Potato Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 That men are pre-wired to spread their seed far and wide is chump talk. A man of substance isn’t about to dilute his genetic makeup with an inferior woman as he tends to expect that his children will do better than him. Thus, he will only plant his seed in a woman of substance, which is well as a woman of substance prefers the best genetic qualities in her children. A chump, an inferior man on the other hand is only interested in reproducing with little thought as to quality as he is typically lacking the intelligence and upbringing to truly see a higher quality in humans. Thus he will plant his seed anywhere the opportunity arises out of the odd chance that something other than the same ole, same ole arises. An inferior woman, likewise, is more interested in producing offspring rather than looking to quality. This explains the social/economical differences in society. The upper classes tend to have less children, and having more resources and a better understanding of what it takes to produce a quality person devotes more energy and resources to each child. The lower classes tend to have more children, more out of wedlock children, and those parent, regardless of their affections for their children tend to be rather negligent in seeing to each child’s development. To say that one is pre-wired to spread his seed far and wide is not any different than saying that one will have sex with literally anyone and anything.
Ponzoli Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Potato, we are all genetically hard wired to respond to certain stimuli in a pre-determined manner and to desire the acquisition of certain resources. Human beings are like any other species, that is to say that we are nothing more than lumps of genetic material blindly/mindlessly seeking to replicate itself. "World War II only proves one thing-the Good Guys don't always win."
Trialbyfire Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Potato, we are all genetically hard wired to respond to certain stimuli in a pre-determined manner and to desire the acquisition of certain resources. Human beings are like any other species, that is to say that we are nothing more than lumps of genetic material blindly/mindlessly seeking to replicate itself. "World War II only proves one thing-the Good Guys don't always win." What did you mean by that last statement?
Trialbyfire Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 "World War II only proves one thing-the Good Guys don't always win." I'm bumping this with the hopes that Ponzoli will explain this statement.
woodsfield Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 i spread fescue seed today in hopes that it would rain.
shadowofman Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Human sexual evolution is not that simple. We evolved from a species that was completely promiscuous. All members of the tribe had sex with all other members. Men did not know which children were theirs, so they tolerated all of them. Human brain development caused our babies to be born more and more helpless (as opposed to chimp babies that can do much more at birth). This prolonged helplessness cause humans to form pair bonds, where a woman would be insured that she had a partner to raise her child. This was not an easy transition I'm sure, and I would argue that we are still trying to force it. The point is, we still have the tendencies to be promiscuous. Also, there are no true monogamous species on the planet. Just about every "thought to be" monogamous species, where heredity has been tested, shows a very high cuckold rate. We are highly adapted cheaters. P.S. I agree that the good guys lost WWII. And that would be the Spanish. The only good guys in the whole damn war.
roxy_1980 Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 No matter what genetic and hormones tell you, it does not get you off the hook if you cheat. I am assuming that everyone can reason and think for themselves, so if you cheat on the person you have made promises it still makes you a retch of a human being. Biology does provide inclinations, but you are ultimately in control of your own actions. Promises of fidelity are social contracts, if you choose to break them, so be it. But don't hide behind natural selection and evolution to excuse your bad behaviour.
Cobra_X30 Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I'm bumping this with the hopes that Ponzoli will explain this statement. I'm assuming that was a reference to the soviet union!
shadowofman Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 No matter what genetic and hormones tell you, it does not get you off the hook if you cheat. I am assuming that everyone can reason and think for themselves, so if you cheat on the person you have made promises it still makes you a retch of a human being. Couldn't agree more. The problem with cheating is that someone lied. What I am defending is biological inclination toward promiscuity. Not cheating. It just so happens that cheating is easier than being an out of the closet promiscuous person. Promiscuity is demonized in western culture. Even by other promiscuous people. Example: I am not a cheater. I don't want to be a cheater. But I tell my wife that I want to have sex with other people. I tell her that I think about it all the time. I tell her that I crave a variety of sexual partners. And people call me an *******. I think that the honesty makes me the opposite.
Trialbyfire Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 I'm assuming that was a reference to the soviet union! Refer to his other thread. No, it's not.
Saxis Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Refer to his other thread. No, it's not. 10,000 posts? Congrats TBF! I've been staying away from this thread.... I just don't like the idea of promiscuity... I've only been with one woman, which will probably never happen again. I always thought that promiscuity was mostly tied to the religious types (which I am not.... at all), but I guess I was wrong. It was so exciting to be with only one person. Unfortunately, she didn't feel the same way, and now I'm just stuck here, waiting to get beyond it all...
roxy_1980 Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 The same can also apply to promiscuity though. With the prevalence of disease, having several sexual partners that they themselves have several sexual partners increases your risk of permanent disease exponentially with each successive partner. I am saying this as a public health worker who has worked on researching the emerging strains of Herpes viruses. When you are cycling through alot of partners, there is rarely the discussion of STD test results and risk behaviours. Even if testing was done, they cannot always be trusted, since the concentration of viruses in the human body can take several weeks or even months to be chemically detectable. The cavalier attitude that accompanies promiscuity puts both the individual and their future partners at risk. Again, here's where reasoning and self-control come into play.
Author Potato Posted October 19, 2007 Author Posted October 19, 2007 Potato, we are all genetically hard wired to respond to certain stimuli in a pre-determined manner and to desire the acquisition of certain resources. Human beings are like any other species, that is to say that we are nothing more than lumps of genetic material blindly/mindlessly seeking to replicate itself. So you are saying that you are just a machine unable to decide for your self how to live your life?
ItIs Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Good response about the thread topic, shadowofman, but what was so great about the Franco regime? I think the good guys were the Polish, and look what that got them. Biology does provide inclinations, but you are ultimately in control of your own actions. Promises of fidelity are social contracts, if you choose to break them, so be it. But don't hide behind natural selection and evolution to excuse your bad behaviour. Good point. If you don't mean it, it's not proper to do it.
shadowofman Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 No, not Franco, but the anarachists that he crushed. Only because the commies sold them out. And of course the capitalists wanted nothing to do with them. George Orwell's "Homage to Calalonia" is the story of his person part in fighting for the anarachist free state. Good point. If you don't mean it, it's not proper to do it. There are a couple reasons why a promiscuous person might enter into a "social contract" like a mongamous realtionship and not hold up their end of the bargin. One, they think they can be monogamous (easy to do in the honeymoon phase of the relationship) and they have no will power to stop themselves from cheating. Maybe they think monogamy is the only way to live due to a preconceived religious upbringing. Two, they know they are promiscuous and knowingly lie about their ability to be mongamous (usually this person demands a monogamy from their SO, while has no intention of holding up their end). I find this to be the more common of the men that I have encountered.
Ponzoli Posted October 19, 2007 Posted October 19, 2007 Well the issue of free will will get me off on another rant, so before I immerse myself in that topic, let me just say that my original post was simply mean to convey the universal truth that as a species of animal, we are driven by the same blind instincts to survive. At the end of the day, all of those instincts (primarily the instinct to A: survive and B: ensure the continued existence of our genetic material by successfully reproducing) basically drive our entire lives in the same direction toward the same end. At the end of the day, there is no difference between two people "making love" (yet another euphemism our species uses to divorce us from our "lower bred" animal counterparts) and two dogs engaging in sexual conduct in an alley. Same exact instincts, same exact drives, same exact results.
MikeChurdh Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 I would have to agree with ShadowofaMan on this one. HE brought up some excellent points in his thread above.
uniqueone Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 I find it interesting that we're combining talk of World War II with promiscuity. Next, I'd like to add a recipe for spinach casserole here..... So ShadowofaMan, how do you feel about a woman spreading it around? And why is it that we have so many negative words in our language for a woman doing that??? :confused: What's the first things that men call a woman who "spreads it around"? And what is your purpose for your argument that their natural inclination is to be promiscuous? You said that you believe that cheating and lieing are wrong. So, I'm not getting your point. You're not indicating that men should PRACTICE their biologically driven urges...so what exactly are you saying?
SoHotZanzibar Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Look, lets keep it real. It's ok for men to spread it around. thats how men are. Men will be men. Deal with it. A woman that 'spreads it around' is really nothing more than a slut. They should have more self respect than that.
uniqueone Posted October 20, 2007 Posted October 20, 2007 Look, lets keep it real. It's ok for men to spread it around. thats how men are. Men will be men. Deal with it. A woman that 'spreads it around' is really nothing more than a slut. They should have more self respect than that. A little bit blatant in your quest for provocation there, aren't ya?
shadowofman Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 SoHotZanzibar, I couldn't loathe a single perspective more. So ShadowofaMan, how do you feel about a woman spreading it around? My personal feelings are the same for men and women. I support promiscuity far all promiscuous people regardless of gender. And why is it that we have so many negative words in our language for a woman doing that??? Two traditional reasons I can think of: Christianity (Western religions) and a male dominated culture (traditionally male dominated)! Both are things that I am venomously opposed to. What's the first things that men call a woman who "spreads it around"? Slut! But to me this has a different intent than someone like SoHot. Being promiscuous has nothing to do with self-respect; only your choice of partners effects your personal safety. I use slut as a synonym for sexy, but that's just me as a promiscuous feminist male. And what is your purpose for your argument that their natural inclination is to be promiscuous? You said that you believe that cheating and lieing are wrong. So, I'm not getting your point. You're not indicating that men should PRACTICE their biologically driven urges...so what exactly are you saying? In a nut shell, what I'm saying is that cheating is a social phenomena that is all pervasive in all monogamous cultures and some polyamorous cultures. This is not ideal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But it is a horrible byproduct of our evolutionary past and something that we are all having to deal with. Cheating and lying are wrong. Entering into a social contract and then violating it, with the intent to or not, is wrong. My only suggestion for this horrible situation is for everyone to first, understand their sexual orientations and be honest about them (see my Thesis on Sexual Identity Thread), and second only enter socal contracts that you can fullfill. That's hard enough (everyone knows I have failed). I've outline several reasons that people do not do this already. People are ashamed to be openly promiscuous for various reasons. People don't understand that promiscuousness IS a sexual orientation that can't be suppressed. And of course there are real *******s out there. You know, the ones that are practicing cheaters, yet demand fidelity from their partners.
uniqueone Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 SoHotZanzibar, I couldn't loathe a single perspective more. My personal feelings are the same for men and women. I support promiscuity far all promiscuous people regardless of gender. Two traditional reasons I can think of: Christianity (Western religions) and a male dominated culture (traditionally male dominated)! Both are things that I am venomously opposed to. Slut! But to me this has a different intent than someone like SoHot. Being promiscuous has nothing to do with self-respect; only your choice of partners effects your personal safety. I use slut as a synonym for sexy, but that's just me as a promiscuous feminist male. In a nut shell, what I'm saying is that cheating is a social phenomena that is all pervasive in all monogamous cultures and some polyamorous cultures. This is not ideal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But it is a horrible byproduct of our evolutionary past and something that we are all having to deal with. Cheating and lying are wrong. Entering into a social contract and then violating it, with the intent to or not, is wrong. My only suggestion for this horrible situation is for everyone to first, understand their sexual orientations and be honest about them (see my Thesis on Sexual Identity Thread), and second only enter socal contracts that you can fullfill. That's hard enough (everyone knows I have failed). I've outline several reasons that people do not do this already. People are ashamed to be openly promiscuous for various reasons. People don't understand that promiscuousness IS a sexual orientation that can't be suppressed. And of course there are real *******s out there. You know, the ones that are practicing cheaters, yet demand fidelity from their partners. I don't have any desire to be promiscous. So does this make me a freak of nature then?
KittenMoon Posted October 22, 2007 Posted October 22, 2007 I don't have any desire to be promiscous. So does this make me a freak of nature then? Me either, so you're not the only one! This genetic predisposition stuff is all hooey. Everybody is different- we're influenced by an inseperable mix of genetics, upbringing, experience, and straight out personality. Everbody desires different things from their partner(s). In the end, regardless of your "predisipositions" you should take responsibility for whatever actions you CHOOSE to take.
Author Potato Posted October 22, 2007 Author Posted October 22, 2007 At the end of the day, there is no difference between two people "making love" (yet another euphemism our species uses to divorce us from our "lower bred" animal counterparts) and two dogs engaging in sexual conduct in an alley. Same exact instincts, same exact drives, same exact results. No it isn’t. Look, lets keep it real. It's ok for men to spread it around. thats how men are. Men will be men. Deal with it. Men are not all the same. I guess some of us are just more evolved. Having studied the phenomenon of pick-up artists and their point of view making it into the mainstream, I’ve come to see a flaw in the logic. Typically the pick-up artist well get a lot of women to sleep with him but he will never establish a lasting relationship and when he tries, fails miserably. The pick-up artist fancies himself as a manly man that doesn’t take crap from women, when in reality, he is just being used by the same slvt that all the other pick-up artists are picking up. That is, a pick-up artist is not at all a desirable mate, just another penis to play with. On the other hand, a man who is genuinely honorable, successful, good looking, confident, cultured… He will never stoop to the clownish antics of a pick-up artist. Women will naturally be drawn to him, dream about him, fall for him because he truly is a man worthy of her affections, a man who could produce, with her, the best possible children. Case in point. Brad Pitt. Possibly the most desired man in the world. He could literally have sex with thousands upon thousands of women if he so chose. Yet he lives his life in a rather monogamous way. Throughout my life, over the last 30 years, I have had opportunity with literally hundreds of women, yet I have had sex with only a little under two dozen, all of whom I had meaningful, long lasting relationships. Though I’ve not been strictly monogamous (some of these relationships have overlapped each other) I have never slept with a woman just to have sex. It has always been in the context of a relationship. It is not by choice, it is because that is how I am. And, to reiterate, those men who think that men are programmed to spread their seed far and wide tend to be inferior, insecure men who clownishly chase wh0res.
Recommended Posts