Sam Spade Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 32 y/o guy here, pretty healthy and (supposedly) in good shape (hang on, I have a point). There was bounty of threads here lately that discussed at lenght the human (or mostly male?) deep-ingrained "need" for sexual variety. Men need to spread their seed far and wide; the ladies need to maximise their chances of getting healthy genes, and blah, blah, blah, you know the drill:rolleyes:. Basically we are programmed to seek a non-stop variety of sexual partners, for as long as things can function 'down there', in the name of maximising positive agregate reproductive outcomes. Fair enogh. However, this got me thinking: if that is the case, why is it that I (the above-referenced healthy 32 year old ) feel practically zero need/desire for 'variety'? It's not like I bagged a ton of chicks in my 20s (5, to be precise), and not like i girl-hop (steady girlfriend of almost a year). Perhaps my testosterone levels are dropping prematurely, or I am incredibly lazy (even by my exceedindly lax standards of laziness ), or perhaps my closeted gayness is blossoming , but all the hotties walking around can barely elicit an approving look ffrom me. Not to mention that basically most (healthy, half-decent looking) women are pretty much the same once the lights are out . So basically I don't see much incentive to pursue multiple women in the name of "variety". (Don't get me wrong, I see tons of women I'd like to sleep with every day. But, for this to happen they would literally have to throw themselves at me, half-undressed too , and 100% consequence free. And since that ain't happening, I feel zero desire to go through the motions of bagging one chick at a time . Which seems like a waste, since I am in my chick-bagging prime ). So, am I an aberation? Wassup with the propaganda-ish theories about the deeeeeply-ingrained need for "variety"? Did I not get the memo? Should I hand in my man-card:laugh:?
headlesschicken Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 you answered your own question in your post. you see a bunch of women you'd love to have sex with (this is your biology speaking). you don't follow through because of all the intricacies and responsibility and consequences of such actions (this is your thinking ball, your "brain" talking--the thing that separates us from the animals you speak of).
sally4sara Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I think you're just experiencing a maturing of your views about your sexuality. You've figured out that the amount of effort that goes into being hyper-promiscuous is not worth the payoff. And sometimes exposing your world and body to people who haven't realized this is no fun at all! The old saying I keep reminding one of my younger, less experienced male friends is one I'm sure you're thinking when looking at all the attractive ladies. No matter how attractive a person is, no matter how well dressed or styled, or impressive they seem; someone out there is sick of their crap so stop thinking they're the end all be all. If you're content being you - don't sweat it.
MattyTee Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 32 y/o guy here, pretty healthy and (supposedly) in good shape (hang on, I have a point). There was bounty of threads here lately that discussed at lenght the human (or mostly male?) deep-ingrained "need" for sexual variety. Men need to spread their seed far and wide; the ladies need to maximise their chances of getting healthy genes, and blah, blah, blah, you know the drill:rolleyes:. Basically we are programmed to seek a non-stop variety of sexual partners, for as long as things can function 'down there', in the name of maximising positive agregate reproductive outcomes. Fair enogh. However, this got me thinking: if that is the case, why is it that I (the above-referenced healthy 32 year old ) feel practically zero need/desire for 'variety'? It's not like I bagged a ton of chicks in my 20s (5, to be precise), and not like i girl-hop (steady girlfriend of almost a year). Perhaps my testosterone levels are dropping prematurely, or I am incredibly lazy (even by my exceedindly lax standards of laziness ), or perhaps my closeted gayness is blossoming , but all the hotties walking around can barely elicit an approving look ffrom me. Not to mention that basically most (healthy, half-decent looking) women are pretty much the same once the lights are out . So basically I don't see much incentive to pursue multiple women in the name of "variety". (Don't get me wrong, I see tons of women I'd like to sleep with every day. But, for this to happen they would literally have to throw themselves at me, half-undressed too , and 100% consequence free. And since that ain't happening, I feel zero desire to go through the motions of bagging one chick at a time . Which seems like a waste, since I am in my chick-bagging prime ). So, am I an aberation? Wassup with the propaganda-ish theories about the deeeeeply-ingrained need for "variety"? Did I not get the memo? Should I hand in my man-card:laugh:? I don't think you are an aberration at all. Firstly you have to remember everyone is different, there is no 'normal'. Many cultures and people have different ideas about sex and the idea of sowing one's seed is not the only idea out there. Secondly, you have to remember you are on a website forum and therefore the people here might not represent the male population as a whole. Thirdly, Western society in general is very highly sexualised - by this I mean we are taught from an early age, primarily via the media, that we should all be f*cking everything and anything we can - pulse optional. I think you have to remember that there are biological urges that will affect people but at the same time the difference between us and our less developed animal cousins is that we have choice. You might look at a woman and find her attractive but who's to say that means you have to shag her? That is where choice comes in (obviously yours and hers). For me, I only want to sleep with people I am in love with. I am the same age as you and I have only slept with two women in my life and I have no regrets about that at all because that's what works for me. If it works for you to go out and sow those seeds, then fields willing (metaphor stretched there), go do it! If you don't, then who's to say it's wrong? A bunch of horny forum posters?! Live as you, do what's right for you and you'll be happy.
clv0116 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 .... Not to mention that basically most (healthy, half-decent looking) women are pretty much the same once the lights are out .... Oh dude, that's just not true.
Ruby Slippers Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Yep, I think you're evolved. There's an EXCELLENT book called The Moral Animal, by Richard Wright, which gets into all of this in fine detail. Truly fascinating, and so beautifully written. The variety argument is a simplification used by certain men to justify their cheating, commitment-phobic behavior. Wright makes the argument that investing resources in quality (one woman and a few offspring, given excellent care and protection by the male partner) over quantity (mating attempts with numerous females, offspring scattered far and wide, with no investment by a strong protector and provider) is the strategy of a more evolved and intelligent male.
carhill Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Yep, I think you're evolved. There's an EXCELLENT book called The Moral Animal, by Richard Wright, which gets into all of this in fine detail. Truly fascinating, and so beautifully written. The variety argument is a simplification used by certain men to justify their cheating, commitment-phobic behavior. Wright makes the argument that investing resources in quality (one woman and a few offspring, given excellent care and protection by the male partner) over quantity (mating attempts with numerous females, offspring scattered far and wide, with no investment by a strong protector and provider) is the strategy of a more evolved and intelligent male. He's mutated to a non-infectious form, just like andromeda Seriously, OP, I've always been that way. IMO, it's just a function of which box is running the show. Some men haven't yet discovered the box you're using. Some women haven't yet discovered the value contained in that box. Life goes on
Jersey Shortie Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Yep, I think you're evolved. There's an EXCELLENT book called The Moral Animal, by Richard Wright, which gets into all of this in fine detail. Truly fascinating, and so beautifully written. The variety argument is a simplification used by certain men to justify their cheating, commitment-phobic behavior. Wright makes the argument that investing resources in quality (one woman and a few offspring, given excellent care and protection by the male partner) over quantity (mating attempts with numerous females, offspring scattered far and wide, with no investment by a strong protector and provider) is the strategy of a more evolved and intelligent male I think that is very sound.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Oh dude, that's just not true. Sure, it is not true -->every woman is unique, just like every snowflake . The question is do the marginal differences justify the marginal cost
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 The variety argument is a simplification used by certain men to justify their cheating, commitment-phobic behavior. Wright makes the argument that investing resources in quality (one woman and a few offspring, given excellent care and protection by the male partner) over quantity (mating attempts with numerous females, offspring scattered far and wide, with no investment by a strong protector and provider) is the strategy of a more evolved and intelligent male. More evolved and intelligent sound sort of overly self congratulatory but I agree with the rest.
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Sure, it is not true -->every woman is unique, just like every snowflake . The question is do the marginal differences justify the marginal cost I've found more than marginal differences, some are just a lot better. This is not an argument for variety, just an observation.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Yep, I think you're evolved. There's an EXCELLENT book called The Moral Animal, by Richard Wright, which gets into all of this in fine detail. Truly fascinating, and so beautifully written. The variety argument is a simplification used by certain men to justify their cheating, commitment-phobic behavior. Wright makes the argument that investing resources in quality (one woman and a few offspring, given excellent care and protection by the male partner) over quantity (mating attempts with numerous females, offspring scattered far and wide, with no investment by a strong protector and provider) is the strategy of a more evolved and intelligent male. Will check him out. As far as the commitment phobia is concerned, I begin to think that it is a function of how strong - in the more general sense - a guy is. Looking at myself, my commitment phobia decreases with age. Analysing the process, I've concluded that it is *not* a function of the male biological clock :rolleyes:ticking, societal pressures etc. (remember, that's a 32 y/o healthy guy with lots of disposable income ), but a function of how solid/strong I percieve myself to be. In other worde the more $$ and professional assets I have, the more hits I can take (i.e. such as making a poor girl choice), so it's not a big deal to commit, even if it doesn't work out, beyooach'll have nothing on me, figuratively speaking . (I just realized that in any real gangster movie the big shots are the monogamous ones, with wife and babies, and the foot soldier shmucks are the ones banging all the hos . No babies, no street cred! ) PS There are hot chicks on TV
Isolde Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 You make a good point that having a healthy "attraction" to the opposite sex doesn't mean you need to be some sort of salivating zombie. I mean, I might see twenty guys in a day I find hawt; that doesn't mean that I would want to date them. I focus my romantic energy only on those guys with a rockin' personality, manifested through the aura he exudes. I always knew that some guys were able to see past the primal "more is better" cliche. But I just want to add one thing. If one is into monogamy, one's not automatically "safe" from hurt. You need to choose, and stick with, your partner for the right reasons.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 But I just want to add one thing. If one is into monogamy, one's not automatically "safe" from hurt. You need to choose, and stick with, your partner for the right reasons. Elaborate, please. What are the 'right reasons'? (The uncertainty about the concept of 'right reasons' is the single biggest relationship stressor for me)
Isolde Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I mean choosing someone that incites some passion in you but you also feel safe with. A good balance of the two. You don't want to choose someone where it's only safe, all the time, because that usually indicates something in the dynamic of the relationship is a bit off. TBF could probably explain it better--she has this theory of escalation/de-escalation that's basically what I'm trying to say. Fidelity is important, but in itself it's not enough. Just my opinion SS. You're a very smart guy, if eccentric . I understand your need to analyze because I analyze a lot too. But I think it tends to all work out if one has the kind of values you have.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 I mean choosing someone that incites some passion in you but you also feel safe with. A good balance of the two. You don't want to choose someone where it's only safe, all the time, because that usually indicates something in the dynamic of the relationship is a bit off. TBF could probably explain it better--she has this theory of escalation/de-escalation that's basically what I'm trying to say. Fidelity is important, but in itself it's not enough. Just my opinion SS. You're a very smart guy, if eccentric . I understand your need to analyze because I analyze a lot too. But I think it tends to all work out if one has the kind of values you have. Hmm, somewhat you've deciphered my situation surprisingly well . I.e. it is very true that I'm not so sure about the 'passion' part, nor I feel the need of too much of that (I think...). My policy at the moment is simply 1. find a decent girl (done), 2. stick with decent girl (done). Maybe I'm decieving myself (and her ). But, if all else fails, my paternalistic tendencies and her somewhat childish ones could jibe well enough together until the kids are out of middle school .
Ariadne Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Wassup with the propaganda-ish theories about the deeeeeply-ingrained need for "variety"? Did I not get the memo? Should I hand in my man-card:laugh:? Dunno. But in my experience, it is the dumber men, not very successful, etc etc, that would have sex with anything that moves. The guys that are the most desirable, are the most picky with their sexual partners and not promiscuous at all.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Hmm, somewhat you've deciphered my situation surprisingly well . I.e. it is very true that I'm not so sure about the 'passion' part, nor I feel the need of too much of that (I think...). My policy at the moment is simply 1. find a decent girl (done), 2. stick with decent girl (done). Maybe I'm decieving myself (and her ). But, if all else fails, my paternalistic tendencies and her somewhat childish ones could jibe well enough together until the kids are out of middle school . Actually, even if there is some degree of self-deception/insufficient self-awareness involved, if I fool myself well enough and for long enough time, things *will* work out ! Starting right now, I am oficially deciding to stop stressing about this . As long as I don't have malicious intent or expiration date on this relationship (which I don't), it's an honest attempt to see what's going to happen (or not). Aight, no stressing, no stressing, no stressing
Isolde Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I'm not talking about a movie type passion, but yes, I think some of that is important. Why don't you think you want it, Sam?
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Dunno. But in my experience, it is the dumber men, not very successful, etc etc, that would have sex with anything that moves. The guys that are the most desirable, are the most picky with their sexual partners and not promiscuous at all. I'm pretty sure there ought to be a lot more women that cream their panties at the thought of Uncle Sam than they actually are . In other words, in spite of enviablly huge (and marginally justified ) sense of self-worth, I don't consider myself to be too picky. Probably this is where laziness comes into play as well: I'm not completley sure, but I think I'd rather be with unremarkable, low-maintenance girl, rather than exceptional girl who'd probably come with high requirements. Also, I'm not sure what exceptional really means. (My ex was incredibly smart, but had major emotional issues; didn't end well;)
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 I'm not talking about a movie type passion, but yes, I think some of that is important. Why don't you think you want it, Sam? Maybe I'm afraid of something, dunno. For example, biographically speaking, my first relationship was pretty passionate, but so what? (At the end of the day, it was just a pretty pointless 6-year ordeal.) Well, if we expand (reealy expand) the definition of passion, the best I feel in a relationship, is when a girl snuggles on my shoulder --> definitely not a movie type of passion, but could tear me up in the left eye every once in a blue moon *. So, not too bad, I guess (I'll take anything !) I'll rationalize for as long as I can that there are multiple definitions of - and pathways to - success in relationships . *But make no mistake, I still mean business out there in the big bed :)
Isolde Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Sam, it's true there are different paths to success, but I'm concerned that you're too fixated on this idea of being low maintenance. And high requirements can be a good thing in that they make both people work harder to keep an R going. That said, it sounds like you are very fond of your GF and it's the dynamic you want. So, as long as you feel you value your GF intrinsically, it's all good.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Sam, it's true there are different paths to success, but I'm concerned that you're too fixated on this idea of being low maintenance. And high requirements can be a good thing in that they make both people work harder to keep an R going. That said, it sounds like you are very fond of your GF and it's the dynamic you want. So, as long as you feel you value your GF intrinsically and not just because she fits your needs, it's all good. Well, what makes somebody special? Is it some unique quality of theirs, or is it shared history/discovery, etc.? I obviously subscribe to the second view, and although I have concerns, they are somewhat alleviated considering that over time I develop fondness for her and all her quirks/concerns/aspirations, etc. (The jury's still out on how strong all that is). But more importantly, this of course creates another logical problem, which is that if you can become fond of anybody (especially one who fits most of your needs) and have shared history with, then who is ever special? This is where choice comes into play. (And by 'requirements', I meant really superficial stuff - i.e. "I want o have highly dynamic and active social life, travel to 5 continents, etc., etc., etc.,"- all good things that I want too - whenever possible and prudent - but I would not like to deal with such type of background expectation, likely to be found in carierist chicks, and the definition of "high maintenance").
Isolde Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I agree that no one is particularly remarkable or important in the big scheme of things (or almost everyone is?) Where I disagree with you is in your allegation that everyone is compatible, with a large sector of the human population. I just don't see that. IF there's compatibility as well as a spark, then yes, that person can potentially become special. It's got nothing to do with "uniqueness" per se because every human is basically a world unto him/herself. Snowflakes.
Recommended Posts