View Full Version : Am I just the right type?
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
SteveSmith
02-25-2010, 05:22 AM
in Scoundrel's case (probably the more common situation) they are both the same, as he is both being perceived as nonmonogamous and in fact is nonmonogamous . However it is entirely possible for a male (for a time at least) to be perceived as nonmonogamous (or give off the vibe) yet not actually be nonmonogamous. In genetic terms the outcome is the same, both IMHO will kick up the chemistry.
Everything is about what genes believe, even if such beliefs are mistaken, as they arguably are in the case of genes today believing high volume seed spreading as having significant genetic survival benefits in modern times relatived to male monogamy and resource focused investment in offpring.. Genes in general simply do not understand modern constructs, as they appear to operate out of earlier primordial timframes. For example birth control obviously mitigates much of the advantagee of high volume seed spreading.,yet genes don't seem to recongnize that simple fact, and if they did, typical modern males would have far less interest in having sex with large volumes of females.
Think of a genetic lottery, with the horndog perceived (mistakenly of course)l as a safer bet in terms of getting those genes moved forward
WestCoast, I seen a show on TV on human sexuality and the question was: Are humans monogamous? Scientists on the show claimed that humans have a 95% monogamous rating which was very high. The only creatures with a higher rating were certain birds.
They explained that monogamous creatures have a smaller testicle size to body size ratio than non-monogamous creatures. Non-monogamous creatures had a larger testicle size to body size ratio: goats, pigs, and even some primates (seed speaders). Humans have smaller testicle size to body size ratios and were considered 95% monogamous. Larger testicles produced more sperm to compete with other males who may have had sex with the female in non-monogamous creatures.
WestCoast, you're confusing non-monogamous creatures with monogamous creatures. Humans may have been less monogamous 5 million years ago when we split from monkeys, but that's not true today. Humans still have a tail bone that use to be a tail. By your theories, humans should be swinging from the trees because of a primordial urge.
Women definitely want monogamous partners. In fact, a man cheating just once on his spouse is enough to make the woman divorce the man. Women drop their men like hot potatoes when they find out they've been non-monogamous.
Your example of warren Beaty having sex with 12,000 women is a good example. How many children did he have with these women? ZERO! A guy who is married and monogamous and has 6 children with her is more biologically successful than Warren Beatty.
I could go on and on debunking your theories if you want, but I'm going to see if any of this rings true for you. Think about why humans fall in love. Why humans stay together for decades. Monogamous creatures partner up, non-monogamous creatures don't. Pigs and goats don't stay with the same partner, they fuck at random. Try to think about why this is.
You're confusing humans who've had sex with more than one partner with them being seed spreaders. Once they're in a committed relationships, they then stick with one partner in most cases. The system isn't perfect, that's why humans are 95% monogamous and not 100% monogamous. Your taking the exception to the rule (the 5%) and making it the rule. And most cheating takes place at the end of a relationship/marriage when the relationship is already over.
Conclusion: Humans are 95% monogamous.
For some strange reason, WestCoast believes that humans are 95% non-monogamous and that humans are the same seed spreaders as goats and pigs. I sometimes wonder if he was raised in a barn.
rlams2000
02-25-2010, 09:28 AM
WestCoast, I seen a show on TV on human sexuality and the question was: Are humans monogamous? .
I saw the movies Striptease and Zombie Strippers and that's how I know everything about strippers and their job. ;D
KS_Stevia
02-25-2010, 10:40 AM
Back in the days of ASSC it was widely known that the stereo-typical boyfriend of a stripper was an immature, unemployed, game playing, wanna-be musician, otherwise known as a "parolee".
Sadly, my experience with strippers and their choice of men would give some credit to the stereotype. Not all girls, but certainly more than in the civilian population. I just never understood why so many sweet, funny, and beautiful girls were with such fuckwits.
This is just my experience, no one needs to defend themselves or their man.
KS_Stevia
02-25-2010, 10:43 AM
I do not understand why you would want to be with a man like this. I mean, I get that some women see this type of guy as a challenge and believe that they will somehow be validated if they can change him. What I don't get is why you, being aware of what's going on, would continue to do this. Surely, you deserve better than a guy who could take you or leave you.
I can understand. But I have daddy and self-esteem issues, plus an ugly masochistic streak.
KS_Stevia
02-25-2010, 10:52 AM
To answer Chris91 and others:
I don't go for the types of guys like Scoundrel, or the one that PeachPlumPear was talking about anymore. But there was a time I did. Not because they seemed non-monogomous or didn't give two shits about me.
It was because of the whole "hard to get thing." And as women, our version of "hard to get" is..."hard to settle down into a relationship." Obviously, sex has a different value for males than females, so of course we can get them in bed. But every other guy that had been in my life around these times fell for me hard and fawned over me so annoyingly. I wanted a challenge. I didn't want the nerd who so obviously wanted to make me happy..I wanted to chase a "superstar."
Again, I had (have?) self-esteem issues and I wanted to be the girl who got the guy everyone wanted when I was in my early 20's. Little did I know the problem wasn't me, it was him, he wasn't about to focus on ANY one girl...as noted by one guy who did end up promising monogamy to one beauty queen type girl. I thought I was done with..but we still hung out once a week, went out on a date, and had sex. He just couldn't keep it in his pants...and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
Anyway, I'm past that now, but nothing wrong with having awareness. Now, none of these guys were from the strip club, just people I met IRL.
JoeUnCool
02-25-2010, 12:38 PM
all i hafta say, is i cant believe that there are 274 posts (including this one) on this moron claiming on getting some pussy! Geez louize!
I wish this many people would care when i talked about getting pussy. :-[
Only if there are pictures. :P
PS. I can't believe I am posting in the penthouse.
peachplumpear
02-25-2010, 12:56 PM
+1 KS Stevia, Thats exactly what it is, I'll get over it soon :) Just have to see for myself what all the fuss is about I guess....
JoeUnCool
02-25-2010, 01:04 PM
This thread was a very funny read. I could have done without the threadjack to the poo in the toothbrushes, but these things are inevitable.
As I often say in the basement, there is a market segment for just about everything. There is a market segment of dancers that will have sex with someone that they just met for free. I know. I've been there. Granted, it was in my much younger years. This story could be true. Yes, it does sound like bragging at the same time.
Now, Scoundrel, your question of why this would happen. I think that there are several issues that could be happening.
She's drunk.
She's on drugs.
She's desperate for something. Women want to feel wanted, even if its just for a short time.
She might like you.
Sometimes telling a woman that you have no money makes them want to try harder. I don't get this, but it worked for me when I was poor college student.
Any number of other reasons.
Now, understand that the girls on SW are not your typical dancers. These girls are elite. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to get with one of them in a similar situation. This is a different pond than midland. Its like the difference between Jaguars and Spearmint Rhino in Vegas. As a result, the opinions expressed here are most likely different than the market segment you are currently fishing in.
PS. I can't believe I am posting in the penthouse.
WestCoast101
02-25-2010, 02:14 PM
WestCoast, I seen a show on TV on human sexuality and the question was: Are humans monogamous? Scientists on the show claimed that humans have a 95% monogamous rating which was very high. The only creatures with a higher rating were certain birds.
They explained that monogamous creatures have a smaller testicle size to body size ratio than non-monogamous creatures. Non-monogamous creatures had a larger testicle size to body size ratio: goats, pigs, and even some primates (seed speaders). Humans have smaller testicle size to body size ratios and were considered 95% monogamous. Larger testicles produced more sperm to compete with other males who may have had sex with the female in non-monogamous creatures.
WestCoast, you're confusing non-monogamous creatures with monogamous creatures. Humans may have been less monogamous 5 million years ago when we split from monkeys, but that's not true today. Humans still have a tail bone that use to be a tail. By your theories, humans should be swinging from the trees because of a primordial urge.
Women definitely want monogamous partners. In fact, a man cheating just once on his spouse is enough to make the woman divorce the man. Women drop their men like hot potatoes when they find out they've been non-monogamous.
Your example of warren Beaty having sex with 12,000 women is a good example. How many children did he have with these women? ZERO! A guy who is married and monogamous and has 6 children with her is more biologically successful than Warren Beatty.
I could go on and on debunking your theories if you want, but I'm going to see if any of this rings true for you. Think about why humans fall in love. Why humans stay together for decades. Monogamous creatures partner up, non-monogamous creatures don't. Pigs and goats don't stay with the same partner, they fuck at random. Try to think about why this is.
You're confusing humans who've had sex with more than one partner with them being seed spreaders. Once they're in a committed relationships, they then stick with one partner in most cases. The system isn't perfect, that's why humans are 95% monogamous and not 100% monogamous. Your taking the exception to the rule (the 5%) and making it the rule. And most cheating takes place at the end of a relationship/marriage when the relationship is already over.
Conclusion: Humans are 95% monogamous.
For some strange reason, WestCoast believes that humans are 95% non-monogamous and that humans are the same seed spreaders as goats and pigs. I sometimes wonder if he was raised in a barn.
Even it you assume such an absurdly high number as an accurate estimate of overall human monogamy, it does nothing to refute the central point, because it is clear that the vast majority of modern males still retain (if not by act) then DESIRE to have sex with large volumes of females, often only prevented by either lack of opportunity or perhaps the need to avoid hurting innocent third parties.
These basic urges obviously are connected to primordial legacy DNA factors in some manner.
WestCoast101
02-25-2010, 02:53 PM
Yeah, women play hard to get, too, and that works sometimes. People want want they can't have. It doesn't mean they want a non-monogamous partner. A SC is the perfect example of women playing hard to get and the men who lust after them.
Maybe WestCoast is confusing playing hard to get with non-monogamy.
What women want in a rational volitional conscious sense has nothing to do with the issue, and obviously all women want monogamous partners. Instead the issue is what creates the "chemistry" such chemistry clealy operating at some kind of subconscious (non volitional) level having nothing necessarily to do with what a particular female may or may not want in a rational sense.
I have suggested promordial based causitive factors to explain why many modern females appear to have a natural (though unconscious) attraction toward nonmonogamous males, which makes complete sense since Alpha seed spreaders for 3 to 5 million years were the dominant force in human history.
mediocrity
02-25-2010, 02:55 PM
^^ Wrong. My non-monogamous relationship is the healthiest most stable thing ever.
KS_Stevia
02-25-2010, 03:05 PM
What women want in a rational volitional conscious sense has nothing to do with the issue, and obviously all women want monogamous partners.
What do you mean by monogamous? I enjoy bringing other women into our sex life. But yeah, I'd be pissed and leave him if he was sharing his resources and too much free time with another available woman.
WestCoast101
02-25-2010, 03:24 PM
To answer Chris91 and others:
I don't go for the types of guys like Scoundrel, or the one that PeachPlumPear was talking about anymore. But there was a time I did. Not because they seemed non-monogomous or didn't give two shits about me.
It was because of the whole "hard to get thing." And as women, our version of "hard to get" is..."hard to settle down into a relationship." Obviously, sex has a different value for males than females, so of course we can get them in bed. But every other guy that had been in my life around these times fell for me hard and fawned over me so annoyingly. I wanted a challenge. I didn't want the nerd who so obviously wanted to make me happy..I wanted to chase a "superstar."
Again, I had (have?) self-esteem issues and I wanted to be the girl who got the guy everyone wanted when I was in my early 20's. Little did I know the problem wasn't me, it was him, he wasn't about to focus on ANY one girl...as noted by one guy who did end up promising monogamy to one beauty queen type girl. I thought I was done with..but we still hung out once a week, went out on a date, and had sex. He just couldn't keep it in his pants...and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
Anyway, I'm past that now, but nothing wrong with having awareness. Now, none of these guys were from the strip club, just people I met IRL.
If a male is actually "hard to get" it generally means he's getting all the sex he can from other women, thus its not always about being "hard to get" per se, its because the woman is picking up a nonmonogamous vibe, and this includes a male not actually getting involved with other women, but possibly instead the woman simply (subconsciously) "believing" it to be the case because of other indicators.
Evolutionary based Alpha seed spreaders were "hard to get" too because they were often busy with other tribal females or out plundering other settlements and picking out the most fertile females there to have sex with.
charlie61
02-25-2010, 03:33 PM
What women want in a rational volitional conscious sense has nothing to do with the issue, and obviously all women want monogamous partners. Instead the issue is what creates the "chemistry" such chemistry clealy operating at some kind of subconscious (non volitional) level having nothing necessarily to do with what a particular female may or may not want in a rational sense.
I have suggested promordial based causitive factors to explain why many modern females appear to have a natural (though unconscious) attraction toward nonmonogamous males, which makes complete sense since Alpha seed spreaders for 3 to 5 million years were the dominant force in human history.
:wave: I be non-monogamous. :moon:
WestCoast101
02-25-2010, 03:33 PM
What do you mean by monogamous? I enjoy bringing other women into our sex life. But yeah, I'd be pissed and leave him if he was sharing his resources and too much free time with another available woman.
In fact some women don't always want a technically monogamous man, and swingers or swinger variations would be one of the exceptions., but I left it out again in the interest of brevity and sentence flow.
SteveSmith
02-25-2010, 03:44 PM
What do you mean by monogamous? I enjoy bringing other women into our sex life. But yeah, I'd be pissed and leave him if he was sharing his resources and too much free time with another available woman.
In discussing monogamy with WestCoast, I'm talking about having children in a relationship between a man and a women (the intended target). He's saying that men are fucking dozens of women and having children with them which makes them seed spreaders. Warren Beatty may have fucked a few thousand women but he didn't have children with them, therefore, he's not a seed spreader.
I'm not talking about cheating spouses or open relationships. Obviously, cheating is going on in up to 50% of marriages, usually when the relationship is already over. That doesn't mean the cheating partner wants to have children with the person they are cheating with. Tiger Woods had 14 affairs with no children produced. On occasion it happens like with John Edwards, but when a spouse cheats, they absolutely do not want to have children with the person they are cheating with. They do not want to spread their seed. Society has gone to hell and a handbasket and that's why there is so much cheating today. When we're talk about monogamy, we're referring to actually spreading the seed, ie, producing children.
charlie61
02-25-2010, 03:49 PM
Would someone please get verbally violent so I can close this thread? Pretty please??
MissMynxx
02-25-2010, 03:51 PM
Would someone please get verbally violent so I can close this thread? Pretty please??
I bet if I read more of this thread, verbal violence would come FAST ... but I don't wanna get in trouble! :'(
charlie61
02-25-2010, 03:54 PM
I promise. No one will get hurt. Except for the thread, of course.
mediocrity
02-25-2010, 04:02 PM
Would someone please get verbally violent so I can close this thread? Pretty please??
Will you not give me an infraction?
charlie61
02-25-2010, 04:04 PM
You're a risk-taker, aintcha?
All I'm sayin' is...I may accidentally forget to infract anyone who gives me a reason to close this thread.
charlie61
02-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Oh my god! You ladies are out of control!! If you say one more thing, I will have no other choice but to close the thread!!!!!!
....
charlie61
02-25-2010, 04:09 PM
Oops. My finger slipped.
_closed_