-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Would you?
- Thread starter Uniquelyme
- Start date
My ex years ago. It was good we were together almost 7 yrs. We lived together 2+ yrs after that hooking up and seeing others. Anyway once the appreciation went away things went and go down hill.
Men have emotions too. I was just telling this to my gf yesterday. I was telling her we have feelings we just don't show it like Women do. We're taught to not show it to Man up.
Everyone wants to be appreciated in a relationship. Every Man wants once and a while head while driving. Fucking your partner in the bathroom of a restaurant. Hands all on you etc.
Men have emotions too. I was just telling this to my gf yesterday. I was telling her we have feelings we just don't show it like Women do. We're taught to not show it to Man up.
Everyone wants to be appreciated in a relationship. Every Man wants once and a while head while driving. Fucking your partner in the bathroom of a restaurant. Hands all on you etc.
There are couple of things going on here underground lets say. The more partners you have of any kind the more difficult it is to bond with one partner. Deep in the male DNA is built in the urge to impregnate as many women as possible with as little complication as possible, The hobby delivers the act with hotties without any complications other than pay, hence how addictive it is/becomes, plus the body count builds up quickly so your bonding instinct gets broken in the process. I mean you can give up it but it is not easy. Myself I like to reign in the horses form time to time so it does not get completely out of hand. It does not matter what one woman you have at home or how hot/frequent the sex is. Sooner or later something goes wrong with that and here you are!
All this evolutionary biology stuff sounds nice and intuitive But my understanding is the actual research and literature on this is controversial and inconclusive. Evolution is actually way more complex (and fascinating!) than that. And to say that "society" imposes an artificial goal of monogamy is way over simplifying. We all have conflicting imperatives.
We are not frogs, and our little tadpoles cannot just be released into the ocean and expected to survive on their own. We have an evolutionary instinct to stick around and raise the little buggers too. But wait, there's more. At some level, a woman also has incentive to cheat and to procreate with different men to diversify her portfolio. And she then has an incentive to lie to her partner about it to get him to raise the bastards. And then the men have incentive to kill any other man who wants to impregnate his targets. So if we're going to justify ourselves with this theory, we should be ok raising the fruits of our wife'd cuckolding, and/or we're also justified in killing our fellow mongers instead of recommending to each other who gives the best blow job. Because what's the point of sex with someone who screws 1,000 guys a year? Those are some low odds. Very inefficient allocation of resources! Speaking of which, wheres the evolutionary sense in CIM? What kind of idiocy is that?
Also, polygamy is a social construct as much as monogamy. In societies with polygamy, it's always one-way. There have been matriarchical societies where women have multiple husbands, and of course patriarchal societies, but never both at the same time. So it's a power thing as much as a sexual/procreation thing. And keep in mind, in societies with polygamy, basic math will tell you that if a few men are getting multiple wives, then most men are getting nothing, nada, zilch. You wanna live in that world? (If we were really designed to be polygamous, there would be 2 or 3 girls for every boy). What's relatively new is the notion of marriages based on romantic love.
That said, I'm pretty sure in a polygamous society HH is still going to rise to the heap and be one of the aristocrats with 12 wives and 72 concubines. So 83 guys will be trying to kill him. Good luck, buddy!
Btw, similar things could be said about sugary, fatty foods. There's an impulse to eat as much meat as you can because you never know when you'll be able to eat again. But now we can eat burgers and fries every day. Sure, you can say you've been programmed to eat as many burgers as possible. So I would suggest that all of us here are all sexually obese, and I'm not sure what the metaphor means here, but were probably in danger of having a metaphotrical coronary.
We are not frogs, and our little tadpoles cannot just be released into the ocean and expected to survive on their own. We have an evolutionary instinct to stick around and raise the little buggers too. But wait, there's more. At some level, a woman also has incentive to cheat and to procreate with different men to diversify her portfolio. And she then has an incentive to lie to her partner about it to get him to raise the bastards. And then the men have incentive to kill any other man who wants to impregnate his targets. So if we're going to justify ourselves with this theory, we should be ok raising the fruits of our wife'd cuckolding, and/or we're also justified in killing our fellow mongers instead of recommending to each other who gives the best blow job. Because what's the point of sex with someone who screws 1,000 guys a year? Those are some low odds. Very inefficient allocation of resources! Speaking of which, wheres the evolutionary sense in CIM? What kind of idiocy is that?
Also, polygamy is a social construct as much as monogamy. In societies with polygamy, it's always one-way. There have been matriarchical societies where women have multiple husbands, and of course patriarchal societies, but never both at the same time. So it's a power thing as much as a sexual/procreation thing. And keep in mind, in societies with polygamy, basic math will tell you that if a few men are getting multiple wives, then most men are getting nothing, nada, zilch. You wanna live in that world? (If we were really designed to be polygamous, there would be 2 or 3 girls for every boy). What's relatively new is the notion of marriages based on romantic love.
That said, I'm pretty sure in a polygamous society HH is still going to rise to the heap and be one of the aristocrats with 12 wives and 72 concubines. So 83 guys will be trying to kill him. Good luck, buddy!
Btw, similar things could be said about sugary, fatty foods. There's an impulse to eat as much meat as you can because you never know when you'll be able to eat again. But now we can eat burgers and fries every day. Sure, you can say you've been programmed to eat as many burgers as possible. So I would suggest that all of us here are all sexually obese, and I'm not sure what the metaphor means here, but were probably in danger of having a metaphotrical coronary.
Actually you are wrong about evolutionary Psychology/Biology being in anyway inconclusive. It may be controversial in so far as there are many truths and facts that are inconvenient to the academic establishment and maybe go against the woke social justice warrior narrative but every real scientist worth his salt understands that evolutionary Psychology is as hard of a science as it can ever be and 100% conclusive and on target. Read David Buss on the subject and Richard Dawkins selfish gene theory if you have any doubts. It is complicated though and like you said there is always competing and conflicting circuitry in the brain because men do not live by pussy alone but everything has C/B analysis that run mostly subsconsiously.
you also hit the "addiction" point on the head but it is NO MYSTERY. read up on the "Pleasure Trap" and "Ego Trap" and you will understand 100% of the mechanics int he behavior.
you also hit the "addiction" point on the head but it is NO MYSTERY. read up on the "Pleasure Trap" and "Ego Trap" and you will understand 100% of the mechanics int he behavior.
It's my evolutionary instinct to cockblock you!
Also, did they give the same test to women?
So, I'll see your article and raise you my own biased sample size of one: Why do I only fuck Asians now?! Sure, they're DIFFERENT Asians, but as my readers know, I definitely have a fairly narrowly defined type. I should be trying to spread my seed to hookers representing the entire UN. I actually have no idea myself why I dont!
Im not saying what you're saying isnt true. I'm saying there's a whole lot of other truth on top of that. That's what's so cool. It's the complexity of this stuff that's actually quite astounding when you start to get into it. Ever read about the biological tensions between a pregnant mother and her fetus? Nature is totally wackadoodle, and we really have no idea about any of this stuff. Even Richard Dawkins has no idea. I am 99% certain that Richard Dawkins himself would not characterize his own work as 100% certain. (Dawkins is kinda arrogant, so I'm leaving a 1% chance he'd claim 100%).
Also, did they give the same test to women?
So, I'll see your article and raise you my own biased sample size of one: Why do I only fuck Asians now?! Sure, they're DIFFERENT Asians, but as my readers know, I definitely have a fairly narrowly defined type. I should be trying to spread my seed to hookers representing the entire UN. I actually have no idea myself why I dont!
Im not saying what you're saying isnt true. I'm saying there's a whole lot of other truth on top of that. That's what's so cool. It's the complexity of this stuff that's actually quite astounding when you start to get into it. Ever read about the biological tensions between a pregnant mother and her fetus? Nature is totally wackadoodle, and we really have no idea about any of this stuff. Even Richard Dawkins has no idea. I am 99% certain that Richard Dawkins himself would not characterize his own work as 100% certain. (Dawkins is kinda arrogant, so I'm leaving a 1% chance he'd claim 100%).
Its a false camparison - men have a right to break it off when the SO is caught cheating because the cost of resources of raisings someone elses genetic offspring are extremely high whereas the female is always 100% sure it is her offspring
This is borne out by the evidence that the substantially more females stay with cheating males than visa versa
Its not hypocritical its biology
Why does male lion kill all the cubs when he becomes alpha male ?
This is borne out by the evidence that the substantially more females stay with cheating males than visa versa
Its not hypocritical its biology
Why does male lion kill all the cubs when he becomes alpha male ?