Men prewired to spread seed?

[shadowofman]

No, I have not read it. Is it good?

See, I see this issue, the issue of sexual orientation and underestimation of it, as the most important issue on this forum as far as long term relationship problems are concerned.

All the cheating. All the lack of intimacy and lost libidos. All the ED (like in my case). I have felt all those ways before, hated myself for it, and decided I would figure out what was "wrong".

From all the problems that women are having with their men, I see this issue involved. Maybe I'm, you know, just seeing my theories all over the place, but it's so clear to me.

[IrishCarBomb]

The Moral Animal is about evolutionary psychology. It takes a Darwinian look at society and relationships. I'd recommend it.

 

Be wary of falling to confirmation bias. It's much easier to confirm what you want to know or think is right, than to see things for what they truly are.

[shadowofman]

I think that I am aware of that, but I also truely believe that this is a very sound theory. It will never explain why people can, cannot, do, or don't control themselves. If they care to or not. I just think that this is a very valuable looking glass into human sexuality. Worth mentioning in most cases.

[uniqueone]

I don't sleep with other people. I want to. But I'm not impusive like that.

All of this research comes after years of wondering why I want to sleep with other people, coupled with NO desire to go behind my W's back. I've had to ask myself a billion times,

"Why do I want to sleep with other people when I have an insanely hot W?"

Because, as the thread title suggests, my brain and genetic makeup makes me want to.

"Why do I fantasize about my wife sleeping with other people?"

Because it's a way for me to vicariously be promiscuous, through her.

How come most of the time, I uncontrollably imagine my wife giving head to another man or woman while I'm having sex with her? And how come when I try to suppress these thoughts my erection goes away?

Because I am promiscuously oriented. When I think I shouldn't be thinking these things, I get self concious, depressed, and that's not what keeps me erect. (By the way, I'm all better now. No ED cause I have accepted my desires as normal)

 

No one ever said you can't imagine your partner having sex with someone else with or without you involved. When do you learn that was forbidden? If you were THAT uptight, no wonder you had ED.

[uniqueone]

Oh, I definately try to occupy myself. I'm very into strategy games. I write. I read a lot. That is my "spiritual" medicine.

The problem is that I have a very demanding sex life with my W. After 5 years, we still have sex once, sometimes twice a day. She demands it (not that I'm complaining). She will seriously start throwing things if I hold out on her. This was an issue when I was going though a particularly depressing period. I thought there was something wrong with me mentally. That's why I have spent so much time on the psychology of human sexuality.

Read Alfred Kinsey. Freud. Hirshfeld. Desmond Morris. De Waul to learn the habits of chimps and bonobos. EO Wilson. Searched my own self. Observed the men an women around me. Came here to learn more. And I've learned so much. Just being here and debating people over human nature takes my mind off my unfullfilled sexual orientations.

 

 

You really seem waaaaaaaaayyyyy too preoccupied with sex. It almost sounds like an addiction.

[shadowofman]

No one ever said you can't imagine your partner having sex with someone else with or without you involved. When do you learn that was forbidden? If you were THAT uptight, no wonder you had ED.

But it's not just a fantasy. I want it to happen and I would try to make it happen. I am Promiscuously Inclined. I want it to happen just as badly as I want to have sex in the first place. I would love for her to be the same as me, or let me be me. The problem was that I had an overwelming urge to suggest this to her, during sex. Knowing how she would respond, I kept it bottled up and got depressed. Now we talk about this stuff outside of the bedroom. That way it doesn't ruin the sex.

You really seem waaaaaaaaayyyyy too preoccupied with sex. It almost sounds like an addiction.

 

Maybe. How do I judge that? I think that lots of people are about the same as me. I think I have a decent sex drive when I'm not depressed. My wife initiates sex more than me. For the past 5 or 6 years, we have been running on at least once per day.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rank myself an 8 for almost exclusively focused on sex. If I'm not doing something, I'm thinking about sex. "Sex Addict" is overused way to much, that being said, I wouldn't be too happy if I never got any more.

[DutchGuy]

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.

 

You're pretty full of it.

Talking about 'inferior people' .

 

I'll illustrate the matter by biological example.

The circumference of the base of the glans penis forms a rounded projecting border, the corona glandis, overhanging a deep retroglandular sulcus (the coronal sulcus).

The corona glandis is a sort of scraping tool, while moving back and forward during intercourse, the predecessor's seed is withdrawn from the vagina.

In evolution, men with a more distinct corona glandis (a bigger dick-head), would be more succesfull in reproducing than men without.

Seeing as how all men have a distinct corona nowadays, it's pretty safe to say that people tended to, and therefore (as it is inhereted from our ancestors) still tend to, sleep around.

 

Which doesn't mean that people should sleep around, it's just biologically explainable.

 

PS. If you don't believe in evolution just embrace the idea that god created the penis to be a scraping tool and take it from there.

[IrishCarBomb]

You're pretty full of it.

Talking about 'inferior people' .

 

I'll illustrate the matter by biological example.

The circumference of the base of the glans penis forms a rounded projecting border, the corona glandis, overhanging a deep retroglandular sulcus (the coronal sulcus).

The corona glandis is a sort of scraping tool, while moving back and forward during intercourse, the predecessor's seed is withdrawn from the vagina.

In evolution, men with a more distinct corona glandis (a bigger dick-head), would be more succesfull in reproducing than men without.

Seeing as how all men have a distinct corona nowadays, it's pretty safe to say that people tended to, and therefore (as it is inhereted from our ancestors) still tend to, sleep around.

 

Which doesn't mean that people should sleep around, it's just biologically explainable.

 

PS. If you don't believe in evolution just embrace the idea that god created the penis to be a scraping tool and take it from there.

 

So... there aren't "inferior people"... unless you have a less distinct corona glandis?

 

Looks to me like inferior is just used as an evolutionary term in the original post, not a term to denote that person's intrinsic value.

[shadowofman]

Not only are human penis' shaped in order to pull sperm out, but half of all human sperm is built to "search and destroy" other men's sperm. This is all from a time where all humans in a tribe were completely promiscuous. Just like chimps and bonobos are today. We evolved from a promiscous culture, though a rainbow of variations, to the psuedo-monogamous culture we have today in the West. Most of these cultures were male dominated, polyamorous (or harems type cultures).

You have to ask yourself, what type of modern human culture would be the prefered. Even the most monogamous species, like many bird including the much adored emperor penguin, has such a high rate of cuckoldry. There really is no such thing as a truely monogamous culture. Our "cheating" culture is totally a condition of a couple things.

Religion has demonized promiscuousness. So much so that promiscously oriented people are forced to hide their promiscuousness. And to take that a step further, most promiscously oriented people think that they could be monogamous for "the right person". This is a lie. They will always want to be promiscous eventually.

[DutchGuy]

So... there aren't "inferior people"... unless you have a less distinct corona glandis?

 

Looks to me like inferior is just used as an evolutionary term in the original post, not a term to denote that person's intrinsic value.

 

I disagree, the original post isn't about inferior genes but about 'inferior people' with 'inferior intelligence' and 'inferior upbringing'. That engage in an 'inferior behaviour': promiscuity.

 

The claim that their is no such thing as intrinsic drive to have intercourse with as many people as possible is false, the claim that it would be a 'inferior people issue' is ignorant.

 

However, people that have a high social/economic status tend to realize faster that by having a monogamous lifestyle they provide better chances for their offspring than by simply having lots of offspring and hope that one of 'em succeeds.

In this discussion, the way I see it, you have to think of sex not as a hedonistic act but as a biological drive to reproduce.

Monogamy being the more reasonable/modern way to reproduce succesfully (In biology succesfull reproduction is a child that in turn will be able to reproduce, a few children brought up in a decent family).

Where promiscuity is the more natural/classic way to reproduce succesfully (lots of children in the hope that one turns out to be 'fit' in a darwinian way).

 

Now the trick is to look beyond what is said.

Even if people don't want children or can't even have them these things apply. Some things (sexual behavior being one of them) we do mainly because of our biological make up, not because of our highly overrated moral integrity.

[lonelybird]

Oh, I definately try to occupy myself. I'm very into strategy games. I write. I read a lot. That is my "spiritual" medicine.

The problem is that I have a very demanding sex life with my W. After 5 years, we still have sex once, sometimes twice a day. She demands it (not that I'm complaining). She will seriously start throwing things if I hold out on her. This was an issue when I was going though a particularly depressing period. I thought there was something wrong with me mentally. That's why I have spent so much time on the psychology of human sexuality.

Read Alfred Kinsey. Freud. Hirshfeld. Desmond Morris. De Waul to learn the habits of chimps and bonobos. EO Wilson. Searched my own self. Observed the men an women around me. Came here to learn more. And I've learned so much. Just being here and debating people over human nature takes my mind off my unfullfilled sexual orientations.

I think maybe your promiscuity come out of the need of connecting with other people. Just that you could not do it in a emotional way, you could not relate to others emotionally and spiritually. The reality is cold to you, people are selfish, maybe you find it is hard to trust in people and so connect with them in a deep way, so you transfer this need to physical ones. but physical connection will eventually bring frustration to you, because it is too temporary and too superficial. Have you ever read the tribles has certain religion ritual? that people will have sex with everyone in the meeting, and they become addictive to that meeting, and they have to do it again and again. if they don't, they become frustrated. it is terrible.

 

so in the end it is still a spiritual issue. Fear, distrust root in you. You have to replace them with trust and love, and change from inside. when you embrace universe, embrace God, you can well relate to others, because God made human. I was very isolated before, extremely lonely, but after I believing in God, listen wisdom of God, I found myself don't fight universe anymore, don't fight myself anymore, I get to a more peaceful and harmonious place, harmonious with universe, harmonious with others, and all these because I become harmonious with God

 

another one, there is a good analogy. you have two dogs, the one you feed more will win. you feed your sex desires (do you watch porn?), or you feed yourself with positive stuff and hope and spiritual things. All human being has a profound need for spirituality. if we lack of it, we transfer this need to other unhealthy things.

[shadowofman]

I disagree, the original post isn't about inferior genes but about 'inferior people' with 'inferior intelligence' and 'inferior upbringing'. That engage in an 'inferior behaviour': promiscuity.

I don't know if you where expressing your own opinion here or not, but promiscuousness is not inferior to monogamousness. It is just opposed to monogamousness. Neither is superior!!!!!

However, people that have a high social/economic status tend to realize faster that by having a monogamous lifestyle they provide better chances for their offspring than by simply having lots of offspring and hope that one of 'em succeeds.

Actually, it has been my experience that people of a high social/economic status tend to pretend live a monogamous lifestyle in public. Church and all that. And then live the most hedonistic lives behind closed doors. I used to work at a small town, old money, bible belt country club and the richest couples there used to swap keys. They would put all of their car keys in a hat and the men would randomly draw them. Each man would take the key, car and wife back to the keys home and do whatever. And you know all those super rich CEOs of the fortune 500s are doing this too. They all probably have harems themselves.

Psuedo-monogamy is just as good for the family as real monogamy, or promiscuity. Tons of couples are openly promiscuous and have great children. I mean, they don't wear it on their sleeves, but they will admit it if asked.

[shadowofman]

lonelybird

That could have been true, but it's totally not. I connect with people very well. Actually, it's my W that hates everyone!

This is a direct quote from her myspace page (her words):

About me:

Not too much to say about myself. I don't like much-probably don't like you. Hate my government...hate Rupert Murdoch...generally pissed off...hate all forms of religion...strangers...strangers that knock on my door...I REALLY hate sports...I hate news that isn't really news at all...I hate people who try to impose their beliefs and morals on others...love my sexy hubby...my puss-puss...my few friends...immigrants...spankings........

I, on the other hand, love connecting with people. I mean, most people annoy me, but being with other people in any situation re-charges my batteries. My W is the one that could curl up in a hole in the ground for years and as long as she had me with her, she would be fine. That is the one thing that I really don't like about her. She tries her damnedest to make me a hermit too.

[DutchGuy]

I'm with you shadowofman, I wanted to point out, what I thought the OP was implying. Hence the '...'s.

 

My stance is that, monogamy is something modern, it's a creation of today's society. Promiscuity is inherent to man and has an evolutionairy function.

[uniqueone]

lonelybird

That could have been true, but it's totally not. I connect with people very well. Actually, it's my W that hates everyone!

 

Well, now I KNOW we're dealing with a healthy mindset here....

 

This is a direct quote from her myspace page (her words):

About me:

Not too much to say about myself. I don't like much-probably don't like you. Hate my government...hate Rupert Murdoch...generally pissed off...hate all forms of religion...strangers...strangers that knock on my door...I REALLY hate sports...I hate news that isn't really news at all...I hate people who try to impose their beliefs and morals on others...love my sexy hubby...my puss-puss...my few friends...immigrants...spankings........

Wow....I can sure see why you fell for her.......and those immigrants....somebody's gotta love 'em.........

 

 

The fact that you would choose this woman says a lot about you.

[IrishCarBomb]

I disagree, the original post isn't about inferior genes but about 'inferior people' with 'inferior intelligence' and 'inferior upbringing'. That engage in an 'inferior behaviour': promiscuity.

 

So upbringing and intelligence should not be judged as interior/superior?

 

In biology succesfull reproduction is a child that in turn will be able to reproduce, a few children brought up in a decent family).

 

Oh... so upbringing is judged? A better upbringing is a superior strategy? Some people could have an inferior upbringing?

 

There is clearly an inferior and superior in evolution. I will concede that the original poster thinks that society determines what is superior, which is not necessarily right (as much as people would like it to be). To base inferiority on social status IS ignorant in this regard.

[shadowofman]

Wow....I can sure see why you fell for her.......and those immigrants....somebody's gotta love 'em.........

Just because she hates everyone else, doesn't mean she acts that way toward me. I love her very much. And I happen to like immigrants too. In fact, me and my W are perfect for each other in all but two ways. She is very anti-social and monogamous. I am moderately social and have a promiscuous orientation.

There is clearly an inferior and superior in evolution. I will concede that the original poster thinks that society determines what is superior, which is not necessarily right (as much as people would like it to be). To base inferiority on social status IS ignorant in this regard.

Not nessessarily. Not "inferior", just better adapted. And when we are talking about people, most are all very well adapted. There must be environmental and breeding pressure for the so called "inferior" to actually be inferior.

"Social Darwinism", evolution based on social status is total horse****!

[Cad Rake]

I'm a little late on this one. Just wanted to say the OP's first post was lame. 100,000 years ago men didn't take care of their offspring. Women did so. A guy can inseminate a new woman every day, maybe a couple if he's been eating his Wheaties. Guys couldn't give a damn if the woman is fantastic or if she's just average (or even less than average if he's desperate). He historically didn't invest a lot in the creation or the upbringing of the child. The men who banged a lot of women left more children, and those children got those promiscuous genes.

[shadowofman]

Just got what most of the opposition to this thread is about. And it does have to do with Cad Rake had to say.

Men aren't prewired to spread seed because want more offspring.

Men are prewired to be promiscuous because their genes want more offspring. Men don't want a ton of babies from several different women. Men just want to have sex with several different women.

I think this is what Dutchguy was talking about when he said that..

people that have a high social/economic status tend to realize faster that by having a monogamous lifestyle they provide better chances for their offspring than by simply having lots of offspring and hope that one of 'em succeeds.

He is right in the sense that these people tend to have less children, but it says nothing to whether or not they are promiscuously inclinded. I mean smart men don't just knock up every woman they bed. It doesn't mean that they don't want to bed them in the first place.

Genes want men to spread their seed. And so our genes make us promiscuously oriented. I thought that was clear in the OP's title, but I guess not.

[uniqueone]

Men aren't prewired to spread seed because want more offspring.

Men are prewired to be promiscuous because their genes want more offspring. Men don't want a ton of babies from several different women. Men just want to have sex with several different women.

 

Oh that makes sense....... Supposedly it's biological that men want to have sex with many women....in other words, they can't help it because they were designed that way.

 

Hmmmm...now why would they be designed that way? Oh wait....wouldn't that be because of procreating? But you say that they DON'T want to procreate with a bunch of different women...just want to have sex with them.

Well you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue that it's biological about being promiscuous....then you'll have to also say that the reason they're promiscuous is to produce offspring. If you're going to go with the caveman theory, you can't just take half of it....you have to take the whole thing.

[stillafool]

That men are pre-wired to spread their seed far and wide is chump talk.

A man of substance isn’t about to withdilute his genetic makeup 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.

 

 

Yeah, well how do you explain all the VP's, CEO's, Judges, etc. who like to spread their seed with strippers, secretaries, 7-Eleven clerks, etc.? Not that I think these jobs are inferior but I bet you do. Sorry to say but a woman's looks are usually what makes men want to spread their seed. Look at all these educated, rich old men who marry girls young enough to be their granddaughters. Oh, I guess their upbringing taught them to do that.

 

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 is such an ignorant statment it doesn't even deserve a response.

 

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.

 

So only rich, educated people are capable or rearing good children with good values?

[uniqueone]

 

 

 

Sorry to say but a woman's looks are usually what makes men want to spread their seed. Look at all these educated, rich old men who marry girls young enough to be their granddaughters. Oh, I guess their upbringing taught them to do that.

 

 

 

 

Actually, the ones I find in this category seem to be most turned on by intelligence.

[shadowofman]

Oh that makes sense....... Supposedly it's biological that men want to have sex with many women....in other words, they can't help it because they were designed that way.

True, they can't help but to want to have sex with many women.

Actually acting on having sex with many women is a different story. People can choose not to be promiscuous for several reasons.

 

Hmmmm...now why would they be designed that way? Oh wait....wouldn't that be because of procreating? But you say that they DON'T want to procreate with a bunch of different women...just want to have sex with them.

Correct! Biology can often appear to take indirect routes. What is the reward system that our brains use to pass on the next generation? Sex. Sex is a reward for behaving in the way that you genes want you to behave.

I want to have sex with many women, not because I want to have lots of children. I don't want any children at all. But my genes want me to have lots of children.

Well you can't have it both ways. If you're going to argue that it's biological about being promiscuous....then you'll have to also say that the reason they're promiscuous is to produce offspring.

I thought I was pretty clear. We are promiscuous for procreative purposes as far as your genes are concerned. But as most people would agree, our genes don't control us. Instead, they trick us into doing what they want us to do. They make us want to be promiscuous for the reward of sex. That is enough to insure the next generation.

There are other orientations that contribute to a promiscuous orientation and make us want to have sex with several women? I think it's several sexual orientations working together.

High general sex drive. Not suggesting that women don't have this.

High heterosexuality or homosexuality. Strongly attracted to the physical.

Low sapiosexuality. Very little sexual arousal to the mind of an individual.

It's almost as if these three sexual orientations together create a promiscuous orientation.

If you're going to go with the caveman theory, you can't just take half of it....you have to take the whole thing.

I am taking the whole thing. I understand the role genes play in the behaviors of individuals very well. I also understand the individuals responsibility to understand their natures, uphold social contacts when you commit yourselves to them, and not to get into contracts that you can't commit to.

[shadowofman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stillafool

Sorry to say but a woman's looks are usually what makes men want to spread their seed. Look at all these educated, rich old men who marry girls young enough to be their granddaughters. Oh, I guess their upbringing taught them to do that.

 

Actually, the ones I find in this category seem to be most turned on by intelligence.

I agree with stillafool on this matter for most cases. This is what I was describing. Men tend to have a stronger heterosexual orientation than they tend to have for their sapiosexual orientation. This I believe is a product of our physiology. Women have to trust someone enough to accept a man inside her. Men rely on physical stimulus to drive then sexually. Women know this and that is why they get so upset with themselves for getting cheated on. They turn blame on themselves for not being attractive enough to satisfy their man. This is not the case at all. They are most likely attractive enough. It is men that are not completely satisfied with monogamy, typically.

[uniqueone]

I agree with stillafool on this matter for most cases. This is what I was describing. Men tend to have a stronger heterosexual orientation than they tend to have for their sapiosexual orientation. This I believe is a product of our physiology. Women have to trust someone enough to accept a man inside her. Men rely on physical stimulus to drive then sexually. Women know this and that is why they get so upset with themselves for getting cheated on. They turn blame on themselves for not being attractive enough to satisfy their man. This is not the case at all. They are most likely attractive enough. It is men that are not completely satisfied with monogamy, typically.

 

 

Do you have any point to any of this???