Is it man's nature to have multiple sex partners? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14465725
TruePolitics wrote:It isn't about having children, as I'm not interested in that. It's just that it makes me feel big and bad to be able to say "I had sex with THAT girl, and THAT girl, etc.". It also makes me feel independent, like I'm so cool that I don't need to be tied down to any one woman.

It could be that you derive the feeling of power from bragging to your peers. I've often observed that some in social situations feel the need to talk constantly about their sexual conquests and the ones who do like to big each other up. Perhaps you find yourself in search of approval from your peers and in simultaneous competition with them for the most babes?
#14465728
From a genetic evolutionary perspective women are caught in a bit of a trap, because on the one hand the overwhelming majority of women don't enjoy their male partner, their man having sex with other women, and they certainly don't want their man having babies with other women. Just imagine if Bill Clinton had got Monica Lewisnky pregnant. On the other hand women want their sons to produce lots of babies and they're attracted to powerful men who have the ability to have affairs or find alternative partners easily.

Women are attracted to power, but power can take many forms, being rich is just one form of power although obviously a very important one. This is obscured because different women are attracted to different forms of power. Don't get hung up on the word. Its not ideal. Language never is a perfect conveyor of any concepts. Some women deliberately choose to partner up with a man who is less attractive to them than they can get so as they can feel more secure. As Dr Hook says when you're in love with a beautiful woman its hard. Well the same applies for women in love with an attractive man.

The thing is women are attracted to men, that attract women. This is a much stronger affect than the other way. So that sense of conquest that men feel, that sense of security, that sense of identity fulfilment that men can get from having sex with a women is rationale.
#14465765
Most animals are not monogamous. Most humans in history have not been monogamous. Most discrete societies are not and have not been monogamous.

Where did this idea of the naturally monogamous human come from? As has been stated before, it's a case of having a conclusion then cherry picking and blustering all the evidence to support it.
#14465777
Life is not fair. Life was nor fair. Life will not be fair. Sexual / Romantic relations are not fair. Any social system has winners and losers. When the social system changes there will be winners and losers from the change.

Socially imposed Monogamy has its winner and losers as does it abolition.
Last edited by Rich on 17 Sep 2014 15:28, edited 1 time in total.
#14465778
Indeed. It seems to me that, despite being wrong about other things they were solely reliant upon Morgan in maintaining, Engels was essentially correct about the creation of the family as we know it:

Engels wrote:At this stage human labor-power still does not produce any considerable surplus over and above its maintenance costs. That was no longer the case after the introduction of cattle-breeding, metalworking, weaving and, lastly, agriculture. just as the wives whom it had formerly been so easy to obtain had now acquired an exchange value and were bought, so also with the forces of labor, particularly since the herds had definitely become family possessions. The family did not multiply so rapidly as the cattle. More people were needed to look after them; for this purpose use could be made of the enemies captured in war, who could also be bred just as easily as the cattle themselves.

Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens. Pairing marriage had brought a new element into the family. By the side of the natural mother of the child it placed its natural and attested father, with a better warrant of paternity, probably, than that of many a “father” today. According to the division of labor within the family at that time, it was the man’s part to obtain food and the instruments of labor necessary for the purpose. He therefore also owned the instruments of labor, and in the event of husband and wife separating, he took them with him, just as she retained her household goods. Therefore, according to the social custom of the time, the man was also the owner of the new source of subsistence, the cattle, and later of the new instruments of labor, the slaves. But according to the custom of the same society, his children could not inherit from him. For as regards inheritance, the position was as follows:

At first, according to mother-right – so long, therefore, as descent was reckoned only in the female line – and according to the original custom of inheritance within the gens, the gentile relatives inherited from a deceased fellow member of their gens. His property had to remain within the gens. His effects being insignificant, they probably always passed in practice to his nearest gentile relations – that is, to his blood relations on the mother's side. The children of the dead man, however, did not belong to his gens, but to that of their mother; it was from her that they inherited, at first conjointly with her other blood relations, later perhaps with rights of priority; they could not inherit from their father, because they did not belong to his gens, within which his property had to remain. When the owner of the herds died, therefore, his herds would go first to his brothers and sisters and to his sister’s children, or to the issue of his mother’s sisters. But his own children were disinherited.

Thus, on the one hand, in proportion as wealth increased, it made the man’s position in the family more important than the woman’s, and on the other hand created an impulse to exploit this strengthened position in order to overthrow, in favor of his children, the traditional order of inheritance. This, however, was impossible so long as descent was reckoned according to mother-right. Mother-right, therefore, had to be overthrown, and overthrown it was. This was by no means so difficult as it looks to us today. For this revolution – one of the most decisive ever experienced by humanity – could take place without disturbing a single one of the living members of a gens. All could remain as they were. A simple decree sufficed that in the future the offspring of the male members should remain within the gens, but that of the female should be excluded by being transferred to the gens of their father. The reckoning of descent in the female line and the matriarchal law of inheritance were thereby overthrown, and the male line of descent and the paternal law of inheritance were substituted for them. As to how and when this revolution took place among civilized peoples, we have no knowledge. It falls entirely within prehistoric times....This is the origin of monogamy as far as we can trace it back among the most civilized and highly developed people of antiquity. It was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions – on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property. The Greeks themselves put the matter quite frankly: the sole exclusive aims of monogamous marriage were to make the man supreme in the family, and to propagate, as the future heirs to his wealth, children indisputably his own. Otherwise, marriage was a burden, a duty which had to be performed, whether one liked it or not, to gods, state, and one’s ancestors. In Athens the law exacted from the man not only marriage but also the performance of a minimum of so-called conjugal duties.

Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, [The reference here is to the German Ideology, published after Engels’ death – Ed.] I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others. It is the cellular form of civilized society, in which the nature of the oppositions and contradictions fully active in that society can be already studied.

The old comparative freedom of sexual intercourse by no means disappeared with the victory of pairing marriage or even of monogamous marriage...


There is very little biological, nor even social, data to show that women are naturally predisposed to always be lifelong monogamists.
#14465788
Engels wrote:Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period
What utter bollocks. China and other parts of the world had extreme patriarchy without the slightest interest in Monogamy.

Now if you want a real materialist analysis of history try this:

The tragedy of Marx wrote:The family employed a servant, Helen Demuth, from 1845-1890, calling her “Lenchen.” She never received a cent in wages from Marx, only room and board. She was Marx’s mistress, who fathered a son, Freddy, by her. Freddy was permitted to visit his mother only by coming in the back door. Marx only met his illegitimate son once. When Jenny discovered his infidelity, she was devastated. One can only reach one conclusion about Marx: He was a man of immense selfishness and self-indulgence. He never personally knew any working class members and the one he had as his family servant he did not pay and he used her as his mistress.

Marx created his very own class system. He was an exploiter. He never worked as a working person as a toiler, as a proletarian, as urban proletarian or as a peasant. He exploited his wife, his mistress, Engels and all his other followers to live his life style of choice.

Lenin of course did even better. He also never did a proletarian days work in his life. And lived his life style of choice. But he so befuddled his devotees that he got his wife (that dozy bitch Krupskaya) to actually help set him up with a mistress. He was Stannis Barathyon without the guilt. The Lords of Communism.
#14465792
Polygamy is the natural state of man but in Western Civilisation, monogamous marriage, taboos against pre-marital sex, and lower testosterone in women channeled male sexuality into raising a family, rather than swinging and getting multiple people pregnant. Polygamous societies have channeled male sexuality into small groups of women (four at most in many Islamic societies, as much his wealth can provide in others).

The institution of marriage has declined over decades and the lessening of taboos around pre-marital sex have allowed men to engage in a polygamous lifestyle.

It's a myth that there is a great divide between male heterosexuality and homosexuality, the real divide is between male and female sexuality. Homosexuality is merely male sexuality in the absence of women, free from the constraints of heterosexual rules. Too many hunters hunting each other and that's how HIV spread more amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals. If Elliot Rodger was a homosexual, would he have gone on a rampage when boyfriends would have been available to him? I doubt it.

If there is any doubt:

[youtube]5JJFBtHcBnM[/youtube]
#14465798
Rich wrote:Now if you want a real materialist analysis of history try this:


A Nebraskan Bible College has, "a real materialist analysis of history," huh?

Bristol University claims that the stuff about the servant and whatnot is just a bunch of garbage and slander.

Not that it matters. It never ceases to amaze me how people think that Marx or Lenin, or anyone else was a jerk would make reality invalid. Like, if you pointed out that Einstein left his wife to go fuck his cousin, suddenly physics no longer work.

But I suppose someone that thinks that rural Bible college has a materialist slant to it might, indeed, think that the Great Man of history is so powerful as to change reality based on being in God's favour or whatever.
#14465934
Evopsych notions about human sexuality should be taken with several pounds of salt; they often are flimsy pseudo-scientific foundations for a certain kind of 20th/21st century Western common-sense (that is, they start with the conclusion and find an explanation). One should note that these "common-sense" notions are historically and geographically contingent; if one asked a 16th century European about sex and gender relations, they would likely claim that women, as a whole, were much more sexually rapacious than men.


Baby, bathwater. Sex is a primary drive in evolution, people want to have sex because of evolution.
#14468083
The Clockwork Rat wrote:Most animals are not monogamous. Most humans in history have not been monogamous. Most discrete societies are not and have not been monogamous.

Where did this idea of the naturally monogamous human come from? As has been stated before, it's a case of having a conclusion then cherry picking and blustering all the evidence to support it.



Most mammals are serial monogamist.
#14468087
Fasces wrote:Most mammals are serial monogamist.

That is true of birds but not mammals, the larger fraction of mammals are polygamous.

I read somewhere (sorry I forget the source) that there is very strong correlation in both mammals and birds between the differences in size and lifespan of males compared with females and polygamy. The larger and the shorter the lifespan of the male of a species compared with the female the more polygamous the species. Monogamous species have males and females of equal size and lifespan. At the far end of the polygamous scale, you have gorillas, walruses and lions which have males very substantially larger than the female and typically have many concurrent females. Humans are about middle of the pack: males are about 15% larger than females and live a few years less which would suggest humans are slightly polygamous.
#14497819
layman wrote:It blatantly isnt a social construct that men have an drive to spread their genes through sex with multiple partners. The same sort of mentality is demonstrated in most mammals I am aware of.

About 4% of mammals partner for life: foxes, beavers, badgers. A much larger percentage partner for a season especially were both parents feed the young.
In the case of humans many who partner for life still have flings, one permanent partner does make for an easy steady lifestyle especially as we age. I have yet to meet the man who would not be tempted under the right circumstances.
#14504526
TruePolitics wrote:I'm a man, and in my opinion the goal in life is to have sex with as many hot women as possible. Is this normal, or is being with just one woman considered more appropriate?

I can't explain why I feel this way, I just know that it is the way I've always felt since I was a teenager. To have sex with a woman seems to be a symbol of power, like the more women you sleep with, the more powerful you become. I think that most men understand this feeling, but it's not something I can explain to a woman, since she'll never get it.

I don't know, am I weird for thinking this way?

You are certainly NOT weird for thinking this way. This is PURE nature, the essence of why we were put here on Earth. And this part of you is the most powerful force on the earth.
#14507934
Its opinion. I'm a guy which means I'm always horny as well but if I had sex with every girl I was attracted to there would be a lot or clingy girls who think I love them. Don't get me wrong im a very nice person but attraction and interest are actually different. The same with drunk one night stands. Just because I was into a girl 10 drinks deep 8 hours ago doesn't mean I'm into her hungover in my bed while I'm dehydrated and have a headache. Your better off keeping your man nature to the internet, people have jobs to support our nature and instead of breaking naive peoples hearts save your man juice for someone you love instead of being a brah at the bar hi fiving and counting how many bud lights and bitches you bag brah.
#14512622
It seems helpful to me to go back to the question of evolution and what it has produced in us.

My own evaluation of human sexuality is that the goal is preservation of the species through effective procreation. So what is most effective? For women it would be pairing up with a strong male who is resourceful so that mother and child can be protected and supported when they need it most for child rearing, and a gentle and loving nature that would keep him in service to his family and their needs. So women are attracted to fit, strong, successful, but kind and gentle men.

And what is essential for men regarding procreation? It is a woman who is well suited to carrying a pregnancy to full term, delivering a healthy baby successfully, and nurturing that child to an adult. And that mean a woman who is fit and healthy, with ample width of hips to allow delivery through the birth canal with minimal complications, adequate ability to nurse the baby (ample breasts being a symbol of this), and minimal excess weight so that the work of carrying an unborn fetus is not too taxing.

This, I think, naturally suggests that a woman would be "wired" for a long monogamous relationship in order to fulfill the female role, while a man would be "wired" to produce as many offspring as possible in order to fulfill his role of perpetuation of the species. And this would be best accomplished for him by having numerous partners. Remember, it is the woman's need to have a supportive male partner long-term during the time of child rearing. The man has no such long-term need by the nature of his role.
#14573177
The double standards that exist between promiscuous males and females have nothing to do with religion or chauvinism. The truth is that the female human animal is saddled for 10 months for every impregnation, so it benefits her offspring as well as the greater human race for females to be as selective as possible. Male human animals, on the other hand, can have a thousand offspring for every single offspring of a female. There is far less at stake and therefore is beneficial to spread the seed as far and wide as possible.
#14573327
TruePolitics wrote:I'm a man, and in my opinion the goal in life is to have sex with as many hot women as possible. Is this normal, or is being with just one woman considered more appropriate?

I can't explain why I feel this way, I just know that it is the way I've always felt since I was a teenager. To have sex with a woman seems to be a symbol of power, like the more women you sleep with, the more powerful you become. I think that most men understand this feeling, but it's not something I can explain to a woman, since she'll never get it.

I don't know, am I weird for thinking this way?

Of course it's natural and normal for a heterosexual man to be attracted to many women. I don't think it's nearly as common for men to feel that "the goal in life is to have sex with as many hot women as possible". There are natural and normal feelings that may underlie and motivate such a goal or statement, but there are also abnormal thoughts and feelings that may give such a life-goal or statement its special character. (By "abnormal" I don't mean bad or good, just how frequent or infrequent in the population.)

I know guys who have acted, especially in youth, as if that were their maxim, and who have said things much like you've said here. I reckon they represented a significant minority of the population of heterosexual male peers I knew in my youth, but only a minority. The distribution of attitudes like that shifts with the times, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear this attitude is more prevalent in the US nowadays than it was in those days. Though sometimes I wonder if it has to do with the testosterone bell curve, or anything along those lines.

Pretty much all of us, I imagine, know firsthand there's something to it. We know the sort of feelings and desires -- physical and psychological -- that are at play in such attitudes. It's natural to feel something like a flush of pride and power in sex. Then again, it's also natural to feel something like a flush of pride and power when you steal a car or beat the crap out of somebody; and I suppose in some circles, the more tough guys you beat, the more impressed people are with you and the more impressed you are with yourself. So you might try the corresponding maxim on for size -- "The goal in life is to beat the crap out of as many tough guys as possible" (so long as they're consenting adults, of course).

Personally, I'm not moved by either maxim. There are natural urges and psychophysical dynamics that belong to our animal nature. That's not enough to determine what our "goals" are or should be, or what our habits are or should be, or how we want to live our lives.

How do you feel about monogamy -- I mean, even serial monogamy? How do you feel about emotional intimacy, about getting to know a person -- even a friend or relative, but in particular a sexual partner -- over time? Do you find that sex gets better as you get to know your partner? Have you ever been in love with a woman? How many long-term relationships have you had? And so on.

Promiscuity comes naturally to monkeys like us, to male and female human beings. So does pair bonding. Human nature doesn't determine how each of us will sort it all out. It's a personal choice, conditioned by cultural influences and individual psychophysical differences, among other things.
#14618117
There once was a point in which it was culturally accepted that women were more lusting: When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men
It fits with the historical narratives of women's sexuality not to be trusted as they use it to manipulate men, something said to be a standard belief within a framework of ambivalent sexism.
Virginia Woolf (1921/2981) hazarded her own answer about the reasons for polarized images of women in literature: "the astonishing extremes of her beauty and horror; her alternations between heavenly goodness and hellish depravity" are as "a lover would see her as his love rose or sank, was prosperous or unhappy" (p.83). Heterosexuality is, undoubtedly, one of the most powerful sources of men's ambivalence toward women. heterosexual romantic relationships ranked by men (and women) as one of the top sources of happiness in life (see Berscheid & Peplau, 1983; Brehm, 1992), and these relationships are typically nominated as the most psychologically close and intimate relationships men have (Berscheid et al., 1989). Men's sexual motivation toward women may be linked with a genuine desire for psychological closeness (heterosexual intimacy). Although, at their best, heterosexual relationships are the source of euphoric and intimate feelings (Hatfiled, 1988). Men's dydadic dependency on women creates an unusual situation in which members of a more powerful group are dependent on members of a subordinate group. Sex is popularly viewed as a resource for which women act as the gatekeepers (Zillmann & Weaver, 1989). This creates a vulnerability that men may resent, which is reflected in the frequency with which women are portrayed in literature as manipulative "temptresses", such as Delilah, who can "emasculate" men. The belief that women use their sexual allure to gian dominance over men (who would in vulgar parlance, be called "pussy-whipped") is a belief that is associated with hostility toward women (Check, Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985). As Bargh and Raymond (1995) and Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) demonstrated, for some men sexual attraction toward women may be inseparable from their desire to dominate them (hetersoexuality hostility).


Is it normal? Yeah, seems quite culturally normal to instill values in young men to view sexuality as one of conquest in numbers and status in getting one deemed by others to be physically attractive rather than of possible fulfillment. Of course require teh approval of others values on what constitutes an attractive woman otherwise status can't be invoked from others for their agreement in one acquiring a woman of status in the realm of physical beauty, hence things like a trophy wife.
Martha Nussbaum explores this in some degree in her paper on Objectification.
Playboy is more polite, but ultimately similar. Here again I agree with MacKinnon and Dworkin, who have repeatedly stressed the essential similarity between the soft-core and the hard-core pornography industries. The message given by picture and caption is, "whatever else this woman is and does, for us she is an object for sexual enjoyment." Once again, the male reader is told, in effect, that he is the one with subjectivity and autonomy, and on the other side are things that look very sexy and are displayed out there for his consumption, like delicious pieces of fruit, existing only or primarily to satisfy his desire.
The message is more benign, because, as part of the Playboy "philosophy," women are depicted as beings made for sexual pleasure, rather than for infliction of pain, and their autonomy and subjectivity are given in a nodding sort of recognition. In a sense Playboy could be said to be part of the movement for women's liberation, in the sense suggested by Lawrence and Lorde. Insofar as women's full autonomy and self-expression are hindered by the repression and denial of their sexual capacities, thus far the cheery liberationist outlook of Playboy might be said to be feminist.

However, the objectification in Playboy is in fact a profound betrayal of not only the Kantian ideal of human regard but also, and perhaps especially, of the Lawrence/Lorde program. For Playboy depicts a thoroughgoing fungibility and commodificaiton of sex partners, and, in the process, severs sex from any deep connection with self-expression or emotion. Lorde argues plausibly when she suggests that this dehumanization and commercialization of sex is but the modern face of an older puritanism, and the apparent feminism of such publications is a mask for a profoundly repressive attitude toward real female passion.

Indeed, Hankinson could argue that Playboy is worse than his novel, for his novel at least connects sexuality to the depths of people's dreams and wishes (both female and male) and thus avoids the reduction of bodies to interchangeable commodities, whereas in Playboy sex is a commodity, and women become very like cars, or suits, namely, expensive possession that mark one's status in the world of men.

Who is objectified in Playboy? In the immediate context, it is the represented woman who is being objectified and, derivately, the actress whose photograph appears. But the characteristic of Playboy generalizing approach ("why we love tennis," or "women of the Ivy League") - assisted in no small measure by the magazine's focus on photography of real women, rather than on paintings or fictions - strongly suggests that real-life women relevantly similar to the tennis-player can easily be cast in the roles in which Playboy casts its chosen few. In that way it constructs for the reader a fantasy of objectification of a class of real women. Used as a masturbatory aid, it encourages the idea tat an easy satisfaction can be had in thus uncomplicated way, without the difficulties attendant on recognizing women's subjectivity and autonomy in a more full-blooded way.

We can now observe one further feature of Lawrence that marks him as different from the pornographer. In Lawrence the men whose sexual behaviour is approved are always remarkably unconcerned with worldly status and honor. The last thing they would think of would to be to treat a woman as a prize possession, an object whose presence in their lives, and whose sexual interest in them, enhances their status in the world of men. (Indeed, that sort of status-centered attitude to women is connected by Lawrence with sexual impotence, in the character of Clifford Chatterley.) One cannot even imagine Mellor boasting in the locker room of the "hot number" he had the previous night, or regarding the tits and ass, of the sexual behaviour, of Connie as items of display in the male world. What is most characteristic of Mellow (And of Tom Brangwen_ is a profound indifference to the worldly signs of prestige; and this is a big part of the reason why both Connie Chatterley and the reader have confidence that his objectification of her is quite different from commodifcation (in my vocabulary, instrumentation/ownership).

Playboy, by contrast, is just like a car magazine, only with people instead of cars to make things a little sexier - in the Hankinson way in which it sexier to use a human being as thing than to simply to have a thing, since it manifests greater control, it shows that one can control what is of such a nature to elude control. The magazine is all about the competition of men with other men, and its message is the availability of a readily renewable supply of more or less fungible women to men who have achievd as certain level of prestige and money - or rather, that fantasy women of this sort are available, through the magainze, to those who can fantasize that they have achieved this status. It is not in that sense very different from the ancient Greek idea that the victorious warrior would be rewarded with seven tripods, ten talents of gold, twenty cauldrons, twelve horses, and seven women. Objectification means a certain sort of self-regarding display.

The one further thing that needs to be said about the picture is that in the Playboy world it is sexier, because more connected with status, to have a woman of achievement and talent than an unmarked woman, in the way it is sexier to have a Mercedes than a Chevrolet, in the way that Agamemnon assures Achilles that the horses he is giving him are prize-winning racehorses and the women both beautiful and skilled in weaving. But a sleek woman is even more sexy than a sleek car, which cannot really be dominated since it is nothing but athing.


For what Playboy repeatedly says to its reader is, Whoever this woman is and whatever she has achieved, for you she is a cunt, all her pretensions vanish before your sexual power. For some she is a tennis player - but you, in your mind, can dominate her and turn her into a cunt. For some, Brown students are Brown students. For you, dear reader, they are Women of the Ivy League (an issue in preparation as I write, and the topic of intense controversy among my students). NO matter who you are, these women will (in masturbatory fantasy) moan with pleasure at your sexual power. This is the great appeal of Playboy in fact: It satisfies the desires of men to feel themselves special and powerful, by telling them that they too can possess the signs of exalted status that they think of as in real life reserved fro such as Donald Trump. This, of course, Lawrence would see as the sterile status-seeking of Clifford Chatterley, in a modern guise.

Playboy, I conclude, is a bad influence on men - hardly a surprising conclusion. I draw no legal implications from this judgement, but, as in the case of Hankinson, I think we should ponder this issue when we educate boys and young men, and meet the prevalence of that style of objectification with criticism - the most powerful form of which is, as Andrea Dworkin said, the assertion of one's own humanity at all times.


So when it comes to it being man's nature, in the psychological sense I think it's inflated and skeptical to how much within sex differences there may be ignored to put it properly into context. And wonder even to the influence of age, keep hearing people speculate that women amp up their sex drive as they get older and men start slowing down and that could do with a lot of environmental things as well as biological function and health. But it would seem to me that young people are often keen to fuck and why not, good times ^_^
I probably only known of one guy in particular that was a real go getter in that he consistently was on the up keep of a new girl to sleep with where with even good looking mates of mine seem to be somewhat reserved. So even if it was within someones capacity it might not be their thing.
Then got mates who will just fuck anyone and anything XD TO which in this point of status, they don't achieve it highly for not meeting the agreed up criterion of a worthy root from other guys.

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]

Candace Owens

... Too bad it's not as powerful as it once was. […]

...Which Hamas refuses and wasn't ordered by the […]

@skinster so you confess that Hamas committed ma[…]