Jump to content

She_n_Jaybee

Registered
  • Content Count

    202
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About She_n_Jaybee

  • Rank
    Swingers Board Addict
  • Birthday 04/22/1962

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Couple
  • Location
    SW Indiana
  • Interests
    fishing, bowling, pool, photography, golf, cards and almost anything that can be done without clothes!
  • Swinging Experience
    7 months

Swinger Info

  • Favorite Club(s)
    Club 201

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're right Jersey1979, I was unnecessarily harsh. To paraphrase, I should live by the maxim "If you can't write anything nice about someone, don't write anything at all", Ishould have either have told you how great your experience was, or very gingerly made suggestions to avoid the risk of hurting your feelings. While still inexcusable, I will give 3 reasons why I responded as harshly. 1. I've been in Mike's shoes. In my case only the woman was involved twice, the woman & another man the first time. First time hurt some, 2nd hurt a lot, 3rd time nearly destroyed me. She was worst, I gave her everything, emotionally, I had to give, we'd lived together for 3 months, she left and gave me back to shattered pieces of my heart one at a time over the next several months. If I were to see her again, I can't say whether I'd kill her, ignore her, or throw everything away to be with her again. 2. On Dec 24, 1985 A very good friend (and a much better person than I) hung himself in his garage. His wife and his best friend had played a very similar game on him. One month before he had come to me asking for help, advice anything I could do to help him deal with the pain. I laughed it off, and still carry a bit of guilt to this day. 3. I have a tendency to "call 'em like I see 'em". If something appears wrong to me, I blurt it out ("The Emperor has no clothes!"), I don't consider the messenger, only the message, and reply based on what is written and how it is written. This is probably because I will not say something online that I wouldn't feel comfortable saying in person in the same situation. And I hold no personal secrets sacred. I tell the bad I've done along with the good. My failures and successes get equal attention. If we were coworkers and you told me this experience I would have either said "yeah, I read that story last week" or "Man, you are seriously fucking up. What if this guy finds out that you two are playing him and flips? What are you going do when he puts a bullet in both your heads?". The rest of this community isn't like me. Many will give you warm fuzzies no matter what you say or do, most of the others will be nice enough to not criticize, or to at least be very gentle when they do.
  2. 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!
  3. By your admission, you encouraged your fiancee to pursue Mike and led him to believe this was without your knowledge. An engaged woman he has a past history with came on to him and led him to believe she was interested in him. Unless you want to change your story, he responded to her advances, advances which you encouraged her for weeks to make. The only thing he could be blamed for is responding in a manner typical of a heterosexual male. If your story is true then the two of you are engaged in a process which is deliberately cruel and hurtful to another person. I see that as the anathema to swinging. One of the reasons I read stories such as this and consider them probable fabrications is the very specific details in one area coupled with potentially conflicting ambiguity in another. Here is what I mean: You've been together 3 years, fine. About 2 years ago you started group play, about 2 years ago went on vacation, made transition to full swap and apparently continued full swap with this couple for 2 years. When they divorced your fun stopped and you've longed for more. But with everything being 2 years, they just recently divorced, leaving you with a very short time for longing. Now we bring in Mike who your fiancee ran into a "couple of weeks ago". She hadn't seen him in over 2 years, meaning she was seeing him while you two were together, apparently just before the beginning of your 2 year perfect swinging adventure. I've always considered a "couple" as approximately 2. When talking weeks, more than 1 1/2, less than 2 1/2. Yet you encouraged her ... "for weeks". In my eyes, that's at least 2 weeks, and usually indicates more, Make the range from 2 to 7 weeks with the most common meaning being between 3 and 6 weeks (2 is a "couple", 7 is almost 2 months). This ambiguity leaves you encouraging her to do something for longer than she could have done it. Seems to hint at a contradiction by being vague. So I consider the story as suspicious. Then you get to the "action" part of the story. You're hiding behind a darkened window, no problem. Apparently he's being rather loud when talking about "how shaved and smooth she was", if you heard it from behind your window. I sure hope the neighbors had their windows closed. At least came in your pants quietly, that's one less trauma for her parents to deal with. It's bad enough they (and their neighbors) have to hear remarks about their cheating daughters pubic area, without having to discover their future son-in-law whacking off behind the living room drapes. The problem with the action segment is it's specifics. The one that stands out is "her size C tits". The size is unnecessary. By itself, cup size is meaningless. To this point you have mentioned no details other than age about your fiancee. Suddenly she's "smooth and shaven" with "size C tits" and later "a well drenched pussy". If she's 5'2" and 350#, "size C tits" could quite possibly resemble mushy grapes stuck on a watermelon. When the only specifics are sexually related the story appears to be nothing more than masturbation fodder with little, if any actual truth. I'll offer advice based upon 2 premises. First, if the story is true, go to "Mike" tell him what you have done, that you were behind it and your reasons for doing so. Then ask for him to accept your apology for being insensitive to his feelings. You may lose a few teeth, but that's a small price when this scenario could easily lead to someone's death. In the future, if you wish to see your fiancee with another man, let him in on the plan. Avoid deceit and situations that are hurtful to others. Now, if the story is just that, a story my advice: Develop your characters early, and when mentioning time spans avoid conflicts (or explain-"We were together 6 months then split up. During that time she dated Mike. They split up, we got back together and got engaged"). Make sure your characters behave consistently. In this one your characters quickly progressed to seperate room swap. However, the story finishes with you being extremely voyeuristic, being unable to restrain yourself while watching Mike and your fiancee. Going from seperate room swap you described as "too perfect", to voyeurism so intense you "could barely hold on and shot a huge load in your pants" and were "instantly hard again" sounds like 2 different people. Your "too perfect" experience was bland, no fire, no oomph, a complete lack of details. If it's "too perfect", jazz it up, make it steamy and work your voyeurism into the mix. As written it reads like a tech manual and the complete shift at the end makes the story impossible to believe. You might consider how the story presents you. Here you present yourself in an uncomplimentary manner. If I started a story with "I've always been attracted to (number Whichever the case don't worry about being able to provide great stories. From my point of view, that's really not the thrust of this community. The internet is full of places where stories/experiences such as yours will have people begging for more details (and pictures of your fiancee and offers to sell you penis enlargement pills and free access to a cornucopia of porn). Generally, experiences posted here involve difficult situations the poster wishes help with. Questions are asked, and answered. Experiences are shared and discussed (and debated and argued and beaten into the ground). Your experience seemed be be requesting nothing more than applause.
  4. 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" See? Let's see if you can do better on the next exam. Which leads us to this: 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! Here's the original exchange: 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. 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: 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.
  5. Well, I think the first time I read that was in a 1978 (can't remember the month) issue of Penthouse. Back when the Penthouse forum wasn't it's own magazine. It's a common enough fantasy, although your version of it has some twists. First, that's downy ballsy to visit someone's parents, invite friends to someone's parents, including an ex-boyfriend, then have her put on such a display where her parents could easily see it. Not to mention, him believing you had passed out from socially drinking. But I shouldn't nitpick. What I think is it's a rather detestable way to treat another human being. If your fiancee had told Mike what she wanted to do, and that she had your approval, great! All power to the people! But instead you chose the path of deceit, totally insensitive to the potential hurt for Mike. But then, that seems to turn on a lot of the very young men. In my old age I've become attached to the notion that hurting others for pleasure is immoral. As for They really need to make a new emoticon for this. It would save a lot of typing. I have read hundreds of paragraphs by hundreds of men that are nearly identical.
  6. I started this reply thinking I had some valid point to make, suddenly I'm not sure. What the hell? I never let the lack of anything valid stop me before! Boundaries exist for us all. Whether you're in a relationship or not. The laws we live under are boundaries, the rules and guidelines set down by employers are also boundaries. For all aspects of our lives we have boundaries. We either accept or defy them. And each carries it's own consequences. For those of you who think that boundaries are an unfair attempt to control, try telling that female boss how you want to bend her over your desk and drive it home. Or try punching that highway patrolman for trying to unfairly control you. Let everyone know they can't control you! Who knows, you might look good in an orange jumpsuit. A relationship has it's own boundaries. Typically, they are the only boundaries on which each partner has some input. If She tells me "I don't like it when you pick up another woman and have sex with her standing up. No one else has done that to me before and I think of that as 'our' position", I listen, bring up my objections "Isn't it worth it to see the look on their face when I hit that spot?" and we discuss the matter. We reach a decision, or table it for later discussion, both pondering the other's points. Is that trying to control each other? Perhaps. As many have already said, I consider it a matter of respect. Without respect, how can you have compassion? Without compassion, how can you love? Without love, what good is a relationship?
  7. Chicup, I willingly admit I am wrong, when the facts prove my error. 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? 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: 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: 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: 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: This is the quote I omitted. Which was a reference to: 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?
  8. 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.
  9. We're creating an epic here. 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. 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 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.
  10. We're both old-fashioned then. I love watching She have her fun. Sometimes too much. She will be waving a free hand to get me to come over and join in before I decide to stop watching and start doing.
  11. RaysWays, you mentioned that men are not naturally monogamous. On one level I agree. A hunting/gathering society has to continue to grow to prosper. In this primitive precursor to civilization, men have the dangerous job of killing things that don't want to die. With only rocks and clubs as weapons, this means that the outcome was usually in question. The better a man became at this activity, the larger group he could support. That meant more wives which meant more children. Figure high infant mortality, plus the natural dangers, you needed the women to stay almost constantly pregnant. With the men at risk, women should outnumber them. Now, our primitive man probably wasn't monogamous, at least not by choice. However, unlike most non-monogamous men today, his wives all lived in the same place. They all knew each other and were all part (not necessarily a happy part) of one big family. 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. Things are different. Women are at least as capable as men at providing the necessities of life in the more civilized portions of the world. The image of man as the sole provider and woman as the homemaker is rapidly disappearing. This means that women can have an equal say on how they live their lives, and who the spend their time with. My contempt isn't for males, it's for those who chose to flout their ignorance. The world has changed, the slaves have been freed, women have the right to vote, wake up to the world of today. Too many men feel that women should live the same life their grand or great grandmother lived. When that same man is willing to work his ass off outside, in any weather, 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, like them men of that time, then he's being fair. Otherwise, he's someone who has earned my contempt. 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? 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. 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. They understand that sex is just that, nothing more. Sex and love can exist together, and my own experience says sex with love is much more satisfying than sex without love. Reverse the roles. A woman that lies to get things, is no better than the man who does the same. The "screwy attitudes about male sexuality" you mention certainly exist. The problem is, it's men that usually have them. Would a second double standard be a quadruple standard? Of course there is a double standard. Men and women are different (I've checked), they think differently, and respond differently. Men are typically driven by basic needs, women are more complex. We want food, sex, sleep and things that make lots of noise. Women want to have their taste buds aroused, their passions fulfilled, to feel safe and secure in their dreams and things that satisfy their sense of touch or smell. I think it boils down to many men being intimidated by a woman who can think for herself.
  12. First, you can use the Quote tags to differentiate between what I've said and what you have to say. It's much nicer than just typing all CAPS. Now to get down to business. I don't write one-liners, I write paragraphs (usually incredibly long and boring paragraphs). When you take a partial sentence out, you are presenting my point of view out of context. If we want to do that I can note that since you said you relate more to Elmer Fudd than Bugs Bunny, indicating homosexual tendencies. However, that's an extreme example. I'm unsure of your experience in these matters, so I will relate my own. Since part of my discussion focused on men's behaviour online: I bought my first PC in 1989. In 1990 hooked up a modem and got online. Most of that year was spent messaging, replying to forums on a primitive system (each single modem computer, called the next computer in the network to update on a daily basis. It would take most of a week for a message to cross the US and come back). My chatting days began in 1991, and 1992-1994, I probably averaged 30 hours/week chatting with a few hundred local people (in San Diego), I also met several hundred (mostly at meetings) and had sex with 12-15 women I met online. Several of those womenI sat with while they chatted, and I began to see the differences between the online behaviour of the sexes. In 1993, I expanded my experience to the internet and have been online since that time. I'm now 44 years old and have observed hundreds of hours of chatting from the female perspective (by sitting with them and reading) and thousands of hours from the male perspective. When it comes to online activity I have confirmed to my own satisfaction two things: 1. I represent myself honestly, and do not intentionally mislead anyone. 2. I am definitely part of a small minority. Because this has already become so long, I'll actually begin the discussion in another post.
  13. We both tend to be rather quiet. Some noise, but generally not too loud. If it gets even somewhat loud, it's because someone is doing a really, really good job! Many years back, the woman I went to a swing club with (on a regular basis), had a friend that would often tag along. She had a very noticeable accent in everyday conversation. Quite often, she was the 5th wheel, when two couples would get together. But she'd move around, lending a hand where needed, and act as cheerleader. She would do commentary on what was going on, loud. The hotter the action, the louder her soundtrack. Plus, she sounded just like your typical porno soundtrack. The weird(er) thing, when she did that, no accent. When she got excited, it was soundtrack alternated with moaning and screaming. One night we were in a corner room, that is inside a large open play room usually packed with couples playing. The private room had an open transom over the door. It was a good night for her. The rest of us were too busy laughing hysterically at her antics. When we came out, everyone gave us a standing ovation.
  14. We have gotten to the point where we seldom initiate contact in regards to our ads. They are reasonably clear about our interests. If we are contacted by a couple with the woman listed as straight, bi-curious, passively bi or socially bi, we warn them that She is bi, and our main interest is for her to enjoy that part of her sexuality. If the woman really isn't interested in She, then there's no sense in wasting everyone's time. On the other hand, if the women hit it off, there is a very good chance we'll end up with a full-swap. My advice is to list yourself as what you truly are, not what you want to be, or what others want you to be. In your profile be clear about what you are looking for and what turns you off. It's about you.
×
×
  • Create New...