View Full Version : If you don't want a dance...
Pages :
1
2
[
3]
4
5
6
7
8
Cyril
08-22-2009, 11:16 PM
Just because this occurs regularly in the porn films you watch such as Saturday Night Beaver, doesn't mean it's normal, socially accepted behavior in real life.
Whatever floats your boat boss.
WestCoast101
08-23-2009, 02:11 AM
as for "women "may" take it differently because they are wired differently"
NO KIDDING but your preachin to the choir because its the womens lib bullshit artists spouting the usual garbage in here that women and mens attitudes on issues like rejection aRE really the same. SHAME ON YOU for making offensive comments!!!!
WestCoast101
08-23-2009, 02:14 AM
"rejection ITC is that it's business, not pleasure" you would think, but in reality all the convincing in the world isn't going to stop most strip chicks from handling strip club rejection badly
mediocrity
08-23-2009, 02:47 AM
Yes. I do.
FYI for you: There is a big difference between a strip club and a night club. Why don't you hit a night club in San Francisco (or any major city in USA) on a weekend and find out for yourself.
Um, well... I lived in SF, ATL, Seattle and LV.. and if a guy did that to me? I would punch him the fuck out.
You disgust me.
JayATee
08-23-2009, 03:14 AM
^ Uh yeah. I've been in some of the top clubs in nyc... you honestly think this is ok? You're out of your freakin mind Cyril. If you think this is ok I'd suggest keeping a good lawyer on retainer. You're gonna need it.
WiseGuy_TX
08-23-2009, 05:54 AM
It is not a sexual assault if both parties consent to it....ahhh i see, he was your pick-up-artist mentor.
as for "women "may" take it differently because they are wired differently"
NO KIDDING but your preachin to the choir because its the womens lib bullshit artists spouting the usual garbage in here that women and mens attitudes on issues like rejection aRE really the same. SHAME ON YOU for making offensive comments!!!!...WTF???? Ok.
"rejection ITC is that it's business, not pleasure" you would think, but in reality all the convincing in the world isn't going to stop most strip chicks from handling strip club rejection badly...i'm convinced most strip chicks handle it just fine.
audrey_k
08-23-2009, 07:41 AM
"rejection ITC is that it's business, not pleasure" you would think, but in reality all the convincing in the world isn't going to stop most strip chicks from handling strip club rejection badly
I know this may hurt, but all the strippers who you may have rejected didn't go back to the DR and cry because you broke their hearts. Judging from your personality on this board if there were any tears they were of joy. Get over yourself. We really don't give a fuck.
WestCoast101
08-23-2009, 10:17 AM
now you finally went and done it !!!! and i was being so so sensitive to you kiddies, however being generous and to keep u happy i promise next time to accept your dance request, but baby YOU got to pay me!!!!!!!!!
WestCoast101
08-23-2009, 11:56 AM
"...i'm convinced most strip chicks handle it just fine." even with experienced dancers most never really shake that issue,, and for new dancers, it helps spike up the turnover. the very same "we don't give a fuck" dancer claiming near immunity to the rejection issue is now on the other thread talking about her club "breakdowns", most recently by making 27 dollars on a bad day. Oh right, its just the club i'm sure. Pay attentiion to what chicks DO not what they SAY!!!!
firemaiden04
08-23-2009, 12:12 PM
"...i'm convinced most strip chicks handle it just fine." even with experienced dancers most never really shake that issue,, and for new dancers, it helps spike up the turnover. the very same "we don't give a fuck" dancer claiming near immunity to the rejection issue is now on the other thread talking about her club "breakdowns", most recently by making 27 dollars on a bad day. Oh right, its just the club i'm sure. Pay attentiion to what chicks DO not what they SAY!!!!
...what?
JayATee
08-23-2009, 01:05 PM
now you finally went and done it !!!! and i was being so so sensitive to you kiddies, however being generous and to keep u happy i promise next time to accept your dance request, but baby YOU got to pay me!!!!!!!!!
"...i'm convinced most strip chicks handle it just fine." even with experienced dancers most never really shake that issue,, and for new dancers, it helps spike up the turnover. the very same "we don't give a fuck" dancer claiming near immunity to the rejection issue is now on the other thread talking about her club "breakdowns", most recently by making 27 dollars on a bad day. Oh right, its just the club i'm sure. Pay attentiion to what chicks DO not what they SAY!!!!
Dude, you're fucking clueless, and you're trying to sound all high and mighty here and it would be most appreciated if you'd knock it off. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your posts don't even make sense.
Quit trolling.
WiseGuy_TX
08-23-2009, 01:18 PM
"...i'm convinced most strip chicks handle it just fine." even with experienced dancers most never really shake that issue,, and for new dancers, it helps spike up the turnover. the very same "we don't give a fuck" dancer claiming near immunity to the rejection issue is now on the other thread talking about her club "breakdowns", most recently by making 27 dollars on a bad day. Oh right, its just the club i'm sure. Pay attentiion to what chicks DO not what they SAY!!!!...curious, can you describe in detail exactly what these dancers DO that prove they cant handle it? No generalizations please and the "dont give a fuck" dancer was only "saying" stuff unrelated to feelings of rejection.
gameover
08-23-2009, 02:42 PM
$100 to the first person who can make cyril cry :)
Pretty_Penny
08-23-2009, 03:27 PM
*starts cutting onions*
Golden_Rule
08-23-2009, 07:54 PM
Again, the only reasonable explanation is that he has been raised in a different culture, different part of the world, and so he really can't fathom why this bit of frivolity would not go over well in the context of this forum.
What is obviously assault to us in the USA, and what is felt by women (presumably) universally in all cultures, apparently remains nothing but a humorous prank to some.
You mean to say his sister was number one prostitute in all of Kazakhstan?
gameover
08-23-2009, 08:51 PM
*starts cutting onions*
heh, I think i love u
hot4ablackchick
08-24-2009, 12:04 AM
What the hell is happening to this thread!!????? This was an interesting post with interesting answers before everyone got their panties in a bunch!
I think its really pointless to really read into a guys answer. Unless he says yes, then there is absolutely no guarantee he will get a dance. I've had guys that say no thank you to me, and get a dance later. I usually approach everyone 2 to 3 times before I won't come back over and ask. I just don't see what the big deal is whether he says maybe later or no thank you. A maybe is not a guaranteed yes. Nothing is guaranteed, custies can always change their mind. They can promise a dance from you, but then they may find other girl(s) they like better than you and change their mind. They may see you onstage and realize they don't care for your fake boobs, piercings, tats or whatever and change their mind. I hate having my time wasted just as much as the next dancer, but its not like you are talking about sitting, it is simply wannadance anyway, it takes merely seconds.
I think we can all agree that it sucks when we have a bad rejection night. I'm not saying we go in the DR and cry our eyes out when every guy says no, but lets honestly admit that rejection can suck when it goes on for a long time. It may not be personal, and if I sold vacuums, it would suck if I didn't sell one for a long time when I was trying hard. I'm not saying its soul crushing but it can be a slight bruise to the ego. I know MOST guys are going to say no. I get it, its fine. When its busy and the entire room says no, or I am the only one not selling dances, it stings a bit.
I also get what some of the guys meant by the handling of rejection comment. I think it just meant that women do not usually do the approaching, and when women do, they usually succeed. Most women can fuck just about any guy they want, even if they are just marginally attractive. Women don't have to "work" to get a guy to like them. In a SC, the tables are turned. Hot women are now "working" to get a guy's attention, even if he is a fat ugly slob. I know that its for the $$ and the men are paying, but it is much different to how it works OTC. I don't think they meant we are all broken souls who require therapy after being rejected by PL's, just pointing out a reason some dancers do not handle rejection well.
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 10:39 AM
forget the term "do" its confuses things, the key is not what chicks SAY its how they REACT in reality, and this discussion is just another case, not all the chicks in here of course, but the point is its a wishful thinking thing they as some really believe the feminist bullshit that men and women except for minor difrerences are wired the same,, when in fact they aint, and one of those is initial-contact type rejection, because chicks don't typically have to deal with it on a volume basis like men, so they handle it worse on average. you got to admit what is say makes COMPLETe sense.
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 10:50 AM
now exactly where is the chick giving "consent" ? i missed that part.
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 10:56 AM
man the was cruel, because in fact many women who keep themselves up can gets all sorts of walk-up type interest for many years, and they don't even have to be super young
Elvia
08-24-2009, 01:34 PM
forget the term "do" its confuses things, the key is not what chicks SAY its how they REACT in reality, and this discussion is just another case, not all the chicks in here of course, but the point is its a wishful thinking thing they as some really believe the feminist bullshit that men and women except for minor difrerences are wired the same,, when in fact they aint, and one of those is initial-contact type rejection, because chicks don't typically have to deal with it on a volume basis like men, so they handle it worse on average. you got to admit what is say makes COMPLETe sense.
Actually it does not, because most of your posts are fairly illiterate. You should proof read before you post because as it is, it's very difficult to understand what you're trying to say most of the time.
Secondly, your argument that women don't have to deal with "volume basis" (I take that to mean they don't have to deal with as many rejections as men) really wouldn't apply to strippers now, would it? Considering that we ask tons of guys for a dance every night and therefore have to deal with (some) rejection every night.
firemaiden04
08-24-2009, 02:59 PM
forget the term "do" its confuses things, the key is not what chicks SAY its how they REACT in reality, and this discussion is just another case, not all the chicks in here of course, but the point is its a wishful thinking thing they as some really believe the feminist bullshit that men and women except for minor difrerences are wired the same,, when in fact they aint, and one of those is initial-contact type rejection, because chicks don't typically have to deal with it on a volume basis like men, so they handle it worse on average. you got to admit what is say makes COMPLETe sense.
I don't think most "feminist bullshit" says that men and women are wired the same. I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women should be treated equally under the law. I don't think men and women are wired the same. Though I do think that a lot of sexual stereotypes aren't very accurate.
xdamage
08-24-2009, 04:21 PM
... I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women should be treated equally under the law. I don't think men and women are wired the same. Though I do think that a lot of sexual stereotypes aren't very accurate.
Awesome post. I've been very open I am a great believer in evolutionary psych and surely don't believe the sexes are exactly the same, however... your post raises the two KEY points. 1.) Equal treatment is what matters. 2.) Yea, the problem is it is extremely difficult to know where biology ends and stereotypes begin. Statistically (over LARGE groups) we see differences but when we look at any one person it is very hard to say what is nature and what is nurture. So we should be pushing the limits to try and weed out stereotypes.
To WestCoast - yea, maybe women don't handle rejection any better then guys (not sure if it is worse though), but one possible outcome of rejection is to feel bitter, and following bitterness, to wish that others would feel the same hurt. Don't know if that applies to you (only you can know) but it is possible that in trying to make it so clear that women feel hurt, that there is some gloating going on, which is ironic, since it would point out that we guys don't really handle rejection all that wonderfully either (even if we bury the feelings deeper).
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 06:07 PM
xdamage - you really missed the mark on that one because that's really not a big complaint I currently have, maybe in 6th grade though, but i will admit, while its not gloating I do get a bit of satisfaction demonstrating the utter absurdity of some of the fundamental core beliefs of feminist dogma, one of those constructs being the differences between genders are largely due to oppressive societal environmentally based factors instead of genetic factors. In fairness most chicks themselves don't even buy into these core beliefs espoused by the feminist establishment for most of the last 50 yrs. Males and females in an aggregate sense are hard wired very very differently from each other and the evidence in recent years has only further supported this premise!!!
firemaiden04
08-24-2009, 06:11 PM
xdamage - you really missed the mark on that one because that's really not a big complaint I currently have, maybe in 6th grade though, but i will admit, while its not gloating I do get a bit of satisfaction demonstrating the utter absurdity of some of the fundamental core beliefs of feminist dogma, one of those constructs being the differences between genders are largely due to oppressive societal environmentally based factors instead of genetic factors. In fairness most chicks themselves don't even buy into these core beliefs espoused by the feminist establishment for most of the last 50 yrs. Males and females in an aggregate sense are hard wired very very differently from each other and the evidence in recent years has only further supported this premise!!!
...did you not read either of our posts?
xdamage
08-24-2009, 06:16 PM
xdamage - you really missed the mark on that one because that's really not a big complaint I currently have, maybe in 6th grade though, but i will admit, while its not gloating I do get a bit of satisfaction demonstrating the utter absurdity of some of the fundamental core beliefs of feminist dogma, one of those constructs being the differences between genders are largely due to oppressive societal environmentally based factors instead of genetic factors. In fairness most chicks themselves don't even buy into these core beliefs espoused by the feminist establishment for most of the last 50 yrs. Males and females in an aggregate sense are hard wired very very differently from each other and the evidence in recent years has only further supported this premise!!!
You'd also probably love Steve Pinker's "The Blank Slate : The Modern Denial of Human Nature" but I digress... the nature vs nurture debate will balance itself in time, but that said...
Just a thought ...
My own...
Not popular...
But males have oppressed women because of one simple reason. Statistically we are bigger, stronger, and abuse, physical threats and subtle forms of violence are easy ways for cowards to get what they want.
To my point though... perhaps the feminist movement has gone too far in the direction of attributing differences between the sexes to nurture, but maybe (here comes the radical thought) that over correction was NEEDED to address a fundamental imbalance that came before it. The same basic concept that is behind Affirmative Action, that remains so controversial, that to correct imbalances of the past, we need imbalances in the other direction until... a happy medium point is found.
After all, no modern man can possibly object to the basic concept that women want to be treated fairly, humanly, kindly? We all do. Even in a SC, rejection hurts - it is a fundamental human matter, not a sex matter. Right?
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 07:06 PM
for whatever reason, just for kicks i guess, i was putting the evolutionary bio lens on many of these issues a bit before the mainstream pop culture started to put them out there, in fact even before i was kicking around some ideas but the final trigger goes back to reporter Robert Wright's Time Magazine cover story back in the mid to late 80's , something like "Is male nonmonogamy the evolutionary norm"? - based partly on his book THE MORAL ANIMAL. Incredibly at the time even Wright himself was not looking nor did he come across discussions in regards to whether this so-called "cheating gene" arguably being a norm (thus having a purpose) and therefore possibly a key male attraction point for chicks - might then explain to a large extent the never ending (nonmonogamous) jerk vs (monogamous) nice guy debate, and I know this because I asked Wright myself back at the time. A few decades later, one won't last wrong in a discussion is they make rational arguments supporting the premise that many chicks, particularly hot chicks are often subconciously turned by male nonmonogamy, and explanations how genes themselves optimize mate selection for purposes of genetic survival based upon legacy DNA constructs and prismordial instincts - really gets chicks pissed off,, as they think explanation is advocacy. Actually the tinge or nonmonogamy is sufficient to sustain the chemistry chicks crave, meaning the guy doesn't even have to cheat as long as the female on an ongoing basis believes and suspects he is cheating or would given even the slightest chance.
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 07:17 PM
sure is read it and its bullshit, and in any case its covered in my response.
WestCoast101
08-24-2009, 07:18 PM
referring only to FireMaidens response that is.
xdamage
08-24-2009, 07:21 PM
for whatever reason, just for kicks i guess, i was putting the evolutionary bio lens on many of these issues a bit before the mainstream pop culture started to put them out there, ...
Ive been doing so for years on this site and got myself in uber hot-water a few times ;D But mostly over on the customer oriented site, and really then only with a few who I felt were extremely nurture and completely dismissed the nature arguments (extreme imbalances do worry me that they could have long term negative social impacts).
But that said all evo-psych can tell us is about statistical behaviors over LARGE groups. When it comes to individuals all bets are off. And in the context of this forum, which is a support forum for dancers, it is possible to present ideas in ways that are balanced with some compassion for the fact that the dancers come here to let off steam, some emotional relief.
Maybe present the future ideas in that context and they will be received better?
firemaiden04
08-24-2009, 07:24 PM
sure is read it and its bullshit, and in any case its covered in my response.
Be nice. Stop trying to start a fight. We can debate all you want, but intentional insults are pointless.
WiseGuy_TX
08-24-2009, 07:28 PM
for whatever reason, just for kicks i guess, i was putting the evolutionary bio lens on many of these issues a bit before the mainstream pop culture started to put them out there, in fact even before i was kicking around some ideas but the final trigger goes back to reporter Robert Wright's Time Magazine cover story back in the mid to late 80's , something like "Is male nonmonogamy the evolutionary norm"? - based partly on his book THE MORAL ANIMAL. Incredibly at the time even Wright himself was not looking nor did he come across discussions in regards to whether this so-called "cheating gene" arguably being a norm (thus having a purpose) and therefore possibly a key male attraction point for chicks - might then explain to a large extent the never ending (nonmonogamous) jerk vs (monogamous) nice guy debate, and I know this because I asked Wright myself back at the time. A few decades later, one won't last wrong in a discussion is they make rational arguments supporting the premise that many chicks, particularly hot chicks are often subconciously turned by male nonmonogamy, and explanations how genes themselves optimize mate selection for purposes of genetic survival based upon legacy DNA constructs and prismordial instincts - really gets chicks pissed off,, as they think explanation is advocacy. Actually the tinge or nonmonogamy is sufficient to sustain the chemistry chicks crave, meaning the guy doesn't even have to cheat as long as the female on an ongoing basis believes and suspects he is cheating or would given even the slightest chance....well, imo, that proves you have some fabulous weed on the west coast. Just saying.
Jaden_GD
08-24-2009, 07:53 PM
I hate "maybe later" just as much as I hate "I don't have any money" and then seeing the dude go get a lap dance with another girl.
"Maybe later" isn't bad if the guy tells me he wants to see me dance on stage first or scope out some other dancers. Sincerity is key.
WestCoast101
08-25-2009, 01:00 AM
WiseGuy, humans simply have difficulty accepting themselves as genetic survival machines directed by primordial urges, however once you get the concept - everything else falls into place. The underlying basis to all this is not even that radical at this point. Richard Dawkins in the SELFISH GENE has written extensively about the general issue of genes constantly making "choices" whose purpose is optimized genetic survival, although even he would never state what I've stated because its just too politically incorrect and seems to offer an excuse for males to cheat. Males routinely get (correctly) accused of operating to a large degree by way of primordial urges from millions of yrs ago, which makes complete sense as Alpha seed spreaders had huge genetic survival advantages to offer their female mates. Yet for unexplained reasons, we tend to exempt modern females from these same influences, in this case not so much the urge to cheat itself, but instead primarily to intertwine their genes with highly nonmonogamous males, in effect to increase their chances of winning the genetic lottery of long term survival
WiseGuy_TX
08-25-2009, 05:02 AM
...so that is your root reason why most men want to score so much and most women cant handle rejection. Then by your own reasoning, women have had millions of years to adapt to rejection just fine. If they haven't (according to you), then obviously this may be an issue of a higher function unrelated to primordial urges. Do you believe Eve was rejected and Adam had primordial urges because he was the "offspring" of God? Just curious about your opinion of how certain higher functions come into play.
laurcon
08-25-2009, 09:57 AM
lmao, did you really just bring "adam and eve" into this??
Shy_Guy
08-25-2009, 11:24 AM
Sincerity is key.
ah yes, the cornerstone of every SC relationship }:D
JayATee
08-25-2009, 11:56 AM
WiseGuy, humans simply have difficulty accepting themselves as genetic survival machines directed by primordial urges, however once you get the concept - everything else falls into place. The underlying basis to all this is not even that radical at this point. Richard Dawkins in the SELFISH GENE has written extensively about the general issue of genes constantly making "choices" whose purpose is optimized genetic survival, although even he would never state what I've stated because its just too politically incorrect and seems to offer an excuse for males to cheat. Males routinely get (correctly) accused of operating to a large degree by way of primordial urges from millions of yrs ago, which makes complete sense as Alpha seed spreaders had huge genetic survival advantages to offer their female mates. Yet for unexplained reasons, we tend to exempt modern females from these same influences, in this case not so much the urge to cheat itself, but instead primarily to intertwine their genes with highly nonmonogamous males, in effect to increase their chances of winning the genetic lottery of long term survival
Umm, if that's the case, then it's females doing the rejecting, not the males. ::)
The exemption of modern females comes from the fact that it isn't ALL about reproduction anymore. We're not fighting for survival the way we were in the beginning. People today breed indiscriminantly. There is no concern about whether or not the species will continue to thrive.
WestCoast101
08-25-2009, 04:27 PM
You are 100% correct when you state: "we're not fighting for survival the way we were in the beginning. People today breed indiscriminantly. There is no concern about whether or not the species will continue to thrive."
However there is one problem: genes apparently haven't yet figured this out because apparently to some degree they are still operating in an earlier and dominant time frame, probably 99% of man's 3 to 5 million yr existence where even pair bonding is considered a recent invention, let alone marriage and other concepts casusing males to stick around like commitment and romantic love, which might account for less than a second of a 24 hr geologic clock. So genes fallback to the tried and true method: massive seed spreading by the strongest, fittest, and dominant males, in other words the Alphas. In a modern context genes are making wrong choices of course, but unlike environmental factors, genes can be very very slow to change.
goreantx
08-25-2009, 04:45 PM
So genes fallback to the tried and true method: massive seed spreading by the strongest, fittest, and dominant males, in other words the Alphas.
Yeah. The guys with money... and six alimony checks...
xdamage
08-25-2009, 05:01 PM
...really gets chicks pissed off,, as they think explanation is advocacy.
WestCoast, I'm a great Dawkins fan myself and also a great believer that people follow instincts far more then they are aware (after all, why should we be aware of our instincts? there is no need to be aware anymore then animals need to be aware - as long as it works!), and I do get the point your making regarding explanation != advocacy, but it's not just women. Men are terrible about this too. But you can insult people, or get your point across by way of example. Here is an example to highlight your point:
Not so long ago the popular think of the day was that having sexual urges is unnatural, particularly for women, and that those having them were having their puppet strings pulled by the devil. The evolutionary explination of course is simpler; the desire to have sex is more or less like the desire to eat; those who have this desire in spades tended to have more sex, so reproduce more, so ... etc. No devil needed, nothing abnormal about it. BUT... Many men and women heard that explanation as advocacy to cheat, or be irresponsible, and maybe some people did take the news that way. Oh, you mean it is normal to want to have sex? I'm just going to have as much as I can then. No stupid. Just like we didn't say eat endlessly without concern for your health or using your brain, we didn't advocate that. We simply pointed out that the research was pretty damn strong that our desire to have sex is a natural evolved biological instinct, and that does not mean we advocate irresponsible or hurtful behavior.
See everyone today can relate to that story because they are on the other side of the PC hump. Now you can say, and the evidence is also starting to point at various other instinctive behaviors, such as aggression is part of our nature, a lot of people seemingly are driven to cheat in their otherwise stable relationships, people seem to long term settle down with one kind of personality but have flings with another kind, etc. You can make it clear you are not advocating bad behavior, just you want the facts about human nature, not the myths. It still won't go over great because our society is not yet past those humps, but you'll have set the stage to have people think about your point without insulting them. In the long run it will probably work better.
WestCoast101
08-25-2009, 05:45 PM
Xdamage, the evol- bio spin on issues can get a bit confrontational, however I've noticed many females will at least readily concede a probable evolutionary based connection to their often (most females) preferred and (usually) orgasmically-optimized and enhanced sexual position, either doggy or prone on stomach with ass up. They will also concede that the very unevolutionary "recently" invented missionary position - is generally less optimal. That HAS to be evolution speaking in some form, more precisely legacy DNA genes in regards to desire and the way they help shape the female body. In turn it explains why probably most males find pictures of women with their asses slightly turned to some degree, a bit more sexy than photos showing little if any ass. Of course it has nothing to do with the ass per se, but more the probable standard and most prevalent sexual evolutionary position
laurcon
08-25-2009, 05:52 PM
women prefer doggystyle? where's this coming from?
goreantx
08-25-2009, 05:53 PM
Xdamage, the evol- bio spin on issues can get a bit confrontational, however I've noticed many females will at least readily concede a probable evolutionary based connection to their often (most females) preferred and (usually) orgasmically-optimized and enhanced sexual position, either doggy or prone on stomach with ass up. They will also concede that the very unevolutionary "recently" invented missionary position - is generally less optimal. That HAS to be evolution speaking in some form, more precisely legacy DNA genes in regards to desire and the way they help shape the female body. In turn it explains why probably most males find pictures of women with their asses slightly turned to some degree, a bit more sexy than photos showing little if any ass. Of course it has nothing to do with the ass per se, but more the probable standard and most prevalent sexual evolutionary position
(and earlier in the thread)
the reality is despite nearly 50 yrs of women's lib bullshit... its still men doing most of the asking in real life, and it probably explains why women on average probably handle initial contact-type rejection alot worse than typical men.
Yes, because your typical man is comparable to a stripper; especially in this context. :O Back on track, let's go, scoot!
xdamage
08-25-2009, 06:04 PM
Xdamage, the evol- bio spin on issues can get a bit confrontational, however I've noticed many females will at least readily concede a probable evolutionary based connection to their often (most females) preferred and (usually) orgasmically-optimized and enhanced sexual position, either doggy or prone on stomach with ass up. They will also concede that the very unevolutionary "recently" invented missionary position - is generally less optimal. That HAS to be evolution speaking in some form, more precisely legacy DNA genes in regards to desire and the way they help shape the female body. In turn it explains why probably most males find pictures of women with their asses slightly turned to some degree, a bit more sexy than photos showing little if any ass. Of course it has nothing to do with the ass per se, but more the probable standard and most prevalent sexual evolutionary position
Now this lacked class.. why the sudden switch to crude sexual imagery? Oh sexual imagery has it's place and I am all for raw sexuality but how does it fit in the context of this thread?
lopaw
08-25-2009, 06:29 PM
Is there any way to block an "ignored" buffoon's quoted replies in other people's posts?
Please, dear lord, tell me there is a way!!!
JayATee
08-25-2009, 06:50 PM
You are 100% correct when you state: "we're not fighting for survival the way we were in the beginning. People today breed indiscriminantly. There is no concern about whether or not the species will continue to thrive."
However there is one problem: genes apparently haven't yet figured this out because apparently to some degree they are still operating in an earlier and dominant time frame, probably 99% of man's 3 to 5 million yr existence where even pair bonding is considered a recent invention, let alone marriage and other concepts casusing males to stick around like commitment and romantic love, which might account for less than a second of a 24 hr geologic clock. So genes fallback to the tried and true method: massive seed spreading by the strongest, fittest, and dominant males, in other words the Alphas. In a modern context genes are making wrong choices of course, but unlike environmental factors, genes can be very very slow to change.
Ok, and this has what to do with rejection? Does this in some way go back to anything you said before? Or are you just spewing this garbage without any rhyme or reason?
xdamage
08-25-2009, 06:56 PM
Ok, and this has what to do with rejection?
Honestly, yea I don't think how we react to rejection is related to our sex. I think it is a pure human matter, it sucketh and no matter who you are, being told you don't count, that you are less then someone else, to have another look on you as less then air while they chase after another .... hurts. Just a sucky part of life in general, but not biologically specific.
WestCoast101
08-25-2009, 10:13 PM
"women prefer doggystyle? where's this coming from?" the word was "most" but I can assure you i've personally surveyed a large sample group.
WestCoast101
08-25-2009, 10:48 PM
The "rejection" issue first presented in this thread is not rejection per se but a more narrowly defined issue of initial-contact type rejection. In regards to THAT issue, gender specific hard wiring and million of yrs of males as sexual predators and women as sexual gatekeepers - is going to influence the issue - in that males were forced to be the primary actors and females the primary (passive) deciders. In a strip club. to the degree there is a role reversal, yes this could explain why women (even though only a parallel to real life) when placed in such circumstances have such difficulty handling rejection, and often seek to avoid it completely