A MAN'S NATURAL NATURE- speak on it
Phill_Most
4,594 Posts
i have always held the belief that it is a man's very NATURE to want to bone every woman that he is attracted to, no matter if he is in a happy relationship or not. Yes, ladies... even the good ones among us would like nothing better than to run up in your fine-ass best friend if we could get away with it, even if we don't act out these natural desires. Those of us who are faithful to our wives and girlfriends are actually DEFYING nature and it is, in fact, an unnatural and possibly a mentally unhealthy act to be with just one woman exclusively. I want to know if any men on this forum honestly disagree with this... i'm curious to know. Females feel free to speak on this as well if you so choose. And in case you're wondering, I have NO idea how this works with homosexual men, but if any gay strutters (or even 
strutters) want to come out of the closet and share your views, you are more than welcome. Let's see some 
up in this piece 
strutters) want to come out of the closet and share your views, you are more than welcome. Let's see some up in this piece
Comments
it's time to be HONEST about this schitt and it's time for women to accept us for what we are instead of calling us dogs and no-good this and that... this is our nature, we can't help it!
But my wife's lookin' over my shoulder, and I don't want her to know how deep the game goes...
Hey Phill, have you been having some intense email exchanges with Alexyss Tylor?
I'm comfortable with this line of discussion IF AND ONLY IF one or more female strutters post at least one of the following admissions:
1. "I've withheld sex to get my man to do what I want."
2. "I've cried on purpose to get my man to do what I want."
3. "I've laughed at his penis size with my girlfriends."
3. "I've faked an orgasm to get it the fuck over with."
Ha - Phil. I agree with you. Monogamy is pure social contract but doesn't seem to make a ton of sense from a biological p.o.v. But hey, humans are social animals and so we agree to these rules as a way to maintaining a sense of order (in our homes at the very least).
Notably, I was reading a poll in the LATimes (at least, I think it was the LAT) where it notes that the number one component to a happy marriage is faithfulness (over 90%), followed by a healthy sex life (over 70%).
As someone who studied physical anthropology, if you look at it in an evolutionary sense, a pregnant woman could not live without the help of her mate. She is unable to provide, at the end stages of pregnancy, for herself, and when with an infant, had to rely on a male to hunt food while the child is small. It is evolutionarily and biologically imperative that the male works for the health of his offspring, since the whole sexual impulse is based on the need for a population's survival. In nature, if he just impregnates then leaves survival of the offspring would be dramatically less likely.
Furthermore, I think science is behind monogamy, or at least serial monogamy, if you look at STD statistics alone:
On herpes:
"Prevalence by age group was: 14-19 years 35%; 20-29 years 29%; 30-39 years 14%; 40-49 years 12%; and 50-65 years 6%.3"
(CDC Statistics)
Furthermore, herpes is increasing in commonality, with 1 million new cases reported a year. (That is just herpes, not even chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis.) It could be hypothesized that humans bodies were not made to have many sexual partners.
If you look at most cultures, and the general worldwide population, monogamy is the norm.
In my opinion, I think promiscuity, etc. is more a symptom of society at large, and the desire for self-gratification. I think it is normal for men to want other women, but I don't believe that it is man's nature to act on those impulses.
But couldn't the protection of pregnant women be created through a communal support network vs. a single mate dependency (cue: "it takes a village!")
Monogamy is not necessarily the most efficient or effective means to insuring the survival of the species, especially since paternity is difficult to determine absent specific genetic markers.
As for the point that most cultures are monogamous, I think that opens into a big debate around biology vs. sociology. Monogamy is enforced by social norms (especially in societies with a strong religious influence) in such a way that it's become "naturalized" but that doesn't suggest, by any means, that it's indeed, "natural."
Monogamy and polygamy are extensive throughout other species ("high" and "low"). The human tendency towards monogamy seems largely the outcome of social needs and norms (of course, as a sociologist, I'm biased towards that read).
Adaptation dictates adapting to your surroundings to not only survive, but to be "successful" and reproduce, carrying on your genes to the next generation. If there is tons more access to women than in small social band days of early Homo sapiens, isn't it also likely that adaptation in habit/urge/hormones would follow suit i.e. men wanna fuck em all?
Plus, using herpes statistics can prove anything when there once again are MANY more people now than ever before in the history of the world.
my Sister's wedding yesterday and wanting to sleep with almost
every woman over 17 and under 50, including the fiances of a
few cousins, my Sister's friends and friends' wives, etc - I
will have to say most definitely YES.
Gramscian Hegemonic dominance of the culture of only 1 pussy per man.
Adaptation is a very nuanced thing that takes thousands of years to occur. Homo sapiens sapiens are basically the same as we have been for tens of thousands of years.
And re: Spanky Illson's suggestion of the incidence of global monogamy as sociological vs. evolutionary, I think it may be both. There is a need for stable personal relationships to have a stable society (Imagine if here was no marriage, how would children's lives be different? how would society be different?)
I am no professor, I am just hypothesizing and kinda having fun debating. I know women have a VERY STRONG likelihood of being jealous, that is so intrinsic, if makes me wonder if it is not just societal, but more a biological reaction. I know personally that if I was caught cheating by my wife my personal survival would be very low.
But I think sociologically that in the US people are very concerned about their satisfaction over what is best for society, their families, etc.
But since monogamy is the societal norm, why even try to prove that men should be promiscuous? What can any guy get from that instead of ruining there own relationships?
Another statistic, then I'll leave this alone, 20-25% of pregnant women have herpes. The CDC recommends that those who do have the virus have c-section (which could account for the rise in recent c-sections, since not many women will admit say, "I can't have vaginal birth cause I was a stinky ass ho" so instead, people say the "baby was too big".) even if given the proper antibiotics as prescribed. If they do not, the infants can get a highly fatal infection.
So, in this case, promiscuity WOULD have a DIRECT impact on an infant's survival and , thus, is not biologically efficient or effective.
Anyway, again, I am just playing around with this. So no personal offense.
I like what Louis C.K. said on the topic, (something to the affect of) "Every women says 'all men are cheaters', well all men aren't cheaters. But all men REALLY, REALLY want to be cheaters."
This is partially true, but I'm too busy reading about BMR, respiration chambers and watching football to argue with you. Adaptation, in the truest sense of the word, sure, but what about genetic accidental luck of the draw, or conscious or unconscious decision making based on hormonal changes responding to our current modern environment. Man does not live in a static bubble, he lives in a dynamic bubble of his own construction, thereby being influenced and changed by the bubble itself.
And to deny that exponential access to potential mates would not influence reproductive habits is not based in logic structured by man's current reality.
None taken, I'm a physical anthropologist myself and find the debate mentally stimulating. Perhaps we should take this debate to BioNerdStrut.com.
You sound
whitepussywhippeder...
promiscuity = herpes?
Yes. How is herpes transmitted? There are trend maps.
Oh, and I am totally pussywhipped. But my wife is hot and awesome, so it's all good.
Anyway, can't we get some fresh thoughts on this?
Basically I'm just saying that there's a sexual element inherent to finding someone attractive; by saying you find someone attractive, on some level you're saying "under certain circumstances it would be pleasurable to be sexual with that person." But most people encounter many people they find attractive every day of their lives; it's obviously not practical to pursue 1/100 of the attractions any given person feels, even if they haven't set their lives up to be monogamous.
my 2 cents
It is like the more you know the more you see. Like the more you understand about music the more you hear in the song. The more you know about monog the more you can appreciate it. It is just that so few peeps ever even get the opportunity to study monog. Naturally there is less: poly. These less-is-more type things are hard to figure out. maybe it would be wise for you to consider that which you have not yet thought of. Watch out for the herpes! would you want to take care of a pregnant woman only to find out that the kid aint yours?
peace
lilmonstu
You can look at primates for good examples of what nature intended... but there is polyandry, polygamy, and monogamy among primates.
STDs were probably created in a labritory by christians.... im not serious... or am i.
I was really thinking about this issue the other day... cause I love my girl... but i just wanna fuck everything that walks. Even more so being in a relationship. I think having to repress your sexual desires for other women simply makes it worse. THUS... if you are forcing your body to repress something JUST to be in a monogamous relationship... isn't your body saying... hey... go fuck more women.
Who really knows though. Its really a big issue of perception and how you see human life. We are unique in certain ways among the animal kingdom, but we still are animals. We have morality... which I dont think any other species has.
Im stickin with my lady though... no cheatin. But damn have I turned into a pervert since i've been in this relationship.
i have absolutely no idea being that I am not a woman... but i definitely don't think that, as a whole, women are wired the same way that men are. i don't think that women even find as many men attractive enough to bone as we do women. a man gets a woody and a few dranks in his system and sheeeeeeit... that hump on her back don't be lookin' all that bad, yo
So non-promiscious people dont get herpes?