Primal action in love

[Radu]

I was talking to a guy i knew today about the nature of modern dating.

It's a good thing that this thread is in this open minded forum because this is not PC.

 

Today i had an epiphany of sorts.

I was sitting on the throne [my best creative work is done there], thinking of a discussion i had with a friend and for some reason i reduced in my head either of the genders to one action.

The action of invasion, of conquering.

Where there is an invader, you need someone that is a 'victim' ... the invaded.

Where there is a conquerer, you need someone that is to be conquered.

 

Could it be that this is the basic primal nature of our genders ?

Men want to conquer. Some men interpret this as new territory, some other men interpret this as variations of the same territory.

Either way the basic primal need is to feel that they have conquered.

Women want to be conquered. Some women interpret this trying to constantly find the best conqueror, other women interpret this as being conquered by the same conqueror but in different ways over time.

 

Evolutionary psychologists might argue that our biologies are proof of this.

Men are designed to concentrate on one objective, on feeling the need to conquer, to be the first, they ejaculate fast [there are other aspects as well]. For men, conquering is a high in itself, they brag about what they conquered.

Women are passive in our mating rituals, they want men to approach, convince them. It takes either force [man forcing herself on her], persuasiveness [lying your ass off], or to see you as good stock for her to allow you inside.

By viewing the whole action reduced to the action of conquering and taking into account that our ancestors were probably not advanced in the way of seduction [lying], could it be that women have gotten conditioned to men being forcefull with them ?

 

It would be a new perspective on some male things :

- men surrounding themselves with bling and how it's interpreted

Not having the confidence that they can conquer on their own, they surround themselves with 'indicators' of their value.

They use this as a sure-fire way to conquer those that can be easily had.

- for some men, this would explain their insecurity in dating, and inability to connect to women as being afraid to externalise that primal desire

I have this picture of a guy who is walking down the street, hunched over a bit, afraid of looking ppl in the eye, stealing a glance and then immediately looking down [i've seen such men].

The few men i know who are like this have a history of losing, so they put that block between their primal nature and the outside world, to prevent their ego from getting hurt ... yet again.

Or they just plain accept their lot in life to be down there, and are afraid of inciting the ire of those they see as their 'superiors' by mimicking their behaviour.

- sex in those sessions where the man/woman goes full animal

I have this image of a guy who is slightly taller than his woman [leave the heightism at the door], looking her in the eye while slamming her against the wall and taking her.

Or it could be something different of the same recipe, of complete surrender with complete conquering.

One of the most popular women's fantasy is the strong male who dominates her completely, ripping clothes, taking what he wants, not taking an interest in the woman's pleasure and not caring about her [or raping her].

Interestingly, one fantasy of men is this very same fantasy but from the opposite direction, with him being the agressor.

- inner game in PUA stuff and what it could mean to any type of relationship [work ones too]

Knowing that you can conquer and holding onto that memory of one time conquering, tapping into the primal desire can help you out when flirting.

Or in any other type of interactions it can be considered confidence.

A while back i noticed a huge improvement in flirting when i took some advice and pictured myself as a carnivorous animal looking at a gazelle who will be prey. I allowed myself to picture the gazelle's eyes, and how they looked hypnotized when she realises what will happen.

There was an improvement and my body language turned more ... confident, like i was certain of the outcome.

Now i'm thinking that for a split second i internalized a much larger truth about our species, though in a forced way.

- penetration.

Thinking back on it, i remember that when i had these quickies where we both allowed our primal nature to take charge of us, the very act of repeated penetration was incredibly enticing.

It was like in my mind the closeness of our bonding was replaced with the desire to feel and even see the act of penetration.

One could argue that 'lovemaking' is about bonding at the deepest level, while this primal charge sex is all about forcefull taking.

- the perrennial AFC [nice guy].

It's no secret that a woman won't love a guy she can't respect.

Could respect come from this primitive action of taking, respecting a man's ability of taking ?

The Average Frustrated Chump won't get respected because he can't be a taker, he cut himself off from this primitive side of him.

This would also make the whole PUA crap fall into 2 sides, the side that says 'peacock yourself up' or the side that says 'believe in yourself and externalise it'. Most guys are into the former.

 

When i had the conqueror/conquered realisation, i also tried in that instant to see how it feels to be the conquered one.

It wasn't long, but a wave of what if's hit me.

What if i will get hurt, what if i get taken advantage off, what if ...

Ladies is this how it feels ?

Is this how it feels when a guy has to gain your confidence for the act of penetration ?

Does it feel like you are completely vulnerable, and you give yourself to that person knowing that he won't hurt you ?

For a second i thought 'damn right' when i imagined those women who advocate making the guy wait untill the 6th date [sorry guys].

Casual sex or ONS also felt from this perspective as if i increased my risks of getting hurt.

Is this how it feels ?

 

I'm not a woman, but if you are one and you understand what i'm trying to say here, feeling like the prey, feeling like the conquered, tapping into that primal instinct deep within you, pls post and give examples [not specific, general ones like the ones above].

I would love to hear from those of you that are not in your '20's, have an open mind, and some experience.

 

PS: I mentioned the word 'rape' up there.

It is not meant to mean that rape in our modern society is not a horrible crime, because it is, one that should be punished to the full extent of the law.

This is just to make it clear, i would prefer no discussion on this.

[florence of suburbia]

I'd like to revisit this thread later, but for now I'll just say -- this is the reason a relationship may not work if the female takes the aggressor role and makes the first approach. As women, we think, "If he doesn't desire me enough to chase me, there's not enough there."

[CarrieT]

Reposted with paragraph breaks to make it easier to read...

 

 

I was talking to a guy i knew today about the nature of modern dating.

It's a good thing that this thread is in this open minded forum because this is not PC.

 

Today i had an epiphany of sorts.

I was sitting on the throne [my best creative work is done there], thinking of a discussion i had with a friend and for some reason i reduced in my head either of the genders to one action.

 

The action of invasion, of conquering.

 

Where there is an invader, you need someone that is a 'victim' ... the invaded.

 

Where there is a conquerer, you need someone that is to be conquered.

 

Could it be that this is the basic primal nature of our genders ?

Men want to conquer. Some men interpret this as new territory, some other men interpret this as variations of the same territory.

Either way the basic primal need is to feel that they have conquered.

Women want to be conquered. Some women interpret this trying to constantly find the best conqueror, other women interpret this as being conquered by the same conqueror but in different ways over time.

 

Evolutionary psychologists might argue that our biologies are proof of this.

Men are designed to concentrate on one objective, on feeling the need to conquer, to be the first, they ejaculate fast [there are other aspects as well]. For men, conquering is a high in itself, they brag about what they conquered.

Women are passive in our mating rituals, they want men to approach, convince them. It takes either force [man forcing herself on her], persuasiveness [lying your ass off], or to see you as good stock for her to allow you inside.

 

By viewing the whole action reduced to the action of conquering and taking into account that our ancestors were probably not advanced in the way of seduction [lying], could it be that women have gotten conditioned to men being forcefull with them ?

 

It would be a new perspective on some male things :

 

- men surrounding themselves with bling and how it's interpreted

Not having the confidence that they can conquer on their own, they surround themselves with 'indicators' of their value.

They use this as a sure-fire way to conquer those that can be easily had.

 

- for some men, this would explain their insecurity in dating, and inability to connect to women as being afraid to externalise that primal desire. I have this picture of a guy who is walking down the street, hunched over a bit, afraid of looking ppl in the eye, stealing a glance and then immediately looking down [i've seen such men].

 

The few men i know who are like this have a history of losing, so they put that block between their primal nature and the outside world, to prevent their ego from getting hurt ... yet again. Or they just plain accept their lot in life to be down there, and are afraid of inciting the ire of those they see as their 'superiors' by mimicking their behaviour.

 

- sex in those sessions where the man/woman goes full animal

I have this image of a guy who is slightly taller than his woman [leave the heightism at the door], looking her in the eye while slamming her against the wall and taking her. Or it could be something different of the same recipe, of complete surrender with complete conquering.

 

One of the most popular women's fantasy is the strong male who dominates her completely, ripping clothes, taking what he wants, not taking an interest in the woman's pleasure and not caring about her [or raping her]. Interestingly, one fantasy of men is this very same fantasy but from the opposite direction, with him being the agressor.

 

- inner game in PUA stuff and what it could mean to any type of relationship [work ones too]. Knowing that you can conquer and holding onto that memory of one time conquering, tapping into the primal desire can help you out when flirting.

 

Or in any other type of interactions it can be considered confidence.

A while back i noticed a huge improvement in flirting when i took some advice and pictured myself as a carnivorous animal looking at a gazelle who will be prey. I allowed myself to picture the gazelle's eyes, and how they looked hypnotized when she realises what will happen.

 

There was an improvement and my body language turned more ... confident, like i was certain of the outcome. Now i'm thinking that for a split second i internalized a much larger truth about our species, though in a forced way.

 

- penetration.

Thinking back on it, i remember that when i had these quickies where we both allowed our primal nature to take charge of us, the very act of repeated penetration was incredibly enticing. It was like in my mind the closeness of our bonding was replaced with the desire to feel and even see the act of penetration. One could argue that 'lovemaking' is about bonding at the deepest level, while this primal charge sex is all about forcefull taking.

 

- the perrennial AFC [nice guy].

It's no secret that a woman won't love a guy she can't respect.

Could respect come from this primitive action of taking, respecting a man's ability of taking ? The Average Frustrated Chump won't get respected because he can't be a taker, he cut himself off from this primitive side of him. This would also make the whole PUA crap fall into 2 sides, the side that says 'peacock yourself up' or the side that says 'believe in yourself and externalise it'. Most guys are into the former.

 

When i had the conqueror/conquered realisation, i also tried in that instant to see how it feels to be the conquered one. It wasn't long, but a wave of what if's hit me. What if i will get hurt, what if i get taken advantage off, what if ...

 

Ladies is this how it feels ?

Is this how it feels when a guy has to gain your confidence for the act of penetration ? Does it feel like you are completely vulnerable, and you give yourself to that person knowing that he won't hurt you ?

 

For a second i thought 'damn right' when i imagined those women who advocate making the guy wait untill the 6th date [sorry guys].

 

Casual sex or ONS also felt from this perspective as if i increased my risks of getting hurt.

 

Is this how it feels ?

 

I'm not a woman, but if you are one and you understand what i'm trying to say here, feeling like the prey, feeling like the conquered, tapping into that primal instinct deep within you, pls post and give examples [not specific, general ones like the ones above].

 

I would love to hear from those of you that are not in your '20's, have an open mind, and some experience.

 

PS: I mentioned the word 'rape' up there.

It is not meant to mean that rape in our modern society is not a horrible crime, because it is, one that should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

This is just to make it clear, i would prefer no discussion on this.

 

 

I will add that I'm not sure what you are looking for, Radu. You are asking questions, but finishing your treatise with "I would prefer no discussion...."

 

What do you want?

[florence of suburbia]

I will add that I'm not sure what you are looking for, Radu. You are asking questions, but finishing your treatise with "I would prefer no discussion...."

 

What do you want?

 

I think he just didn't want to discuss the rape angle.

[CarrieT]

I think he just didn't want to discuss the rape angle.

 

Ah, thank you. But for me, the rape angle is part-and-parcel of the discussion...

[Radu]

Yeah, by that i meant that i would prefer the discussion not degenerate in focusing on one single thing at the expense of the bigger picture.

 

LE: I re-read it, the 'rape' part was about something different that was part of the initial draft that i eventually took out.

I can't edit it, and tbh ... i got a headache trying to keep myself in that mindstate.

 

It's also ironic this is the 6th post and i am taking the thread off-topic.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Radu