Hooray for banging big titty bitches! And by "banging big titty bitches", I obviously mean this:
Beatflux
quote:
Originally posted by AnotherWay83
i've been infatuated (what i thought was "love" at the time :haha: ) before, but i'm very fickle and fall in and out of it quickly. i've dated around and had a few flings, but i've never been in a relationship and quite frankly have given up on ever having one. looking back, i used to be much more romantic. now the whole thing seems like such a charade the idea of "dating" actually turns me off. IMHO it sucks even more once you enter your late 20s and up, because by then the women you meet seem much more interested in: the car you drive, if you rent or own, if you live in the city (what neighborhood?) or the suburbs, if you live with a roommate, etc etc. for this reason i've always preferred younger women (<25) and been envious of guys in that age bracket, because of the access they enjoy to said women. they seem much more interested in you as a person than in how you fit in with their grand plans for the future.
as a kid i was acutely shy around girls, and moving to a whole different country didn't exactly help. i had my first date when i was 20 years old, and had sex without paying for it for the first time at 24. even then it was with some 45 yr old hag that had a thing for younger guys, so no great conquest really. i also had serious depression issues which put me on meds, the result of which was severe weight gain. this only made things worse, as you could imagine.
due to the above i was never able to pull a girl i was really, really attracted to physically. all the non-pros i've been with were always just fill-ins, the kind you while you wait for something better to show up. frankly, i couldn't possibly have slept with them more than once or twice at the most. the ones i really wanted, never wanted me (they still don't, btw :p). i'm not trying to make a thing out of it, i don't hate women and i'm not one of those who thinks that just because a girl isn't into me, she's a "bitch" or a "lesbo" or whatever (except when she refuses to sit on my face, of course :D ) . i'm a pretty firm believer in doing what's best for yourself, and if a girl is attracted to some guy other than me, i'd rather see her with him than try to convince her otherwise.
my problem is that unlike most guys, i can't just settle for whatever comes my way. i couldn't, you see - if i did, i would likely have remained a virgin for even longer, and would only ever have had lousy sex with women i was barely attracted to. this, too, is acceptable to some guys...i'm just not one of them.
growing up i always felt that there were just two options really as far as the whole romance thing is concerned. the first (and obviously, best-case) option is to get with someone with whom there's intense mutual attraction at every level - physical, mental, emotional, etc. the second would be a compromise in one or more (and likely all three, as is the case with so many couples) of those areas.
once i got out of school and got a decent paying job, however, a third option inserted itself between the 2 - escorts of the high end variety. however, even though i prefer this over the last remaining option, it's still a very distant second in the list, and i can't help but look with envy (lame, i know) upon those who are lucky enough to experience the best.
For guys its how she looks, for women its social status.
You can always make your social status go up.
No need to give up so easily. :D
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
I think we have been hard wired to fornicate with as many people as possible so i think i agree with you that staying with that sort of girl is not something that could be argued by being adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint.
No we're not. Human babies take an extremely long time to become self-reliant - it's years before they can even walk or feed themselves with any reliability. Without constant attention, they would die very quickly. This means that human parents are required to stay as part of a family unit for very long periods, to ensure the fruits of their genetic seed don't starve to death after a few weeks. Furthermore, human pregnancy is very long and incapacitating. The male cannot leave the female during the latter stages of pregnancy, because she becomes increasingly physically handicapped by the pregnancy, progressively more vulnerable to outside dangers and far less able to do essential things like hunt for food. Consequently, it is an evolutionary necessity that human sexual partners are programmed to want to stay together, so the father will help the mother during pregnancy and with raising the child. That is essentially why human society is rooted around a basic ideal of the monogamous relationship.
While it's often presented as the basic animal desire just to , with love being deemed as some more sophisticated social construction, I would argue the opposite is true. Of course, the sex drive is there because as an organism you need a drive to find a suitable reproductive partner. But the idea of non-commital sex with a series of partners with no intention of sticking around to raise any resultant offspring is only possible in an environment where sex is abstracted from its biological purpose and turned into a source of pleasure. In an evolutionary sense, it's pretty pointless.
Jon_Snow
Call it what you will, big , or what not. Blame it on society if that what makes you feel better. My point is stop trying to emasculate us men who act like men. We were born to hunt. To deny our birth right, our instincts is lie plain and simple.
Looney4Clooney
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No we're not. Human babies take an extremely long time to become self-reliant - it's years before they can even walk or feed themselves with any reliability. Without constant attention, they would die very quickly. This means that human parents are required to stay as part of a family unit for very long periods, to ensure the fruits of their genetic seed don't starve to death after a few weeks. Furthermore, human pregnancy is very long and incapacitating. The male cannot leave the female during the latter stages of pregnancy, because she becomes increasingly physically handicapped by the pregnancy, progressively more vulnerable to outside dangers and far less able to do essential things like hunt for food. Consequently, it is an evolutionary necessity that human sexual partners are programmed to want to stay together, so the father will help the mother during pregnancy and with raising the child. That is essentially why human society is rooted around a basic ideal of the monogamous relationship.
While it's often presented as the basic animal desire just to , with love being deemed as some more sophisticated social construction, I would argue the opposite is true. Of course, the sex drive is there because as an organism you need a drive to find a suitable reproductive partner. But the idea of non-commital sex with a series of partners with no intention of sticking around to raise any resultant offspring is only possible in an environment where sex is abstracted from its biological purpose and turned into a source of pleasure. In an evolutionary sense, it's pretty pointless.
well consider that only 1/3 of your relatives are male. This means that as we evolved only males that were viewed as good mates were allowed to mate but the fact it isn't 50% means that males have always invested less in child rearing than females. Evolutionary biologists theorize that because women have less time to conceive and require more resources to do it, they chose their mate more carefully which does somewhat balance out the equation but not completely So yes, perhaps I overstated to what degree but the proof is in the DNA, and i suppose to a lesser extent meta studies that show in almost every culture men are more promiscuous.
THe male typically tries to spend as little time as possible or he can get away with while not going too far that a female will not chose him. tHat is at least how Dawkins explains it in the selfish gene. A male fornicating does not require anywhere near the resources as a female. Women had to be more selective as they were only fertile for so long unlike males who could be fertile for their entire life.
Also, males typically will fornicate as much as they can in the hope that another male will look after the offspring as it requires no investment and the possibility that someone will look after their offspring. The female will not care who is helping as to not have help means her genes also don't survive. . So although you are right , it does require both, males developed strategies to ensure as many of their genes are passed along. One thing is pretty uncontested among apes and perhaps humans is that monogamy is quite a new thing. males are less selective and since only 1/3 of our relatives are males, women are by nature more valuable. 2/12 males are redundant.
I think the main point is that the programming that fostered this behaviour has not had the chance to catch up as evolution is slow where as cultural changes are quick. Aggression, anxiety and other evolutionary throwbacks are not really that adaptive but they haven't had time to regress.
but i don]t think anyone knows for sure why so what is just rehashing of things i've read and heard in podcasts and could probably be debated on many of the reasons why it is this way.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
well consider that only 1/3 of your relatives are male.
I don't really follow.
Looney4Clooney
meaning of all your ancestors , all the females generally procreated generally while only 4/6 of the males did. The more desirable males had more than one partner and their genes were passed on where as 2/6 of males didn't. Females had the luxury of being more selective because of the burden of the resources needed to raise the child. You are right that the cost is shared but not equally which made it possible for fewer males to fertilize more females.
So if it was equal, 6/12 should be male, 6/12 female, but the reality or i suppose the current theory is that it was 4/12 thus 1/3.
Beatflux
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Furthermore, human pregnancy is very long and incapacitating. The male cannot leave the female during the latter stages of pregnancy, because she becomes increasingly physically handicapped by the pregnancy, progressively more vulnerable to outside dangers and far less able to do essential things like hunt for food.
Ever watch "I didn't know I was pregnant?" These women go about their daily lives as if nothing is different and often times the pregnancy is without serious complications. One women worked a very physical job of moving boxes around all day and her baby was fine.
A women who can continually work her regular duties seems more capable to survive than a woman who has to be catered to and must restrict her daily survival activities. Nine pounds of additional weight doesn't sound like much when you consider that a lot of American's are overweight or obese yet still function on a day to day level.
SYSTEM-J
Because the day to day life of an obese American is directly comparable to the life of a prehistoric human in an untamed natural environment.
quote:
Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
meaning of all your ancestors , all the females generally procreated generally while only 4/6 of the males did.
Where do these numbers come from?
Intellekshual
quote:
Originally posted by Beatflux
Nine pounds of additional weight doesn't sound like much when you consider that a lot of American's are overweight or obese yet still function on a day to day level.
You must be joking. Comparing being overweight to pregnancy is idiotic as .
Obviously it varies on an individual basis, but many women have extremely difficult pregnancies, constant fatigue, morning sickness, raging appetites, mood swings, back pain and all kinds of aches, hormones are all wonky etc.. plus worrying about a miscarriage and assorted unpleasantries. It can be really crippling for some women. They don't restrict their daily activities because they want to, it's because their pregnancy is truly debilitating.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Intellekshual
idiotic as .
Should be Beatflux's custom title, really.
Beatflux
quote:
Originally posted by Intellekshual
You must be joking. Comparing being overweight to pregnancy is idiotic as .
Obviously it varies on an individual basis, but many women have extremely difficult pregnancies, constant fatigue, morning sickness, raging appetites, mood swings, back pain and all kinds of aches, hormones are all wonky etc.. plus worrying about a miscarriage and assorted unpleasantries. It can be really crippling for some women. They don't restrict their daily activities because they want to, it's because their pregnancy is truly debilitating.
It would behoove evolution to weed them out and favor those that don't have complications.
