Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author 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. Ah, yes, that's why I adopted the most pragmatic approach to compatibility there is - simultaneously meeting a very narrow set of requirements. The problem as usual is that nothing guards against the possibility of focusing on the wrong criteria (and ignoring the really important ones). Sure, knowledge of self is essential, but let's be realistic here --> how many adults *really, really, really* know what are their emotional hangups, their origins, and their implications? I'm pretty sure Carhill is the only one! Ah, always, always, back to square one, and that's the true origin of my admittedly bleak philosphy on relationships - quit thinking too much about it. Get it on with a cute girl and make it work .
Surfer Dude Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Perhaps it's best that no fun people who hate sex simply stay away from sex.
Jersey Shortie Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Who hates sex? Bed hopping and liking sex are not mutually exclusive.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Perhaps it's best that no fun people who hate sex simply stay away from sex. Perhaps retarded juveniles should stay away from the written word, even in unsophisticated places such as anonomous internet forums, hm?
LucreziaBorgia Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 No two people share the same brains, so no two people will experience the exact same sex drive. Generally speaking, the testosterone thing is what drives (or not) males to want variety. Not always though. I know guys who are pussyhounds, and I know guys who aren't. I know guys who love porn, and others who don't. I would have to say though, that a good deal of men while they may not need or pursue variety like it in their personal and private masturbation time. Thinking about it, I'd have to say that is probably more the rule than the exception - plenty of men love their partners and don't want other women. They just like to think about it when they are tapping the root, so to speak. The problem comes when people try to make someone else's personal and private masturbation their business. The way I see it, when a person masturbates it is no one else's business but their own - including what they think about or watch when they do it.
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 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. Seriously? Do you read the news? At all?
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Who hates sex? Bed hopping and liking sex are not mutually exclusive. Sweetie, you know I love you but you really need to work on those communication skills. You just said the opposite of what (I think) you meant to say.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 I would have to say though, that a good deal of men while they may not need or pursue variety like it in their personal and private masturbation time. Oh, yes, i forgot to mention that . Duh. But that's the point: variety through that channel is achieved through zero effort But again, it's not like I have some overpowering need to do that, porn is like saturday morning cartoons , lazy, personal pastime;). My sex drive is average, I would say (I think about sex multiple times a day, but not so much that I can't get any work done ). I think it moved !
bac Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 If you feel fine with your situation, there is no problem with you. Some man get married in 20s and they are happy with that for the rest of their lifes. From what I know the first drop of testosterone level comes at 32 y.o. After that, it is an appropriate time for a man to get married and have kids. The second drop of testosterone comes after 40s and that one is bad one, because the level of it determines man's ability for erection, libido, and ejaculation. Of course, it is a generalization and everyone is different somehow. But, it is not a perfect time to get married after 40s.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Seriously? Do you read the news? At all? I was just thinking about the North Carolina dude that got busted last week. Highly succesful, pretty handsome, with what seems to be quite pretty and nice wife. Here's the question the $1m question: I know that latin american women are amazing, but come on! what possibly that other woman could offer to justify the risk of ruining his family and career?! Not to mention the public disgrace even if he salavages them somehow? Makes me wonder, what the hell are people's utility functions? Perhaps it's not the encounter, but the risk of getting caught? Clinton too, he got off the hook amasingly easily, and I don't blame him for straying (anybody married to The Cackle gets a get out of jail free card!), but come on - Monika Lewinski? She is hideous, and definitely not intriguing in any sense of the word. John Edwards is the worst. A pathetic wheeny that somehow got some. He was so surprised, that he couldn't turn it down . Finally, the former NY governor is simply a moron. Yeah buddy, move tens of thousands of dollars between bank accounts and hope FBI ain't going to pay attention, haha . These guys need some class. If you're going to screw around, do it properly , e.g. Ray Liotta style .
TudorII Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Variety is not about one thing. For some it is a deep routed need to know they "still got it". Can they still get a woman they find attractive into bed if they wanted to, these are just insucurity issues. For others it may be about curiosity ie, always wanted to be with a red head, asian, black, etc. If you are not in a committed relationship then I see nothing wrong with pursuing variety and sewing all your wild oats and curiosities. If one finds himself still having these desires for variety and acting on them in a committed relationship then you are not ready to be in a relationship and need to play the field some more first. I say good for you if you are content and nothing wrong with that at all.
You'reasian Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 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:? Did you count ONS's? I know guys that may have had only a few long-term gf's but 10x as many ONS's or FWB situations. Be honest! lol And what does supposedly in good shape mean? You either are or arent'.
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 These guys need some class. I always thought the Kennedy's did it really well, look at JFK; IV amphetamine shots in the white house, nailing M. Monroe (not my cup of tea but the top of the crop in that era) and so on. Compared to that Bill was a dolt. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is ...."
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Did you count ONS's? I know guys that may have had only a few long-term gf's but 10x as many ONS's or FWB situations. Be honest! lol And what does supposedly in good shape mean? You either are or arent'. Hahaha, fair enough, I did count the ONSs - 3 out of the 5, to be precise, but didn't count the 2 hookers , just because, well, it doesn't really count . So, 8 femininas in total if we're gona be all technical; I guess it is below the average for a guy from my generation. It still beats me where I found the time, given that I was in looong relationships during most of my 20s. (As for the supposedly good shape, just being modest. Uncle Sam is built like a greek god, Michelangelo's David style [except with a bigger ding-dong ].)
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 I always thought the Kennedy's did it really well, look at JFK; IV amphetamine shots in the white house, nailing M. Monroe (not my cup of tea but the top of the crop in that era) and so on. Compared to that Bill was a dolt. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is ...." Ahh, yes, JFK. He's such an icon because somehow he made his being born with a silver spoon in the mouth to extend to all aspects of his life, but without annoying people. I can (and do) respect that very much - getting lots of pussay without ever going out of your way to get it, James Bond style ! But if not (i.e. if beyond minimal effort is required), investing too much effort/thought in where the next lay is going to come from makes me question a guy's character. (Who the hell wants to be a foxhole buddy with a dude more concerned with getting off than with being a cool cat?)
sally4sara Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Ahh, yes, JFK. He's such an icon because somehow he made his being born with a silver spoon in the mouth to extend to all aspects of his life, but without annoying people. I can (and do) respect that very much - getting lots of pussay without ever going out of your way to get it, James Bond style ! But if not (i.e. if beyond minimal effort is required), investing too much effort/thought in where the next lay is going to come from makes me question a guy's character. (Who the hell wants to be a foxhole buddy with a dude more concerned with getting off than with being a cool cat?) Speaking of Kennedy's ability to get laid and how it reflects on his character.... I'd be more concerned about the fact that he was raised in a family that would rather lobotomize their daughter than let her loose her virginity. It might be that some males are driven to promiscuity/conquests by such an attitude towards women.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 If you feel fine with your situation, there is no problem with you. Some man get married in 20s and they are happy with that for the rest of their lifes. From what I know the first drop of testosterone level comes at 32 y.o. After that, it is an appropriate time for a man to get married and have kids. The second drop of testosterone comes after 40s and that one is bad one, because the level of it determines man's ability for erection, libido, and ejaculation. Of course, it is a generalization and everyone is different somehow. But, it is not a perfect time to get married after 40s. Fair enough; But also, male testosterone levels plateau, i.e. are largely stable between 30 and 40. Conversely, there are many studies suggesting that getting married and having kids *causes* testosterone drops (rather than be a function of that).
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 Speaking of Kennedy's ability to get laid and how it reflects on his character.... I'd be more concerned about the fact that he was raised in a family that would rather lobotomize their daughter than let her loose her virginity. It might be that some males are driven to promiscuity/conquests by such an attitude towards women. Not sure about the virginity part, but that's a pretty barbaric procedure with history of casual use. The Kennedys are very screwed up . Don't know what was the name of one Kennedy woman that tried to run for senate recently, but she promptly abandoned the attempt, once it became apparent that she has never, ever held a job .
LucreziaBorgia Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I was just thinking about the North Carolina dude that got busted last week. Highly succesful, pretty handsome, with what seems to be quite pretty and nice wife. That's SC's baby. Don't know much about that one, except what I've seen online. Our state (NC) has bragging rights to John Edwards - and his illegitimate child, his wedding plans made over Elizabeth's dying body, his SEX TAPE, etc. All while pitching himself as president. And then had the nerve to try and lie about it all. Sick, sick, sick.
sally4sara Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Not sure about the virginity part, but that's a pretty barbaric procedure with history of casual use. The Kennedys are very screwed up . Don't know what was the name of one Kennedy woman that tried to run for senate recently, but she promptly abandoned the attempt, once it became apparent that she has never, ever held a job . Its weird too, that Ted was the brother who witnessed the procedure and ends up with a brain tumor. I know she wasn't a virgin, but her "promiscuity" wasn't all that promiscuous either. It just seemed like anything that didn't qualify for pure and virginal when it came to the Kennedy women, was intolerable. I think of some of the guys I've known who were always on the prowl and known for having a way with women. The ones most concerned with numbers and conquests had a foul attitude about women in general. Sure, I had male friends who had successful love lives. They were different from the swaggering "conquistadors" in that they DID love some of the women in their lives rather than act scornful towards the women they "bagged". You just sound like you have less issues with women and therefore, don't still need a bevy of conquests to feel like a man. It really shouldn't worry you. Be glad you're better balanced than some men who still need to live that way.
Art_Critic Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I'm glad that I did go thru the rounds on sexual variety in my younger years. How can you figure out what you want without figuring out what you don't want first ? It makes me more grounded in my marriage today having figured all that out years ago.. although it was fun
Untouchable_Fire 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. This is Spot on! The majority of Human evolution is driven by the fact that it takes 18 years and A TON OF WORK to raise a child. You just will not be successful knocking up more women than you can support.
Author Sam Spade Posted July 2, 2009 Author Posted July 2, 2009 This is Spot on! The majority of Human evolution is driven by the fact that it takes 18 years and A TON OF WORK to raise a child. You just will not be successful knocking up more women than you can support. That's very depressing, because it speaks directly to the suburban death image that terrifies me . But, more to the point, it is obvious that the kids of the upper middle class (whose parents i bet pretty much stop having sex after they're born; at least they surely *look* like they hever have sex ) are much more succesfull and have more chances in life than the kids of the inner city poor/minority enclaves, where people clearly have waaay more fun sexually (where else can you have a bunch of women all of whom you can openly call "my baby's momma", and not pay child support ).
clv0116 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 This is Spot on! The majority of Human evolution is driven by the fact that it takes 18 years and A TON OF WORK to raise a child. You just will not be successful knocking up more women than you can support. Sort of crap there, sorry. For most of history a child could survive very well in a community at an age much less than 18.
samspade Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 To Mr. Spade, I did write a few things about how evolution and biology can explain human behaviors. In those cases I was trying to explain why some people behave the way they do. I most certainly was not posting a mandate for men to live their lives one way versus another. You're still an individual with a heart and a soul and a brain, and whether or not your biological "urges" pop up from time to time, it does not mean you will feel comfortable or even interested in acting on them. Unfortunately, you can't write something sensible around here without a small but raucous rogue's gallery of lonely, bitter, piss-and-vinegar women (along with some henpecked and p*ssified men) twisting all of your words and accusing you of misogyny. Apparently, because I happen to look for hard truths and not just accept self-delusion when it comes to why people do the things they do, I'm suddenly an advocate for cheating, a commitment-phobe, and everything else that's responsible for THEIR unhappiness. These types of people are just the ones you should try to avoid in your dating life; they hold their own behavior in the highest esteem and complain that everybody else are the ones with the problem. There's no end to their scolding and shaming of other people's pursuit of happiness, and we've seen it played out dozens of times in these threads. But enough about them. The important thing for you is to live your life the way YOU want to live it. If you don't want to date casually, and prefer the company of one woman at a time, you should do that. If your goal is to break Wilt Chamberlain's record, well, you should do that then. If you want to remain celibate, do that. It's YOUR life and don't let anyone else tell you that you "need" to behave one way or another. Personally, I don't think a man's measure is the women he's slept with. It's how he comports himself in all walks of life. I know great men who have been with one woman their entire lives, and I know real sorry SOB's who are (or think they are) stuck with one woman for the rest of their lives. In the end, it boils down to how you treat yourself, and stay true to your goals and desires. Do this, and you will attract a much better stock of female, who will respect you and treat you like a man, not a boy. If there is one thing I agree with Jersey Shortie about, it is that the world is filled with overgrown boys. They will do anything for attention and approval from the opposite sex, and they will always blame women for their unhappiness and heartbreak. They want to go straight from mommy to wife without living their lives and being men, and they never learn that a man does not need a woman to make him happy. Female companionship is the result of a happily lives life, NOT the other way around. I hope that clarifies what I've been saying. Best, samspade
Recommended Posts