[Pusscrook]

(11-07-2011 04:32 PM)Moma Wrote:  

I think being gay or lesbian is a combo of genes and choice. Some cats out there are just extra freaky and just feeling like plugging butts in addition.

Some cats are just genetically driven to fancy the same gender. Even from when i was young, sliding in a lizard was always the sweetest gift to man.
Who would want to slide in something masculine??!
It has to be genetic. Why would one choose that?

So if it's genetic, they didn't fabricate the thought based upon vile passions that are "unnatural"?

[Pusscrook]

(11-07-2011 02:21 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 12:30 PM)MiXX Wrote:  

Pusscrook is not bullshitting fellas. I just felt this horrible feeling a few weeks ago. I can only imagine that's what it must feel like to be told by a court judge you are receiving death by lethal injection, and sentenced to death row.

No shit, that's how I felt.....I was even looking at the food channel to start picking my last meal, and planning out the next 9 final months of my life before D-Day.

....

So, now, it's my turn. Today, I have it all, just like my uncle did....and much more as I travel the world more than he ever did in his prime. Fuuuckk no I'm not getting one of these whores pregnant.

I'm seriously thinking of getting snipped, but docs won't do it because I do not have kids.

Quick question, MiXX.

You're right about all the risks, but were those same risks really at play with your Colombian situation?

Had she been a Miami girl I'd completely understand, but do Colombianas (and their legal system) even have the power to send you into the type of destitution you're dreading (and that your uncle was hit with)?

Like other guys in your thread about this topic said, family law there actually favors the guys, child support is very cheap by western standards and unless a Colombiana is rich/connected (which your girl wasn't, from what you said), she can't exactly scheme to get into the US and use that legal system to destroy you. Chances are the best she'd be able to do (and even this is only likely for a upper class/connected, highly educated Colombiana, of which there aren't that many) would be to force you to pay Colombian child support via a trip to the embassy and a talk with a local lawyer, and again, that's nothing compared to the American system. It can't ruin you.

So what threat would a Colombian kid have posed? A couple hundred dollars a month? Even if she had went ahead with the pregnancy, I'm somehow doubting that it really could have done as much to you there as it would on American soil. Their legal system is more favorable to guys, costs them a lot less and she'd have no power to hunt you down.

What was the big deal?

I think the "big deal" ,is a big deal when you have assets , money, etc., and you hear such utterances from the lips of these whores. The probabilities of a chick wanting to ruin your life because of your refusal to accept the consequence, are so much greater when these things are in place. If you have nothing to lose, not one hair on your head should suffer. It doesn't matter if she lives on the moon,foreign or domestic, poor, retarded, or gorgeous, those fucking words causes a tremendous shock wave that reverberates into the depths of your soul . Count yourself fortunate that you have not felt that which causes gastrointestinal upheaval . I assure you,your sphincter will be working over- time so you don't blow an ass gasket.

[Excelsior]

(11-07-2011 04:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Question: Can we assume that primitive man did not know how babies were formed and therefore, sex was not an idea based upon natural selection, but the act itself?

Primitive man in the absence of knowledge operated mainly on instinct, as animals do.

Quote:

Question: So, if the idea is that sexuality is directly linked to the purpose of procreation, why are millions of males having sex with random women who are not suitable? Is that part of natural selection, or is just sexual selection based on male instincts to have sex?

They are using the same ancient procreative instincts to select their mates (doing as well as they can with what they have).

The drive to fuck lots of random women is man's natural polygamous instinct. All we've done now (thanks our cultural and technological development) is continue this instinct while eliminating the culmination of the procreative act that, historically, would usually have followed as an end factor.

Prior to modernization, men still went around and fucked lots of women (the best and most fertile ones they could manage to attract and mate with). This is probably why our genitalia are designed the way they are (the mushroom head is apt for scooping out other men's semen): lots of men were trying to spread their seed, and women were trying to get the best possible seed they could find (and would allow sexual access to new males who showed the potential to fit that bill). We were all competing in a sense.

I would posit that the hookup culture today is essentially a return to this pre-modern state of things. Men still often go around and try to secure sexual access to many women, trying to pull as fertile and large a group as they possibly can (higher status guy = sexual access to a larger number of hotter[more fertile] girls, while lower status guys get less suitable (i.e. obese or otherwise less than ideal) women with poorer fertility cues). Women still try and secure the best seed they can, allowing renewed sexual access to any new male who shows the potential to fit that bill (this is what happens when you enter a relationship, beta-ize yourself/become complacent and she cheats soon after, or when another dude swoops your fuckbuddy, or when your hookup from last weekend blows you off at a party next week and gets with a new dude).

We're selecting on the same reproductive criteria as before, and we are picking the mates that are most reproductively attractive to us (men are trying to get the hottest/most fertile girls they can find and women are still hypergamously seeking the highest status men they can find). We're also fucking around in a bit of a free-for-all, just like before, with fewer of the constraints we put on ourselves after civilization (read: less monogamy).

What has changed, however, is the frequency of these reproductive instincts culminating in actual reproduction.
Because of our technology, we've been able to decide when we do and don't reproduce with more accuracy. Thus, we've simply taken what we had before and eliminated the end result (actual pregnancy) and its consequences.

We fuck for the same reasons, but have changed the results in most cases now.

Quote:

Question:Are all men programed to look for beauty, in order to have sex( as per the things you described as beautiful) because it correlates strongly with fertility? Does a particular culture dictate what beauty is?

Different cultures do have significantly different beauty standards, but I would posit that regardless of the locale, all of the different focuses correlate strongly with fertility.

Ex: To use a more simplistic/vague comparison, take a look at African-American society vs. European-American society.

Black men tend to put a much greater emphasis on waist to hip ratio and posterior depth (read: they're more likely to be "ass men").

In contrast, you can expect their white peers to put a greater emphasis on breast size and firmness, as well as facial appearance(smooth facial skin, symmetry, etc). They care more about hair length too.

Though these are different standards, all of them correlate with fertility. One focuses on posterior/waist form and structure, while the other emphasizes the breasts a bit more. Both of those things are cues for fertility.

So, to sum it up, the different groups and their different standards are really just taking different highways to the same town. At the end of the day, all of their standards tend to favor a fertility cue of some sort, just not necessarily the same exact ones.

Of course, guys can mix and match these traits (ex: plenty of black men dig white women who more closely match the white beauty standard and plenty of white men have historically procreated with black women who met the black beauty standard more closely) because at the end of the day, they all point to the same thing: fertility. That, and there is buried within many of us a natural desire for genetic variation (a useful inclination for preventing inbreeding of any sort-procreate with someone from a completely different "tribe" and you severely limit that risk by bringing new, unrelated genes into the local population pool, which in turn leads to fewer deformities down the line).

And yes, men look for beauty because of fertility. This is why they almost universally tend to favor younger, thinner women (under 40, relatively low body fat) when given the option (men without the status to make that choice take what they can get).

Quote:

#2 .. Would a male still have sex with a woman who does not have physical attributes that society says correlate to fertility?

If that is the best he can do, then yes. Men do as well as they can with what they have. If a guy simply doesn't have the status to pull a woman who isn't obese or close to it, then he'll make do with what he's got (even though obesity is conclusively shown to have a negative correlation with fertility in both men and women).

Similarly, women all desire the best seed due to their hypergamy, but only those with the most visible and attractive fertility cues (read: the hottest young girls) can reliably secure it. If you're a girl who lacks those cues for whatever reason (read: you aren't as physically attractive), you'll need to settle for less than Mr. Big.

This is why many posit that older women are "easier" or "less hassle" than their younger counterparts. Women rely on their fertility and its cues to secure the best men they can find. As they age, they lose the fertility cues (breast are not as firm, legs less toned, skin not as smooth, etc) and their fertility with it, so they can't pick and choose as easily.

This is when they'll begin to take what they can get.

Quote:

Question: Is there a difference between "intentional design" to ensure procreation, and the intention of the participants? If the intent is to just have sex, based upon the desired effects that sex produces, are we overriding the system to procreate? What is the purpose of an orgasm?

Yes and no on the first question.

The subconscious intent of the participants is always governed by the intent to secure the best procreative mate. When it comes to mate selection, men and women are always looking for cues that make for good mothers/fathers for progeny.
Because of our intelligence, however, we can often prevent this procreative instinct from reaching its full conclusion because we want the sex (which we usually only enjoy when it is with partners we find procreatively suitable) but not the baby that would result.

Ex: Player 1 selects Girl A. He picks Girl A because she is "hot" (read: she shows all of the right fertility cues-good waist to hip ratio, nice hair, youth, not obese, etc). She allows him sexual access because he is hot (read: she fits her hypergamous tests for a man who will provide the best seed).
The subconscious intent to procreate is always there (thanks to our natural design to ensure procreation) and it is what will result in their later intent to have sex with one another. They're only together because they meet one another's subconscious procreative standards (standard we term as "hot", "cute", "fine", etc).

However, these two can decide later not to bring this procreative insticnt to term, and prevent a pregnancy from happening. This is because of human intelligence and technology.

Procreative insticnt is what always drives the mating, but humans have managed to limit its results now and the consequences that come with it.

Keep in mind that this does not always work, as our instincts still have power over us. When we find a partner that really aces our natural procreative stress tests, we are more likely to lose our ability to limit the end results of the procreative instinct and prevent pregnancy.

Roissy and others have regularly talked of the increased desire to impregnate girls who are particularly hot (read: show more fertility cues). Roissy isn't exactly a man known to be gung-ho for fatherhood/marriage, but even he has felt the urge. Many more men succumb to it.

When women find a "good man" (read: one who fits the hypergamy test), they're more likely to slip up and allow him to impregnate them. JoeHoya recently made a good post about just this type of thing-it is not rare at all. Even if she was a dilligent, smart, career focused girl, the right guy can have her losing her senses, neglecting to see that he wears a condom and forgetting her pills. The acquisition of "good" seed is far more important to women than they'll often admit-when she spots it, she will often do whatever it takes to lock it down for herself, even if it means using underhanded deceit(read: poking holes in condoms). Doesn't matter if she has a GED or is a Harvard grad-all are susceptible to this. The procreative instinct is fully capable of overpowering our more "civilized" senses.

Orgasms aid procreation. A woman is more likely to conceive when she cums (and a male orgasm, obviously, results in the release of semen).

We will never be able to fully override our own nature. That would take a god, and humans are not gods. We can tame our nature to an extent (as we've done with our procreative instincts by using our technology/intelligence to prevent pregnancy at a whim), but overriding/eliminating it is not an option.

Quote:

Comment/question:"Prior to modern times" could mean anything, but let's assume the evolutionary mechanisms that exist today , existed prior to modern times, is it possible that culturally induced desires, mimic those that are biological then, and now?

It is possible, since culture is, to some extent, tied to our biology.

Quote:

Question: Is it possible that based upon the understanding of hormonal and chemical processes, we can argue that sexual selection is not wholly designed for the purpose of procreation, (though that may be the outcome)?

I don't think so. If anything, I believe greater understanding of our bodies' chemical/hormonal processes over time will only make the procreative intent of sex more obvious.

We can take sex and make it about other things with our intelligence/technology. We can use it for other purposes, and we can decide when we procreate and when we do not(even if we're always having sex). All of this is because of humanity's intellect, not natural design.

The natural design and primary intent of the sexual act (procreation) is very clear, at least from what I can see. Sex has only become about other things with the rise of technology, which mitigated many of its consequences and allowed us to pursue it without the end result of pregnancy(and its costs). That's my perspective on the subject.

If men were not procreatively selective, there would be no stigma against fat or ugly women, and women like Rosie O'Donnell would be just as likely "tens" as the Kate Upton's of our world (their weight, age and complete lack of fertility cues wouldn't matter). If women were not procreatively selective, there would be no need for game (they'd simply fuck whatever guy, regardless of the relative quality of his seed).

Procreative selection is the foundation of sexual selection/gender dynamics as we know it. It is the root of our sexual behavior, and I posit that unless we transcend our status as humans and evolve into something else, it always will be.

Quote:

Question: If one is determined to be gay or lesbian, is this a fabrication of one's own intellect? What if one chooses to abstain, or is asexual? [b]Are these mutations, gene modifications, or choice?

I believe that the root causes of those conditions are inborn and genetic. This is merely my hunch-I don't know enough about the research on the matter to make any further conclusions, but I suspect that those who express those conditions are naturally inclined to do so.

[Pusscrook]

(11-07-2011 08:03 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

Question: If one is determined to be gay or lesbian, is this a fabrication of one's own intellect? What if one chooses to abstain, or is asexual? Are these mutations, gene modifications, or choice?

I believe that the root causes of those conditions are inborn and genetic. This is merely my hunch-I don't know enough about the research on the matter to make any further conclusions, but I suspect that those who express those conditions are naturally inclined to do so.

Before I respond entirely to the last post I want to analyze the last paragraph a bit.
I may be misinterpreting an earlier statement you made about human sexuality.

In an earlier statement, you stated that"human sexuality , is about procreation.....and, "that is the natural instinct and driver of our sexuality. You end by saying" everything else is a secondary fabrication born out of intellect".

If the definition of human sexuality, is: how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings, then I submit to you that procreation may not always be the driver. I mentioned gays, lesbians , asexual behavior, for that very reason. If one were to presuppose that every human being exhibits human sexuality for the sole/primary purpose of procreation, then that would mean that any other behavior outside of that purpose, could only be defined as a genetic mutation or faulty wiring. That would make for an interesting discussion amongst the many millions/billions who do not want to procreate every time they exhibit some form of human sexuality, yet, enjoy exhibiting many forms of "human sexuality".

Is the argument that whether the millions/billions want to or not, the act becomes consequential, that would mean every act of human sexuality, was a pre-planned event. I think we know that is not the case. I could just as easily state that some people who are more comfortable (masturbating as a form of human sexuality) should have their heads examined since one wouldn't be able to procreate with your hand, or some inanimate object. Perhaps you are asexual, yet exhibit a form of "human sexuality" .One can be sexually attracted to a person, or to ones self for many different reasons, which in essence, becomes your driver.

The biological/physiological elements of human sexuality deals specifically with human reproduction, and that "part" only, if I'm not mistaken. You fuck , you fertilize, she breeds. Here again, this does not define human sexuality in its totality. This is merely , one of the drivers. This is merely one reason amongst many to exhibit "human sexuality". This element of "human sexuality", reminds me of religious moral codes that exude biblical literalism based upon the creature vs. creator argument.

Is it fair to say that procreation, does not define "human sexuality"as a whole , but merely, a fraction of the whole ?

I'll review the other parts of your post next.

Still can't believe you're 20.

[Pusscrook]

Before I respond entirely to the last post I want to analyze the last paragraph a bit.
I may be misinterpreting an earlier statement you made about human sexuality. see post #43

In an earlier statement, you stated that"human sexuality , is about procreation.....and, "that is the natural instinct and driver of our sexuality. You end by saying" everything else is a secondary fabrication born out of intellect".

If the definition of human sexuality, is: how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings, then I submit to you that procreation may not always be the driver. I mentioned gays, lesbians , asexual behavior, for that very reason. If one were to presuppose that every human being exhibits human sexuality for the sole/primary purpose of procreation, then that would mean that any other behavior outside of that purpose, could only be defined as a genetic mutation or faulty wiring. That would make for an interesting discussion amongst the many millions/billions who do not want to procreate every time they exhibit some form of human sexuality, yet, enjoy exhibiting many forms of "human sexuality".

Is the argument that whether the millions/billions want to or not, the act becomes consequential and binding to procreation? That would mean that every act of human sexuality, had a pre-ordained purpose. I think we know that is not the case. That does not fit the definition of human sexuality in its totality. I could just as easily state that some people who are more comfortable (masturbating as a form of human sexuality) should have their heads examined since one wouldn't be able to procreate with your hand, or some inanimate object. Perhaps you are asexual, yet exhibit a form of "human sexuality" .One can be sexually attracted to a person, or to ones self for many different reasons, which in essence, becomes your driver.

The biological/physiological elements of human sexuality deals specifically with human reproduction, and that "part" only, if I'm not mistaken. You fuck , you fertilize, she breeds. Here again, this does not define human sexuality in its totality. This is merely , one of the drivers. This is merely one reason amongst many to exhibit "human sexuality". This element of "human sexuality", reminds me of religious moral codes that exude biblical literalism based upon the creature vs. creator argument.

Is it fair to say that procreation, does not define "human sexuality"as a whole , but merely, a fraction of the whole ?

I'll review the other parts of your post next.

[el mechanico]

Most of you will want your own someday and with all the smarts we have here you wont get hit so hard so stop with the doom and gloom.
The fact that anyone would say a child wouldn't enhance their life is just speculating at best.
[attachment=3525]
Mine at 1

[Excelsior]

(11-07-2011 09:30 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

In an earlier statement, you stated that"human sexuality , is about procreation.....and, "that is the natural instinct and driver of our sexuality. You end by saying" everything else is a secondary fabrication born out of intellect".

If the definition of human sexuality, is: how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings, then I submit to you that procreation may not always be the driver. I mentioned gays, lesbians , asexual behavior, for that very reason. If one were to presuppose that every human being exhibits human sexuality for the sole/primary purpose of procreation, then that would mean that any other behavior outside of that purpose, could only be defined as a genetic mutation or faulty wiring.

In the case of those particular groups, I would posit that this is indeed an accurate explanation. Whether you want to characterize it as "faulty" or not is up to you, but they are outliers.

Quote:

Is the argument that whether the millions/billions want to or not, the act becomes consequential and binding to procreation?

That desire that leads to the act is always tied to procreation-suitability for that act is the primary criteria we use (consciously or subconsciosly) to determine whether or not we wish to sleep with someone and continue doing so.

Whether it is seen through or not is up to the participants, who these days have the power to prevent that. These days, they often choose not to. Whether they wish for a child or not, however, the factors that lead them together are inherently linked to procreation, which makes that a constant factor.

Quote:

I could just as easily state that some people who are more comfortable (masturbating as a form of human sexuality) should have their heads examined since one wouldn't be able to procreate with your hand, or some inanimate object. Perhaps you are asexual, yet exhibit a form of "human sexuality" .One can be sexually attracted to a person, or to ones self for many different reasons, which in essence, becomes your driver.

Yes, this is accurate. I should take this time amend and clarify my argument, as I have failed to narrow my focus in order to clarify my meaning accurately.

What I am saying above (and in prior posts in this thread) about human sexuality and its inherent tie to procreation does not apply to homosexuals, bisexual, trans-genders, asexuals, or individual acts of sexuality. I am talking about interpersonal, heterosexual expressions of human sexuality. My argument can only realistically apply to them, as they are all I really had in mind-my vision of human sexuality was pretty narrow.

With this clarification in mind, you would therefore be correct in saying that my explantion cannot accurately be applied to all of human sexuality. I should have made my meaning clearer earlier.

Quote:

Is it fair to say that procreation, does not define "human sexuality"as a whole , but merely, a fraction of the whole ?

That is accurate, as I stated above.

[Pusscrook]

(11-07-2011 10:11 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 09:30 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

In an earlier statement, you stated that"human sexuality , is about procreation.....and, "that is the natural instinct and driver of our sexuality. You end by saying" everything else is a secondary fabrication born out of intellect".

If the definition of human sexuality, is: how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings, then I submit to you that procreation may not always be the driver. I mentioned gays, lesbians , asexual behavior, for that very reason. If one were to presuppose that every human being exhibits human sexuality for the sole/primary purpose of procreation, then that would mean that any other behavior outside of that purpose, could only be defined as a genetic mutation or faulty wiring.

In the case of those particular groups, I would posit that this is indeed an accurate explanation. Whether you want to characterize it as "faulty" or not is up to you, but they are outliers.

Quote:

Is the argument that whether the millions/billions want to or not, the act becomes consequential and binding to procreation?

That desire that leads to the act is always tied to procreation-suitability for that act is the primary criteria we use (consciously or subconsciosly) to determine whether or not we wish to sleep with someone and continue doing so.



Whether it is seen through or not is up to the participants, who these days have the power to prevent that. These days, they often choose not to. Whether they wish for a child or not, however, the factors that lead them together are inherently linked to procreation, which makes that a constant factor.

Quote:

I could just as easily state that some people who are more comfortable (masturbating as a form of human sexuality) should have their heads examined since one wouldn't be able to procreate with your hand, or some inanimate object. Perhaps you are asexual, yet exhibit a form of "human sexuality" .One can be sexually attracted to a person, or to ones self for many different reasons, which in essence, becomes your driver.

Yes, this is accurate. I should take this time amend and clarify my argument, as I have failed to narrow my focus in order to clarify my meaning accurately.

What I am saying above (and in prior posts in this thread) about human sexuality and its inherent tie to procreation does not apply to homosexuals, bisexual, trans-genders, asexuals, or individual acts of sexuality. I am talking about interpersonal, heterosexual expressions of human sexuality. My argument can only realistically apply to them, as they are all I really had in mind-my vision of human sexuality was pretty narrow.

With this clarification in mind, you would therefore be correct in saying that my explantion cannot accurately be applied to all of human sexuality. I should have made my meaning clearer earlier.

Quote:

Is it fair to say that procreation, does not define "human sexuality"as a whole , but merely, a fraction of the whole ?

That is accurate, as I stated above.

K.




Comment/question to this paragraph: so the "desire" that leads to the act(sex)is always tied to procreation/suitability.... because that act is the primary criteria we use to determine whether or not we wish to sleep with someone and continue doing so.

Is this a statement of one who believes in absolutism, as opposed to relativism?

Procreation is merely a biological and physiological conclusion to the act itself. Nothing more, nothing less. Using a more narrow definition of "human sexuality"(male and female sexual awareness), I submit to you that a different set of impulses (drivers) can, and may, produce the same desire to sleep with someone.

If the argument is that we do this (have sex because we want to procreate) consciously or subconsciously, that is subject to a high degree of scrutiny and I will start with one of many. Genes.

Genes control biology, procreation is merely a biological aspect of sex. Genes turn themselves on and off for many different reasons. One man likes fucking 100 women a night , another man desires one whore who likes anal sex, neither of which intended on procreating, regardless of the biological mechanism in place via the act. It is widely known that environment and perception of the environment directly controls gene activity. Why are some of us in this forum? You would be hard-pressed to guarantee me that most of us are here to fuck herds of whores because we are subconsciously/consciously thinking about impregnating each and every whore we fuck. We would all had to have been coded the same exact way, but we know that is not true, since many factors influence gene behavior . Gene behavior governs all behavior, consciously or subconsciously. The conscious mind is the thinking you..... yet governed by gene impressions and programming .It expresses free will, that can be changed at any time. Subconscious programming such as nature, is derived from genetics, such as instinct, but most subconscious programs are developed thru learning experiences and represent nurture. The subconscious mind is not a seat of reasoning, it is a stimulus response device , and responds to learned stimuli. I go to a swinger club, she rides my dick like no other whore I have ever known, and I want to repeat that. I am just responding to stimuli, not a criteria.

[Excelsior]

(11-07-2011 11:53 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Is this a statement of one who believes in absolutism, as opposed to relativism?

The former.

Quote:

Procreation is merely a biological and physiological conclusion to the act itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, but it is significant enough to have influence on on most of our actions when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex. We do not engage in the act with people we do not deem procreatively fit (or, at the very least, we find the most procreatively fit partners we can).

Quote:

Genes control biology, procreation is merely a biological aspect of sex.

Procreation is the only means of securing the fittest genes, which is why it is so significant. You can't have the genes/pass them along(and ensure their survival) without procreation.

We know how our genes control our biology, which is why we are all so focused instinctively on securing and passing along the best ones we can gain access to (read: we constantly express our procreative instinct in our relations with the opposite sex).

Quote:

One man likes fucking 100 women a night , another man desires one whore who likes anal sex, neither of which intended on procreating, regardless of the biological mechanism in place via the act.

Neither man is attempting to approach/fuck women who do not fit his basic procreative stress tests (read: are at least somewhat attractive and display a few fertility cues, the more the better).

Unless you can find me a man who is willing to fuck literally anything indiscriminately and does not favor women who are attractive and/or young (read: more fertile and procreatively fit with visible fertility cues), then procreation is always a subconscious factor.

It doesn't matter whether the man actually wishes to sire a child or not. Even if he is only looking for anal sex, he is going to find the hottest (read: most visibly procreatively fit) whore he can snag to do it with.
Similarly, his peer may just want to bang 100 women, but you can bet that he will make every attempt to ensure that the quality of this group of woman is as high as he can manage. He will try and get as many hot (read: reproductively fit) women into that group as he possibly can. He doesn't intend to procreate, but finding the most procreatively fit women will still be his natural, subconscious modus operendi. He cannot escape it.

Procreative fitness is always a factor in his decision to pursue a woman (or a 100 women). If that were not the case, the 50 year old plumper down the street would be on the same scale as a Kate Upton or Megan Fox.

Quote:

You would be hard-pressed to guarantee me that most of us are here to fuck herds of whores because we are subconsciously/consciously thinking about impregnating each and every whore we fuck.

You want to argue that most of us are not here to try and get with the "hottest" (read: most visibly fertile/reproductively fit) women we can get, as often as we can?
I think that'd be a tough argument to make.

We may not all intend to knock up every woman we fuck (I actually do, but that is another story...).

In reality, though, we are all trying to improve the procreative fitness of the women we pursue. We want hotter girls, and more of them, and we're willing to learn whatever it takes to increase our own perceived reproductive fitness in female eyes (read: we're learning game) in order to further this aim.

Will we all be making babies? Not necessarily, but the driving force behind our interactions with the opposite sex will still be procreative instinct. We are here for procreatively fitter women (we want hotter girls, not uglier ones) and for the chance to improve our own procreative fitness via game (so more women will perceive us as "good seed", which in turn will allow us sexual access to a larger number of fit women).

Our selectivity (read: preference for hotter women) and desire for improvement on our own end is indicative of the pervasive natural procreative instinct within all of us. We may not let this instinct reach its full term and create pregnancy (we'll use the pill, condoms, abortions, and other tools to prevent this), but it will still be there.

Quote:

I go to a swinger club, she rides my dick like no other whore I have ever known, and I want to repeat that. I am just responding to stimuli, not a criteria.

Her reproductive fitness is what will bring you back to her. She will have been reasonably attractive and fit (as indicated by her riding ability, which is lacking in morbidly obese women or otherwise unfit women). This, combined with her sexual prowess will indicate procreative fitness.

If she lacked these signs of fitness, you would not be drawn to her. If she were a 50-60 year old plumper, you would not be drawn to her. For you to respond in that manner sexually, she would need to meet a bar for procreative fitness. The closer she comes to it, the more likely you will be to come back to her.

You may not wish to procreate with her, but the fitter she is for that task (her looks, her fitness, her riding ability, her relative youth [still in/close to reproductive age], etc), the more likely you will be to want to see her again. Procreation still drives your behavior.

[Pusscrook]

(11-08-2011 01:12 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[quote='Pusscrook' pid='115340' dateline='1320728034']
Is this a statement of one who believes in absolutism, as opposed to relativism?

The former.

[quote]

With that being said, I understand our debate a little better now, and also recognize a wonderful end to a great debate. Absolutism, is what it is. For me there's enough evidence that sex and sexuality are governed and driven by many different factors, none of which have been granted any greater value when compared against the other, yet remain relative.

[Pusscrook]

Is this a statement of one who believes in absolutism, as opposed to relativism? [/quote]

The former.

[quote]

With that being said, I understand our debate a little better now, and also recognize a wonderful end to a great debate. Absolutism, is what it is. For me there's enough evidence that sex and sexuality are governed and driven by many different factors, none of which have been granted any greater value when compared against the other, yet remain relative.

[keepreal]

(10-06-2011 01:58 AM)ersatz Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 07:35 PM)_DC_ Wrote:  

Ugh, I can't wait for the male birth control pill.

If I bust a nut in a girl (which is rare), I always fret about it for a few weeks afterward. Even if I'm quite sure the girls aren't the type looking to have kids, it still freaks me out.

The power is out of your hands (or out of your penis, so to speak) and out of your control.

You don't want the male birth control pill, you want RISUG/Vasagel! A 10 dollar easily reversible procedure that completely sterilizes you. It's like lining your ball tubes with strong sperm tail magnets that rip the sperm in half so none of them pass. Enterprising Gs maybe be able to bribe their way to get it. Reversing it is just cleaning it out with something that dissolves the lining and it washes out. Like a vasectomy without the down sides!

Implemented in India 30 years ago with good results, infuriating bureaucratic BS preventing widespread adoption. It's a frustrating thing waiting to happen. The medical establishment seem's to have their head stuck in the 70s that 'men don't want to take birth control'. It was told to me by a doctor a couple years ago when I went with a girl to a birth control clinic.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff...tomy/all/1

Read about this while reading birth control on wiki. I told someone about it in college, he thought why the hell u want that?
cumming in a girl or wanting to get her prego is great, until u try get her take the emergency birth control.

[keepreal]

(11-07-2011 08:03 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(11-07-2011 04:26 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Question: Can we assume that primitive man did not know how babies were formed and therefore, sex was not an idea based upon natural selection, but the act itself?

Primitive man in the absence of knowledge operated mainly on instinct, as animals do.

Quote:

Question: So, if the idea is that sexuality is directly linked to the purpose of procreation, why are millions of males having sex with random women who are not suitable? Is that part of natural selection, or is just sexual selection based on male instincts to have sex?

They are using the same ancient procreative instincts to select their mates (doing as well as they can with what they have).

The drive to fuck lots of random women is man's natural polygamous instinct. All we've done now (thanks our cultural and technological development) is continue this instinct while eliminating the culmination of the procreative act that, historically, would usually have followed as an end factor.

Prior to modernization, men still went around and fucked lots of women (the best and most fertile ones they could manage to attract and mate with). This is probably why our genitalia are designed the way they are (the mushroom head is apt for scooping out other men's semen): lots of men were trying to spread their seed, and women were trying to get the best possible seed they could find (and would allow sexual access to new males who showed the potential to fit that bill). We were all competing in a sense.

I would posit that the hookup culture today is essentially a return to this pre-modern state of things. Men still often go around and try to secure sexual access to many women, trying to pull as fertile and large a group as they possibly can (higher status guy = sexual access to a larger number of hotter[more fertile] girls, while lower status guys get less suitable (i.e. obese or otherwise less than ideal) women with poorer fertility cues). Women still try and secure the best seed they can, allowing renewed sexual access to any new male who shows the potential to fit that bill (this is what happens when you enter a relationship, beta-ize yourself/become complacent and she cheats soon after, or when another dude swoops your fuckbuddy, or when your hookup from last weekend blows you off at a party next week and gets with a new dude).

We're selecting on the same reproductive criteria as before, and we are picking the mates that are most reproductively attractive to us (men are trying to get the hottest/most fertile girls they can find and women are still hypergamously seeking the highest status men they can find). We're also fucking around in a bit of a free-for-all, just like before, with fewer of the constraints we put on ourselves after civilization (read: less monogamy).

What has changed, however, is the frequency of these reproductive instincts culminating in actual reproduction.
Because of our technology, we've been able to decide when we do and don't reproduce with more accuracy. Thus, we've simply taken what we had before and eliminated the end result (actual pregnancy) and its consequences.

We fuck for the same reasons, but have changed the results in most cases now.

Quote:

Question:Are all men programed to look for beauty, in order to have sex( as per the things you described as beautiful) because it correlates strongly with fertility? Does a particular culture dictate what beauty is?

Different cultures do have significantly different beauty standards, but I would posit that regardless of the locale, all of the different focuses correlate strongly with fertility.

Ex: To use a more simplistic/vague comparison, take a look at African-American society vs. European-American society.

Black men tend to put a much greater emphasis on waist to hip ratio and posterior depth (read: they're more likely to be "ass men").

In contrast, you can expect their white peers to put a greater emphasis on breast size and firmness, as well as facial appearance(smooth facial skin, symmetry, etc). They care more about hair length too.

Though these are different standards, all of them correlate with fertility. One focuses on posterior/waist form and structure, while the other emphasizes the breasts a bit more. Both of those things are cues for fertility.

So, to sum it up, the different groups and their different standards are really just taking different highways to the same town. At the end of the day, all of their standards tend to favor a fertility cue of some sort, just not necessarily the same exact ones.

Of course, guys can mix and match these traits (ex: plenty of black men dig white women who more closely match the white beauty standard and plenty of white men have historically procreated with black women who met the black beauty standard more closely) because at the end of the day, they all point to the same thing: fertility. That, and there is buried within many of us a natural desire for genetic variation (a useful inclination for preventing inbreeding of any sort-procreate with someone from a completely different "tribe" and you severely limit that risk by bringing new, unrelated genes into the local population pool, which in turn leads to fewer deformities down the line).

And yes, men look for beauty because of fertility. This is why they almost universally tend to favor younger, thinner women (under 40, relatively low body fat) when given the option (men without the status to make that choice take what they can get).

Quote:

#2 .. Would a male still have sex with a woman who does not have physical attributes that society says correlate to fertility?

If that is the best he can do, then yes. Men do as well as they can with what they have. If a guy simply doesn't have the status to pull a woman who isn't obese or close to it, then he'll make do with what he's got (even though obesity is conclusively shown to have a negative correlation with fertility in both men and women).

Similarly, women all desire the best seed due to their hypergamy, but only those with the most visible and attractive fertility cues (read: the hottest young girls) can reliably secure it. If you're a girl who lacks those cues for whatever reason (read: you aren't as physically attractive), you'll need to settle for less than Mr. Big.

This is why many posit that older women are "easier" or "less hassle" than their younger counterparts. Women rely on their fertility and its cues to secure the best men they can find. As they age, they lose the fertility cues (breast are not as firm, legs less toned, skin not as smooth, etc) and their fertility with it, so they can't pick and choose as easily.

This is when they'll begin to take what they can get.

Quote:

Question: Is there a difference between "intentional design" to ensure procreation, and the intention of the participants? If the intent is to just have sex, based upon the desired effects that sex produces, are we overriding the system to procreate? What is the purpose of an orgasm?

Yes and no on the first question.

The subconscious intent of the participants is always governed by the intent to secure the best procreative mate. When it comes to mate selection, men and women are always looking for cues that make for good mothers/fathers for progeny.
Because of our intelligence, however, we can often prevent this procreative instinct from reaching its full conclusion because we want the sex (which we usually only enjoy when it is with partners we find procreatively suitable) but not the baby that would result.

Ex: Player 1 selects Girl A. He picks Girl A because she is "hot" (read: she shows all of the right fertility cues-good waist to hip ratio, nice hair, youth, not obese, etc). She allows him sexual access because he is hot (read: she fits her hypergamous tests for a man who will provide the best seed).
The subconscious intent to procreate is always there (thanks to our natural design to ensure procreation) and it is what will result in their later intent to have sex with one another. They're only together because they meet one another's subconscious procreative standards (standard we term as "hot", "cute", "fine", etc).

However, these two can decide later not to bring this procreative insticnt to term, and prevent a pregnancy from happening. This is because of human intelligence and technology.

Procreative insticnt is what always drives the mating, but humans have managed to limit its results now and the consequences that come with it.

Keep in mind that this does not always work, as our instincts still have power over us. When we find a partner that really aces our natural procreative stress tests, we are more likely to lose our ability to limit the end results of the procreative instinct and prevent pregnancy.

Roissy and others have regularly talked of the increased desire to impregnate girls who are particularly hot (read: show more fertility cues). Roissy isn't exactly a man known to be gung-ho for fatherhood/marriage, but even he has felt the urge. Many more men succumb to it.

When women find a "good man" (read: one who fits the hypergamy test), they're more likely to slip up and allow him to impregnate them. JoeHoya recently made a good post about just this type of thing-it is not rare at all. Even if she was a dilligent, smart, career focused girl, the right guy can have her losing her senses, neglecting to see that he wears a condom and forgetting her pills. The acquisition of "good" seed is far more important to women than they'll often admit-when she spots it, she will often do whatever it takes to lock it down for herself, even if it means using underhanded deceit(read: poking holes in condoms). Doesn't matter if she has a GED or is a Harvard grad-all are susceptible to this. The procreative instinct is fully capable of overpowering our more "civilized" senses.

Orgasms aid procreation. A woman is more likely to conceive when she cums (and a male orgasm, obviously, results in the release of semen).

We will never be able to fully override our own nature. That would take a god, and humans are not gods. We can tame our nature to an extent (as we've done with our procreative instincts by using our technology/intelligence to prevent pregnancy at a whim), but overriding/eliminating it is not an option.

Quote:

Comment/question:"Prior to modern times" could mean anything, but let's assume the evolutionary mechanisms that exist today , existed prior to modern times, is it possible that culturally induced desires, mimic those that are biological then, and now?

It is possible, since culture is, to some extent, tied to our biology.

Quote:

Question: Is it possible that based upon the understanding of hormonal and chemical processes, we can argue that sexual selection is not wholly designed for the purpose of procreation, (though that may be the outcome)?

I don't think so. If anything, I believe greater understanding of our bodies' chemical/hormonal processes over time will only make the procreative intent of sex more obvious.

We can take sex and make it about other things with our intelligence/technology. We can use it for other purposes, and we can decide when we procreate and when we do not(even if we're always having sex). All of this is because of humanity's intellect, not natural design.

The natural design and primary intent of the sexual act (procreation) is very clear, at least from what I can see. Sex has only become about other things with the rise of technology, which mitigated many of its consequences and allowed us to pursue it without the end result of pregnancy(and its costs). That's my perspective on the subject.

If men were not procreatively selective, there would be no stigma against fat or ugly women, and women like Rosie O'Donnell would be just as likely "tens" as the Kate Upton's of our world (their weight, age and complete lack of fertility cues wouldn't matter). If women were not procreatively selective, there would be no need for game (they'd simply fuck whatever guy, regardless of the relative quality of his seed).

Procreative selection is the foundation of sexual selection/gender dynamics as we know it. It is the root of our sexual behavior, and I posit that unless we transcend our status as humans and evolve into something else, it always will be.

Quote:

Question: If one is determined to be gay or lesbian, is this a fabrication of one's own intellect? What if one chooses to abstain, or is asexual? [b]Are these mutations, gene modifications, or choice?

I believe that the root causes of those conditions are inborn and genetic. This is merely my hunch-I don't know enough about the research on the matter to make any further conclusions, but I suspect that those who express those conditions are naturally inclined to do so.

Even logic/reason is an instinct, in fact all understanding/experiences derives from some innate faculty unless u believe the metaphysical or something external imbues us with mental faculty. In order to overwrite procreation instincts, one would have to alter the human body and mind itself, which is unlikely happen anytime soon, even then this act itself ultimate derives from faculty based on survival and reproduction. You can never transcend really, because all human product are product of innate faculty interacting with environment, and the product that the human products produced is just a derivation of the faculty. All you are doing is just abstracting.
A Female selects the best provider and protector mate she can obtain; good seeds or future desirable and healthy offspring is simply a reflection of this . Good genes in man's look is can be a reflection of provider/protector, but even if a man looks busted, but dominant(what game is for) and high status as fuck, he will be a good provider and protector. Being interesting and well traveled is merely reflection of a man having good social and survival skills which will help him provide and protect. It is inevitable a woman/man will want to have baby when fucking just the right mate and condition, that is the purpose of fucking. Even a player or slut will have an one if the condition and mate is sufficient beneficial. Suppose they were no child support and we live in promiscuous society where no one knows for sure who's child is it,and community take the baby, player would cum many bitches they want and girls will be waiting for be cummed inside. It is just a cost and benefit decision subconsciously and consciously.
I think physical beauty in women or provider and protector/dominance in guys might be a runaway sexual selection, where beauty was original a very good correlate for fertility, as one gender selected another gender with the desired quality, they produced offspring that also preferred this quality. This became a cycle, to the point everyone is exaggerating it and inherently predisposed to look for these exaggerated feature, look women always to exaggerate their beauty by using makeup to smooth their skin, corset to accentuate waist to hip ratio. In fact it is so exaggerated, a very beautiful women(a 9) is no necessary more fertile or better genes that a 8. Obviously a 9 would be better than 4-5, but beauty is general measure of fertility, but not a precise one.
Technology is meant for enhancing reproductive and survival success, even birth control is for maximizing the fitness of ur offpsring by postponing to right time to reproduce, even animals would postpone mating or produce females when resources are scare. Someone not reproducing might be an increase another person's success when society allocate one's resource to another, so it balances out. In addition, just by consuming and doing labor for a society u are contributing to society which helps someone's reproduction success. Human being are social being, they focus on group/family reproductive success at same time they are individualistic, seek to propagate their own genes. Many societies people are willing delay one's reproduction to promote the success of relatives.
In most non-hermaphroditic animals, research shown homosexuality are present either for reproductive or social benefits, well they are more bisexual, some are exclusive homo. Maybe exclusive homosexuality are meant for population or group stability.

[RaulValdez739]

I am 23 and I am getting those urges to impregnate women. I am even considering banging a string of 45 year old women raw dog, so at least the chances of them getting pregnant are slim. Do all men get these urges?

[VUBBS]

I have a constant desire / impulse / fantasy of getting all the girls i fuck that i like or are close to me that i don't consider to be a genetical aberration -dry spells must be solved with something- impregnated, and even taking care of my kids on her own regardless if they wanna se other guys.

if i had unlimited resources or if i was less scared of reality i would populate the world with my offspring and this urge is growing each day more with time

[Architekt]

If I had unlimited resources, there wouldn't be a girl I didn't raw dog. As it stands, the thought of cumming inside a girl turns me on more than most anything - which makes wearing a condom that little bit tougher

[Partizan]

(10-07-2011 05:18 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Hah I'm reading Black Passenger Yellow Cab too. He went through 14 abortions, not 40.

In my 20s I had no problem pulling out, but lately it's getting harder. The past couple months I've blasted inside girls who weren't even on the pill. I no longer trust myself and try to plead with girls to make me use a condom, to no avail. I'm afraid it's just a matter of time until I go through a scare.

You're lucky. I have had a few scares, either on lads holidays in Cyprus/Greece or when I was living in EE. First time I shot my load inside a cute Irish student nurse while on a holiday in Ayia Napa many moons ago. After I came back to Ireland I was bricking it in case I might got the knock on my front door. I never did but I was looking over my shoulder for a year or so after. The other times happened when I was living in Bulgaria and on a jaunt in Kiev. The following morning was usually a march to the local Apteka for the pill. I have no intention of siring sprogs in EE or back home at the moment although some day I will probably like to have kids but I am just not ready for all that shit.

[TheRookie]

I've never had this problem, though I have fantasized how fun it would be if I could impregnate women with impunity.

My scare came when I was cumming several times a month, for several months, inside an unbelievably sexual girl. She would tell me to come inside her in the middle of sweaty, passionate, exhausting sex. Luckily she must be infertile - that or my swimmers don't work - as I would sweat it out once a month and nothing ever happened.

It is scary the level of lust that seemed to consume me and stop me from pulling out. I have never had this problem with any other girl - either used condoms or busted somewhere on her body.

[Timoteo]

(02-24-2013 04:39 PM)TheRookie Wrote:  

It is scary the level of lust that seemed to consume me and stop me from pulling out. I have never had this problem with any other girl - either used condoms or busted somewhere on her body.

I think we ALL know this particular feeling. That moment, when you feel it building, and you keep saying to yourself, "One more pump, and I'll pull out...just one more!" Sometimes you just can't, because it feels so good to bust inside. Personally, I've never had an issue with condoms. I like that I can last longer, and when I get to the point where I REALLY want to bust, I change the angle. I slide up a little higher, and stroke downward to create more friction on the right spot. Still, nothing replaces the feeling of squirting inside...

[Nomad77]

I do it all the time because it's the best sex. Nature wants you to do exactly that and thus rewards you the most for doing it. I never feel more satisfied and complete than when I ejaculate inside of a woman's pussy - not her ass or her mouth or her tits or back, her pussy.

[soup]

In America, it's the woman's choice to have the baby or not, so children belong to women.

[Jsprint]

I'm starting to think it may be a Carribean thing. I'm British but of Jamaican extraction and the idea of getting a girl pregnant is so appealing to me. Maybe us Jamaicans are just messed up in the head.

[Avarence]

Do not get this urge at all, whatsoever.
Impregnation doesn't even cross my mind during sex, mostly because I always wrap up.

[Ironbound]

Ha, going through a bit of a scare right now. Fears are usually unfounded, but still. Thank goodness for Plan B. Condoms just don't kick it for me, even after a dry spell...

[soup]

The way my dick is, I think I was built for impregnation (also because I like to cuddle with girls and am more feminine than the stereotypical alpha).