deep conversation to PuertoRican_Lover (everyone else come too :) )

[Player_Supreme]

Originally posted by CyranoDeBergerac
Actually its all in our genes. Men have two strategies they can choose from when spreading their seed. Like everything else it comes down to quantity v quality.

The Quantity school of thought says have sex with as many women as possible even if that means your progeny might not survive through to adulthood, let alone pregnancy because of your absence.

The Quality school of thought says pick a woman with the highest number of child rearing years ahead of her, have as many children as possible, and then stick around to protect your investment.

Women have their corrolary too:

The Quantity argument says that they should sleep around as much as possible to ensure the maximum output of children and the best genes to help her kids to survive and reproduce.

The Quality argument says find a guy would can provide for you and your offspring.

Obviously, its in the best interest of a woman to find a guy and cheat on him as much as possible. (thing the rich matron who has affairs with her pool boys)

In this way, biology compensates for the men by making babies look more like their fathers and society combats this tendency through the institution of marriage thus allowing the male to protect his investment.

Marriage a masculine concept. Trippy huh?

-Cyrano

1. original man was not designed to mate with only one woman. If that were the case we might not be here as a species by now. Nature designed us to be able to impreagnate all available females around us. While one is gestating a hatchling we have the ability to knock up another one.

2. We are not talking quality or quantity...but the basic nature of man and woman. But both of your criteria do not fit. It doesn't always come down to quantity and quality...because you can have both if one were truely a don juan or casanova...or what is called a player in these modern days.

3. Your also way off in your analysis of womens programing. There's is set on finding a mate and having young. Not quantity. You must be judging this by a few sluts you've come into contact with. Most women are not sluts and do sleep with men..but they are motivated by the finding a mate gene. True sluts are rare and it's usually a environment created condition...ie...father molested her...brother got in on the action too...or something like that which will destroy her morals and mind to the point where she no longer responds as a woman.

I know this because I've delt with these type before. It's the same story over and over again. In my dealngs they were not for relationships so don't even think of going there...it was business.

 

[Wonderbread166]

First I just want to say that though I'm non-religious, I'm not anti-religion. As Best Friends? NAY said, I like what a lot of religions stand for. I saw the movie Dogma the other day and the main idea was that we should have ideas, not beliefs. Religious beliefs are what cause wars, and the deaths of millions of innocent people. Ideas, on the other hand, are just that. Ideas.

But enough about religion, I want to make some comments on the subject. I consider myself a liberal, but I still agree that we should preserve our masculinity and women's femininity, because it's what holds our world together. There's nothing feminine about a dad taking his kid around in a stroller, though. A father is an important part in a baby's upbringing and there's really nothing unmanly about a dad being a dad and helpin out with the kid.

Pe@ce

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

J-man

I had some 'visions' lately and I'm currently writing a response to your questions regarding the 'proper' roles of the male and female. This shall answer all your questions and provide valuable insight into this matter.

In your last post, it is odd that you mentioned “the natural order of things”, because that is exactly the title I gave it a few days ago before you posted…maybe my visions are tied to your longing for the answers.

I'm finishing up my response and shall hopefully post it by tomorrow - it is lengthy.

 

[chili kat]

There are many species in which the female is the dominant one, both pysically and behavioral. The idea of a male dominance as a course of nature can be a mistaken one.

Cell biology, Darwinism... adaptive survival, from the entire animal right on down to the tissue cell.

What effects our roll is our environment, and the advancement of technology and civilization is an environment which has undergone some course of change since the day of the cave dwellers.

Niether men nor women in most societies need any longer to be physically masculine enough to hunt, kill and drag a deer home, per say, in order to assure better odds of survival on a day to day basis. For this reason, women no longer NEED a masculine and dominant man, but many still desire one because of tens of thousands of years of adaptivation, which is hard to shut off like a light switch.

But this is all an explanation of cause. What matters most is the realism of the situation: Survival will never be an easy task. For this reason, it would be a mistake to abandon the idea of dominance because now ALL people need that trait for themselves, men and women alike.

These days it less of "Can he take care and support me?" and more of "Ugh! Would I have to support this guy?!"

 

[Player_Supreme]

If your doing things a certain way and your getting the same results...that you don't want...why keep doing it that way?


Cell biology...certain animals...who cares. We are the dominante species on the planet. We need to look at how WE are designed.

Nature/Evolution/God/a higher being/whatever designed us a certain way to keep us rolling down the evolutionary path.

In our evolution, man is dominant. True we no longer need to hunt in this modern society that we live in (ach puucheeew). But what is buried is all those 10,000 generations of man and woman that can't be whiped out in a few generations.


The object of our affections have not changed so much that they still don't feel the pull of wanting to mother young.

They haven't changed so much that men like me do not attract them on an uncouscious level.

They haven't changed so much that they don't feel as the original woman felt in the presence of a real man.

The only thing that has changed is the environment in which the modern man and woman finds themselves thrust into.

Of course there are going to be psychological behavior changes. But whats still inside is still there untapped.

You can get your head/heart tapped or you can do the tapping.

 

[obijuan]

Nature does play a role in our lives but it often becomes a person's excuse for any adverse action they take. The "I can't help myself it's in my genes" cop-out is just a way to shift blame away from the individual. I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. We are men not dogs.

 

[chili kat]

Originally posted by Player_Supreme
If your doing things a certain way and your getting the same results...that you don't want...why keep doing it that way?


Cell biology...certain animals...who cares. We are the dominante species on the planet. We need to look at how WE are designed.

Nature/Evolution/God/a higher being/whatever designed us a certain way to keep us rolling down the evolutionary path.

In our evolution, man is dominant. True we no longer need to hunt in this modern society that we live in (ach puucheeew). But what is buried is all those 10,000 generations of man and woman that can't be whiped out in a few generations.


The object of our affections have not changed so much that they still don't feel the pull of wanting to mother young.

They haven't changed so much that men like me do not attract them on an uncouscious level.

They haven't changed so much that they don't feel as the original woman felt in the presence of a real man.

The only thing that has changed is the environment in which the modern man and woman finds themselves thrust into.

Of course there are going to be psychological behavior changes. But whats still inside is still there untapped.

You can get your head/heart tapped or you can do the tapping.

OK. I think I said the same thing you just did, but if you think there is a difference, cool. Alright. I can go with the flow.

 

[J-Man]

Originally posted by PuertoRican_Lover
J-man

I had some 'visions' lately and I'm currently writing a response to your questions regarding the 'proper' roles of the male and female. This shall answer all your questions and provide valuable insight into this matter.

In your last post, it is odd that you mentioned “the natural order of things”, because that is exactly the title I gave it a few days ago before you posted…maybe my visions are tied to your longing for the answers.

I'm finishing up my response and shall hopefully post it by tomorrow - it is lengthy.

im waiting

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

I made a new thread to post my reply because it was quite lengthy. The title of the thread is "The natural order of things - Sexuality defined and explained!".

It's long but it's worth the read, in my humble opinion. Hopefully it will give you some insight into the answers that you seek.

Let me know if it does the job.