Jynxx Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 You ARE wrong and I don't doubt it. Most men would be sleeping on sofas around the world otherwise. Care to explain what you mean by this? Why would most men be sleeping on sofas if most men wanted to have sex with a different woman every night? And Jersey Shore was hilarious in season 1 when Mike and Pauly had to work hard to take girls home, and the girls they did manage to take home often weren't all that attractive, to put it mildly. It became lame from Season 2 on when they were celebrities and could pick up a couple groupies any time they wanted without any effort. It's like putting a camera in the zoo following a group of monkeys and see monkeys fight eachother and try to get laid in S1 and oftentimes fail, then after that take those same monkeys, give them sex and attention and bodyguards all they want and see them do nothing and be boring all day.
Jynxx Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Also, there are quite alot of men who are incapable of sleeping around who would if they could, but are pretending they just choose not to. Your husband/boyfriend may be one of them As for myself, I would be sleeping around more if I could get hot women without much effort. Probably not on a daily basis, but I don't feel morally superior to people who would. It's a perfectly fair choice.
grkBoy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Also, there are quite alot of men who are incapable of sleeping around who would if they could, *raises hand* I'm one of those. I can't separate emotion from the hormonal. When I sleep with a woman I more or less want it to be more than just sex. I also agree with Jynnx on the factor of how the "celebrity" thing helped The Situation and Pauly D get more tail. Look at Tucker Max. He claims he's an a**hole, women know his history and what he's about, but women still go home with him...nowadays simply as some kind of "mark of achievement" thing. I knew a girl who met Joey Fatone in Las Vegas just around the tail end of NSYNC. She was single, knew it wouldn't go anywhere, but would have slept with him simply because he's a celebrity. Guess it's seen like getting an autograph. In the end, she only ended up making out with him.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 The intent of your post is to insult, ridicule and berate a specific poster, personally and directly, not merely disagree with the words they post or their POV, regardless of what your "rationalization du jour" is, coming from someone supposedly happily married, yet posting on a dating board. Readers can certainly draw their own conclusions of what that says about you. I won't stoop more than I already have. I'm glad you aren't going to stoop anymore. It can harm your posture permanently. You and I can agree to disagree, but from my perspective, anyone who refers to other human beings as "Tuesday night's leftovers" requires a little bit of ridicule. That is a good way to maintain my sense of humor when faced with such hatred and ignorance. Are you interested in the state of my marriage? Yes, I am indeed happily married! Why am I posting on a dating board? Because … I have years of experience with dating, and I find it interesting to talk about. What's wrong with that?
silvermercy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Care to explain what you mean by this? Why would most men be sleeping on sofas if most men wanted to have sex with a different woman every night? What I meant is what woman in her right mind would want a man whom she knew he thought this way: that is, wanting to try a new woman everyday. I know I wouldn't. Total turn off. Thankfully I know many men who would love to have a monogamous relationship with one woman for the rest of their lives (while not settling) instead of jumping from one woman to the next. (Actually forget about sofas, out of their lives would be more accurate).
Negative Nancy Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 According to some men on other threads defending porn, porn is just a release? A fantasy? That men wouldn't even DREAM hurting or cheating on their partners even if the opportunity occurred? So which one is it then? Should we women dump our partners now because these men are simply settling? Maybe we could live like those Amazon women... who knows? And just when I was getting reassured about porn and men... Thanks for speaking out aloud though... i was wondering about the same thing...
Mrlonelyone Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) @Silvermercy It's not so much a matter of conscious "thought". Males and females face different mating challenges. For as long as female mammals have had to feed young with milk those who choose quality men had the most reproductive success. While the male mating strategy of simply having as many offspring as possible still works for them. Emotionally mature men know how to control that instinct and be faithful, that does not negate the basic biological imperatives. To get an idea of what I am talking about in living creatures. Consider the following progression. Amphibians not unlike modern frogs: Spurt eggs and sperm into the water and leave. Neither invest anything in the offspring, and go on their merry way. Both male and female maximize their reproductive success by having as many offspring, laying as many eggs as possible. Most are eaten, only a few make it adulthood. The duck billed platypus: A modern mammal that lays one or two eggs a year. These are simmilar in many respects to the ancestors of all other mammals. Laying one or two eggs at a time means the female has more reason to invest in each egg. Now females maximize their chances by getting the best DNA from the best male TL;RT: Ever since that point in our evolution, females bearing primary responsibility for the young, females who's DNA coded them to seek out quality mates out compeated those who did not. While males who's DNA coded for being as prolific as possible. PROOF: 0.5% of the men in the world have the y Chromosome of one Mongolian who ruled much of Asia and Europe in the 1200's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_evidence_-_The_Ian_Ashworth_Effect Zerjal et al. [2003][6] identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the men in the world). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1,000 years ago (thus several generations prior to the birth of Genghis). Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, and must therefore be the result of selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection. Both due to the power that Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities.[7] In short every man wants to be Ghenghis Khan on some deep dark level they don't talk about. Given the power to procreate en masse they will. So keep your dog on a short leash. Edited November 4, 2011 by Mrlonelyone
Eclypse Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Well I can see the appeal definitely. But I've got a pretty good feeling it's one of those things that's much better in theory than practice. Would open up a whole can of worms and ultimately leave you unsatisfied. Back when I was a virgin I dreamt of being a player, but since I got a girlfriend I've realized that's much more appealing. The warmth and tenderness can't be replicated in one night stands. So yes i do still wonder and fantasize about having sex with lots of girls (of course I don't tell her that though), but I would never do that as I'm quite happy as I am. Perhaps my age (21) helps explain the fantasies?
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) @Silvermercy It's not so much a matter of conscious "thought". etc... I'm sorry, while I recognize the power of carnal desires, I myself, as a biologist/biochemist, cannot accept arguments for conscious or subconscious desires that try to explain unacceptable behavior in humans. I can accept their power to a certain extent but not as to rule one's mind. One could argue the opposite: about why there is this subconscious need for humans to attach themselves monogamously to other people - for life, too (regardless if they're compatible or not). Obviously, this desire is not very compatible with sexual desire for many different people. Relationships as we know them today would not exist and true love between two people would also be a foreign notion to us. edit: @ Eclypse: I sure hope it's just your age! lol How would your gf react if you were totally honest with her? If she was ok with it, then what if she said the same about other men? Edited November 5, 2011 by silvermercy
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I'm sorry, while I recognize the power of carnal desires, I myself, as a biologist/biochemist, cannot accept arguments for conscious or subconscious desires that try to explain unacceptable behavior in humans. I can accept their power to a certain extent but not as to rule one's mind. One could argue the opposite: about why there is this subconscious need for humans to attach themselves monogamously to other people - for life, too (regardless if they're compatible or not). Obviously, this desire is not very compatible with sexual desire for many different people. Relationships as we know them today would not exist and true love between two people would also be a foreign notion to us. That is all where reading the etc comes in. I stated several times, men who are emotionally mature enough, and given our present cultural norms can "rule" that lower part of their brain. Denying that the impulse exist dosen't mean it's not there.
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 That is all where reading the etc comes in. I stated several times, men who are emotionally mature enough, and given our present cultural norms can "rule" that lower part of their brain. Denying that the impulse exist dosen't mean it's not there. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm saying it shouldn't rule one's mind, and, thus, behavior. Unlike amphibians, ducks etc HUMAN society, and, thus, individuals, does not benefit with individuals desiring/obsessing sexually over other people. It is not deemed healthy for a reason. It's a threat after all to the foundations of HUMAN society. (Also, I could start citing a lot of examples from the animal kingdom where both male and female parents need to be monogamous in order to raise safely their offspring, but I suppose this can be easily found on Google/Wikipedia).
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 We actually agree. HUMANS have a more evolved brain than any of those other creatures. So while we have the same basic instincts we can control them. The instincts are there (in our cerebellum with all it's basal ganglia)...but under control (by our neocortex). It's based on a simplistic model of how our brain is organized and developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 We actually agree. HUMANS have a more evolved brain than any of those other creatures. So while we have the same basic instincts we can control them. The instincts are there (in our cerebellum with all it's basal ganglia)...but under control (by our neocortex). It's based on a simplistic model of how our brain is organized and developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain lol That's good then! I was just basing my argument mostly on behavioral biology. And the fact that unlike other animals, say African lions or ducks, which don't need monogamy to survive, some species (humans included) NEED TO HAVE both parents present and monogamous in order to achieve what's best for them.
Eclypse Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 edit: @ Eclypse: I sure hope it's just your age! lol How would your gf react if you were totally honest with her? If she was ok with it, then what if she said the same about other men? Good question. Perhaps I'll ask her next time I see her and report back? She doesn't seem to mind porn though. Just says it's kinda sad, which I suppose it is. She's pretty open minded about that stuff, but is pretty conservative in the bedroom. As for her fantasizing about other men, well I wouldn't be allowed to complain would I? Based on my fantasies. I think it would be ok as long as it was about random porn hunks or actors and not real people she knows. She does tease me that I don't have abs like the guys in 300. I would say too that there's a big difference between fantasies and actually acting them out as well.
Mrlonelyone Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 lol That's good then! I was just basing my argument mostly on behavioral biology. And the fact that unlike other animals, say African lions or ducks, which don't need monogamy to survive, some species (humans included) NEED TO HAVE both parents present and monogamous in order to achieve what's best for them. I don't know about that little bit. Plenty of societies have family organizations contrary to the currently dominant paradigm in the western world and have done just fine.
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Good question. Perhaps I'll ask her next time I see her and report back? She doesn't seem to mind porn though. Just says it's kinda sad, which I suppose it is. She's pretty open minded about that stuff, but is pretty conservative in the bedroom. As for her fantasizing about other men, well I wouldn't be allowed to complain would I? Based on my fantasies. I think it would be ok as long as it was about random porn hunks or actors and not real people she knows. She does tease me that I don't have abs like the guys in 300. I would say too that there's a big difference between fantasies and actually acting them out as well. I agree. Some women have rape fantasies or sexy alien abduction scenarios. That doesn't mean they want those to happen to them! lol Good luck with your... questioning! ^^ Hope it goes well!
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 I don't know about that little bit. Plenty of societies have family organizations contrary to the currently dominant paradigm in the western world and have done just fine. But how backwards are they?
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 What I meant is what woman in her right mind would want a man whom she knew he thought this way: that is, wanting to try a new woman everyday. Fortunately, it's currently nearly impossible to look inside someones brain and see what they really want. I'm sure you'd be very surprised of what you would see if you could. And every guy who tells his girlfriend he would prefer sleeping around but has to stay with her because he isn't a good enough seducer to sleep around is a total retard and deserves to be dumped. That stuff goes both ways btw. If a woman knew she could catch a sexy hollywood Alist celebrity and get him to commit to her she more than likely wouldn't be in a relationship with her current boyfriend, but she knows she can't and obviously will lie to her boyfriend about it.
Negative Nancy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) I love it when evolution is brought up as an excuse for piggish behavior. "But it's natural!" the argument goes. Okay, let's look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. The evolutionary imperative isn't merely to quirt one's sperm -- it's to pass on one's genes. Those are two different things. And thus, it's an important part of the reproductive process to ensure, beyond the sex act, that the fertilized cells will actually develop into individuals who will then survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Humans by far are not the only animals where it actually serves the long-term reproductive interests of males to stick with regular partners and avoid casual encounters. Can men who sleep with lots of different women be said to have reproductive success? Remember, it's not a "success" until you become a grandfather. Women who sleep with those kinds of men are exceedingly likely to use some kind of birth control. In deep antiquity, when birth control was unreliable, children conceived outside of stable, community-sanctioned relationships ran a very high chance of being aborted, killed at birth, or enslaved and abused so badly from the earliest childhood that they would have very little chance of reproducing themselves. So no, between a stable, long-term relationship with one or even several partners on the one hand, and a string of one-night stands on the other, the former is a far superior reproductive strategy from an evolutionary standpoint. exactly, that's what i've always been saying. the "biological imperative" is the stupidest excuse i've ever heard and it makes no sense considering the fact that if the man "sows his oats" wide and far, if he so to speak just shoots his loads and leaves, the chance that he has many children will be higher, yeah, but the chances that any or many of these offspring ACTUALLY survive is significantly lower. it makes more sense evolutionary-wise if he'd stick around and helped to ensure his offspring grows into healthy adults who in turn are able to reproduce themselves and pass their genes on. THAT is genetic success - not sowing oats with 100 different women who are all left to raise the kids by themselves - which made these women and kids more prone to die for a lack of ressources. in a monogamous relationship it is much more likely that the kids will survive and pass on their genes. it is so logical that it's beyond me why people still accept the "biological imperative" of "sowing wild oats" today. i guess it's popular because it gives men an excuse to act like cavemen. and even IF cavemen really acted that way back then - obviously being a caveman was not beneficial evolutionary-wise or else we would still be cavemen. back in rome it was popular to rape little boys or throw grown men into lion-cages just for entertainment, does that mean just cos it was done back then and it was an accepted form of entertainment that we still should do it today or that it's right? so just because things were done in a certain thousands of years ago it doesn't mean it was right or good - otherwise there would've been no need for us to evolve and we'd still be living in those times. the same goes for so-called "scientific evolutionary strategies" (which are doubted by many credible scientists anyway). Edited November 5, 2011 by Negative Nancy
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 exactly, that's what i've always been saying. the "biological imperative" is the stupidest excuse i've ever heard You do a great job keeping your nickname accurate. There is no excuse to make for people acting in their own self interest without directly harming other people. It's called life. and it makes no sense considering the fact that if the man "sows his oats" wide and far, if he so to speak just shoots his loads and leaves, the chance that he has many children will be higher, yeah, but the chances that any or many of these offspring ACTUALLY survive is significantly lower. People with better credentials than you disagree with you on this. They tend to be very respected and write a book every now and then, with actual stats and empirical evidence, maybe you should read one. If you impregnate 100 women and 80 of your childeren die in poverty without reproducing, you'll still have 20 more passing your genes. Obviously there's never been a time where a child dies even close to 80% of the time when it's brought up without a father. Besides, women tend to not be naive and when they figure out they're pregnant they try to find a sucker, make him believe the child is his and have him raise it, which means the actual father has hit the evolutionary jackpot. it makes more sense evolutionary-wise if he'd stick around and helped to ensure his offspring grows into healthy adults who in turn are able to reproduce themselves and pass their genes on. You're assuming it's a choice someone makes or can make. In reality, the choice is made for them most of the time. If someone wants to impregnate 100 different women, he probably won't be able to convince 100 different women to have sex with him. Obviously if you're only going to be able to have sex with 1 woman, you might as well make sure the kids do well and be a good father. Not like you have anything better to do.
Negative Nancy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Besides, women tend to not be naive and when they figure out they're pregnant they try to find a sucker, make him believe the child is his and have him raise it, which means the actual father has hit the evolutionary jackpot. So how is she gonna find that "sucker" if every man, as your "credible sources" claim, is on a mission to pump and dump anyway? As you can see, your points make no sense. Try harder next time.
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 So how is she gonna find that "sucker" if every man, as your "credible sources" claim, is on a mission to pump and dump anyway? As you can see, your points make no sense. Try harder next time. Can't decide if you're trolling or just not that bright, but if you read the last 3 lines of the post above yours you'll see an explanation of why not every man is spending his time having sex with hundreds of women, in relatively easy to understand words. Oh, and sick burn indeed
Negative Nancy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 an explanation of why not every man is spending his time having sex with hundreds of women that discounts the scientists' theories then that all men are biologically out on a mission to impregnate as many women as possible. so your point now actually makes even less sense than before.
Jynxx Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 that discounts the scientists' theories then that all men are biologically out on a mission to impregnate as many women as possible. so your point now actually makes even less sense than before. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said every men was on a mission to impregnate as many women as possible. I said that a man who had the choice (ie a small minority) between either impregnating hundreds of women or raising a family is better off going for the quantity and you are wrong for saying the opposite. Science is on my side. It really is pretty simple: -People capable of impregnating hundreds of women gain by doing so. (Quantity > quality of offspring; maximize quantity) -Most people are incapable of impregnating hundreds of women. (Incapable of generating quantity) -If you are incapable of impregnating hundreds of women, focussing on quality is a good idea (if forced low quantity, maximize quality)
silvermercy Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Food for thought. I'm only speaking hypothetically because that's what the favorite method of those who support biology as an excuse to behave as Neanderthals (which ironically also got extinct, by the way, no? ). And I'm a biologist myself. Why is it always evolutionary-advantageous to spread your genes? Hypothesis: If for some reason a few men in a small isolated community convinced 100 women to sleep with them (they were quite the charmers, what can I say? ) and impregnated them all then this would soon lead to inbreeding. I don't see any advantage in spreading your genes here. After a few generations this would lead to mutations and finally life-threatening situations. So, spreading your genes this way: not good for survival. Ok, ok... one could argue the men could travel to other villages. But as i said I'm speaking hypothetically for a closed system, which is always easier to study. Also, think of Easter island. The dominant theory is that its people died due to lack of resources due to a growing population. How did spreading their genes was beneficial? They all died eventually.
Recommended Posts