feeling like he cheated on me

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Dooode

Oh then you are going to love my post.

[She_n_Jaybee]

We're creating an epic here.

Originally Posted by Chicup

This sounds good but isn’t true. It is believed that neolithic men were in fact far more monogamous than polygamous. The nature of the environment, and society is such that men can’t afford polygamy and it made much more sense to pair bond. Sure polygamy and cuckolding would happen here and there, but the small settlements made even thing like cuckolding easy to discover. Some say that language was perhaps invented originally to gossip so men could keep an eye on their mates by asking their relatives if she was faithful. I don’t quite go that far, but men simply couldn’t afford to be polygamous (how many poor men are polygamous?) as there was no way to accumulate wealth. There is no bonus to being pregnant in the stone age if you don’t have a mate, women do have a say in this, in fact polygamy is more harmful to males than females genetically. After all if you have more than one wife and the sex ratio is 1-1, someone is going without. Male mortality may have been high, but so was female mortality, just think how scary childbirth would have been.

A few things. Any discussion about neolithic cultures is going to involve assumptions. Until someone invents time travel, most reasonable assumptions have equal validity. Some extrapolations can be made based upon behaviours of primitive cultures gathered by early explorers. Judging by the few accounts I'm familiar with, childbirth isn't scary to them. It's a natural process, you might say it's the one function of the human female. Women never knew childbirth was dangerous or difficult until it was drilled into their heads. Certainly there are births which are dangerous, and which would result in death. But with all else being even, the woman's chance of dying at her occupation (childbirth) comes about once each year. The man's chance (hunting) happened at least daily. Doesn't seem likely to result in a 1-1 ratio of sexes.

Originally Posted by Chicup

That time would be any civilization including our own, though currently its only a far cry from where it used to be. Roman males were wildly polygamous and female slaves were used mostly for sex. This is why you could get a refund on a slave if she turned out to be pregnant or a non-virgin. This is also why household male slaves were so often freed. They were the Roman males illegitimate sons. Some empires like the Inca even had a legal number of wives per title. In every city the emperor had a harem of 1500 women. This went down to the lowest official. Other men had to do without. In medieval Europe male peasants often did not marry until they were in their late 30's, while the females were sent to work in the lords manner. What do you think they were doing there? It was a harem not unlike any sultan’s only a bit more of an open secret. Bastard children were often at official family events.

I believe I covered this in my original first paragraph. The more successful the provider (hunter), the more wives, concubines, sex slaves, whatever.

I'm going to stop with the quotes in the interest of time and space.

I didn't say that we have changed. Men are still men, women are still women. Our basic thought processes, strengths and weaknesses remain, basically unchanged. If you accept the possibility that neolithic man embraced polygamy, certain things might make some sort of sense. If you are one of many wives, then your "success" and the success of your offspring depends upon your husbands attraction to you. The more you please him, the more you receive, the better you can feed your offspring, they become stronger, your line prospers. Women learned a long time back how to use their sex to their advantage. It's a survival trait.

Also, status isn't the only thing people lie about. While I've seen many women lie about status (not for sex, for acceptance), they tend to exploit other areas, experience (or lack thereof), skill, and goals ("I'm not really looking for a relationship right now") in order to get sex.

Okay, one more quote

Originally Posted by Chicup

This is you not understanding your nature. Men and women are sexually programmed for the SAME needs which is children in the next generation. We don’t think about it that way but thats why we are programmed as we are, because its worked best. Women are not more complex in needs, they just have different needs for seeing their seed is in the next generation. A man can have a few children a day if he is able, a woman is always limited by biology. As such her needs are different if she is to perform maximally in terms of children than a man.

But I do understand my nature. You don't understand complexity. Billions of sperm compared to one ova. If a man eats, drinks and sleeps, he'll survive. If he has sex with enough women, his genetic heritage will survive. The man doesn't have to worry about the fate of the children, as long as he fathers enough of them. Some will survive. A woman is much more limited. For her line to continue, she must protect her children from all sorts of threats, plus continually work to ensure security and provision are provided. Not only must she protect the children from outside hazards, but from other women seeking to improve the survival odds of their own by killing off the competition. A man's contribution to species survival takes a few minutes, a woman's takes several years. I stand by my statement that women's needs are more complex.

Here's something to ponder about my "overly romantic" statement. When going out to eat and deciding on a place, men will commonly say "I don't care" or will name a few places they like. Women say "I don't care", but when the man starts naming places, it's "no, I don't feel like that" until you stumble upon the type of food she is really interested in. Men want food, women want a particular type of food.

Ask a man about a fantasy, he'll describe the woman (or women) in detail and give all the graphic details. Ask a woman the same question, she'll give more attention to the overall atmosphere, (the music, the wine, his cologne, the clothes, etc.) and give less detail about the man and the actual sex.

I can't speak for all men, but when I'm sleeping, I'm happy to be sharing the bed, but don't need to be held, or to hold. How many women out there, just love falling asleep in their man's arms, especially after a fantastic evening together?

The defense rests.

[Chicup]

I don't quite have the energy to go point by point but I'll give you a quote and then some issues with your assumptions.

There is broad agreement amoung evolutionary biologists that most of our ancestors lived in a condition of only occasional polygamy during the pleistocene period. Societies that hunt and gather today are not much different from modern western society. Most men are monogamous, many are adulterous, and few manage to be polygamous, sharing pershaps up to five wives in extreme cases. Among the Aka pygimes of the Central African Republic, who hunt for food in the forest using nets, 15 percent of men have more than one wife, a pattern typical of foraging societies.

I can give you the journal referances if you really want it, but being I have to type eveything out I'd rather not just to make it look good

The problem with your assumptions is that hunter-gatherer people are not polygamous right now, so why can you assume they were in the past? It is not a western influence that creates this, but their own society based on their needs and lifestyle.

One of the reasons hunting and gathering cannon support much polygamy is that luck, more than skill, plays a large part in hunters success. Even the best hunter would often return empty handed and would be reliant on his fellow men to share what they had killed. This equitable sharing of hunted food is characteristic of these people (in most other social hunting species there is a free-for-all) and is the clearest example of the habit of reciprocal altruism on which the whole of society sometimes appears to be based.....trading favors in this was was the ancient ancestor of the monetary economy. But because meat could not be stored and because luck did not last, hunter-gather societies did not allow the accumulation of wealth

It wasn't until the invention of agriculture did men finally not need his fellow man and had the ability to store surplus food which became wealth of a kind for barter or consumption. Once we get into primative farming societies polygamy becomes common and in fact the norm (and I'm to tired to keep typing, take my word on it).

Also on a personal note, your view does not leave room for male pair bonding. We are not salmon who spawn and leave their young to fend for themselves. I just comforted my crying child and scratched his back so he would fall back to sleep. I did not learn this desire to see that my children are safe, I was not taught to love my son, I do not value his life above my own based on example. I just do, its illogical as any love is, but its how we are made, and me, as a male, and a high status male have these feelings. Under a different set of social rules I'd undoubtely be polygamist, but much like a Roman elite I'd still care for the welfare of my children, even were they born of slaves. This is in stark contrast to your statement...

The man doesn't have to worry about the fate of the children, as long as he fathers enough of them.

Ramese the Great, perhaps Egypts most well known polygamist, with over 100 children, still cared of their fates.

I have more I could say but we shall leave it at this for now.

[She_n_Jaybee]

Broad agreement should mean "we are just guessing" to any true scientist. Broad agreement made Galileo a heretic. Broad agreement said most of what we enjoy today is completely impossible. Even with a great deal of evidence, it is possible for multiple experts to develop multiple conclusions. One of the problems with the field of evolutionary biology (and every other field) is the need for money to conduct research. Unfortunately, many sources of funding are either controlled by those with another agenda, or by those who are interested in not agitating the status quo. In essence, God created Adam and Eve, therefore monogamy is the natural state. A vast amount of money has been spent, and will continue to be spent for research results which validate Christianity and the Christian Bible. The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research. Broad agreement on a highly speculative subject seems to be the path of least resistance.

(quote omitted, scroll up if you're lost)

Yet hunting/gathering groups do exhibit polygamy. Forget humanity and consider baboons. The form large groups, with a complex social structure. The leader is "husband" to all the adult females. The lesser males remain on the periphery of the group, as sentries and homosexual behaviour is common amongst them. When a stronger, smarter, meaner baboon comes along, the group gets a new leader, the females get a new husband.

One area I can definitely agree with you, agriculture does make polygamy a more favorable condition. Vegetables are notoriously docile. Now back to the disagreement. I haven't ventured into the area of male pair-bonding, but certainly my view (admittedly it's skewed, that's why it's mine) allows for it. Hunting a 600# predator solo is how the idea of delivery pizza came about. A group of hunters can bring in larger game. Put any men in a dangerous situation and the survivors will bond (and make jokes about any misadventures). The aborigines of the American plains used large groups to hunt buffalo (not that stampeding a thousand buffalo over a cliff is what most people call hunting).

Men protect women, women protect children. This doesn't mean that men don't or can't love and protect children, but it was not their primary focus. In most cases it is not their primary focus today. While at work, are your concerns primarily on the business at hand, providing for your family and maintaining your high status, or do you primarily concern yourself with the specific care and feeding of your children? The male is the provider, female the nurturer.

Many polygamists cared about the welfare of their children, just as many abandoned their children or slaughtered them. An obvious evolutionary dead-end.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by She_n_Jaybee

Broad agreement should mean "we are just guessing" to any true scientist.

No, broad agreement means that the evidence is such that most people believe it to be true. For example the theory of evolution has broad agreement among biologists, the evidence points to it being correct. If it is in fact wrong, the evidence isn't there yet, which is why there is broad agreement.

Broad agreement made Galileo a heretic.

Well specifically presenting the Popes arguments from the point of view of a simpleton in a book is what made Galileo a heretic.

Broad agreement said most of what we enjoy today is completely impossible. Even with a great deal of evidence, it is possible for multiple experts to develop multiple conclusions.

Scientific progress continues, and there are differences of opinion yes.

One of the problems with the field of evolutionary biology (and every other field) is the need for money to conduct research. Unfortunately, many sources of funding are either controlled by those with another agenda, or by those who are interested in not agitating the status quo. In essence, God created Adam and Eve, therefore monogamy is the natural state. A vast amount of money has been spent, and will continue to be spent for research results which validate Christianity and the Christian Bible. The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research. Broad agreement on a highly speculative subject seems to be the path of least resistance.

I was an atheist by age 8, I had my first degree in evolutionary biology by age 21, I've written papers on it since and taught it as late as 4 years ago, I know the type of people involved first hand. Most evolutionary biologists could care less about what the bible says. I don't think you KNOW any evolutionary biologists or you would realize just how absurd your statement is. People who care about what Adam and Eve did are not really friendly to the idea of early hominid to human evolution, period, they don't care if its monogamy or polygamy. Honestly you have no idea what you are talking about here, sorry, no other way I can state this. Polygamy is also contained in the bible, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Yet hunting/gathering groups do exhibit polygamy.

Which is as I posted, about 15%, guess what the other 85% are?

Forget humanity and consider baboons. The form large groups, with a complex social structure. The leader is "husband" to all the adult females. The lesser males remain on the periphery of the group, as sentries and homosexual behaviour is common amongst them. When a stronger, smarter, meaner baboon comes along, the group gets a new leader, the females get a new husband.

Avery ape has a different mating pattern and social life. What baboons do or don't do doesn't matter as we do not live as baboons. Chimps are different, Bonobo chimps even more different, gorillas are different. I could go into the details by there is no point we come from different lines of evolution. We pair bond by nature.

One area I can definitely agree with you, agriculture does make polygamy a more favorable condition. Vegetables are notoriously docile.

Ummm I thought the reason you said polygamy was first was because of the dangers of hunting?

Now back to the disagreement. I haven't ventured into the area of male pair-bonding, but certainly my view (admittedly it's skewed, that's why it's mine) allows for it. Hunting a 600# predator solo is how the idea of delivery pizza came about. A group of hunters can bring in larger game. Put any men in a dangerous situation and the survivors will bond (and make jokes about any misadventures). The aborigines of the American plains used large groups to hunt buffalo (not that stampeding a thousand buffalo over a cliff is what most people call hunting).

Men protect women, women protect children. This doesn't mean that men don't or can't love and protect children, but it was not their primary focus. In most cases it is not their primary focus today. While at work, are your concerns primarily on the business at hand, providing for your family and maintaining your high status, or do you primarily concern yourself with the specific care and feeding of your children? The male is the provider, female the nurturer.

All of the above has nothing to do with polygamy/monogamy

Many polygamists cared about the welfare of their children, just as many abandoned their children or slaughtered them. An obvious evolutionary dead-end.

Eh?

Men compete, and I knew this would be the outcome of the debate as I put your back against the wall by calling you out in my first post. By nature you would never admit to being wrong, but I'm afraid you are outclassed in this debate. You are not Galileo Galilei, you have not through careful observation and study come up with a theory. You have an opinion, one which is not backed up by any evidence other than what you create in your own mind. Its not a bad theory, but it doesn't hold up for any hunter gatherer society. Yours is not a great idea being suppressed, its an unproven theory, which has been looked at before and rejected based on lack of any evidence.

You then claim its due to some sort of Christian agenda which is so wrong it tells me you don't understand the group you speak of at all. Do you think any Church official is using this data to support monogamy? Are there subtle forces of Christianity steering money away from the polygamists? No. What we have are logical people debating the issue, and by logic a hunter gather society has a hard time supporting polygamy. These same people claim that once we started to farm, polygamy became common and is in fact the norm state for most primitive aggricultural societies. No judgements need be reached.

Humans are monogamous when the time is right for it, and polygamist when the time is right for that. Monogamy is as natural as polygamy, as is cuckolding as is cheating. Its common in many species. If we had no natural desire for pair bonding we wouldn't have marriage across human society, non christians included.

The whole crux of this is understanding how genes compete against each other for reproduction, and I'm afraid its going to be too technical a conversation for the swingers board.

[She_n_Jaybee]

Chicup, I willingly admit I am wrong, when the facts prove my error.

Men compete, and I knew this would be the outcome of the debate as I put your back against the wall by calling you out in my first post. By nature you would never admit to being wrong, but I'm afraid you are outclassed in this debate. You are not Galileo Galilei, you have not through careful observation and study come up with a theory. You have an opinion, one which is not backed up by any evidence other than what you create in your own mind. Its not a bad theory, but it doesn't hold up for any hunter gatherer society. Yours is not a great idea being suppressed, its an unproven theory, which has been looked at before and rejected based on lack of any evidence.

Nothing like declaring yourself winner. But for a bit of clarification, my original post was in response to RaysWays saying monogamy wasn't natural, polygamy being the natural order of things. I replied that polygamy existed in primitive societies, which you agree with (15% I believe was your number). I tend to avoid superlatives. I don't now, and never did believe that 100% were polygamists. However, since I (an obvious moron) stated something without giving you credit for being the dispenser of all knowledge, suddenly I'm wrong. I have never made a claim of being Galileo Galilei or anyone other the person you've chosen to vilify. Unless I'm relaying information from my actual experiences, I try to avoid "proving" my expertise, especially in areas which are speculative in nature. I've also not claimed repression of my self or my ideas (even the ones laughably called "great"). As for observation of the mating habits of neolithic cultures, I claim as much experience as any man living today. Exactly zero. Problem is I have yet to see anything on the subject which fulfills my criteria as "evidence". Find me a hunting/gathering society which has had absolutely no contact, ever, with any group or individual with a higher technology, that has no contact with any group or individual that has had contact with a higher technology, we'll observe them together. Without direct observation, factual evidence is somewhat difficult to obtain. A few bones, a few primitive tools, and not much else. Or is there some wealth of actual physical evidence which we the untutored are not worthy to be informed of? I am ready to admit I'm wrong about the existence of polygamy which you assert existed in the aforementioned culture. Although, wouldn't that make us both wrong?

I was an atheist by age 8, I had my first degree in evolutionary biology by age 21, I've written papers on it since and taught it as late as 4 years ago, I know the type of people involved first hand. Most evolutionary biologists could care less about what the bible says. I don't think you KNOW any evolutionary biologists or you would realize just how absurd your statement is. People who care about what Adam and Eve did are not really friendly to the idea of early hominid to human evolution, period, they don't care if its monogamy or polygamy. Honestly you have no idea what you are talking about here, sorry, no other way I can state this. Polygamy is also contained in the bible, you are barking up the wrong tree

If you were an atheist by age 8 then you are either omniscient (leaving you renouncing your own existence) or "you have not through careful observation and study come up with a theory. You have an opinion, one which is not backed up by any evidence other than what you create in your own mind". Since the (evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods) it is difficult to prove or disprove by observation and/or study. Or I may just not understand the definition of atheism. I have classified gods as "unknown, insufficient data". I probably need to find someone to perform a pragmatectomy. As for the absurdity of my statements (there is a strong Christian influence to validate Christianity and denounce any alternatives) you really need to get out more. It was forced on my awareness when I agreed to go with an acquaintance to her church (She was tall, very well built and a redhead, I thought it would get me somewhere). This particular church broadcasts through that area and had at least 500 in attendance. I listened to a sermon "proving" science was all a hoax (the same science which came up with all the technology he was abusing). A sermon demanding something be done about the evil teachings of evolution which were contrary to the proven facts of the bible. I never did get laid. Natural, perky 39 year old D-Cups, don't make up for an open mind. Since that time I have seen countless efforts to thwart anything contrary to "Christian morality". One method is to curtail the thinking of our youth. Seal those young minds shut to new ideas. Another is to adopt and mutate an idea. I don't know that any research by evolutionary biologists has been (or will be) tainted, but I have seen enough research projects up close and personal to know that whomever writes the checks can influence the results. My own ears have beheld a rather senior budgetary dept. official for a very well-funded government laboratory tell a project lead "___ has a very big stake in ___(his project) and is anxious to know when you will be able to demonstrate..." It was clear that the gravy train only stopped for those who produced results. Of course if everyone engaged in research puts the absolute truth ahead of all else, including their continued employment, we'll never have to worry about any taint.

I admit to never having knowlingly met any evolutionary biologists. Marine biologists, molecular biologists certainly. I was once part of a group of about 45 that had 9 PhD's (5 people, 1 had 3 another had 2), 32 MS's, 17 BS's and 1 BA (and did he stick out like a sore thumb). I was just the poor slob that fixed their computer or the network whenever their degrees surpassed their ability to reason. Funny thing, we had 5 people take the CHP (Certified Health Physicist) exam, 4 for the first time, one for the second. The exam has something in the area of a 75% first time failure rate. Three had MS's in related fields from rather prestigious universities, one had his PhD from Lowell. They all failed. The only pass (his first time) had his BA in economics from a podunk school in the hills of Pennsylvania. People impress me, degrees don't.

After spending way too much time trying to figure how we got here from there, I think I've found the root of the problem. RaysWays post which started this mess was mostly absurd (my opinion), I replied with that in mind. Part of my reply about polygamy assumed women outnumbered men (a condition that currently exists, and seems to be fairly common). My thoughts are polygamy would be a natural result. That particular paragraph lacked clarity, as it was merely a brief comment having no impact on the discussion at hand. Suddenly, I'm under attack because "It is believed that neolithic men were in fact far more monogamous than polygamous". I never made a quantitative analysis, merely stated my opinion of it's existence and a possible reason for that existence.

I admit to many faults. Which one in particular cause you to respond with such vehemence? You read 80% of my words, then respond based upon the altered content, and unintended assumptions. Here's an ideal example:

Originally Posted by She_N_Jaybee

Anytime you're ready to live under the conditions which created male-dominant polygamy, you'll have my blessing. Heck, I want to see you explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope

Originally Posted by Chicup

That time would be any civilization including our own, though currently its only a far cry from where it used to be.

The key word omitted from my phrase in your reply is "created". Something already in existence is generally not considered to be "created" at each new occurence. My belief is that male-dominant polygamy was only "created" the first time a living being we would classify as human (or close-enough) tried it and survived. Anything beyond that would be imitative, not creative.

Or how about:

Originally Posted by She_N_Jaybee

Broad agreement should mean "we are just guessing" to any true scientist.

Originally Posted by Chicup

No, broad agreement means that the evidence is such that most people believe it to be true.

This time the culprit is "should". Science is a search for knowledge, answers to questions, the ultimate truths. A true seeker of knowledge should be questioning everything enroute to his "truth". Am I wrong in my belief that "broad agreement" means that assumptions have been made. Best guesses in lieu of actual proof? A scientist that accepts assumptions at face value is quite possibly making a grave error, unless experimental proof can validate the assumptions. Perhaps someone has created a neolithic microcosm. Wait until CNN finds out!

What we're dealing with here is Schrodinger's cat. Until someone finds a way to open that box (without the act influencing the results), uncertainty is the only reality of this "debate". Personally, I just think it's no way to treat a cat.


Here's one of my favorites:

Originally Posted by Chicup

Ummm I thought the reason you said polygamy was first was because of the dangers of hunting?

If you had quoted the actual relevant info we would have seen:

Originally Posted by Chicup

The problem with your assumptions is that hunter-gatherer people are not polygamous right now, so why can you assume they were in the past? It is not a western influence that creates this, but their own society based on their needs and lifestyle

This is the quote I omitted.

Originally Posted by She_N_Jaybee

Yet hunting/gathering groups do exhibit polygamy. Forget humanity and consider baboons. The form large groups, with a complex social structure. The leader is "husband" to all the adult females. The lesser males remain on the periphery of the group, as sentries and homosexual behaviour is common amongst them. When a stronger, smarter, meaner baboon comes along, the group gets a new leader, the females get a new husband.

One area I can definitely agree with you, agriculture does make polygamy a more favorable condition. Vegetables are notoriously docile.

Which was a reference to:

Originally Posted by Chicup

It wasn't until the invention of agriculture did men finally not need his fellow man and had the ability to store surplus food which became wealth of a kind for barter or consumption. Once we get into primative farming societies polygamy becomes common and in fact the norm

So even when agreeing, things are twisted to show inconsistency which certainly was not intended, nor should be implied given what was written.

If you'll release your stranglehold on your assumption for a moment you might see how ridiculous this has become. The assumption that my mention of polygamy means my belief that everyone (or even a majority) practiced this is incorrect. Had I been less tired initially, and made this blatant, we might have saved a few gigabytes. I'm flabbergasted that of all the hunting/gathering civilizations still in existence not a single case of polygamy exists. See what happens when we assume the addition of words like "all", "always", "none" and "never" in others statements?

I really should have left the baboons out of it. I must have some strange fascination with their butts. Instead, it would have been much more relevant to refer to the journals kept by Capt. Clark during that rather famous expedition to find out what Pres. Jefferson had just bought. A resumably untainted view of Native American cultures (many thought to be meeting caucasians for the first time). Practices and beliefs varied greatly, with polygamy certainly in existence. Many tribes invited the men of the expedition to have a turn with their wives. The one member of the expedition in greatest demand for this was York, Capt. Lewis' slave/manservant. By description an outstanding physical specimen. I guess sometimes there are perks where you least expect them. Syphillis not being one of them.

Originally, there was a rather rude (even by my standards) paragraph here, but I really don't want to make this into a war. This has already been the most tersely contested agreement I've ever encountered. I concede that your position of the existence of polygamy in neolithic cultures is correct and that my position of the existence of polygamy in neolithic cultures is false.

Where do I send the trophy?

[RaysWays]

It would appear that starting a discussion was accomplished... Nina is probably in tears.

is anyone else reading this, I wonder?

For those unfortunates, I'm just going to clip and comment... most interesting posts from

Chicup, knowledgeable and intriguing. Sorry She_n-Jaybee, I'm sure you're a decent person

and a good lay, but with each paragraph, an inability to reason, think clearly and

understand what is actually written becomes more visible. Sorry. (Old modems... do you

remember 30 wpm grinding out of a raucous impact printer?)

>explain to a woman how you're going to provide for her by running down an antelope

the challenge of explaining exceeds the combined challenges of providing and running down

>This means that women can have an equal say on how they live their lives, and who the

spend their time with.

Yes, though they are still disadvantaged in many ways in the traditionally 'male' world

of work. They are also tremendously advantaged - TREMENDOUSLY - in the female world of

sex and children, and have not had to give any of that privilege up, even in

circumstances of extremely ugly and immoral behavior - much of which even goes unnoticed

(see below...)

>If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability
Nowhere did I say 'require'. I said to feel good about her attractiveness. READ what is

there!

>You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's

desires and needs?
What I actually said was that sex can be a way of expressing love. The example was for

Nina, a female. READ what is there!

>When a man tells lies about himself and misleads a woman about his intentions just to

get her to have sex with him, then yes he is a creep. He's scum and worthless in my

opinion.

Behavior you admit to years of...

>If a man is upfront about himself and his intentions, he's just as likely to find women

to have sex with. The difference is the women will typically be more attractive and

emotionally more stable.

Women swingers may be like this, but you are so far wrong it's laughable. It's all those

men (notoriously unrelenting in their want of sex) who fail to be upfront - that explains

pornography ($12B in the US, $60B worldwide)? Where the consumers are overwhelmingly men?

The hundreds of thousands of titles with women on the covers, as opposed to some small

percentage with men or couples?

>They understand that sex is just that, nothing more.
Some do, some don't. Not really relevant to what I was saying - that women control sex

and use it for power.

>I think it boils down to many men being intimidated by a woman who can think for

herself.
So? My point is that women always have thought for themselves when it comes to using

female power (sex). Men have mended their ways.

>things that make lots of noise.
A 440 Olds with glass-packs and a sweet li'l Bernadelli .16 gauge over and under?

>Males still seek out healthy young females for breeding potential (why is young

beautiful) while women seek out status and power.

Bingo! Women as sex objects; men as success objects. Does anyone notice the difference in

motivation? Procreation versus lust for unearned status, wealth and power.

>If someone were a low status male, lying will be their only way to appear to have status

And to get sex. Wait... aren't women more tuned into feelings and more compassionate than

men? And this is female behavior done by free choice.

>this is why you will more often find poor attractive females marrying rich males, than

poor attractive males marrying rich women

Wait... seems like men are much more democratic in how they look at women. Women mostly

look for princes. But... don't women think men are slimy and ratty for sleeping with low

status women? Why is classist opportunism acceptable for women, but democratic sexing

contemptible in men? And we live in male dominated society???

>Women are not more complex in needs, they just have different needs for seeing their

seed is in the next generation. A man can have a few children a day if he is able

BINGO! Men are not monogamous by nature - the statement that draws the IRE of women. Or

look at the central fantasy of men - multiple women available sexually. Versus the

central fantasy of women - a man and family of their very own.


>Its also been shown that has high as 20% of all children in MODERN society are in fact

not their ‘fathers’ child. What works in males for polygamy works for females in

cuckoldry.

This is a stunning example of women's power - ugly, immoral, corrupt -- and acceptable.

Consider: a cheating male meets universal condemnation. The sex is over in an hour or

two. Now consider a woman having a child and passing it off as the spouse's, or having
a child the male doesn't want by lying about her period. The male is forced to spend

twenty years putting a huge amount of effort into a child he may not want and that may

not even be his. But this gets little notice or condemnation. Who has the power here? Who

is being ruthless and using other people? And consider the magnitude - an hour of

pleasure versus twenty years of work. Then - the man is accountable but the woman isn't.

Ramses - 100+ children. So they name a condom after him???

>The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research.
All your blather about science is complete nonsense. Your position as presented is that

because you once heard someone with funding to give wanting a particular outcome (without

saying what the outcome even was) -- all scientists are hopelessly corrupted byconficts

of interest, and therefore science cannot be believed. The dumbest follower of Pat

Robertson couldn't say it better.

>RaysWays saying monogamy wasn't natural, polygamy being the natural order of things
NOT what I said. I said men are not innately monogamous, no more.

>(evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods)
Utter vacuousness, somehow constructed into a statement. Each side of the equation has no

meaning (opinion, yes; evidence, no), and somehow they are the same - which would be a

miracle even if they had meaning. Then the anecdote about a health physics exam. Do you

actually not see that anecdotal stories about an incident that proves nothing themselves

prove nothing, and are even less reputable? And as far as Schrodinger's cat as the nexus

of anthropological proof, you are speaking far above your knowledge in either subject. Or

as the French would say "Il pete plus haut que son cul" - he farts higher than his ass.

Good night, Gracie...


(Nina - empower yourself, use it).

[She_n_Jaybee]

Many years ago when my fellow instructors often referred to "pulling teeth", when attempting to lead a student to an answer that was staring them in the face. More than 20 years have passed and suddenly I'm reliving those days.

RaysWays, you appear to be a poor student. As I mentioned before, there is a method to actually quote another to make your views much more presentable, if not more palatable. Here's the trick, use a set of tags. a tag is a command surrounded by brackets ([]) followed by a close tag ([/'command']) so to quote me, enclose "QUOTE=She_N_Jaybee" with brackets and paste my quote, then enclose "/QUOTE" with brackets. The result is"

Originally Posted by She_N_Jaybee

RaysWays, you appear to be a poor student.

See? Let's see if you can do better on the next exam.

Which leads us to this:

Originally Posted by RaysWays

most interesting posts from Chicup, knowledgeable and intriguing. Sorry She_n-Jaybee, I'm sure you're a decent person and a good lay, but with each paragraph, an inability to reason, think clearly and understand what is actually written becomes more visible. Sorry. (Old modems... do you remember 30 wpm grinding out of a raucous impact printer?)

I can certainly agree that Chicup's posts are more interesting and intriguing. However, I'm uncertain how you can determine my "inability to reason, think clearly and understand what is actually written" when the last of these traits have been repeatedly demonstrated by both Chicup and yourself. For specific examples see my previous post. Look at the compared quotes including my explanation on how the response was addressed misrepresenting the clear and obvious meaning of my original quote. For examples pertaining to you, stay tuned.

I remember spending hours feeding punch cards, then waiting hours for the system to finish crunching so the results could be pulled up on our thermal transfer printer. Our system at the time was not advanced enough to have any monitors. As for that, the first computer I owned was a used Apple ][e, 64k ram, a 5 1/4" floppy, green screen monochrome monitor. No hard drive, no modem. I saved about $800 buying a year old system versus a new one. I even remember the smell of a fried chip you got when you plugged your drive cable in and were off by one set of pins. Fortunately, it was a cheap fix.

As previously noted, taking a partial quote is a misrepresentation. Here's one of those examples:

[QUOTE=RaysWays[>If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability
Nowhere did I say 'require'. I said to feel good about her attractiveness. READ what is there!

>You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?
What I actually said was that sex can be a way of expressing love. The example was for Nina, a female. READ what is there!
[/QUOTE]

Here's the original exchange:

Originally Posted by She_N_Jaybee

Sex Positive? Sexual Attention as a Validation or your own desirability?? A Powerful way of Showing Love??? I can see we're going to have to start slow here. Sex is a physical act, period. Love is an emotion, the emotional condition where the health, happiness and well-being of another is more important than your own. If you require sexual attention to validate your desirability, you have no self-esteem, i.e. you have no desirability. You are merely a subsitute for your partner's hand. You mention the woman accepting and satisfying the man's wants, what about the woman's desires and needs?

Read what is there. Out of a possible ten, you scored 1. Nowhere did you say require. Contextually speaking, nowhere did I say or imply you said require. It is a partial response that accounted for the entire thrust and tone of your initial reply.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

>The source of funding typically influences the outcome of research.
All your blather about science is complete nonsense. Your position as presented is that because you once heard someone with funding to give wanting a particular outcome (without saying what the outcome even was) -- all scientists are hopelessly corrupted byconficts of interest, and therefore science cannot be believed. The dumbest follower of Pat Robertson couldn't say it better

You really should try to read all the words. My position isn't because I heard someone with money to give... A "Senior budetary dept. official" is someone with the job of getting money to distribute in a way acceptable to the givers. This is what I consider an example of my personal experience. I try to avoid naming names, or specific projects for many reasons, one being classification. What I overheard was within the realm of my security clearance, but I certainly lacked the "need to know". I haven't found the time to verify the clearance and "need to know" of everyone who could potentially access this board, so felt inclined to omit specific references. I suppose no harm is done by pointing out this occurred when I worked at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. You may have heard of it at some point. I was there just before, during and just after the merger, when Lockheed (who administered the lab) became Lockheed Martin. Apparently they decided to leave Marietta in Georgia.

I shouldn't bother, but I find myself with some extra time this morning. For the purpose of this discussion we'll consider two types of projects, goal-oriented and abstract. Goal-oriented projects are aimed at a particular achievement. Apollo 11 is an example of the culmination of this type of project. A great deal of money was spent to reach space and land on our moon. If the project had veered off into a study of the electro-magnetic radiation on the migratory habits of the mallard duck, funding would have disappeared and been directed somewhere that could focus on and achieve the desired results. I suppose I'm out of touch, but I have trouble imagining all research monies being distributed with no accountability for their usage. A project is begun with a basic premise, frequently based upon previously unexplained phenomena. A possible method to prove the premise is determined, grants are applied for, potential sources of funding review the application, determine feasibility, applicability and suitability. With luck (and excellent presentation skills) a source is found and the study begins.

Notre Dame is unlikely to approve a project is seeking to prove frequent masturbation is beneficient. It's unsuitable material for them, try Berkeley.

Abstract projects aren't as prevalent, or as well funded. Have a goal which if achieved will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, if you can prove feasibility and your own ability, you'll not lack for research money. Presenting a case for abstract research is somewhat difficult. If the Nobel Foundation has seen fit to honor you with recognition, you're all set. If you have already amassed a remarkable number of achievements in your field, you should also be able to find a suitable source of support for your endeavours. Anyone else needs to hide their abstract pursuits into goal-oriented projects and pander to the powers that be. That means showing progress towards your professed goal. Have I said that "all scientists are hopelessly corrupted by conficts(sic) of interest"? No. Somebody bump the stereo, the records skipping. What I've said and continue to stand by, is that pure research isn't always "pure". Murad & Ignarro weren't ingesting a multitude of chemical compounds then checking to see the results. Their research was aimed at finding a compound to treat a specific condition. In 1998 they were honored for achieving their pre-determined goal and viagra changed the world (of course Pfizer really wasn't interested in the potential profit from their research, they just paid the bills because they were such neat guys). They found an answer, but not the only answer.

As long as researchers need to justify their budgets, there will be the potential for taint and corruption, and conflicts of interest as well. There will be those who constantly prostitute their science and those who remain true to their study. And the former will continue to get the biggest piece of the pie.

But I tire of quoting the numerous examples of traits I'm accused of displaying, traits that are blatantly displayed by my accusers. I'll take the time to attempt to clarify one point which seems to have eluded you.

Chicup says he was an athiest(sic) by age 8. The definition for atheism I've always used and found elsewhere yesterday is the belief in the non-existence of gods. Theism being the belief in the existence of god(s). Belief implies faith, faith requires a lack of proof. If you can touch a hot stove and burn yourself, faith in the power of the stove is ridiculous, it has become a painfully proven fact. The evidence of the existence of any god is circumstantial at best. The evidence of the non-existence of said deity is the same. Or to put it in terms you can relate to:

Originally Posted by Physics World, February 1998 "Paul Dirac: the purest soul in physics"

Having explained spin, it was natural for Dirac to try to explain electric charge, and in particular the mysterious fact that it is quantized: all charges found in nature are multiples of the charge on the electron. In classical electricity, there is no basis for this: charges can have any value.
...
Dirac wondered if there was any way that magnetic monopoles could be brought into quantum physics without spoiling everything that had grown out of assuming that they did not exist. He found that this could be done, but only if the strength of the monopole (the "magnetic charge") was linked to that of the electric charge, and if both were quantized. This solved the original problem: for consistency with quantum mechanics, the existence of even one monopole anywhere in the universe would suffice to ensure that electric charge must be quantized.
...
Alas, no magnetic monopole has ever been found. Perhaps they do not exist, or perhaps (and there are hints of this in the theory) positive and negative monopoles are so tightly bound together that they have not been separated.
Much later, Dirac referred to this theory as "just a disappointment".

Until found the existence is theory, as is the non-existence. Until god gets interviewed by Larry King, he, she or it can not be proven or disproven. Therefore, the equation "(evidence proving the non-existence of gods)=(evidence proving the existence of gods)" is an extremely simple and obvious display of basic algebra. If you have found a way to prove one or the other, or at least have enough proof to tip the scales, why has your achievement gone unnoticed? I am not talking about disproving the bible, or the god worshipped by a particular religious group. I'm talking about the existence of any being which could be classified as deity. Perhaps that constitutes "utter vacousness somehow constructed into a statement". To me, it is a simple mathematical representation of a clear and obvious truth. Religions continue to exist and prosper. Science continues to extend the boundaries of human knowledge. When the balance of proof shifts significantly one way or the other, then one will suffer while the other flourishes.

Slowly I am coming to see the light. I've been approaching this as a discussion of differing views. Discussion based upon the quality and clarity of what has been written, unbiased by the source. Instead it appears to be a contest based solely upon personal attacks. Instead of focusing my attention on what has been said, I should have been brandishing my formidable repertoire of barbs and insults.

One last note. When you proposed a new thread and a new discussion, I started one with the first two posts in which I replied to you, RaysWays. Julie decided that the new thread would be confusing and moved my posts back into this thread. This is why my posts made no mention of SimplyNina or her predicament.

[intuition897]

Holy cow, why is everybody so riled up? And I'm not sure I can bring myself to read through the entire thread to find out. I've gotten the gist of it, and it looks a bit like bickering over differences of opinion. "Men are evil!" "No, women are evil!"
Did I miss anything?
Like I said, I haven't read through the whole thread, so I think there was some stuff about theology/atheism in there, too.

Anyway...just wanted to say that upon skimming through, I found a few things I disagreed with myself. For example,

"Bingo! Women as sex objects; men as success objects. Does anyone notice the difference in motivation? Procreation versus lust for unearned status, wealth and power."

I don't understand the logic of thinking of one another as rivals or contestants. This isn't a boxing match where [Ding!] Man and Woman come out of their corners swinging. At least not with their fists they shouldn't.

I don't know, I just think if we start focusing on who did what to to whom (or what we THINK they did), no one is ever going to get anywhere. LIfe is unfair, so keeping score is useless. Everyone just needs to be a good sport.

I'll give you an example. Mr. intuition and I have a largely traditional family set-up. Short of bringing him slippers and a martini after a long hard day at the office, it looks a lot like a Wheaties commercial. I do work, but it's supplementary income only. Mr. intuition is the main breadwinner, and the kids and I are dependant upon that income to live. Am I a leech or a gold digger because of this? No. He doesn't begrudge me this. If I were the one who was better suited to making the kind of income that he does, then I would be the one out there making the dough. But I'm not. I just don't have the same drive and confidence that he does. I have skills, but not the kind that people pay good money for...not like his. I'm good at taking care of sick kids, and know how to make a mean batch of brownies. I haul kids to the dentist and make our appointments. I'm the social convenor for the family unit. Unearned status? Whatever. I have no interest in gaining status. I just want a good life. For all of us. I have my role, and I don't resent it. Perhaps someday I'll do something else when I have the time. Back to University or something. But until then, I have no problem being "relegated" to the role I'm in. And Mr. intuition doesn't feel bitter about being shouldered with the responsibility of having 3 people depend on him to keep the money coming in. It's just what makes sense. If something else made better sense, then that's what we'd do.

My point is, Mr. intuition and I could decide to be bitter about who gets more than whom, but it really doesn't make any sense to do that.

"Can't we all just...get along?"

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by intuition897

Holy cow, why is everybody so riled up? And I'm not sure I can bring myself to read through the entire thread to find out. I've gotten the gist of it, and it looks a bit like bickering over differences of opinion. "Men are evil!" "No, women are evil!"

Close its more like the opinion of a great many biologists vrs a guy who thinks the church is somehow manipulating the research and his untested theories are correct.

Its like a 9/11 thread only with sex

I'm not trying to be an ass on this (though I'm doing well there) but its my field, and something that would really benifit people if they understood their basic natures a bit more.

[She_n_Jaybee]

This really should go into the archives as an example of what can happen with miscommunication. It would appear 3 of us have been guilty of failing to understand the viewpoint of the other 2. This caused the subject to drift erratically. At some point we each made unfair judgements of the others and attempted to undermine their views. Then (as always seems to happen when boys fight) it disintegrated into name calling.

I'll admit my guilt in all but the last. I'll also accept the blame as being the cause of this dissension. My written expressions often give the impression that I am a "know-it-all". While that is not my intent, it seems to be the result as seen by others. This unintentional impression rightfully angers those who have through years of hardwork and expensive education achieved their position in society. I need a personal disclaimer stating my opinions and theories are my own and should not be taken seriously.

Disclaimer: Everything following this disclaimer is about me. While it may appear a case of self-promotion that is not it's intent. The personal information included below is not intended to prove any intellectual superiority nor to validate the points of view previously expressed. If you feel the need to question the material below or to insult me for expression of said material, I am willing to meet with you in person (financial limitations apply) to present my case and allow you to develop an actual informed opinion. The smart choice at this point is to ignore everything following, it's most likely a complete waste of your time.


On the homefront the turmoil is centered around the same point, my (self-proclaimed, often questioned and frequently insulted) intelligence. She worked hard through high school, to learn, and after school on the family farm. Math was a difficult area, and she never ventured into physics or chemistry. She was prepped to become a farmer's wife. I coasted through school. By then end of 3rd grade I'd read everything available in our grade school and had to resort to my aunt's huge collection of books. Throughout high school I excelled in math, biology, chemistry and physics, without study or any real effort. I was prepped for college and probably graduate school.

What happened? She has spent much of the past 26 years working and earning degrees (7 so far), and raising children (2), being a housewife (and even a farmer's wife. I joined the military and with the exception of a brief period, avoided the type of education which would result in a highly paid career. Instead, I've worked and played and studied what, when and where I pleased. No specific goal in mind, merely a continued attempt to slake my thirst for knowledge. She is often disgusted that I've made such little practical use of my intelligence. She is right. My learning accomplishments indicate a certain proficiency in that area. When an injury forced me into a vocational retraining situation, I was sent to a psychologist for aptitude testing. What I took from the testing was a belief in the basic instability of psychologists and a little blue piece of paper recommending my immediate placement in the 4 year degree program of my choosing, plus a little number saying her tests agreed with my personal assessment, I am smarter than your average bear and have wasted a lot of years not exploiting my talents.

The state of California hesitates to consider 4 years of college as vocational retraining, so I ended up with 2 semesters (23 hrs/semester) to take me to a new career. A career I stayed with for less than 4 years, before stepping backwards to what can really only be considered a "job", not a career. Mainly a case of placing my own happiness in front of other's definition of success. Finally (if luck stays with us), with She's help and support, I am planning on achieving that success and keeping my happiness. My first semester begins in January. In the meantime work keeps my safely away from the computer most of the week. And I have wasted too much of too many weekends (and of too many people's time) with attempts to understand others and help others understand the problems that frequently arise within this lifestyle. I'll attempt to gracefully retire from the fray.

For those I've offended, my apologies. I'm a clumsy man with large feet, I tend to step on a few toes. For those I've insulted (intentionally, relatively few, unintentionally, most of the rest) I was in error. If I intended insult, then my behaviour was beneath me. If the insult was unintentional, I should have found a way to express myself better, or refrained from expression.

For those who believe they have insulted me, don't fret. If you intended insult, you can be certain that I am cringing in the corner licking my wounds. The the possible insult may have been an accident of expression, fear not, I take nothing personally and am as thick skinned as I am thick headed.

If you've come to dread my posts for whatever reason, I promise to make a sincere attempt to avoid anything in the future requiring more than a basic response.

And lastly, for those who will miss my insightful posts, my wit and wisdom, my anecdotes and stories, seek professional help.

I bid you adieu!

[RaysWays]

I don't know, I just think if we start focusing on who did what to to whom (or what we THINK they did), no one is ever going to get anywhere. LIfe is unfair, so keeping score is useless. Everyone just needs to be a good sport.

Hmm... my old roomie used to say "There are no cease-fires in the war between the sexes".

And Mr. intuition doesn't feel bitter about being shouldered with the responsibility of having 3 people depend on him to keep the money coming in. It's just what makes sense. If something else made better sense, then that's what we'd do.

Whatever works for you, great, more power to ya. What I was saying to Nina was to look at the situation and her own part in it, since that is the only thing she can change by herself. Also that seeing things from his point of view may be useful or empowering, but that it may also be a bit foreign (like seeing that men are monogamous by choice but not by nature).

What I have personally observed is a pretty common (not applying this to Nina) phenomenon with cheating men. Their wives use sex for power, so sex becomes difficult. If he allows himself to be manipulated, he is pussy-whipped; if he forgoes sex he can stop her abuse of power. For a male in this situation, he can find another partner for sex, secretly masturbate or leave (cheat, beat or the street). Leaving is horrible - demolished finances and standard of living, pain inflicted on children with unknown and potentially serious long term effects. So, the man cheats. My point is that to see the situation clearly, one has to recognize the female's abusive actions and to accept the validity of the male's sexuality. Usually a cheating male is bitterly condemned (along with the male pursuit of sex) and the woman's behavior is overlooked. But realistically, it is her abuse that causes the situation. If one accepts that his sexuality is valid (and the source of his vulnerability), given his choices it is not a mystery. Unless he believes the woman will change, he may feel cheating is the best option. Then, of course, he will find that it isn't a lot easier on the outside, as he will get the same condemnation, which debases his sexuality and ignores the woman's malfeasances.

So in this situation, the woman, by seeing the male point of view, is empowered - IF she wants to save the marriage, it is within her power to change her own behavior.

A final point - why is porn a huge industry that caters heavily to males? Is it because it is a way for males to experience their sexuality without having to deal with female withholding and manipulation - exploiting him where he is vulnerable?

Can we all get along... well, maybe. A prerequisite for peace is that none of the involved parties are victims, meaning none can be abusers either. In the above, ignoring the abuser and condemning the man isn't going to meet that standard.

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by RaysWays

Hmm... my old roomie used to say "There are no cease-fires in the war between the sexes".

And I'm sure your roomie enjoys a wonderfully fulfilling relationship with women. I'd like to say be careful whose advice you take to heart, but it sounds like perhaps you agree with his statement. If he really believes there are no cease-fires in the war of the sexes...if he actually believes there IS a war between the sexes...then life will always be that way for him. I don't see a war. I see basic differences that just need to be acknowledged and taken into account. The fact is, I get along better with men than I do with women.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

Whatever works for you, great, more power to ya. What I was saying to Nina was to look at the situation and her own part in it, since that is the only thing she can change by herself. Also that seeing things from his point of view may be useful or empowering, but that it may also be a bit foreign (like seeing that men are monogamous by choice but not by nature).

Now this I completely agree with...at least the part about only being able to control one's self and not others. A person must make decisions about what is best for themselves and the good of others, but it would always be my advice to NEVER do anything that degrades one as a person.

By the way, what makes you think that monogamy is any more natural for a woman?? <EG> Man, I just can't swallow this super-genderized view of humanity. Sure there are differences between genders, but taking a stance of "Women always..." and "Men never..." or even substituting the word "always" for "usually" is pretty dangerous territory. I am not my gender. Being female is part of who I am, but it does not define me.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

What I have personally observed is a pretty common (not applying this to Nina) phenomenon with cheating men. Their wives use sex for power, so sex becomes difficult. If he allows himself to be manipulated, he is pussy-whipped; if he forgoes sex he can stop her abuse of power. For a male in this situation, he can find another partner for sex, secretly masturbate or leave (cheat, beat or the street). Leaving is horrible - demolished finances and standard of living, pain inflicted on children with unknown and potentially serious long term effects. So, the man cheats. My point is that to see the situation clearly, one has to recognize the female's abusive actions and to accept the validity of the male's sexuality. Usually a cheating male is bitterly condemned (along with the male pursuit of sex) and the woman's behavior is overlooked. But realistically, it is her abuse that causes the situation. If one accepts that his sexuality is valid (and the source of his vulnerability), given his choices it is not a mystery. Unless he believes the woman will change, he may feel cheating is the best option. Then, of course, he will find that it isn't a lot easier on the outside, as he will get the same condemnation, which debases his sexuality and ignores the woman's malfeasances.

Cheating is degrading, so I just don't buy the "I had no other choice" story. Yes you did have a choice, you just didn't like the alternative. Because it was hard. But if someone is truly forcing you to resort to deception and destructive behaviours, then it's time to reevaluate the relationship. No one EVER makes you cheat. That's a decision you make all on your own. When you decide to take your pants off for someone else, you are making a conscious decision. No mistake about that. And if your ego can't handle the thought that by keeping your pants on, your wife "wins" some silly little head game then...uh...well maybe the problem lies with you. [By "you", I am inferring a collective "you". Plural. ]

Women are not the enemy here, pal. Some women will buy that same old story that they are hard done by, and that they need to unite and take a stand against Men, who are hell-bent on putting the "little woman" back into the kitchen where they belong so they can get on with their business of chasing every skirt they see. Now do you actually buy any of that?? Any woman who believes this gets exactly what she deserves. What you're telling me is essentially the male's side of this same old story. "Women just want to tie men down. We men need to fly free!" Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by RaysWays

A final point - why is porn a huge industry that caters heavily to males? Is it because it is a way for males to experience their sexuality without having to deal with female withholding and manipulation - exploiting him where he is vulnerable?

:rollseyes Do I smell a victim here?

Originally Posted by RaysWays

Can we all get along... well, maybe. A prerequisite for peace is that none of the involved parties are victims, meaning none can be abusers either. In the above, ignoring the abuser and condemning the man isn't going to meet that standard.

The only true victims are the ones who can't defend themselves. Beyond this, people choose to allow others to victimize them. If we can all stop hurting and allowing others to hurt us, then, yeah, we can all get along.

[lovinher]

Fact is your both stating theories and by definition are not, or cannot be proven.
Great discussion though. I've always been interested in evolutionary human history but I'll stay out of this one!
Thanks for quote tip She and Jaybee

[lovinher]

For Intuition....Who says a woman can't be president?
Too bad you're not in the States, we could use you.