guys who have slept around can be the most loyal of all

[TheFinalWord]

Why does it matter what gender I am? But yes, you guessed right, I am a female of course. I am aware of gender differences on a more molecular level (I'm a biochemist/geneticist after all). lol But to answer you:

1. I'm pretty sure there are many monogamous men who are perfectly happy with their arrangement and did not end up to their nearest mental institution for further treatment.

2. By highlighting such differences between the genders (and asking me if I'm a female) it seems you are seriously underestimating female sexuality and libido which can also be extremely high, sometimes more than men. But they still don't mean they have to go out, get wild and "indulge" whenever the urge strikes them. There would be total societal chaos if this happened.

 

Also, I would stay clear of any man who wanted constant "validation" from the opposite gender. I'm sure many men would do the same with a woman who acted like that, too.

 

I agree with this.

 

I'm a guy who does not have any issues attracting women, yet I have not slept with a large number (can easily count on one hand) and I'm early 30s.

 

I am a man with high testosterone levels, so there is no problem with my libido, I assure you.

 

But pursing sex is just not the central focus of my life. I can channel that energy into other life goals. I think a lot of men focus so much on sex because we are constantly bombarded by it in the media, by our friends, and our environment. You can chose not to fill your mind with porn, not hang out with guys that are just trying to bed women, not pursue casual sex "feeding the machine"...you can control your mind and environment.

 

I don't agree that men are subject and controlled to their biological impulses. Humans have the ability of forethought (we can contemplate the consequences of our actions) and can self-regulate our behaviors.

 

Yes, I would like sex on a regular basis, but within the context of a long-term (ideally marriage) monogamous relationship. Having casual sex does not benefit me in any way that I can see and does not advance my goal to find a spouse. So I see no reason to indulge in it.

 

However, I would not necessarily discount a woman if she had a large number. I would mainly look at her current life.

Edited February 22, 2012 by TheFinalWord

[danny in van]

OP is taking about the intentions of nice guys when he was some dude in his 30s trolling for teenagers?

 

Yeah ok

 

19 may have the word teen in it, but I see the long view of history - that for thousands of yrs women have given birth and are done by that age. And btw, most guys have to 'troll'- and the rest rely on mutual attraction. No coercion necessary (I've noticed self proclaimed 'nice guys' have to coerce).

[silvermercy]

Well I explained why I asked about gender: because since you're a girl you can only guess what goes thru a guy's mind -whereas I know. And what goes thru is the desire to have sex with lotsa diff girls. Females have high sex drives too, but in basic anthro 101 we learned females have to be selective- whereas men are wired oppositely. Girls always wanna think their guy is different, and there ARE variations amongst men. But if a guy didn't -or doesn't want to spread his seed- I say he's either in denial, in poor physical shape (has a direct correlation to sex drive) , or in the closet, or simply gave up as he recognized limited options. Girls try to define womanizing as immaturity, and some guys will buy into the obvious propaganda to appease the girl. Monogamy more reflects self interest. You gain 'stability' rather than the peaks and valleys of singledom. But what does stability and comfortability have to do with maturity?

Please forget Anthro. I have studied 10 years on this particular field, and Biology and Psychology principles have evolved a lot since then. You can easily use biology to justify just about ANYTHING actually. So biology, when it comes to explain wild oats, monogamy etc, has ceased to be valid in any discussion about relationship behavior - for either gender.

 

Why can't you understand the connection between maturity and stability (at least in the relationship field)? I find this strange actually as I think it's pretty obvious.

[kaylan]

Well I explained why I asked about gender: because since you're a girl you can only guess what goes thru a guy's mind -whereas I know. And what goes thru is the desire to have sex with lotsa diff girls. Females have high sex drives too, but in basic anthro 101 we learned females have to be selective- whereas men are wired oppositely. Girls always wanna think their guy is different, and there ARE variations amongst men. But if a guy didn't -or doesn't want to spread his seed- I say he's either in denial, in poor physical shape (has a direct correlation to sex drive) , or in the closet, or simply gave up as he recognized limited options. Girls try to define womanizing as immaturity, and some guys will buy into the obvious propaganda to appease the girl. Monogamy more reflects self interest. You gain 'stability' rather than the peaks and valleys of singledom. But what does stability and comfortability have to do with maturity?

Oh god...please lets not go the evo psych route.

 

I love sex, but dont really need to spread my seed. Id be fine giving all my seed to one woman. Especially if shes a demon in the sack.

 

Take this stuff elsewhere. A lot of these new posters who joined this month are posting stuff that seems to be typical PUA mantra. Especially the crap saying that if a guy doesnt desire to spread his seed, that he must be gay. Gimme a break.

Edited February 22, 2012 by kaylan

[silvermercy]

19 may have the word teen in it, but I see the long view of history - that for thousands of yrs women have given birth and are done by that age. And btw, most guys have to 'troll'- and the rest rely on mutual attraction. No coercion necessary (I've noticed self proclaimed 'nice guys' have to coerce).

For thousands of years women also wore burkas, were forbidden to step outside of the house, did not vote as they were considered too stupid, had apparently less value than goats and camels and 9 year olds were married to 50 year old despite their will. Red haired women were also considered to be witches.

 

Also, for thousands of years the Earth was flat.

[danny in van]

I have a question for you: How would you feel if your new gf had slept with more guys than you have slept with girls?

 

And how many guys can I girl sleep with before you think it's too many?

 

I'll be honest- and you can call it a double standard if you like...but if more partners than me, well it's my prerogative and I would avoid her- because it doesn't quite fit with how nature works. Girls are designed to be selective due to pregnancy reasons...so I'd have to wonder what happened to her 'design'.

Go ahead and hate me if u must- but be logical in ur responses pls!

But so you know, I'm ok with other double standards that don't suit me IE I pay for my dates even tho we make the same $. Double standard but I don't care to reinvent the wheel. I accept it!

[kaylan]

19 may have the word teen in it, but I see the long view of history - that for thousands of yrs women have given birth and are done by that age. And btw, most guys have to 'troll'- and the rest rely on mutual attraction. No coercion necessary (I've noticed self proclaimed 'nice guys' have to coerce).

19 yr olds are kids compared to 30 year olds.

 

The only reason why for thousands of years women gave birth and were done by that age is because older dudes controlled the world and thought it was ok to have sex with young folks.

 

Remember in older societies messing around with young teens no older than 16 was seen as just fine. Thing is we have matured as a civilization. Let these kids grown up.

 

Just because something happened a lot in the past did not mean it was in the best interest of the gal, nor makes it right today.

 

For thousands of years women also wore burkas, were forbidden to step outside of the house, did not vote as they were considered too stupid, had apparently less value than goats and camels and 9 year olds were married to 50 year old despite their will. Red haired women were also considered to be witches.

 

Also, for thousands of years the Earth was flat.

Dont even bother with this guy.

 

Hes spouting off evo-psych pickup mantra.

[danny in van]

Please forget Anthro. I have studied 10 years on this particular field, and Biology and Psychology principles have evolved a lot since then. You can easily use biology to justify just about ANYTHING actually. So biology, when it comes to explain wild oats, monogamy etc, has ceased to be valid in any discussion about relationship behavior - for either gender.

 

Why can't you understand the connection between maturity and stability (at least in the relationship field)? I find this strange actually as I think it's pretty obvious.

 

my argument is unfashionable because it's un PC (as it threatens so called family values). But it's far from invalid. Darwinism has been replaced by what in the last 10 yrs?? I missed the report!

As I said, you won't find many arguing my point, particularly males, because they've either drank the kool aid, or just recognize they'll be in the dog house for saying it.

 

And the 'stable' life doesn't = maturity. All it equals is the stable life, and someone who wants the same thing day after day. The closest synonym to maturity I can think of is wisdom- but there are alot of unwise monogamous people. If all monogamous people were tested to have higher IQs then you'd have a point. But to me it's just a lifestyle difference.

[ScreamingTrees]

I agree with you actually. And I think the same goes for girls who have done less than ladylike things.

 

I think it all boils down to confidence. Confidence people can get lots of play in their wild 'sowing their oats' days. But a truly confident person also knows what they want and are happy to settle down with it when they find something worth settling down for. Less confident people are always going to be questioning themselves and their choices which is more likely going to lead to a wandering eye and floundering in a relationship.

 

That's why I try not to judge too harshly on someone's number (I mean unless it's truly staggering, which to me shows a less than confident person who will sleep with just about anyone that will take them.). I judge more on their character realizing that everyone has a past and that if we chose each other to settle down with, we are both the real winners in the game.

 

I agree. You have to feel a person out regardless of how few or many people they'd slept with.

[silvermercy]

Yeah yeah... ok...danny.... If you say so! Sure, we believe you. I will also burn all my biomedical degrees. lol

 

 

Dont even bother with this guy.

 

Hes spouting off evo-psych pickup mantra.

I realized... A bit too late. LOL

It's been covered (and debunked) like.. what? Ten thousands of times already? The "pseudo" prefix should become mandatory when it comes to the "wild oats" talk. lol

[TheFinalWord]

FinalPost...well thought out posting.

 

However, it is MORE likely that someone who has had more partners in the past will have more in the future. Just as it is more likely someone who had a weight problem in the past will more likeyl have in the future than someone who has always been slim.

 

I've never smoked or done any drugs...less likely of me getting hooked on a prescription narcotic than the person who used to be a junkie. There are patterns of behavior.

 

I also haven't had a lot of sexual partners...largely out of choice. It's partly because of my ethical background and self-discipline. For some it could be for cultural or religious reasons. Reasons for 'less partners' just didn't materialize out of a vacuum.

 

Certainly people who cheat may never cheat again. alcoholics may never have a drinking problem again. People who eat too many cookies may never eat another one.

 

So sure the more promiscuous someone was doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. It also doesn't mean that YOU are at the end of the chain and will be the person they will eventually be monogamous with.

 

I agree, past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. However, behavioral intention is much more powerful. Behavioral intention is comprised of three independent variables: attitude toward a behavior, perceived behavioral control (similar to self-efficacy) and subjective norm (social pressures). This is why people can overcome barriers. For example, people who are overweight can lose weight. People can reduce their drinking, etc.

 

Here is a link you can read

 

Theory of Planned Behavior

 

A variety of theories explain this from slightly different perspectives. The main variable is self-efficacy, or the confidence to engage or refrain from a particular behavior. Self-efficacy can be acquired in many ways. I would recommend research social cognitive theory if you are interested in learning more.

 

Social cognitive theory helps explain why we humans have a lot of power over our behaviors. This is because humans are capable of vicarious learning, self-regulation, self-reflection, and forethought.

[danny in van]

19 yr olds are kids compared to 30 year olds.

 

The only reason why for thousands of years women gave birth and were done by that age is because older dudes controlled the world and thought it was ok to have sex with young folks.

 

Remember in older societies messing around with young teens no older than 16 was seen as just fine. Thing is we have matured as a civilization. Let these kids grown up.

 

Just because something happened a lot in the past did not mean it was in the best interest of the gal, nor makes it right today.

 

 

Dont even bother with this guy.

 

Hes spouting off evo-psych pickup mantra.

 

So a 30 yr old and a 19 yr old together is...? wrong? what if she's 21...or 21.5, 22 maybe? No 25? What age gap is allowed? What book do you consult? Funny thing is she was the best relationship I've ever had...girls my age (in my experience) sorta have become 'tough'.

[ScreamingTrees]

my argument is unfashionable because it's un PC (as it threatens so called family values). But it's far from invalid. Darwinism has been replaced by what in the last 10 yrs?? I missed the report!

As I said, you won't find many arguing my point, particularly males, because they've either drank the kool aid, or just recognize they'll be in the dog house for saying it.

 

And the 'stable' life doesn't = maturity. All it equals is the stable life, and someone who wants the same thing day after day. The closest synonym to maturity I can think of is wisdom- but there are alot of unwise monogamous people. If all monogamous people were tested to have higher IQs then you'd have a point. But to me it's just a lifestyle difference.

 

I guess I could sort of agree with some of your reasoning.. In the sense that I can agree that regardless of how many partners you've had, whether 0 or 100, it bears no relevance to how mature you are or if you're more or less likely to cheat. It has everything to do with the individual. There are just as many unwise promiscuous individual as there are monogamous.

 

You make it sound as though a stable life is boring. To have a loving partner that you connect with in every way rather than someone who's simply great for sex and alright for everything else..

 

Maybe that's a biased version of MY perceptions/beliefs, but it's no better than what you did in that post. I'd agree that it's a lifestyle difference and as such there ARE some general differences between those two types of people. Maybe one crowd's pickier than the other? Has higher standards?

 

A person who's been with 100 people could've done so because they weren't sure of what they were looking for but finally found it, and a person could go through their teens and early twenties without having any sexual partners because they know what they're looking for and 100% believe that they can mirror what they're looking for and still haven't found it.

 

You really don't know someone's story. I think these threads are getting rather redundant, but what do I know, I'm still participating.

[danny in van]

Yeah yeah... ok...danny.... If you say so! Sure, we believe you. I will also burn all my biomedical degrees. lol

 

 

 

I realized... A bit too late. LOL

It's been covered (and debunked) like.. what? Ten thousands of times already? The "pseudo" prefix should become mandatory when it comes to the "wild oats" talk. lol

 

Just speaking from experience: I've never cheated in an LTR because I didn't attach morality to 2 consenting adults agreeing to jump into bed together. However, you know how many married couples I know got married young, and have cheated or seem to be getting there? My only point in all this is to the girls and it's 'be careful of the self professed nice guys selling you their loyalty!' Can be the wolves in sheep's clothing!

[silvermercy]

I agree, past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. However, behavioral intention is much more powerful. Behavioral intention is comprised of three independent variables: attitude toward a behavior, perceived behavioral control (similar to self-efficacy) and subjective norm (social pressures). This is why people can overcome barriers. For example, people who are overweight can lose weight. People can reduce their drinking, etc.

 

Here is a link you can read

 

Theory of Planned Behavior

 

A variety of theories explain this from slightly different perspectives. The main variable is self-efficacy, or the confidence to engage or refrain from a particular behavior. Self-efficacy can be acquired in many ways. I would recommend research social cognitive theory if you are interested in learning more.

 

Social cognitive theory helps explain why we humans have a lot of power over our behaviors. This is because humans are capable of vicarious learning, self-regulation, self-reflection, and forethought.

I haven't read this, but now I'm wondering: does this planned behavior theory (I bolded the word "theory" on purpose) also include behavioural adjustments that are not life-threatening? Or life-improving? Because some people do not want or need to "improve" their life by getting married or becoming monogamous. They don't see it as an improvement or a life-threatening situation so as to modify their behavior this way.

 

@danny: see reply by ScreamingTrees. That's my answer, too.

[danny in van]

Oh god...please lets not go the evo psych route.

 

I love sex, but dont really need to spread my seed. Id be fine giving all my seed to one woman. Especially if shes a demon in the sack.

 

Take this stuff elsewhere. A lot of these new posters who joined this month are posting stuff that seems to be typical PUA mantra. Especially the crap saying that if a guy doesnt desire to spread his seed, that he must be gay. Gimme a break.

 

You're hypothesizing I think ' Id be fine giving all my seed to one woman'

well that sounds nice- but write me again after you've done this for 7yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs. If you have, then I concede. But if not, it's all speculation.

[danny in van]

For thousands of years women also wore burkas, were forbidden to step outside of the house, did not vote as they were considered too stupid, had apparently less value than goats and camels and 9 year olds were married to 50 year old despite their will. Red haired women were also considered to be witches.

 

Also, for thousands of years the Earth was flat.

 

So your point seems to be a 30 yr old is immoral if he starts dating a 19yr old?

19yr olds are 'kids' to you? Though they can vote and drive etc...?

[kaylan]

So a 30 yr old and a 19 yr old together is...? wrong? what if she's 21...or 21.5, 22 maybe? No 25? What age gap is allowed? What book do you consult? Funny thing is she was the best relationship I've ever had...girls my age (in my experience) sorta have become 'tough'.

Its not about the age gap, but the difference in maturity. 29 and 40 isnt a big deal at all. But a 19 year old is miles behind a 30 year old. Lets not pretend older guys go after younger girls with the best intentions. And usually the relationship is not about equals. The older person tends to want to be in control and thats easy to do with a kid.

 

Go figure your ex ended up bailing and wanting to meet new guys aka "spread her wings". Being at the same stages in life is important and between the ages of 15 and 25 the differences in life experience and maturity from year to year are a lot.

 

You're hypothesizing I think ' Id be fine giving all my seed to one woman'

well that sounds nice- but write me again after you've done this for 7yrs, 10 yrs, 15 yrs. If you have, then I concede. But if not, it's all speculation.

IM hypothesizing?

 

YOU are the one telling ME that I will think a certain way. I think I know myself better than you.

 

Gtfo out of here with your evo-psych nonsense.

Edited February 22, 2012 by kaylan

[kaylan]

So your point seems to be a 30 yr old is immoral if he starts dating a 19yr old?

19yr olds are 'kids' to you? Though they can vote and drive etc...?

They are still immature as hell and can easily be taken advantage of. Thats exactly why older guys try to sleep with these women.

 

Theres a thread on this forum about a 26 yr old girl who was with an older guy for ten years. They started dating when she was 16 and he was 25. You wanna tell me thats ok too?

 

She ended up wanting to break up with him to experience new guys as well. I dont see why some older dudes cant let these kids just grow up and experience life.

[silvermercy]

I forgot to add that when I mention commitment, I don't mean only cheating. But lack of interest, too. Or him feeling bored or being half-assed in a relationship. Or me having a greater risk of being someone's number. I don't want the risk of being a number in a large chain of partners. I want the smallest risk possible. I want to be his LAST number. So I don't see the risk of me being just a number getting any smaller with someone with really high numbers. Statistically and logically speaking, the risk is bigger.

[danny in van]

FinalPost...well thought out posting.

 

However, it is MORE likely that someone who has had more partners in the past will have more in the future. Just as it is more likely someone who had a weight problem in the past will more likeyl have in the future than someone who has always been slim.

 

I've never smoked or done any drugs...less likely of me getting hooked on a prescription narcotic than the person who used to be a junkie. There are patterns of behavior.

 

I also haven't had a lot of sexual partners...largely out of choice. It's partly because of my ethical background and self-discipline. For some it could be for cultural or religious reasons. Reasons for 'less partners' just didn't materialize out of a vacuum.

 

Certainly people who cheat may never cheat again. alcoholics may never have a drinking problem again. People who eat too many cookies may never eat another one.

 

So sure the more promiscuous someone was doesn't mean they can't be monogamous. It also doesn't mean that YOU are at the end of the chain and will be the person they will eventually be monogamous with.

 

I see things quite differently...I always wanted to go to see many of the famous capitals of the world. So I did and now that curiosity is satisfied. And now I don't get those itchy feet many people have, thinking that grass is greener in Europe for example. I know that's it's just different grass in Europe- thus I'm content to live where I do. I hope u get my analogy.

[silvermercy]

So your point seems to be a 30 yr old is immoral if he starts dating a 19yr old?

19yr olds are 'kids' to you? Though they can vote and drive etc...?

Yes, exactly. There are actually older kids. VERY few exceptions exist. I'm 29 and wouldn't date someone less than 25 or 26 because the difference in maturity levels is enormous. Especially when the person is 19.

[ScreamingTrees]

Just speaking from experience: I've never cheated in an LTR because I didn't attach morality to 2 consenting adults agreeing to jump into bed together. However, you know how many married couples I know got married young, and have cheated or seem to be getting there? My only point in all this is to the girls and it's 'be careful of the self professed nice guys selling you their loyalty!' Can be the wolves in sheep's clothing!

 

Who's REALLY stressing their "loyalty"? They aren't nice, nor are they necessarily loyal if they're talking rather than doing. This is universal, and those guys are basically the same guys who cheat, so they're obviously no better than one another.

 

When my mind's made up on something, it doesn't change. If I had everything I'd want in a relationship, why would I EVER have to look elsewhere? I wouldn't be curious. A vagina's a vagina. A face is a face, they grow old and deteriorate. But if I met someone who I connected with in a special way, that'd make their ****s smell like strawberry ice cream whereas every other girl's **** would still smell like ****. (OK, maybe not the best way to put it, but you get the idea.. lol)

 

And just because YOU would get physically tired of a woman after 7 years (you clearly seem to have a preference for innocent, untouched 19 year olds who haven't been given a chance to "become bitter"..) why don't you just continue to enjoy your young'uns and leave the judgement calls for someone else? Oh, wait, maybe it's because you're not getting any younger..

 

And neither are the women that you're growing tired of. Maybe you should learn to embrace your own/other's physical/mental aging, it's something that happens to all of us. If you need someone who's easy to control and has a young body, great.

 

Some of us can have plenty of kids with one person who we feel qualifies genetically, if you want to look at it in such a calculated manner. Are you going to impregnate a bunch of random women in casual hook-ups? Sounds really expensive. You plan on giving your paycheck to those women after you leave them, or are they stupid enough to be willing to take care of the kid without a father? How else would you spread your seed in a way that yields results?

[danny in van]

I forgot to add that when I mention commitment, I don't mean only cheating. But lack of interest, too. Or him feeling bored or being half-assed in a relationship. Or me having a greater risk of being someone's number. I don't want the risk of being a number in a large chain of partners. I want the smallest risk possible. I want to be his LAST number. So I don't see the risk of me being just a number getting any smaller with someone with really high numbers. Statistically and logically speaking, the risk is bigger.

 

So your ideal would be a grown up virgin?

[TheFinalWord]

I haven't read this, but now I'm wondering: does this planned behavior theory (I bolded the word "theory" on purpose) also include behavioural adjustments that are not life-threatening? Or life-improving? Because some people do not want or need to "improve" their life by getting married or becoming monogamous. They don't see it as an improvement or a life-threatening situation so as to modify their behavior this way.

 

@danny: see reply by ScreamingTrees. That's my answer, too.

 

Hi Silver Mercy,

 

Yes, it is normally used to predict behavioral intentions (i.e. I intend to have sex). The theory has been used a lot to increase condom use among sexually active individuals

 

Here's a list of published papers:

 

Theory of Planned Behavior: Bibliography

 

Here's the developer:

 

Professional Background & Activities

 

According to the theory, intentions are the immediate antecedents of behavior.A lot of public health programs use this backdrop when developing programs.The three latent variables that describe intention are comprised of sub-constructs. I didn't list them here.

 

Meta-analyses have demonstrated it can account for up to 40% of human behavior. It isn't a perfect theory, but it is one of the best at this point in time. It doesn't explain affective processes, but instead cognitive processes. There's a lot of research to improve this theory currently by including affective reasoning.

 

But human behavior is very complex so it is unlikely any theory will ever explain 100% of behavior. I'm sure you know the pros and cons of theories from your biology background.

 

Hope that answers your questions. Take care.