Procreation only comes behind not dying in our list of biological prerogatives. Avoiding being a "douchebag" involves controlling these impulses. Suggesting men have a sex-drive is a not an example of the typical-mind-fallacy.

If--if--I grant your premise that biological perspectives are significant in this discussion, I think that procreation and long-term reproductive goals aren't the same things at all. Procreation is short-term; create the possibility of a lineage and you've "succeeded". Humans don't work like that; we are eusocial animals with complex communities; "impregnate and move on" is not an evolutionary tendency we embody.

That said, your premise is invalid. Biological prerogatives are not significant in the not-even-slightly-sexually-premised interactions between members of the 21st century tech community with career motivations and numerous other factors at work that evolution did not prepare them for. Saying that "biological prerogatives" are a significant factor here is like saying that a lemur let loose in a supermarket would be drawn to product branding based on how likely a given brand was to help the lemur secure a mate--too many factors have changed for simple parallels to be drawn.

Edit: spelling, I still keep forgetting this isn't markdown.

Biological perspectives are relevant in any discussion involving human behavior. We are biological organisms, our mood and behavior are governed by chemical responses in our brain.

  I guess we are in tech so we should be able to suppress all the impulses, desires, and feelings that have been carved into us over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

Its pretty obvious to all that a generalization is just that. By definition it doesn't include the entire population. The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive doesn't make anyone a doucebag - it makes them a straight/bi male. Not all of us, but a pretty good chunk. And to be clear I'm not including egregious things like unsolicited dick pics as "hitting on a woman." But good for you if you've never wanted to let a woman know you were interested while in conversation with her. How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.

> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.

Some people--a lot of people--just don't have those thoughts. That doesn't make them better or worse than people who do; both can do good, or harmful things. I think the point of GP's comment was that there are many of people out there who simply don't feel that way.

There are a lot of ways that might play out: they might not be attracted to others until someone is attracted to them; they might be attracted, but have no automatic desire to turn that into action/hitting on people; they might not be attracted to others period, et cetera.

> The urge to hit on a woman you find attractive ... makes [you] a straight/bi male

You're still assuming the two go hand in hand. Your impressions might be confirmation/selection bias: people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less obvious to you (insofar as they are competition for people you find attractive), and are also likely less inclined to jump into public discussions on the subject, given that a lack of sexual aggression is, in many demographics/situations, a basis for shaming.

Edit: punctuation.

>people who don't have the urge to hit on people they find attractive are going to be less...

No, I'm listening to women. I'm watching the cat call videos. There are lots of guys out there that have these thoughts. What percentage they are? I don't know and don't really care because it doesn't matter. They exist. Period. Saying as much doesn't harm anyone. Not saying so does.

My original message stands; if you feel like being an asshole to a woman, resist it - be decent.

> How saintly of you to never have such a lurid thought.

I have lots of lurid thoughts. I also have enough respect and self control to not blurt them out. I've managed to interact with many women without overtly showing that I find them sexually appealing. Remarkable in this age of entitlement, isn't it?

Serious post: It's possible you have low testosterone levels. Annual testosterone checks are an important medical precaution for men, as decreased levels can be caused by serious medical conditions.

If I'm not a raging douchebag, I might be low on testosterone? I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that's how I'm reading in light of the original comment. Serious question to a serious post: do you have anything more concrete on which to base one's decision to get checked?

I logged in just so I could tell the parent commenter off... Then I got distracted writing up a reply to someone about the Damore memo, which referenced how 'conservatives' seem obsessed with biology and base all their nonsense on a simplistic understanding of such. And now this guy....

I have higher than average testosterone levels, always have, and I'm 48 now. And I wouldn't do something this stupid - it is all about context. And understanding how women operate (duh).

If someone messaged me asking for tech related advice, I'd freely give it and not try to do something out of the psychosocial boundary lines. If the interaction develops, then you and her are starting a relationship (generic use of the word). Time goes on, you meet at some conference etc... then you can appropriately gauge what your chances are and possibly will have more of a chance b/c 1) you have shown you're not an idiot and 2) women control the personal sphere of life - they grok relationships better. Play by their rules (ish, sort of) and things go much better.

Dumbasses don't understand the dance that goes on. This guy's behavior is exactly equivalent to asking every woman at a bar if they want to fuck. The ones who say yes are the ones more likely to have daddy issues etc and no one in their right mind deliberately goes down that road except for douchebags

You came to this conclusion because he said he doesn't have the urge to "go for it" when he sees a female he finds attractive?

Not cool dude :D