more.

Now, it goes against a lot of people here's base views, so it would likely receive mixed feedback, but it would definitely get some positive points and discussion going. Heck, I'd be up for reading and discussing with you if you made those arguments because I'm not sold either way on what's going to happen to modern society 100 years out - it's a fascinating and interesting topic. I think data, citations, research, books, and a more flushed out argument and you could really make some interesting points and get some good discussion going.

[pwnstigator]

Cross-cultural study shows us that monogamy is required for a stable, future-oriented, low-violence society. No non-monogamous society has managed to achieve a fraction of what predominantly monogamous ones have, and civilizations become more monogamous (by necessity) as they develop.

The danger of accepting and encouraging casual sexuality is that it inexorably leads to strong-man polygamy and the subjugation of women, which most people would consider a regression.

[whimsy]

This assertion is relevant to my interests. Do you have references to these studies?

[pwmanagerdied]

'cause your name makes it clear you're trolling? =V

[pwnstigator]

I'm not trolling. I am annoyed to see copious downvoting with minimal response or discussion.

[orborde]

You provided no evidence to back up your point originally, and so it came off as a drive-by "I am an anti-feminist troglodyte who is either trolling or hopelessly incapable of thought" comment; both cases merit a downvote.

[pwnstigator]

You consider me "anti-feminist" why? Casual sex and strong-man polygamy are about as anti-feminist as it gets, rooted in the concept of women as a resource to be sexually exploited.

[orborde]

I was not saying anything about your actual beliefs; I was talking about what your brief, context-free zinger seems to convey. Without further explanation, most people assume you're a troll; more explanation on your part would have at least prevented people like me from misunderstanding.